KEITH LOCKE (Green) : In the estimates report from the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee there is a transcript of the Minister’s comments to the committee where she says that the roading budget will be $1.7 billion, which is more than double what it was in 1999—that is, $850 million—and of the present Budget, $980 million will be spent on roading in Auckland. She talks about $480 million being spent on public transport, and that over 5 years the expenditure on public transport will be $2.5 billion, which indicates that public transport spending will be about the same for 5 years, despite the fact that the petrol price increase has been quite dramatic over the past few years, particularly over the past year, and projections are that it will go much higher.

Surely that situation should affect the spending on public transport. Public transport is still a poor party compared with roading expenditure, at a time when the car traffic on our highways is dropping, particularly because of the petrol price increase. The price for motoring has now gone up substantially. The Automobile Association says costs have gone up over the last year by $614 per motorist for those who travel about 14,000 kilometres a year. The Government and the Minister often say—rightly so, if we look at it in terms of multiples since the Government came to office—that there has been quite a significant increase in public transport expenditure. But when we compare it with roading expenditure, the $480 million being spent on public transport in the current year is much less than the $850 million increase in roading expenditure since the Government came to power.

In some ways the increase in public transport spending is just part of an increase in the usage of public transport. For instance, in Auckland the usage of rail has gone up hugely—in fact, by 35 percent over the last year, I understand, or from about 1 million journeys a few years ago to 5 million or more now—and bus usage has gone up by 7.3 percent in the past year. The Government’s per-passenger funding accounts for most of that increase in public transport expenditure up to $480 million, and still we have very overcrowded buses and overcrowded trains. Particularly at peak hours very often there is more demand for public transport than there are buses and trains available.

The reason why the Greens are saying to cut back the roading expenditure and put the money into public transport expenditure—and Jeanette Fitzsimons has a member’s bill before the House now that will move in that direction—is that there is so much more that needs to be done. I do praise the Government for what has been achieved in terms of the Northern Busway coming on stream, the Auckland line double tracking, the reopening of the Onehunga line, and the Auckland line electrification that can now proceed, now that the Land Transport Management Bill has been passed. But there is just so much more to be done, particularly in Auckland.

The Auckland Regional Transport Authority has a project that will cost over $1 billion for extending rail beyond the dead-end of the Britomart underground, connecting up with Mount Eden, running a new line from Avondale through to Onehunga, and then from Onehunga to the airport, the airport to Manukau City, and then hopefully beyond that, around and through to Botany Downs. That will involve a huge amount of extra expenditure, and the money devoted so far, if we are looking at it over 5 years, being $2.5 billion—not much of an increase on the present—is just not sufficient.

The money that needs to be spent on cycling and walking is currently in this Budget at $33 million and that is good, but we obviously need a lot more than that and a lot more pressure on, and coordination with, the local authorities to build a proper network. Thank you.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (National—Pakuranga) : In the 5 minutes that I have I will concentrate on only one issue with regard to transport, and I will let my able colleague the Opposition spokesperson on transport, David Bennett, cover everything else. I will cover the issue and the debacle of the road-user charge increase for this financial year that occurred on 1 July, and try to get just a few facts on the table about how badly mismanaged that issue was, and how bad some of the answers we received in the House were, in terms of being not just bad answers but factually incorrect answers.

The first issue was that road transport users out there have been asking, for some time, to be given at least a month’s notice of changes. That is all they wanted. They wanted 1 month’s notice of a road-user charge increase so they could put their billing systems in place to start charging at the new rate, come the next month. They did not want, say, 12 months, 30 months, or anything else—and they had to hand in the old notice of road-user charges if they had bought them for more than the 1 month. What they did not realise, and what I have actually been able to tell them, is that until 25 March 2002, the provision was actually in the law. The Road User Charges Act of 1977 has a section 21 that states that there is to be 1 month’s notice. In fact, it was the Labour Government that took the 1 month’s notice provision out of the road-user charges legislation.

Let us go back to 2007, because every one of the dates I am now going to give is from last year. First of all, on 9 July the Hon Annette King, Minister of Transport, wrote to the Road Transport Forum and said: “I appreciate your offer of the Road Transport Forum New Zealand (RTFNZ) to continue working with us on RUC and other land transport related issues.” Basically she was saying to the Road Transport Forum that the Government understood that the forum had an issue about this, and about how road-user charges were set, and appreciated its offer to work with the Government. Members should remember the dates, because I will have to come back to them from time to time. That was a letter from Annette King on 9 July last year.

An email then arrived at the Road Transport Forum New Zealand on 5 September—just less than a month later—to the chief executive from Barry Kidd at the Ministry of Transport. It stated: “… I have outlined below a brief summary of the issue with giving notice of future heavy RUC increases and a proposed solution that the Minister has indicated should be included in a RUC amendment bill to be introduced into the House later this year.” So that is what the man from the Ministry of Transport said to the Road Transport Forum. He said that the “solution that the Minister has indicated”—those are the exact words in his email—“should be included in a RUC amendment bill to be introduced into the House later this year.”, to cope with this issue.

One would assume from that that the Minister was telling the forum that it had got what it wanted, so on 21 September after a board meeting, Tony Friedlander, the chief executive, wrote back to Annette King, and said: “The Ministry of Transport has now advised us that you have agreed to a solution being included in a RUC Amendment Bill to be introduced into the House later this year.” So there we go. On 9 July Annette King had said: “Thank you for working with us.” On 5 September the Ministry of Transport had told the Road Transport Forum that the Minister had agreed to the amendment, and on 21 September the Road Transport Forum had written back and said “Thank you for agreeing to do it this year.” I ask members to remember that that was what was said in both the email and the response in 2007.

On 1 July this year Tony Friedlander and the Road Transport Forum, which is not averse to being over-zealous in some of the statements it makes—it has to work with the Government, and keep and curry favour—put out a press release stating that trucking operators had been deliberately deceived by the Minister of Transport, Annette King. This is the press release: “Deliberate deception by Minister of Transport Annette King over increased Road User Charges”, and I understand why truckers felt that way. They had had an email saying that the issue would be tidied up last year. It was the Labour Government that had taken out the clause that had allowed it, so I imagine that when the big strike occurred across the country and trucks brought cities to a standstill, the Prime Minister would have had to be scraped off the wall, based on her Minister’s behaviour.

But then Harry Duynhoven got up in the House and tried to answer that, when I talked about the letter from the Road Transport Forum dated 21 September 2007. Harry Duynhoven, as acting Minister, responded: “I shall quote from a reply of the Minister of Transport to that letter.” Then he went on to read out Annette King’s letter, which says: “You will be aware, as I am, that had the government provided further notice of the increases, there would have been a significant amount of pre-purchasing …”. I thought, “Well, OK—so they did reply to the letter after all, and the Road Transport Forum has got no right to complain.” Then Harry tabled the letter, which was dated 10 April—long before this stuff ever began.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) : I will take just a brief call to answer some of the points that Maurice Williamson has just made. First of all, he mentioned that under the road-user charges regime in the previous Act, a month’s notice was given. It was changed in 2002. Who voted for it? The National Party voted for it. Every party in the House bar New Zealand First—in my memory—voted to make that change, and that member has just stood up in this Chamber making it sound like the Labour Government made a change that National did not agree with. Well, he voted for it. So there goes the first piece of evidence that one cannot trust what he is saying.

