Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to take this call. If one is looking for an example of a bad bill, this is a perfect example—the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill—because this is actually this Government’s broken promise. It was not long ago, in the 2017 general election, that they campaigned on getting rid of school donations, and the message was delivered as if they were going to get rid of school donations completely. Then, because of the pressure from the Opposition, they came up with this legislation, which applies only to deciles 1 to 7 schools. It doesn’t even apply to all schools; it applies only to deciles 1 to 7 schools. And what it says is—as it was tabled—the bill is to provide $150 per child for schools that will opt in for this policy. It was made clear—very clear—in the original legislation that if schools are opting in for this policy, they will not be able to go out and seek any kind of donation.

But then the Minister got the message from schools—because schools decided they’re not going to opt in for this policy because this is not going to work for them to provide for everything that they need to provide for students in their schools. The Minister didn’t want another failed policy after his failed fees-free policy, so then, during the committee of the whole House, he decided to table a Supplementary Order Paper, which, of course, is supported by all Government parties. So this Supplementary Order Paper now becomes part of this legislation which allows schools—schools that will be part of this scheme—to still go out and seek a donation, and this will be for school camps.

School camps, we know, are quite expensive. But what I found really interesting was that the Minister said that they will be able to go out to seek this money but they will be required to call it a camp donation, not a camp fee. In the third reading speech, the Minister said this is about “free education in New Zealand schools”. He said that this is about “removing financial barriers to participation in education in New Zealand at every level”. Changing the term from camp fee to camp donation—how does that reduce any kind of financial pressure that parents feel because of schools going out asking for donations? It doesn’t make any sense; who is the Minister trying to fool here? At the end of the day, parents will have to pay in dollars whether it’s a camp fee or a camp donation, so that’s why I said this is actually a very good example of very bad legislation.

And now, because of this, schools that are deciles 8, 9, and 10 feel that they have been discriminated, because here, clearly, the Minister doesn’t understand that some students going to those decile schools come from families that cannot afford to pay those school donations. So the Minister completely ignored those schools, so this applies only to deciles 1 to 7 schools.

The second thing about this legislation is that schools are now going to be stuck in the middle, because if they opt in for this policy and then go out to ask for this camp donation, then they will have to do an explanation to all these parents because parents will assume that because they have opted in for this policy they shouldn’t be going out and asking for any donation. So schools will be spending a lot of their administration time explaining this to parents. And if we look at the other option—that is, schools not opting in for this policy—then, again, because parents will hear from parents of students that go to other schools that have opted in for this policy, they will be asking questions to the schools of their children, and then, again, schools will be wasting a lot of time explaining to those parents why they haven’t opted in for this policy. Because, clearly, there are schools that don’t want to opt in for this policy because they know that this is not going to be sufficient for everything that they want to provide to students in their schools.

So it is not going to deliver for schools. This bill is not going to deliver for parents, and this bill is not going to do anything for students to improve the education that they receive in these schools that are deciles 1 to 7. So we oppose this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. What a miserable speech—what a miserable speech. I actually had to check my notes, too, because it is the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill, which actually allows deciles 1 to 7 schools the opportunity to get a $150 per student guaranteed grant. I was under the false—clearly—impression that that was a good thing. But, no, apparently it is not a good thing; it is, I guess, the negative mindset that has enveloped the other side of the Chamber.

But this—for those people listening and watching—is a very good step forward. This is enabling schools in our poorer and less well-off communities to have access to the sort of funding for discretionary activities that school fees provide, and put them on a level playing field with those schools in wealthier communities. This is a totally laudable bill, and the Minister, Chris Hipkins, is to be commended for bringing this forward, because we know that education is the absolutely fundamental building block to creating a more equal society so that everyone can participate in society. We’ve heard through the submission process that in some of our lower decile schools, only, maybe, 10 or 20 percent of the students are able to pay their fees. The children coming into schools from those communities are totally disadvantaged because they are unable to have access to those discretionary activities that kids in other schools have. And we’re seeing that right through into postgraduate statistics where students coming out of schools with deciles 8 to 10 overwhelmingly make up those postgraduate positions. That shows where advantage through earlier life carries right through. So this is an effort to level that playing field. Of course, it’s been painted as a broken promise; it is not a broken promise.

