Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
Dalziel Lianne: General Debate 
[Volume:655;Page:4588] 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I want to use the opportunity of today’s general debate to tell a story about somebody who completely turned his life around. This is a story of a man who as a young person left school the day he turned 15—on his 15th birthday. After drifting from job to job he settled down and started a career working on the New Zealand railways. Ultimately he became a train driver. He saw the writing on the wall in the 1980s—he must have known what Richard Prebble was up to—and he decided that he needed a career change. But he had a problem; he had left school at 15. He enrolled part-time at university to do a certificate in liberal studies. He then enrolled in the school of law at the University of Canterbury as one of 10 quota students. These were students who did not have formal qualifications to take them into law school but based on submissions and supporting documentation they were determined to become qualified and be able to contribute something back to their communities. 
This man completed his law degree. It was not easy; he was educationally disadvantaged. His marriage had broken up and he was caring for his two children on the domestic purposes benefit. But he had two things going for him. Firstly he had preferential entry to a degree course at a university and secondly he could receive the training incentive allowance. He now has his own law practice and he has served on a number of community boards in a voluntary capacity paying back to his community what they had offered to him. His sons have successful lives and he is married again—to me. This is my husband’s story. 
It is a story of considerable hope and it has been repeated in universities and polytechs from one end of New Zealand to the other. The only difference in my husband’s story to those of many people who have similar success stories is that the vast majority of those people who benefit from the training incentive allowance are women and that includes the Minister for Social Development and Employment. So what has the Minister for Social Development and Employment done to the training incentive allowance? She has made sure that no one can use it for a diploma or degree that is level four or above. Why? She has not given a reason other than to blame the recession yet she did her own degree during a recession. Besides I thought that John Key said that National was ambitious for New Zealand. So why would he not invest in people like his own Minister who had an investment made in her and like my husband who had an investment made in him—those who wanted to get ahead? 
The decision to cap the training incentive allowance at level three says that it is OK to use the allowance to do a certificate in aged care but that it is not OK to use it to become a nurse. Does the Minister for Social Development and Employment forget the difference in pay between a residential care worker and a fully qualified nurse? Does she forget the difference for so many women in this country between a job that represents a dead end and a career that has promotional opportunities in abundance? We need nurses in this country now. So many young mothers would make fantastic nurses but they are being denied the opportunity of using the training incentive allowance which the Minister herself used for a step-up and a ladder into the future. I did not think that we would be cutting off an opportunity for jobs real jobs that are needed in this country and that would have been a win-win for the individuals for their families and for the country as a whole. Why on earth would we make this the choice? 
I think that there is a name for people who pull up the ladder behind them. There is a name for people who take advantage of a programme for their own personal benefit and then deny that benefit to those who come in the future. 
Hon Member 
: Say that word then. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Well it is not a name that I am allowed to use in this House which is probably a shame because I will certainly be using the name outside the House. There is nothing outside this House that prevents me from using the word “hypocrite”. That is a word that fully describes what has happened here. 
I would like members of the Government to reflect on what has been a very significant decision which was not mentioned during the Budget debate. It was sneaked through by a simple amendment made to the website which said that if people had not had their courses approved before 29 May this year they would be out of luck. I think that is a shame. It is a shame on the Minister herself a shame on the Government and a shame on the Prime Minister who said that he was ambitious for New Zealand to say that people cannot get a qualification such as a degree or a diploma at level four and above simply because they are denied access to the training incentive allowance. That allowance allowed my husband to have a career that he is proud of and he is contributing to his community. I think that everyone should have the opportunities that were made available to him and that were made available to the Minister for Social Development and Employment.