Let me give members the second piece of evidence. When we had the estimates at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, Mr Williamson came along armed with all sorts of information to have a king hit at the select committee.

Hon Maurice Williamson: And you gave us 20 minutes.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh, in fact I gave the member much more than that. The fact that the member, knowing that I had a Cabinet committee meeting, decided to make me wait outside for half an hour before I came into the select committee is not my fault. It is the member’s fault, not mine. But let us get back to the next thing the member did.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Not true.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh, that is the truth, I say to Mr Williamson, and the member has something different on the table.

Hon Maurice Williamson: That’s not the truth.

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is absolutely the truth, and I would say to the Chair that the Chair would back up my comments. The member kept me waiting outside for half an hour when he had asked me to come at a certain time. I gave the member the time that I had before I had to go to a meeting. If the member does not want to respect the timetables that are given, then that is the member’s business.

At that meeting the member said that it was a disgrace and it was outrageous that the Half Moon Bay ferry is getting $126 subsidy per passenger.

Hon Maurice Williamson: No, I didn’t.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh yes, the member did. I have it written down here. I quote what he said during the select committee meeting: “I was gobsmacked to find out the other day that the subsidy for the Half Moon Bay ferry is $126 per passenger trip—$126, just from Half Moon Bay around to the base!”. I say to Mr Williamson that that is what he said.

Hon Maurice Williamson: Then I said: “Is it correct?”.

Hon ANNETTE KING: The member said it as a statement. Let me tell the member that the subsidy is $4.14. That sort of over-the-top rubbish means that one cannot believe him as Minister of Transport. He was the laughing stock of New Zealand when he was the Minister of Transport.

Let us take Mr Williamson’s comments on the road-user charges. This is what he said in his press release: “The increase is estimated to push up the cost of running a 20-tonne truck by more than $56,000 a year.” That is what he said in his press statement. Well, I am advised that in order for that to be possible, and to meet the claim that the exaggerating Mr Williamson has made—I tell members to listen to this—the most common type of 20-tonne truck would need to travel at an average of 330 kilometres per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. To make that claim work, I ask whether members know of any 20-tonne truck that can travel at 333 kilometres per hour, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, because to make that claim true, that is what it would have to do. A lot of twaddle has been spoken by Mr Williamson.

One of the things that Mr Williamson will face if National becomes the Government is the fact that he will not be the Minister of Transport. He will not be the Minister of Transport because his leader will not let him—and that is the talk around the transport sector. I hope that Mr Bennett is the spokesperson, because at least he talks about more than just roads. If anyone remembers what Mr Williamson used to say when he was the Minister of Transport, they will know that his only policy was to privatise our roads. That was his big policy. He probably had another one, where he was going to phase in driving on the other side of the road, as well, but his big policy was to privatise New Zealand’s roads. Has he ever spoken about passenger transport? Has he ever talked about investment into transport?

Hon Maurice Williamson: This is supposed to be estimates.

Hon ANNETTE KING: Oh yes, it is supposed to be about the estimates. The member has spent his time talking about road-user charges; so have I. He does not like it, but I have told this Committee what a lot of twaddle the member speaks.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : This Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King, will be known as the “Minister of No Planning in Transport”. That is a symptom of her managerial style in the transport portfolio. If we look at the estimates questions asked at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, we find a perfect example of what this Minister and the Labour Government stand for in transport. They have no planning.

There is a project in Auckland whereby the Government is building a four-lane road, but two lanes of that road will be coned off because there has been no planning as to what the road is going to be once motorists go through the tunnel. The Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2) project, at the Johnson’s Hill Tunnel, will be coned off so that people have to travel through a four-lane tunnel, with coning on two of those lanes because there is nothing at the other end. The road just reverts to the two-lane road that was previously there. That is the planning of this Government. It is spending millions of dollars building a tunnel through a hill, and is then going to cone off two lanes of it. What is the point in doing that? Why would anyone build a road and then cone it off?

That is the reality of this Government. It has had no idea about its planning processes. It has been reactive to any issue that has come up. It has put the New Zealand land transport sector into a state of flux. It has changed all of the organisations that are dealing with land transport in New Zealand. It has done a very quick process of change in the industry, trying to find some solutions. It has not actually debated what the major problems are; it has not looked at what could be solutions to some of those problems.

• Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.

DAVID BENNETT: Before the dinner break I was talking about the ALPURT B2 project and the need for the Government to block off two of the lanes of one of the bigger projects it has done this year. That is a symptom of the Government’s failure to understand transport planning, and of its failure to provide a constructive approach to construction in the transport industry over the last 9 years.

We hear many accolades from the Government that say how great it is at spending money in the transport sector, but that is not shown in many of the regions. For example, I would like to see the Minister of Transport come to the Waikato, visit the regional council there, and detail to that council why Land Transport New Zealand has decided that the Waikato Expressway is no longer a priority for this Government. That would be a challenge I think the Minister should take up. She should go to that region and tell people why Land Transport New Zealand has found that it cannot fund the Waikato Expressway, a project that we are sitting there waiting for. We have been waiting for many years for this Government to assist in that project.

Government members are all very good at cutting the ribbon on projects started when National was the Government, but they are no good at setting up their own construction. They have taken the credit for what we set up over 9 years ago, but what are they doing now? Are the bulldozers moving on that road? No, they are not moving. We need a constructive approach to planning in transport, and we are not getting that in our region. The Minister may come and talk about some projects on the western side of the seat of Hamilton West, but the projects are there only to mitigate the loss of that seat in an election. The big project needs to be completed, and I challenge the Minister to come to our region, to take up the challenge, to meet with the officials, and to give them what they need and what they want to hear in our region.

The regions have been sadly, sadly let down by this Government. This Government does not care for the heartland of New Zealand; it cares only for votes. It does not care about what actually makes this country strong—the people who have built this country and the people who will build it in the future. We need that kind of structure in the Waikato, and I challenge the Minister to come forward and to deliver that to us in the near future.

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Transport) : I rise to respond to that challenge from the junior member for Hamilton East, David Bennett. Before I answer his questions, I say I would not like to short-change Maurice Williamson, because to do that would be most unfair to him. Before the dinner break I set out three major errors he made at the estimates hearing. However, there is a fourth one, so rather than short-change him I will tell members about it. At the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee hearing, Maurice Williamson said: “There is a ferry service to Rakino, and based on the numbers currently using it and the cost of running it on diesel currently, that would be nearly $2,000 a passenger trip subsidy.” That is what Mr Williamson said at the select committee. I inform him that the subsidy is $49. I point that out because National’s spokesperson on transport does not know one end of a vehicle from the other. He knows only about roads, roads, and roads. Even though he knows about roads, National built very few of them when it was in Government.