💬 Denise Lee: Read the Labour Party manifesto.

It was a—Denise Lee said: “Read the Labour Party manifesto.” Well, I have not because I’m in the New Zealand First Party and this is a coalition Government and this is a coalition Government policy. This is not a Labour Party policy, and we are totally on board, in New Zealand First, with this very fine piece of legislation, which injects $265 million into our less advantaged communities over a four-year period.

Of course, that’s been, again, from over the other side—because, you know, all their rich mates go to decile 8 and above schools—that those schools should have been included as well. Maybe that’s down the track, because we know that within those schools there are pupils that are from less well-off families as well—a lesser percentage, but, nevertheless, they are there. But we are a fiscally responsible Government. That’s why we have got a $7.5 billion surplus and we’ve brought our debt down to 19.2 percent of GDP. We’re absolutely knocking it out of the park over here with our fiscal responsibility.

So we may now have the runway, fiscally, to bring it into those other schools over time, but I’m sure the good people of New Zealand appreciate our caution in this as we negotiate difficult international times. Of course, there’s a carve-out for the camps, and, of course, that’s what the select committee process is for. We identified that there were some submissions coming in that wanted some clarity around how school camps—which, of course, can be very expensive—would be treated within this legislation, and there has been a carve-out for camps which is a very pragmatic move. It also removes the fees for NCEA, $76.70—not an insubstantial sum for less well-off families. And what we saw is there’s about 150,000 students that have qualified that are unable to actually have their qualification recognised because of not having been able to pay their fee—that’s over a period of time; that’s built up. We know that education, having those qualifications, is getting that step on the ladder to a good, constructive, and worthy life so they don’t fall through the cracks into a life that goes down the wrong path. So freeing those 150,000 students up to get their qualification recognised is an absolutely fantastic outcome from this as well.

So New Zealand First absolutely supports this legislation. It is a very egalitarian piece of legislation where we look to level the playing field for those in our disadvantaged communities so they do get off on the right foot and they do get a good start in education, which we know is the absolute foundation stone to them having a better life and being better contributing citizens to our society. So this bill starts us off on that path, starts them off on this path, and New Zealand First is very pleased to support this bill into law.

I don’t quite know where to start with on that last contribution. The previous speaker from New Zealand First, Mark Patterson, just used the word “egalitarian” for this piece of legislation. There is nothing egalitarian about promising all schools $150 per student donations and delivering only to deciles 1 through 7. I invite anyone on that side of the House—anyone—to tell me that there are not disadvantaged families sitting in deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools. The previous speaker just used the term “rich mates” in connection with us and deciles 8, 9 and 10. Was he not on the select committee—as I and others were—hearing submissions from deciles 8, 9 and 10, talking to us in specific terms about students in those schools who are disadvantaged? Yes, they may be in a decile 8, 9, or 10, but there are many families that are struggling and they are being shafted with this legislation—completely left out. So it’s wrong and it’s ethically wrong—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Who’s benefiting? Not who’s getting shafted; who’s benefiting?

—to call this an egalitarian piece of legislation. You couldn’t be any further off the truth.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: At decile 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

This is a bill that has disconnected timing, disconnected—

ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Adrian Rurawhe): Order! That’s enough from Kiritapu Allan. Sorry to interrupt.

—communications with this bill, and, most of all, disconnected leadership. There was a shortened select committee process with this. Then, at the same time, principals and boards were asked to give feedback on guidance, because the guidance was missing from this legislation—they only had a week to do that. We heard, in no uncertain terms, from schools and principals and board members themselves that they couldn’t keep up with what was being asked of them.

What we have here is that quite simply they ran out of budget—the Government ran out of budget. They retrofitted a promise, and that retrofitted promise only extends to a half measure. It is not complete, certainly not egalitarian, and if the other side doesn’t believe me, go and read the submissions: 95 out of the 139 submissions all asked for the scheme to be extended to all schools, even the schools that said they would gratefully receive still asked for it to go to every school, on behalf of the other schools that aren’t getting it. There’s no two ways about this; this is unfair. It’s a complicated piece of legislation and a very disconnected attempt at leadership in the education realm.

