Rich Katherine: Budget Debate 
Rich Katherine: Budget Debate 
[Volume:639;Page:9686] 
KATHERINE RICH (National) 
: 
 I start my speech by commending my fellow colleague Judith Collins for raising the issue of the single core benefit which again is nowhere to be seen in the Budget. Labour members have been speaking about that benefit for well over a decade but there is as much chance of sighting Elvis in the Porirua mall as there is of seeing the single core benefit under this Government. 
What a debacle the public relations exercise for this Budget has been. What was the headline in the paper on the day of the Budget when the Government expected to be basking in the self-congratulation of its own announcements? The headline was about Gordon Copeland leaving United Future and it wiped Helen Clark’s face off the front page of every single paper in the country. Was that not just delicious? And today at a time when the country is still supposed to be thinking about the Budget and talking about the so-called good news from this Government the Budget and the discussion of it was again wiped off every New Zealand paper and wiped off every TV channel as the country discusses the issue of Taito Phillip Field. 
The Taito Phillip Field issue is very interesting. The Prime Minister told us that there was nothing to worry about—in her usual “nothing to see or hear move along quickly the Ingram report was thorough” way. What we have seen is quite the opposite of that. The Prime Minister actually said that the Ingram report was thorough enough for her and that the investigation was thorough enough for her. Well I would have to say that the police obviously do not think so because they are going to seek leave from the High Court to be able to press charges. I think the Prime Minister should come to the House and explain her position because she is the person who told New Zealanders that there was nothing to worry about that the investigations had been done to her satisfaction and that the public and the Opposition should just forget about the Taito Phillip Field affair. Well obviously some other information has moved the police to seek to press charges. I think that affair is just another case of that Government trying to cover things up and get the public to forget about the issues that are important. 
We have not seen a case like this that I can think of in the history of the New Zealand Parliament. Cases of bribery and corruption may be par for the course in other Parliaments around the world but I have not seen or heard of a case like this one—particularly a case of this nature. MPs who are asked to work on behalf of constituents are supposed to do so with a level of honesty and dignity. Well the Prime Minister needs to explain her position because the way that she set up the Ingram report meant it was designed to fail—to not get the answers to the questions and to not get to the bottom of the affair. But thankfully the police did not give up. 
 I would like to turn my attention to the education sector and frankly to the lack of what was in the Budget. There was not much for education in the Budget and in a cynical attempt to manage political groups and those within the education sector all the lollies are planned for the 2008 Budget. There was no significant shift in the operations grant for schools and no significant shift in a lot of areas in which there have been huge growing expectations. It is classic for Minister Maharey I have to say— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: “Slippery Steve”. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: —“Slippery Steve” to wait until an issue is sufficiently difficult before he calls for a review— 
Hon Murray McCully 
: The “life of blameless excellence”!. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: —the “life of blameless excellence” as my learned friend Mr McCully points out. The review will take a year. Then there has to be a year to evaluate the review then he will wait until an election year—what a surprise—before he actually delivers any funding. He has told those within the sector there will be no movement in the operations grant until 2008. 
But the most slippery example which I think is what we are getting used to from this Minister was the swift movement he did in changing the Government’s position on its policy regarding teacher-pupil ratios in junior classes. At the 2005 election the Prime Minister and the then Minister of Education Trevor Mallard said that by 2008 junior classes would have no more than 15 students per class. We now see in the Budget the watering down of that policy—a slippery slithering of the position—to a point where the ratio will now be 1:18 sometime in 2008; and the objective of 1:15 is so far off in the distance that it is not measurable. I am concerned that things obviously looked terribly simple around the Labour Party election table but just as we saw with the policy of 20 free hours’ early childhood education what sounds simple around the Labour Party election table becomes quite different when one looks at the complexities of trying to implement the policy. 
I think the Minister has been quite negligent because even as late as last year it was quite clear from Treasury documents that the Minister and the Government had not done anything to cost the policy on ratios in junior classes. They had not costed out the staff implications they had not costed out the property implications and certainly they had not put aside the dollars. That is why the policy is not achievable. There certainly will not be a 1:15 ratio in junior classes by the end of 2008 unless the Minister is planning on a tidal wave of teachers joining the education sector between term 2 and term 4. 
I would like also to discuss the slippery slithering position on 20 free hours because that is also another policy that looked very simple around the Labour Party election table as members were thinking about the top 10 ways they could win the election by bribing people. At the election Ministers and the Prime Minister said all 3 and 4-year-olds come 1 July 2007 would get 20 free hours within the early childhood sector. There were no qualifiers; it was to be for all 3 and 4-year-olds. But as we all know the reality is quite different. The position moved from being “all 3 and 4-year-olds” to “up to 92000 students” to “approximately 92000 students” to “Well I hope 92000 students”. But we know that the reality will be quite different from that. The Government will be lucky if it can provide half of that number of places because many centres have not signed up to provided the hours. There is a reason why centres have not signed up: they do not like the control that the Government is trying to impose on them. 
On looking at the rates and at the way that the Government has gone about the implementation of the 20 free hours policy we can also see it is quite clear that the work has not been done on that. The Minister stands in the House and pretends that a policy is successful if a great number of forms—259000—are printed and distributed around the country. He thinks that is a measure of the success of the policy. If life were as simple as that then politics would be a very easy business. Why he is excited about 259000 forms I do not know because allegedly there are only 92000 places. I tell the House that those parents will be damned angry when they have obtained their form filled it out and marched along to their centre only to be told the centre is not taking up the 20 free hours. They will be angry; there will be increased anger about this policy after 1 July. 
I think another swiftie was pulled in respect of the funding of the 20 free hours. The Minister tried to pretend that increasing the amounts provided to compensate for inflation was his big concession to the sector. Well I do not think the sector will be particularly enamoured of that and certainly will not be swayed by it. 
Finally I want to make a few points about KiwiSaver. I think it is a wonderful irony that the Labour Party which says it stands for the workers is now putting in place a savings programme that will not benefit low-income people because they simply will not opt in. Those on $11.25 an hour will not have the space to save. Not only will they have to forfeit a pay increase and not get a tax cut—not even the 67c a week that Minister Cullen promised in a previous Budget—but they will be subsidising higher-income Kiwis who are saving. I think the Minister should go out and explain to 18-year-olds why they should be excited about not getting a pay increase or a tax cut now because they will get something in 45 years’ time. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: If they’re lucky. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: That is if they are lucky as my colleague points out. Labour is naive in thinking that is— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Good for them. 
KATHERINE RICH 
: David Cunliffe might have been one of the few 18-year-olds who was planning his superannuation at the time but most of them are not excited at the prospect of lollies in 45 years’ time. 
There was an opportunity for great vision for education in this Budget. There is nothing in this Budget that will effect positive change in the sector. There is nothing to increase the literacy and numeracy of our kids. There is nothing that will make a difference to the one in five kids who are currently failing in our schools. Certainly there is nothing that will improve things in the early childhood sector.