I now move on to Mr Bennett’s points. He said I should go out to the regions and see what is happening. I say to Mr Bennett that I have been to many of the regions. In fact, as members of this House would know, I come from a very small place in New Zealand, and if anyone knows small-town New Zealand it is me. I love visiting the regions. One of the regions I love to visit is Marlborough, and one of the places I was most proud to visit there was the Awatere Bridge. I will tell members a little about the Awatere Bridge. [Interruption] I will tell Mr Finlayson about the Awatere Bridge because I know he will be very interested in it. My colleague the Hon Paul Swain was the Minister of Transport. He went to Marlborough and met the people there. They said it was a disgrace that they had asked the National Government for 9 long years to replace their bridge, which was built in 1908. Did National listen to the people of the provinces? Did it listen to the people of the regions? No, it did not, and it was not until my colleague the Hon Paul Swain approved and funded the Awatere Bridge that the people of Marlborough got it. I was pleased to be the Minister of Transport who went down and cut the ribbon when it was opened.

I challenge Mr Bennett to tell me about one ribbon that I have cut for a project that was the work of the previous National Government. I challenge him to tell me about one ribbon cut by Paul Swain for a project that was the work of the National Government. I challenge him to tell me about the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2, because the member talked about that project. That project was brought forward by this Government by 10 years, on the understanding that the road would be built as it is and would be a toll road. That was the understanding. It is being built, and it will be opened by the end of this year.

Then the member mentioned the Waikato. I absolutely agree with him about the Waikato. That region got no attention from the National Government. National took the vote for granted in the Waikato, and it thought that because the grass was green around the city it would always have the votes. Well, the member knows that some of the biggest funding increases that have gone into the regions went into Waikato and the Bay of Plenty. A lot of lobbying and hard work was put in by Martin Gallagher, and the member Mr Bennett has given no credit at all to the fact that this Government has put a huge amount of money into transport.

How much money have we put into transport? Since 1999 the amount of funding that has gone into roading—let us just take roading, for example—

Hon Darren Hughes: How much?

Hon ANNETTE KING: It is more than double the $850 million put in by the National Government in 1999—that is just for roading. It has gone up to over $1.9 billion in 2008-09. That includes both capital and maintenance expenditure on State highways and central government funding for local roads. Transport investment as a percentage of GDP has gone up from just under 1 percent in 1999 to 1.6 percent in 2008. I could go on, but I do not need to do so, because the people of New Zealand know that the real commitment in transport has come from a Labour Government.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. The Minister laid down a challenge for me to name a Waikato roading project begun by a National Government that she has cut the ribbon on. I would like to draw her attention to the Long—

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, Mr Bennett. That is a debating issue.

DARIEN FENTON (Labour) : As a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee I was really pleased to take part in the estimates discussion around Vote Transport this year, because there was so much good news in the Minister’s presentation, and there was good news for all the people of New Zealand.

Before I get on to the good news, I want to go back to the Albany to Pūhoi realignment B2 (ALPURT B2), which the member from Hamilton, David Bennett, has mentioned. A couple of weeks ago I saw a funny little video featuring the member Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. He was driving around in his Ford Mustang Cobra car, and there he was in the middle of the ALPURT B2 tunnel. He said it was his favourite place in the whole electorate, because it represented a real difference for the people of his electorate. Who has been responsible for ALPURT B2? Was it Lockwood Smith? No, it was not. It was this Government.

The Minister has talked about the huge amount of money that has gone into roading from the Labour-led Government. That funding was pathetic in the 1990s. I live in Auckland; the only road I saw built was the “Maurice Williamson Highway” from the airport out to east Auckland somewhere, because it made it easier for him to get there. Members will remember when the roads at “Spaghetti Junction” did not match, and drivers could not get from the west to the north—they can now. They could not get from the south to the north—they can now. They can go all the way up to Ōrewa on the motorway. They can get the Northern Busway if they live on the North Shore. Where I live, in the west, we have seen the double tracking, and will see the electrification, of the railways. What a huge difference that is making.

This Government has done a lot more than build roads. We are putting together a transport system that is about the future, one that fits together and responds to community needs in a sustainable way. I ask the Minister in the chair, the Hon Annette King, how many years we have heard the calls for hypothecation—to spend all the money we get from excise tax on roading or on land transport.

Hon Darren Hughes: Which Government’s doing that?

DARIEN FENTON: Well, this Government has done it. Do members know what the bill was called that was passed a few weeks ago? It was called the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. Did the National Party members support it?

Hon Darren Hughes: They must have done.

DARIEN FENTON: They did not, I say to the member. I still do not understand that, because I am still waiting to hear the reasons for that from the National Party members.

I, too, like my colleague Mark Gosche, have recently been out with the coastguard in Kaipara in the Helensville electorate—John Key’s electorate. It was a lovely trip up the Kaipara River and out on to Kaipara Harbour. Those volunteers are really wonderful and they are delighted with the passing of that legislation, because they will get some well-deserved money from the petrol tax collected from the boaties. We all know the coastguard does a wonderful job. The personnel are volunteers. They not only save lives but prevent accidents, and they raise money for communities and to keep their service operative and professional. They deserve to receive that money, and I still do not understand why the National Party would be opposed to that. What have its members said to the coastguard? Certainly, members of the coastguard do not understand the party’s position, either.

Then there is the regional fuel tax, which was also covered in that bill. Again the National Party was opposed to that, but that tax will be able to advance some of the real things we need to do, like the electrification of the rail network in Auckland, and the building of the Transmission Gully highway north of Wellington.

In this debate we have talked about all of the new roads that we see around us—the fruits of the investment that this Government has put in over many, many years. But we have an eye on the future, and the fact is that roading alone is not the answer. We have also talked about our investment in public transport, which is over 15 times higher than it was in 1999. That investment is already delivering results to commuters and making it easier for New Zealanders to use environmentally friendly transport.

Of course, then there is the railway. We bought back KiwiRail. We bought back the tracks, and now we have bought back KiwiRail. Is that not a popular decision? Eighty-eight percent of people support the decision of the Government to buy back rail, and lots of them were National voters. I wonder what the National Party will say to those people.

This Government is delivering to New Zealanders, and there is good news in the estimates report. I have to ask what National is doing and what it is promising. Will National reduce road-user charges? National is out there cheering on the truckies, but will it reduce road-user charges?

• Vote agreed to.

Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) : The latest New Zealand Trade and Enterprise document—the statement of intent for 2008-11—which was fleetingly considered by the Commerce Committee in connection with these issues, asserts in the foreword that the document supports achievement of the Government’s economic transformation priorities. In this short period that I have I will look at that phrase “economic transformation”, because the phrase implies beneficial advances. Yet the reality is that the economy is characterised by a move into recession, high interest rates, high household costs, a collapse in business confidence, and a collapse in consumer confidence. That is writ large, I would say, by way of example, in the massive failures in the finance company sector, which seem set to continue. I note, for example, in the case of Hanover Finance, that it has suspended repayments of principal and interest owed to 16,500 investors in an amount of around $554 million. The total amount of investors’ funds tied up in 25 failed or stricken finance companies is about $3.3 billion. Some of those collapses suggest fraudulent activity. It is very interesting to see what the Government’s response is to that—that is, primarily legislative. But I say that much more could be done. There needs to be a resourced investigation into delinquent and criminal activity. Fine, the Minister has signed a new output agreement with the Securities Commission, but there does not seem to be a will to bring those who have erred to justice.

There is a second aspect to all of this, and it is that there need to be changes to the High Court rules to enable class rather than representative actions. We are seeing that at the moment—arguably—in the case of the Feltex litigation, where a number of lawyers acting for Feltex corporate interests are seeking to head off a representative action in a setting where Feltex shares were worth $254 million but that value was lost when the company went into receivership in 2006. That is why those on this side of the Chamber have been urging some more determined action in respect of delinquent and criminal activity, and urging changes to the High Court rules—not directly within the Government’s control, but something, nevertheless, in respect of which comment might be made to enable class rather than representative actions. It would be a tragedy, I would say, if those who are litigants and investors who face very substantial losses are not able to pursue those claims for technical reasons relating to limitations in the rules.

Economic transformation under this Labour-led Government is sadly an exercise in cynicism, and I would just like to offer the challenge: why do we not embark upon a programme of true economic transformation? Why do we not seize the agenda that the Labour-led Government identified on 6 March 2006 in a Cabinet minute as to what the core elements of economic transformation will be?

Hon Damien O’Connor: What’s your policy?

Dr RICHARD WORTH: I will come to that in a moment. We know economic transformation has failed under this Government. So what should those core elements be? That is what I am going to directly address now in response to the question that has been asked. I think there are probably five things. I am not sure whether I have the time to talk about them in anything other than a very broad way, but they include the following things. First of all, there needs to be an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts. The right incentives need to be put in place to encourage people to work, save, and get ahead.

Hon Darren Hughes: Labour’s done that!

Dr RICHARD WORTH: To the interjecting member I would just say that 39c in the dollar is not reflective of an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts. It is an important issue. Why? It is important because many business formations are not in a corporate structure. Many of them are unincorporated individual businesses. Second, there needs to be discipline brought to Government spending. Members on the Government side know just what a hollow activity that has been by this Government.

Hon PAUL SWAIN (Labour—Rimutaka) : Before I fulsomely praise the Government for its incredibly good work around the economic development agenda, I say that I think it is a bit disingenuous for that member, Dr Richard Worth, to criticise the Labour-led Government. He said there would be—and we were waiting for—five key policy planks; we got one, and we started to get a bit of a nibble at the second one. The first one was an ongoing programme of tax cuts. So I ask the member: what is the National Government’s tax cut programme?

Dr Richard Worth: I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to respond to the very direct question that the member has thrown down.

The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson): No, no, no. It is a debating issue; the member is trifling with the Committee. I invite Paul Swain to recommence his call.

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Very good. Thank you, Mr Chairperson. I did not raise the issue of tax cuts; that member did. We have been told through the media that the National Party has completed its tax cut policy programme. It is ready to go, it is locked and loaded, and it will be released, National says, in the election campaign. I ask, why not now? This was policy plank No. 1. We know we will not get any further with that, because it is all smoke and mirrors and National will never tell us. That was policy plank No. 1.

The second policy was more discipline around Government spending. What do members think that is code for?

Hon Darren Hughes: Cut, cut, cut!

Hon PAUL SWAIN: That is exactly right. I want to ask the member what this actually means. Does it mean cuts? What are these Government spending issues that will have to show more discipline? Which ones will have to show more discipline? See, it is all bumper sticker slogans. It is all sizzle and no sausage. There is nothing to it, and National members think they can slip and slide their way to the election. It is not working, because the clamour is already growing.

Then the member says that there has been a problem with consumer confidence. The member is absolutely right. It is led by two things: a huge increase in petrol prices brought about by demand and speculation, and food prices. So I ask the National Party what they will do about the international petrol price.

Dr Richard Worth: Does the member want a response to that?

Hon PAUL SWAIN: Well, I was waiting to hear it from him before. The member had 5 minutes and he did not mention it. All he had to say was what the National Government will do to influence the international petrol price. I can see the petrol producers shaking in their boots as they listen to Richard Worth about to launch a campaign to drive down petrol prices!

He then said that there was a problem with interest rates. It would be interesting to know what the National Party would do about interest rates. I would be interested to know what the National Party would do about the subprime mortgage problem in the United States. This will be waited for with bated breath all around the world—Richard Worth and the National Party will pronounce on what to do about the subprime mortgage problem in the United States! It will come soon after their pronouncements on what to do about oil problems around the world. Well, we can hardly wait to hear these things.

Then, of course, he went on about the Securities Commission and about some of the failed finance companies in New Zealand. He says the Government’s response has been to regulate. Well, that is actually what a lot of people want—they want financial advisers to be regulated. I presume the member will do so. But I did not hear any of the five planks—he never got to what he would do about that. What would he do? What would he do about the problems that were inherited a long time ago—mezzanine lending; lending long and borrowing short? All those problems have been around with financial advisers who were not qualified, and many of whom were crooks. The member now has the cheek to say, “Oh well. This problem should have been sorted out by the Labour-led Government.” It is absolutely ridiculous.

Of course, what we wanted to hear was just one little bit of policy. That is all. All he had to do was say that this crisis of confidence in the finance sector is a problem, and this is what National will do—a, b, and c. That would have been good, and then we could have had a proper debate around economic development and some of the very good things that the Labour-led Government has done. That member sat on the same select committee when we heard the Ministry of Economic Development and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise talking about some of those things, and talking about the work they had done in the free-trade agreement with China, which I presume the member agrees with. What about the expos in Shanghai putting our products and services at the forefront of that hugely growing economy? What about the Beachheads programme? I presume the member supports the Beachheads programme. What about the Better by Design programme? That is to mention just a few.

So instead of the member coming in and offering some praise for the work that is being done internationally, he whinges and whines, grizzles and groans—like National members normally do—and tries to come up with a few ideas and policy things, yet we never hear one skerrick of detail.

• Vote agreed to.

HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) : Tēnā koe, Mr Chairperson. Tēnā koe e te Minita. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Reading the Māori Affairs Committee report on the 2008-09 estimates is like watching a horror movie. The Minister of Māori Affairs makes a really cheeky comment when he says that the record numbers of young Māori fleeing these shores is in keeping with “the voyaging traditions of the Māori,” and calls the loss of nearly 100,000 of his own people to Australia “a positive and natural process.” What? Is the Minister trying to claim credit for the loss of thousands of Māori from our shores? Māori are leaving their homeland, Aotearoa, in record numbers not because of “voyaging traditions” but because this Government—and I have to say this Government, because the record numbers have come in the time of this Government—has failed utterly and miserably to offer them anything worth staying here for. They are running away to a better life because—no offence—the Minister’s useless mob offers them no future here. The Minister should be ashamed of himself, his department, and his Government for allowing such a huge loss of his own people, for opening the doors to tens of thousands of immigrants to fill the gaps, and for doing nothing to stem the tidal wave.