One more thing: if you are going to be so vague and unfair and complicated with who’s in and who’s out and where the camps are in and day camps are out, and now we’ve got issues around stationery—which, side note here, only a third of eligible schools have taken this up; anyone want to dispute that? No, they don’t. So far, only a third of eligible schools have taken the scheme up. What does that tell you?

While that’s going on, the follow-up whammy is that we know that this is based on a flawed decile scheme. We’ve committed to reviewing it. The Government says that they’re going to review it too, but this legislation is based on the whole entire decile scheme that you’re wanting to review. Very bad timing. Very badly legislation. Very bad leadership.

E Te Māngai, tēnā koe. Tēnā koutou e Te Whare. You can tell that we’ve all just come back from a two-week recess period and everybody is enjoying being back in the House, yelling at each other.

I just want to bring this back down to what we’re actually talking about here, and the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill—that being the third reading tonight, the final time that we will have an opportunity to speak about this legislation and the impact that this law and this funding will have on New Zealanders and New Zealand families. We’ve heard the back and forth both from members of the Government and members of the Opposition about what kind of political promises have or haven’t been upheld. But, ultimately, I think that everyday New Zealanders—a term which the Hon Simon Bridges has liked to bandy about quite a bit recently—out there, beyond the scope of this ivory tower, probably don’t actually care all too much about the politics of it; they care about the accessibility of education for their kids.

Look, I’ll hear members of the Opposition, who I absolutely actually agree with that this should be extended to all schools. I would hesitate to say that, actually; that’s something which all members of Government probably agree with. But what we’re doing here is a first step—that being rolling it out to deciles 1 to 7 schools. Those who are talking about the politics of it are entirely missing the point that this is about the practical implications that this will have for those everyday New Zealanders that the Hon Simon Bridges likes to talk about so much.

When we’re talking about education school donations—or the school donations as defined in this legislation—what we’re actually talking about is solicited voluntary payments from parents. Most parents who send their kids off to school will be aware of this in the form of the generally $100, $150-odd donation that is asked for.

I’d like to touch on a point that’s been raised by a number of members of the Opposition, particularly about the fact that we currently have disadvantaged children, disadvantaged rangatahi, inside of our deciles 8 to 10 schools. It’s absolutely true; I was one of them when I was at high school. I was sent off to a “magnet school” in Auckland that was a decile 10, and my family struggled to make that $150 school donation. I had the yearbook withheld from me and my little sister until that $150 donation was paid. This is the kind of supposed voluntary solicited donation that currently occurs or is rather coerced out of families and whānau across the country, and, quite frankly, that isn’t fair, and, quite frankly, that should be something which is applied across the board to all schools. But at this point in time, we are looking at simply doing the first practical step. I don’t think that it, kind of, makes sense to begrudge the roll-out of that first step, when we are making life easier—

💬 Hon Member: Don’t promise it if you can’t do it.

CHLÖE SWARBRICK: —for those who are in deciles 1 to 7. For those who are saying, “Don’t promise it.”, again, it’s the politics of it all, I personally—whatever.

So the other point that has been raised is with regard to overhaul of the decile system in general. Members of the Opposition have spoken about how this has to occur, and, of course, the Hon Chris Hipkins, the Minister of Education, with whom we are in confidence and supply, and, obviously, New Zealand First, my colleague Mark Patterson, have discussed this extensively and with, obviously, the Hon Tracey Martin, the Associate Minister of Education, around the kind of overhaul that needs to occur with regard to the decile system so that we do end up with funding that is more reflective of the needs of our schools.

But, I think, in talking to anybody who’s involved in the education system, across the board you’ll find that our schools need and are crying out for more funding everywhere—whether it is for those school supplies, whether it is for school buildings, or whether it is for those children who need learning support. And this is, dare I say it, you know, the unions who the Opposition like to invoke relatively frequently as those who stood outside of this Parliament, asking for better pay for their teachers—those unions will also be those who will refer to the nine years of underfunding and that hole which we are trying to fill and catch up with.

So this is an important step in the right direction—a really important step in the right direction. I, frankly, don’t understand why members of the Opposition would seek to begrudge those kids and those families who are in deciles 1 to 7 $150 per student per year, when we can seek to roll this out to deciles 8 to 10 as well.

As has been mentioned, we also need that overhaul of the school funding system. But while that is happening, again, why would you begrudge those children and their families of the ability to access that support?

So in closing the Greens contribution to this debate, and substantial massive support and backing for this incredible kaupapa—that being making education more accessible in this country—the Greens are very proud to support it in its third reading. Kia ora.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I rise on behalf of the National Party, and my colleagues, to oppose the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill in its third reading.

I’d like to just refute a couple of the points which were made. Chlöe Swarbrick talked a lot about how we want to take the politics out of this issue. Well, I’m sorry, but this is an issue which is here because of a political promise made at the last election that this Government would bring an end to school donations. Well, this bill is a broken promise, because it does not do that. What it does is it tries to create some system whereby some schools will be given some money on the promise that they will not be taking money for some things. Now that sounds a little bit more complicated than what the Government’s promise was when they made it while they were in Opposition.

The second point I’d like to make is that this is not even reaching all schools. Only 30 percent of schools are taking this up. That means a huge number of the schools which even qualify for it are not even taking this up. I can talk directly to Pakuranga College in my electorate, which will be up to $300,000 worse off because of this policy if it were to take this policy on, than if they were to continue with their current regime, because they won’t be able to use this money for some of the key activities. They won’t be able to charge donations for some of the key activities that they provide in their school.

So this is a bad piece of legislation. Of course we want to see the costs to parents reduced where we can, but at the same time this is not the legislation to fix it. We need to push ahead with the decile system changes. Removing the decile systems, changing the funding for our schools—work that was begun under the last National Government stalled and only now is it getting anywhere. That’s the work which needs to be done and that’s the work which National does support. Thank you, Mr Speaker.

This is a split call. I call Jo Luxton—five minutes.

Thanks so much, Mr Speaker. It’s my absolute pleasure to stand here and take a call on the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. What a fantastic piece of legislation this is. I want to thank the Minister of Education for bringing this piece of legislation to the House. Just one piece of legislation; there is a suite of educational policy changes that this coalition Government is bringing to the people of New Zealand under the fantastic leadership of our Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, and I am very, very proud to take a call on this piece of legislation.

I, too, like the last speaker who has just taken his seat, Simeon Brown, want to refute a couple of the things that were brought up by previous speakers from that side of the House, the first one being Dr Parmjeet Parmar. I listened to her contribution. I actually felt quite confused by the end of it. Initially, she said that this was a bad policy and that the only reason it was being rolled out to decile 7 schools was because of the Opposition’s opposition to it. And then she said—so does that mean that because the Opposition opposed this that we only went to deciles 1 to 7? Is it because of the Opposition that that’s what’s happened? So is it because of the Opposition that it’s not being rolled out to deciles 8, 9, and 10, because that’s what I took from what that previous speaker said. And then she blamed the Minister for ignoring those schools, deciles 8 to 10, so I felt quite confused by the end of her contribution.

Then there was the contribution from the member Denise Lee, who usually is quite a nice and happy and positive person. But I feel that she’s just jumped on the negative National bandwagon with this one here and I think that they’re a little confused about how MMP works. You know, for example, each political party has their own policies that they promote during the election, during the campaign period, but the reality is MMP is when parties come together to form a Government and, therefore, decisions are made based on the commonality and agreement of all those parties. So that is MMP 101 for members opposite.

💬 Kiritapu Allan: They haven’t learnt that yet.

No, quite clearly they have not learnt that, but perhaps one day in 10 years or so they may understand that, when they’ve been sitting in Opposition for that length of time.

So what this piece of legislation does is keeps money in the back pockets of some of our most vulnerable families that attend deciles 1 to 7 schools. And, actually, $150 per student is an awful lot of money. When I spoke to a member of the Netherby School in Ashburton they jumped right on to this offer and they accepted it without hesitation because what it means for them is instead of getting $6,320 in in school donations they are going to look at getting in around $23,700. Now, what do members opposite think that that will do for that school? I just don’t understand why members opposite continue to look at this from a deficit perspective and say, “Who’s missing out? Who’s missing out?” Well, actually, look at who is benefiting: some of our most vulnerable families in society.