Then, of course, the report skips over references to the Māori Business Aotearoa New Zealand board with a comment that “the chief executive was unforthcoming with information”. In fact, there was a little more to it than that. We found out, in fact, that the Māori Trustee was very forthcoming and very clear in his statements to the committee that he had serious concerns about Labour’s plans to use $35 million built up for Māori people’s unclaimed land moneys to set up a multimillion dollar business fund to be administered by the personal appointees of the Minister. The Māori Trustee was also very forthcoming and very clear in his statement to the committee that much more public debate was needed before he would lend his support to the Māori Trustee and Māori Development Amendment Bill. It was also very clear that, in fact, the expectation that the Minister had the support of Te Puni Kōkiri and the Māori Trustee for this misuse of beneficiaries’ money was a myth, and that the deal was a long way from being done and dusted.

Then, of course, we heard about the Minister of Māori Affairs giving $1.56 million to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou to support their “aspirations in governance, education, and economic development.”—just before an election year. This is an iwi authority that—surprise, surprise—just happens to be part of his electorate, which is just brilliant. But given that that sort of practice is encouraged, I ask whether the Minister’s generosity extends to other iwi. I know that iwi up my way—Ngāpuhi, Te Arawa, Aupōuri, Ngāti Kahu, Ngāti Wai, Ngāti Whātua—also have major aspirations in terms of their governance, education, and economic development. I have no doubt that the people of Taranaki and Wanganui have the same aspirations too, as do Kahungunu, Te Arawa, and everyone else. Yet, interestingly, it seems that this Government investment into Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Porou simply ain’t going to be available for anyone else. With 13 weeks to go to the election, it would seem that the Minister of Māori Affairs has either to spend about another $100 million to bring everyone up to the same level, or to risk having simple people like me think that he gave the money to Ngāti Porou to buy votes he might not otherwise get in an election year.

There are many other points I would like to raise, but I end with this challenge. Any Māori happy with the horror story that is Vote Māori Affairs can keep voting for more of the same—Labour or National. We have had them both for the last 75-odd years, for no return whatsoever. Any Māori wanting a change for the better, a change for a brighter future, and a change where they can feel positive and proud to keep calling Aotearoa home, can turn to the only party that will guarantee a Māori role in any future we have in this Parliament: the Māori Party. Tēna koe Mr Chairman, tēnā koe e te Minita, kia ora tātou katoa e te Whare.

DAVE HEREORA (Chairperson of the Māori Affairs Committee): There are three areas of particular interest that the Māori Affairs Committee examined in the estimates for Vote Māori Affairs. The first was an examination of whether there was priority surrounding the Government outcomes, particularly in relation to families, both young and old. We noted that this was aimed at the provision of health, safety and security, and opportunity. The Minister of Māori Affairs outlined the advantages: with the introduction of 20 hours’ free early childhood education, a far better level of education results, particularly in tertiary education; free health care for children under six; and Māori having a longer life expectancy—acknowledging the importance of the role of hapū and iwi surrounding those issues. We also noted that the Ministry of Māori Affairs screens providers to ensure resources are being targeted at the intended recipients.

The second area was in relation to non-departmental spending. Of the 2008-09 appropriation, which totalled $189.6 million, 64 percent—or $120 million—is comprised of non-departmental appropriation. Of that spend, a lot has been transferred from Te Puni Kōkiri to the Māori Trustee, in order to fund a Māori global agribusiness development project. We also noted that an additional $3 million is to be set aside for the Māori Trustee, the Federation of Māori Authorities, and Poutama Māori Business Trust to establish a Māori business development project.

Finally, the third area of interest was in relation to the Māori wardens. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the Māori wardens, particularly those working on a voluntary basis, as they are doing a sterling job out there. We note, too, that an annual fund has been established to resource Māori wardens directly for locally-based initiatives that focus on improving outcomes for Māori youth and whānau. We now have more than 340 wardens who have received training in first aid, defensive driving, etc., and those qualifications are recognised nationally, particularly in the areas of work that they need to be trained in.

Overall, the three areas that we thought were of particular interest are looking quite positive. Those were the areas that I really wanted to focus on this evening. Kia ora.

• Vote agreed to.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : The Minister of Education came before the Education and Science Committee, and we questioned him at length about the Government’s proposed policy Schools Plus. For the benefit of members, this was announced with a big fanfare at the beginning of the year by the Prime Minister. This was a major launch of a major policy. It is listed in the statement of corporate intent, and it is listed in the preamble to the Budget as one of the Government’s priorities. In fact, it is here in the statement of intent as one of four particular strategies aimed at getting young people to participate and achieve in education. Somewhere in all that fanfare we heard the figure of $170 million; so it was not an insignificant project. When the Budget came out we looked for the details of the expenditure, and I have to say that we looked in vain.

The first document that came to the select committee was the standard questionnaire that comes from the Finance and Expenditure Committee. It asked the ministry to explain all significant changes to existing policies, all new policies, and to detail any reprioritisation of outputs from within current baselines. So we thought we would see the first tranche of funding for this major initiative called Schools Plus outlined in this document, but there was nothing, no mention of it, and no detail of any expenditure—nothing. It is a $170 million project but it does not even rate as one of the new policies.

So then we looked to the wider Budget document and we were very pleased to see that in that document there was some mention of Schools Plus. That was good. Again we looked to see where the funding was. We saw that it would be funded out of a number of appropriations. So we have things like strategic leadership in the sector, support and resources for education providers, strategic leadership in the tertiary system, support and resources for teachers, interventions for target student groups, school property portfolios, and support and resources for the community. But when we turn to all of those pages we look in vain, because no dollars are listed for Schools Plus. There is no money and no indication of what has dropped out of baseline expenditure in order to fund the areas described in the Budget for this major policy initiative, which is worth approximately $170 million. There is no indication of how that $170 million is to be made up and no indication of how that figure was even arrived at.

We asked the Minister what the story was, because we expect to see over the next 12 months some indication of expenditure. The Minister said: “As costs develop, and they haven’t yet because we have had only the very initial conversations around it, and we’ve had ministry officials travelling about doing that, we will meet it from new funds, not from existing funds.” I say to the Minister that we were asking about both, because neither was specified in the Budget, from either existing baselines or any new funds being made available for this major initiative—this revolution that was described to us.