Yes, I agree that there are people that are of lower incomes and families in need that attend deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools, but do you know what? This is a start. This is not to say it won’t be rolled out to those schools later on in time. This is merely the beginning. This is the sign of a coalition Government who is forward-thinking, future-focused, and concentrating on meeting the needs of our children in our education system so we can continue to provide the best education system—one of the best education systems in the world—for our children, so I absolutely commend this bill to the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I stand to take a call on the third reading of the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. Again, I support this side of the House by opposing the bill for numerous reasons, mainly because it discriminates against some children and especially those in 8, 9, and 10 deciles. My colleagues on this side of the House have discussed that in their contributions today, and I was quite interested in what Chlöe Swarbrick from the Greens had to say about her time when she went to high school and off to university. She went to a decile 10 school and her parents weren’t wealthy. They struggled, but they got there—they got there—and this is what this bill will do. It will actually discriminate against people like Chlöe who has done well—

💬 SPEAKER: Order!

—in her education background. Her family would have missed out on this particular incentive payment.

I know a number of children from deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools that will miss out on this $150 incentive payment. It is an issue for the schools that are actually eligible for this incentive. It is an issue because it costs more for them to buy into it rather than it being good for them. So we’ve only got a third of the eligible schools buying into the system and a lot of them will actually miss out on further donations from parents from those particular schools. Now, it says that some schools don’t even ask for a school donation. Well, I think all schools should be asking for a school donation. It doesn’t matter what decile it is; they should still always ask for that.

💬 Hon Clare Curran: Why?

They should because this is part and parcel of our education system. I came from a family that wasn’t that wealthy; it was quite a poor one actually. And, yet, my parents scrimped and saved. We cleaned schools. We did everything to make ends meet to be able to pay those fees, because those fees helped towards our trips away as a school, as our group, going out to places that we weren’t able to go to because we were in a country school, and a country school that wouldn’t even qualify for this particular funding, and there are a number of rural schools out there that won’t because of the way that the deciles are set up. So it is a discriminatory bill.

The previous speaker, Jo Luxton, talked about the suite of education policies. Well, I can say positively that the suite of education policies from this Government will actually bring this country to its education knees. It will do that on a number of levels. Remember, I never said it was a suite of education policies; it was that side of the House that brought it up in the first place. So there will be a number of those policies, including this one, that will be detrimental to the people, to the students of this country. It will not close any gaps; it will cause further gaps.

The Government has failed to actually sit and listen to what the submitters have had to say by outlining where those gaps are going to be and saying whereabouts the discrimination and inequalities are going to occur. That is why this side of the House cannot support something that will actually widen the gap for those who are struggling, who are struggling already in their deciles 8, 9, and 10, because we want our kids to have good education. We’ve always wanted our kids to, and we will scrimp and save to make sure that they do have that good education. This bill here gives an opportunity for all schools—this is what the Government has said: all schools will get it eventually. Eventually never comes. What I’ve noticed with this Government is that eventually never ever comes. It always ends up over here somewhere where nobody actually benefits from it.

So I stand and I support this side of the House. We oppose this bill. It is badly drafted. It is one of a suite of education policies that will bring this country to its knees. We all need to look across at that side and say, “Well, all that side did it to this country.”, and then National will come back into Government and have to clean it all up. So I oppose this bill. Mr Speaker, thank you.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Faakalofa atu and ki a monuina for Niue Language Week. I would like to say to my colleagues Mark Patterson, Jo Luxton, Chlöe Swarbrick: te kaha o te korero—those were fantastic speeches; I really enjoyed them. To the other speakers, unfortunately: te kaha o te hōhā. I think, really, they should have another good read of the bill and what it actually does. So thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak on this fantastic bill, the third reading of the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill.