Actually we did establish, through the other questions that we asked of the ministry, that some funds had been expended and were to be expended. In fact, we found that in the coming financial year, $668,500 worth of expenditure was to be incurred. Most of that was to be for personnel—half a million dollars for personnel. I put it again to the Minister here in the Committee that this is a policy that was developed on the fly because National came out with a fantastic policy release that found pretty much universal favour. The Government had to come up with something pretty quickly. It worked through it quickly and in March it put a discussion document around all the schools because there was no information.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) : What an embarrassing speech that was from National’s education spokesperson, Anne Tolley, who is the member for East Coast. I am really glad that she brought up Schools Plus because that individual is National’s education spokesperson. She stood in this Committee and started to talk about Schools Plus. People listening to Parliament, or viewers watching on television, will not know that the National spokesperson on education put out a press release, about a month ago, on this very issue. It revealed that she had not even read the discussion document—and she is National’s education spokesperson! She is putting herself up to be an alternative Minister of Education. She made a press statement about the programme and repeated the comments in the Chamber today, but clearly she has not read the document. If she had read it, she would know that the policy Schools Plus is, firstly, the result of a long period of development, and I will talk about that in a minute. Secondly, it does not start until next year. Thirdly, we have put aside $10 million as a contingency fund for the consultation period. But we are only doing the consultation now, so that does not cost very much.

When the Prime Minister launched this programme she said we would set aside at least $170 million; it may well be more. The Prime Minister told New Zealand, and I am telling the Committee tonight, that the Labour-led Government sees Schools Plus as our flagship policy. This policy is designed to catch those students in secondary school education who are simply not succeeding at the moment—around 20 to 25 percent of students. They also are the future of our country. We want them to be upskilled, both for their own personal development and for the benefit of all of us, because they are the future of our country. Who would not want our students to be the best skilled, the most literate, and the most numerate that we could possibly make them? That is great for them, great for the economy, and great for the society of New Zealand.

National’s education spokesperson, Anne Tolley, asked where the money was for this programme. I say to her that this is a consultation process at the moment; it does not need much money. This issue is complex and brings together schools, industries, unions, independent training organisations, and the wider fabric of our society—the agricultural sector and industrial sector—and asks them how we can provide learning opportunities for young people who currently are not succeeding in our education system. We are building on things we are already doing. This policy, just described by National’s education spokesperson as a policy developed on the fly, has actually been in place for a long time. The Gateway programme where young students go out to gain work experience has now been rolled out to every secondary school. We have 20 schools this year working on a pilot on Youth Apprenticeships; we had 10 last year. These are important building blocks in the process of making Schools Plus work.

Schools Plus is a policy that builds on everything in our 20 free hours policy. National recently copied that programme but took out the word “free”, because it had no intention, of course, of giving 20 free hours’ education. The Labour-led Government brought in the 20 free hours policy to get as great a participation of young 3 and 4-year-old New Zealanders in early childhood education as possible. Statistics New Zealand tells us that in the first year of operation the cost to parents for their child’s participation has been reduced by 30 percent. This incredibly popular policy introduced by the Labour-led Government had its first anniversary just last week. When the programme came in 65,000 young children took up 20 free hours; today 85,000 are taking that up—a 30 percent increase.

The greater participation in early childhood education, coupled with our new curriculum for primary schools, which creates greater flexibility but focuses on core competencies; the work we are doing in middle schooling, which is about lifting numeracy and literacy; and Schools Plus, as it rolls out into the secondary schools, are all about making sure the educational pathway of young New Zealanders gives them a future. I repeat, the educational success of our young people is not only really important in helping them realise their potential but also is critical to the rest of us. It builds a stronger economy for New Zealand and a stronger society.

National’s education spokesperson’s claim that Schools Plus is a policy on the fly is totally untrue. This policy has been rolled out. It is comprehensive. It is not just about Schools Plus; it is about everyone participating in early childhood education. It is about developing a new curriculum, which I might say has been looked at around the world as a model of best practice. I heard a gasp from the other side of the Chamber. One of the things that I am lucky enough to do as Minister of Education is to represent our country at international conferences and meetings of Ministers of Education. Just a month ago I was in Australia for the meeting of Australian state and Federal Ministers of Education. The Australian Ministers were talking about developing a curriculum for Australian schools. Each state has a curriculum but there is no Federal curriculum. What do they hold up as their best-practice example? It is New Zealand’s new curriculum. Our curriculum had 15,000 submitters, 10,000 written submissions, and was an amazing document developed over a long period of time—world best practice. I was in Peru recently at the APEC Education Ministers’ conference. New Zealand’s new curriculum, the work we are doing in professional development for our teachers, and Schools Plus, which is about lifting the skills of students who are currently not achieving, were held up as a model for the rest of APEC.

I am really proud to be the Minister of Education with an education system here in New Zealand that is world class, cutting edge, and doing as much as it can. Of course, it has had $5 billion extra invested in it by the Labour-led Government in the last 8½ years. It is an education system that we can be proud of, and National’s education spokesperson—a woman who hopes to replace me at the end of this year, although she will not—makes the comment about Schools Plus that she has not even read the consultation document. How embarrassing for the National Party in an election year that its spokesperson has not even read a consultation document on the most revolutionary change in our schools.

I am really proud of what my Government has done in investing in education, because there can be no more important investment in our country than in education. Education is something that successive Labour Governments, especially this one, passionately believe in. It is something that I as an individual passionately believe in, and I am really proud of what this Budget process we have just been through has delivered for the education system and the children of New Zealand.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : New Zealand First believes that the money spent on education will be treated as an investment, not as expenditure. Educational advancement is both in the national and in the individual’s interest, and educational investment is critical for our country’s economic and social well-being. Again, New Zealand First believes that the foundation of education lies in the family. New Zealand First will focus on programmes that assist families to provide the best environment of care and educational development. New Zealand has an enviable education system by world standards, and the teachers who work in our schools, and all the people who assist the teachers, all the people who work in the Ministry of Education, and suchlike, must be congratulated on ensuring that that happens. Now and then perhaps we will have a few words of praise for members of Parliament, while we are talking about it.

But there is more to be done. In the early childhood education sector, for example, although we may have a 93 percent turn-out there, I believe that is still not good enough. We must always be aiming to make it at least 100 percent, especially because that missing 7 percent is often the group that can end up in jail and end up with problems, and they need a good start early in life. New Zealand First is focused on making sure they get a 100 percent turn-out in early childhood education. We believe there should be an improvement in the funding eligibility so that the icon of New Zealand’s early childhood care—Playcentre—can, by some means or another, be advantaged by the 20 free hours’ childhood education that is available. It will require a rethinking on the part of the Playcentre movement as well, and I understand that that is taking place at the present time. I was pleased to hear from the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Carter, today that the kōhanga reo movement is being supported, as well. Once again, there might need to be a further consideration of the way in which it can be fully supported.

I understand that the biggest problem as far as schools are concerned relates to the operations grant to schools. A lot has been said about the operations grant. New Zealand First regards this as a big problem that must be reviewed and, if necessary, additional funds must be made available for operational purposes once the whole area of the operations grant is fully understood and reviewed.