First up, I do have to say I agree with some of the comments from the Opposition, where they stated that there was a common theme amongst many of the submitters that this grant should be extended and available to all the decile schools. We are not denying that. It has been said by the Minister in the first reading, in the second, and in the committee stages that while deciles 8, 9, and 10 schools are now not eligible for the scheme, it doesn’t prevent them from being eligible in the future. It has consideration for future decision-making. The most astonishing message—and we’ve heard it repeated on this side of the House already, but I just can’t get my head around the argument—is that if it’s not available to everyone then nobody should have it. We actually had no submitters from deciles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 who said, “Please, don’t give this grant to us.” They were not the overwhelming messages we received during the select committee process.

So it really comes back to the negativity from the Opposition. When you’re looking at this bill, it is actually really condensed in one sentence. You can say that what we’re doing in this bill is us giving the schools more money so that the schools don’t have to ask the parents for donations. That’s really all it is: us giving the schools money so the schools don’t have to ask the parents for donations. It is beyond me how anybody can make such a negative narrative around that messaging, but that’s what we hear from the Opposition, because, very clearly, that’s what the Opposition is doing. They obviously don’t realise that many families are struggling to make ends meet; they’re struggling to come up with these voluntary donations. That can potentially cause that stigmatisation that my colleague Chlöe Swarbrick spoke so well about from first hand.

So we know that many schools don’t actually even ask for the donations because they know the parents can’t afford it, so they’re not even asking for it. This bill will take that burden away. So what we’re doing with this bill is we’re removing the barriers to a public education system, because it should be a free public education system. We should make sure that there are no barriers for anyone in this system to have the chance to succeed.

So what this bill does in general terms is it’s supporting our Government’s Wellbeing Budget, and it does acknowledge the priority of reducing child poverty and improving child wellbeing in this country. Through this bill it’ll be nearly 500,000 kids at 1,700 schools that will benefit, and they will no longer have to pay those school donations. Again, it is only an Opposition that is absolutely negative and desperate that can turn such a positive thing into a constant negative. It’s because they’re desperate. They have no new ideas. They are basically constantly negative.

At the end of the day—

💬 Kiritapu Allan: Barking at cars.

Really, though—barking at cars, all of that. But New Zealanders aren’t as gullible as the National Party probably thinks they are. People know that the flow-on effects from the nine years of neglect and nine years of under-investment are going to take us a little while to fix up. It’s going to take us more than one term to turn that ship around, but we have started to fix a lot of things. We have recently—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Order! I am going to call the member back to the bill, which is about school donations. The member has to somehow make the link.

So much good positive messaging and, I guess, what our school donation bill does is it is extending that positive investment into so many areas like health and like this one: education. Now, it’s about putting the free back in the public education system. The school donations bill is just barely part of that plan of the Government, and that’s what we’re doing.

It has been mentioned already that this is a similar measure as we’ve taken with the NCEA fees, a similar one with regards to the removal of those fees and, again, in line with the free public education that we should see.

There’s one submitter, which was the New Zealand Principal’s Federation, that put it down in a couple of paragraphs when they did the submission, and I think it sort of goes to the core of what this bill does for a lot of the people that submitted. It said that the “NZPF”—the New Zealand Principals’ Federation—“recognises and applauds the intent behind this policy [which] is to progress the aim for education to be free to all in Aotearoa New Zealand … We … recognise that a further intent of the policy is to address issues of equity. By eliminating student fees and now donations to schools, the goal of achieving equity in our education system draws ever closer.” Again, it is such a positive message.

I was quite disappointed to hear the chair of our select committee, Parmjeet Parmar, talk about the school camp donations, because it’s very clear that she actually is still not understanding how the current system works. Under the current rules—and all this bill does is actually reinforce the status quo—schools cannot charge the parents for a school camp that is part of the school curriculum; they can actually not do that. They can ask for a donation, but many schools have called it a fee and, actually, that’s what they cannot do under the current legislation—that is, before we implement this bill.

So all this bill does through the Supplementary Order Paper is just implement the rules as they are now. So, by saying it’s complex, I think the complexity sits with the person who doesn’t quite understand what this bill is about. So I guess, at the end of the day, our brilliant leader, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, has said that she wants New Zealand to be a country that is the best place in the world to be a child. That is one of the things that this bill contributes to. So it gives me great pleasure to commend this bill to the House.

Mr Speaker, I have three simple points to make about the Education (School Donations) Amendment Bill. The first is—and the member’s opposite know it—that this bill represents a broken promise. The members on the opposite side of the House went into the election campaign telling the mums and dads of New Zealand children that they would be ending school donations, and this bill does not do that. This bill fails to do that and represents yet another broken promise.

The second point that I want to make is that if, as some members opposite have claimed, the way this bill has been structured is designed to target funds at those children in most need, then it fails by its own test, because, actually, just recently we’ve had the education Minister himself admit that the decile funding system is a poor way of targeting funds at our most at-risk children and our most in-need communities. It is to be replaced by an equity index—something that National developed and supports—but instead we have this bill which will be funding additional funds to schools based on deciles. So it’s clearly not getting at the kids in the most need and leaving many out.

The third point I want to make is that having ill-defined ideas of what is and isn’t a donation is going to be highly problematic in the future, because schools don’t actually want to be grappling with the existential question of when a school camp is on the curriculum and when it’s not. Those kinds of questions that require legal advice and definitional debate are a waste of school’s time, and I predict that this bill will create many problems to come. Thank you.

Giving as many kids as possible opportunities, building more classrooms, fixing more classrooms, building more schools, and taking financial pressure off parents—I can’t understand that anybody would actually oppose those things. I’ve listened pretty closely while I’ve been in the House this afternoon. I’ve listened to try and understand exactly what the arguments are. “Facile” is probably the word that I would come up with. It was actually Jo Hayes where I think we got a bit closer to the real crux of the matter for the National Party, because what I’m trying to understand is: are they arguing for universality in this legislation? I’m not passing judgment on them if they are, but why can’t they get up and actually say it? If that’s not what they are arguing for, why are they using that for the people that are excluded from this legislation—the young people to date in decile 8 and up? Why can’t they actually say, “No, this should be a universal policy and there should be universality as principle that sits behind this policy, this position.”, but no; they can’t do that. Or are they? And that’s why I’m confused.

It would be really good to know exactly what the plan is, instead of just—and I know they’re the Opposition and they’re there to oppose, but we’re getting to the point in the electoral cycle where it is actually pretty important to be able to articulate what your education policy positions are. I don’t know and I don’t understand and I suspect, therefore, the rest of the community doesn’t either. All we get is a negative diatribe of facile arguments that are used against a piece of legislation that is actually providing $150 per student back into parents’ pockets, up to decile 7.

Now, if you’re on a low income, on a fixed income, on a low income, and you’ve got three kids at school, that’s $450 a year. That’s actually not to be sneezed at. If you’ve got kids doing NCEA, you’re also going to save $76.70 per student on fees that you don’t have to pay as well. If you’ve got kids at university and you’re on a low income, then they get a $50 a week boost to student loans and through their student allowance—

💬 SPEAKER: Order! Back to the bill, please.

What that adds up to is more opportunities—putting more income back into the pockets of parents who are on those lower incomes, and making sure that kids get opportunities. That’s what this bill does. It’s part of a much bigger suite of education policies, which I won’t mention because I’ll get pulled up for it, but that’s what this is. It’s actually about putting money into parents’ pockets that otherwise would go to the school. Under the previous National Government every school was put under so much pressure that they had to ask parents for more and more donations to actually keep the school going. That’s what this legislation is about.

So what I want to know is: what has the National Party got to say about that? Are they truly arguing for universality and that all school donations should go? Because, actually, if you listen to Jo Hayes, that certainly wasn’t what she was arguing. She was arguing that parents should be giving donations no matter what their income is, because they should be scrimping and saving in order to pay for their children’s education. So it sounded to me as if she was putting a counterargument to a free education for our children. That’s what this side of the House—the Labour and the coalition Government—stand for: a free education for every child, and free means free; it doesn’t mean a paying donation.

What this legislation does is quite simple, as has been described. It allows parents to keep that money for paying their bills, for putting more food on the table, for buying their kids shoes—whatever it is—rather than forking it over to the school, and that the school is able to continue to give them the best education possible. That’s why this legislation’s going forward. We would, as the Minister said, be rolling it out across the board. We can’t do everything at once. This is a damn good start. I hope “damn” isn’t an unparliamentary term. It is a damn good start: $265 million in the Wellbeing Budget. I commend this bill to the House.