There are various Government education programmes today that come to light and will be known to the Minister and other members of Parliament. I was rather staggered, though, at how many different Government programmes there are for schools. The immediate thought comes to my mind, as someone who is in business and who has been in business, that each one of those systems and programmes must surely have a bureaucratic back-up, and we just have to be very careful about how many more programmes we institute. Schools Plus, which sounds very good, also falls within this category. We have to be very careful as to how that is implemented, if it is to be implemented.

In the area of tertiary education New Zealand First supports having a universal student allowance, and we note with some pleasure that the Government is now looking at perhaps extending the universal student allowance even further. The Minister is to be congratulated on reducing the age from 25 to 24, but New Zealand First believes that it should be a universal student allowance. Our policy provides for this to be introduced over 3 years and we challenge the Government to do the same. We have a policy of having a bonding system for medical students who are willing to trade off student loan abatements for staying in New Zealand. It must be a good policy, because until recently it was the only education policy released by the National Party, but we are always only too pleased to allow our policies to be borrowed by others.

New Zealand First and I are exploring the extension of this policy to teaching, nursing, and other employment areas, such as the building industry. But as a lawyer I say that we should certainly not extend it to lawyers; there are far too many of us already, and we could possibly close a law school rather than look at opening a new law school. We should not open a business law school, which I see that the Auckland University of Technology wants to do. We have far too many lawyers already and I question that development. Why do we allow a situation whereby we train doctors, nurses, teachers, builders, and suchlike for Australia and elsewhere? Why can we not do something to keep them in New Zealand? For example, we could have a system where a student loan of $30,000 to $80,000—which might exist at the moment—is abated if that person stays in New Zealand.

Of course, New Zealand First also asked the Government to consider the Auckland University of Technology idea. The National member has spoken about the non-allocation of funds. I am most concerned to see there is a discussion about the Auckland University of Technology moving to Manukau, at a cost of $20 million to $100 million. There was no reference to that in the Budget, whatsoever. It will also be providing courses that are not relevant to the Manukau area.

ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) : I want to pick up on just a couple of things. The Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Carter, can stand in the Chamber and hurl as much personal abuse as he likes, but the facts are quite clear. We had a major announcement from the Prime Minister in answer to John Key’s announcement of good National policy. Labour has cherry-picked that policy and then produced some of it in a consultation document that went out to schools, and it had more questions than it had answers. There is nothing in the Budget about how it will be funded. There is no evidence of any detailed analysis leading up to the announcement of that policy. A figure of $170 million has been tossed into the air with no justification.

The Minister said words to this effect to the select committee: “We have made it quite clear that there would be a new appropriation of funds to meet the costs, but at this point in time we do not know how much that will be. The Prime Minister, in her launching of the policy, gave a figure of $170 million as a rough estimate of what we think it might cost, but that is why dialogue with schools is so important—because there is no cost to it at the moment, but there is going to be, and we need to know what it will be.” In other words, the Government had no idea. It made it up and plucked the figure out of the system.

Let me go on to the second of the four initiatives—Ka Hikitia. What did we get with Ka Hikitia? After expenditure of about a quarter of a million dollars in order to improve Māori literacy and success in the education system, some badges were produced for teachers to wear. The badges had “Wassup!”, or “Nice!” written on them. This was supposed to raise the level of Māori literacy. Tonight I read the letter that went out with all that material to the teachers, some of whom have written to me to say how insulted they were that they were asked to wear badges like the “Wassup!” badge. It is not even a Māori word—it is not even an English word! The letter to the teachers states that the ministry is “delighted to present you, the teacher, with resources”. What are those resources? They are bookmarks and a term-date card that were developed to support Ka Hikitia. For heaven’s sake! If we are serious about raising Māori literacy, then the last things we need to be supplying teachers with are fancy badges, bookmarks, and a card telling them what the term dates are.

The letter goes on to state that the measure will help transform the performance of the system for and with Māori. I ask the Minister whether he is saying seriously that presenting teachers with that sort of rubbish, which costs an enormous amount of money—a quarter of a million dollars—will help Māori literacy. That money could have been put into the operations grant, or the teachers themselves could have undertaken one of a number of initiatives that are going now and will address seriously the issue of Māori literacy. Wandering around a schoolyard wearing a badge that says “Wassup!”, waiting to be approached by a student, will hardly lift the levels of Māori literacy.

I heard one of the Labour members talking earlier about the achievements of this Labour Government in terms of the raising of literacy rates. Yes, there has been a small improvement in Māori literacy rates—a very small improvement. But I put it to the Minister that even with that small improvement—a 2 to 3 percent increase per annum—if we are to look at the percentages of Māori students who continue to fall out of the schooling system with no qualifications to enable them to get even semi-skilled employment, then they will be fully grown adults and well out of the school system before they have anywhere near caught up.

I ask the Minister why he does not look at the successful Te Kōtahitanga programme, which is operating in schools throughout the country. It is having a huge effect on the levels of Māori literacy and numeracy, and it is enabling so many more Māori girls and boys to achieve the levels that they need to achieve if they are to take their place in the wider world and contribute to the economy and the community of New Zealand. Why does the Minister insist on putting out this sort of rubbish, which is an insult to both the teachers and the students and does absolutely nothing for Māori literacy?

Hon MARK BURTON (Labour—Taupo) : I can see why Mr Peachey in the end is driven to take to his feet. He has been holding his head in shame. He has been embarrassed by listening to the so-called National Party spokesperson on education. Have we heard that there is more to do in education? Of course we have. Have we heard that there is more to achieve in education in New Zealand? Of course we have. But I say to the members opposite that it is time to stop abusing and criticising educators and teachers in this country, because when they do what they have just spent the last 10 minutes doing while on their feet in this Chamber, which was cheap political point-scoring, it ignores the world-leading achievement of our teachers and our educators.

I heard the whip on the Opposition side of the Chamber say “What about the tail? Tell us about the tail.” Of course, there is work to do with regard to the tail of underachievement in education. This Government is seized of that matter. But I ask that member, what about the world-leading success in education that the members of the Education and Science Committee have been privileged to hear about, and what about the world-leading achievement of New Zealand teachers, educators, and schools that, day in and day out, we see and hear about? And what do they get from the miserable members opposite? They get criticism and carping for the sake of cheap political point-scoring. It is a shame and an embarrassment to this Committee that the members opposite do not have the dignity, the courage—I am not allowed to say that; I withdraw and apologise for that remark—and the wherewithal to simply see that this is an occasion to acknowledge the good that they have heard about in terms of the education sector, the teachers and schools of our country.

One of the particulars that the member opposite struggled with was Schools Plus. She took the floor twice in order to try to find some problem with the idea that a major, fundamental sea change in education would not be flipped out overnight, but rather would be evolved after a careful process of policy development and consultation. Officials carefully explained to members of the Education and Science Committee that of course the policy development phase of that work would be undertaken, because it is a high priority. Indeed, no higher priority exists out of the existing baseline funding. I would have thought that a responsible Opposition would say: “Yes, well done, ministry officials; well done, Government, for that matter.” Responsible use of existing resources, the Government’s No. 1 priority, gets priority use of the existing policy resources. That is called good Government. The Minister and the officials made it very clear that the resources would be there in future Budgets for programme roll-out when that is appropriate.

Now I can understand why Mr Peachey feels compelled to take a call to try to salvage some small shred of dignity and respect for the Opposition, after the shameful and embarrassing performance of the person who pretends to be the spokesperson on education for the National Party. I want to say very clearly to that member that this Government has made an investment in education second to no other Government in the history of New Zealand. We have seen huge initiatives, huge roll-outs, and a huge commitment to improving at the basic level literacy and numeracy adequacy in our schools and our children. That goes through to the trades and skills training area, which is critical to New Zealand and was totally destroyed in the 1990s by the National Government. We have reinvested in that area and recreated the wrecked and destroyed apprenticeship system. Our investment goes through to the tertiary level—to advanced, senior tertiary education at the degree and postgraduate levels.

This has been a historic period of investment in education in New Zealand, and New Zealanders have got behind it. New Zealanders have invested in it and worked alongside and with this Government. I suggest to members that this is a time for this Committee to put aside the sort of petty, partisan contributions we have witnessed. I look forward to Mr Peachey trying to make some amends for the shameful embarrassment arising from the comments of his party’s so-called spokesperson on education.

ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) : We have had 8½ years of this Labour Government, three Ministers, nine Budgets, billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money, and hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars go to special education, and it all comes down to one statement made by the current Minister of Education. If the Committee will bear with me, I will read it. This is what Mr Carter stated: “Not enough of the money earmarked for Special Education is actually getting to school level and more importantly to the individual student with special needs.”

What an indictment on a Government’s policy! These are the very least fortunate of our children, children who have done nothing wrong, with parents who have done nothing wrong; it is just that during a split second in the process of the creation of that life something has gone badly wrong. After 9 years the best the Minister can do is to say that not enough of the money is getting to the children.

Special education is difficult, it is expensive, and it is challenging, and what our special education children and their parents need is a bit of leadership, a bit of intellectual capability, and a bit of compassion to make their lives a little bit more doable. How can it be in this country of New Zealand that the principals of special schools tell me they have waiting lists? The waiting list for a parent with a child who desperately needs a special education place means waiting for another parent’s much loved child to pass away. That is what it means.

I invite the Minister in the chair, the Hon Chris Carter, to take the floor and agree with me that New Zealand has to do better. I invite the Minister to get up and agree with me that New Zealand has to do better for the very least fortunate of our children and their parents, just as I invite the Minister to get up and agree with me that it is wrong that far too many children with special education needs are being bounced from school to school as their parents seek enrolment. I invite the Minister to get up and agree with me that it is wrong that the least advantaged of our children are being told to stay away from school week after week after week.

I would ask the Minister to address one more thing that is troubling me about this issue. When a school says to a parent of a special-needs child: “Your child can come to school only with teacher-aide support—oh, and we can give you only a couple of hours a day.”, and the parent says: “Well, look, we understand the difficulties that our child has and the challenges that our child presents. To give our child a fair crack at school we will fund the extra teacher-aide time.”, what is the response of the system so often? It is to say: “No, you cannot do that, because that is elitist.”

I invite the Minister, when he takes the floor—and I am that sure he will—to tell me that he, like me, finds that a totally unacceptable attitude. Parents have a right, a duty, and a responsibility to do the very best they can for their children, whatever their family circumstances require, and whatever they can manage. If ever there was a system that is increasingly breaking apart, then it is the special education system.

I will finish by making a comment to teachers. The Minister and I spoke to a group of principals in Auckland this morning, and I want to share a comment that I made to those people—

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) : The previous speaker, Mr Peachey, challenged me to stand up and make a comment about resourcing, particularly for special education. I accept that he is motivated by a desire to help students in our schools, particularly the most vulnerable students with physical and emotional disabilities. I accept that he was a school principal and that he is motivated by good desire. But I have to ask him to reflect back to what the funding in our schools was like 9 years ago, particularly in special education. The Government has more than doubled the resourcing going into special education. Indeed, in this Budget, which we are talking about in the estimates debate tonight, there is a considerable resource for children with vision problems. I had a group of adults from Parents of Visually Impaired New Zealand come to my office just a few weeks ago who were incredibly grateful for the extra funding going in.

It is a measure of how well a society is doing when it looks after its most vulnerable. I think that everybody in this Chamber, particularly on the Labour side, is motivated to be in politics to represent the most vulnerable of our citizens. In education, of course we could deliver more with more resources—as my colleague Mr Burton said earlier. We have virtually doubled education funding, including more than doubling the resources going into special education. Of course we could do more for these students if we had more, but there are no blank cheques in any area of Government. Everyone in this Chamber knows that. Mr Peachey was a school principal and had to wrestle with a budget, just like I did as a teacher. Those are realities. But I stand proudly before this Committee and before this country and say that the Labour-led Government is a Government that is absolutely committed to wringing out as many resources as it can for education. We have put in an extra $5 billion, we have built 42 new schools, we have put 7,000 teachers above roll growth into education, we have built 1,500 new classrooms, we have put 20 free hours in for early childhood education, we have taken interest off student loans—so the list goes on. We are doing that not to make ourselves feel good, nor so we can stand up and boast about what we have done; we are doing it because we want to invest in the young people of our country. We want to build a stronger country and a fairer society.

Mr Peachey is right: we need to look after the most vulnerable people in this country. He and I both spoke to a group of middle-school principals this morning. I am sorry that Mr Peachey’s time ran out for his comment. I am sure it was going to be a very positive one. I know about his passion for education. We have different views on bulk funding, of course. He is for it; I am against it. He has an opinion and so have I. The population can make its judgment about that. I know he has said in the House that he would like to bring bulk funding back. I guess that that is a battle he has to have in his caucus. Luckily, it is not one I have to have in mine. I want to say to this Committee as we wrap up this debate that I am proud to be Minister of Education in a Government that is committed to education. It is committed to resourcing it. It is proud of what the education system is doing and it is proud of what teachers are doing.

Finally, I have had a really busy day today, as lots of members in this Chamber have. I started off this morning, along with Mr Peachey, in Auckland with principals of intermediate schools. I then went to meet the integrated schools principals who are here, and finally I was with about 400 school principals who are doing a programme called Extending High Standards Across Schools, sharing best practice between schools about lifting numeracy and literacy. That has been possible only because the Government has committed funding to that programme. I am really proud of that. What it is doing is saying: “Your school is doing a great job. Show other schools what you’re doing. Learn from each other.” It is about the collaborative approach in New Zealand education, which is the great strength of our country. It is where we believe that a child, no matter what school he or she goes to in New Zealand, will get a quality education and be able to succeed.

The National Party spokesperson on education commented about the badge campaign before. The badges were just a tiny part of the package called Ka Hikitia, which is about lifting Māori achievement. That is really important for our students of Māori heritage. They comprise some 20 percent of young New Zealanders, and we want them to succeed.

• Vote agreed to.

• Progress reported.

• Report adopted.