Sepuloni Carmel: Budget Debate 
Sepuloni Carmel: Budget Debate 
[Volume:654;Page:4209] 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
: 
 There are so many disappointments in this recently announced Budget but none more disappointing than those that so blatantly let down the most vulnerable of all New Zealanders. A friend of mine recently contacted me and pointed out that a very few may have benefited from this 2009 Budget. Fortunately she said some had their backers but clearly we did not have ours. I have been bombarded with emails and phone calls from members of the Pacific community who are in complete and utter disbelief at the fact that there is virtually no mention of the word “Pacific” throughout this Budget. I find that really strange given that during the election campaign last year we had to endure images of John Key walking around South Auckland’s schools trying to court our Pacific communities. He was out there with our high-profile Pacific community members saying that he had aspirations for all New Zealanders then made no mention of the Pacific in the 2009 Budget. 
Already Pacific people have topped the charts for the highest level of unemployment. We are sitting on a rate of 13.1 percent—more than that of Pakeha of Maori or of any other group in this country. Our Pacific demographic is young and with youth being highly at risk during an economic downturn like the one we are experiencing at the moment Pacific people are hit even harder. Common sense tells me and tells almost everyone I know that during a time when there are significantly fewer job opportunities a concerted effort has to be put into investing in upskilling and training. Unfortunately this National Government seems to be seriously lacking in that common sense. I quote a friend: “Statistics show that Pacific peoples have been the ones most likely to lose their jobs in a recession. Our youth demographic stats show that Pacific kids are going to be entering the labour market in huge numbers. As the National Party cuts super contributions increasingly this demographic—more than half of whom are being raised in households that meet the criteria of hardship or severe hardship and whose people are losing their jobs in this recession—will be responsible for mobilising the economy and keeping the aging baby boomers afloat.” Is there any consideration for that? Not at all! There is no consideration when opportunities to train and upskill have been taken away from youth and taken away from Pacific people. 
What are some of the things that this Budget has delivered for those who will struggle to find employment and who are maybe contemplating taking up some study? There is a $9 million cut to the CPI adjustment for industry training funding which means there will be less funding than before in real terms thus denying people the opportunities to upskill and work their way and the country’s way out of a recession. There are cutbacks to specific long-standing youth training programmes such as Skill Enhancement Youth Training and Nga Kaiarakati Pathfinders which are all programmes that I have been told were put into place during the last recession. Whom will this affect? It will affect youth in general but let us not kid ourselves: Maori and Pacific youth will be disproportionately affected. 
What else have we seen? We have seen the savaging of adult and community education funding which provided courses through schools and community groups to assist people to get back into learning but which is now denying those wishing to improve themselves the opportunities to get ahead. We have also seen small but completely unnecessary cuts to Maori and Pacific scholarships. By cutting all of the things that I have just mentioned the National Government has taken a cheap shot against people who cannot protest easily. It leaves our people sitting at the bottom of the jobless unskilled heap. It makes Anne Tolley’s rhetoric about education being a ladder of opportunity another myth. She seems to be walking around with this ladder under her arm and refusing to put it down for the most vulnerable in our communities to climb. 
Invisibility in this Budget has been the key theme in relation to the Pacific community. It is interesting though that the Pacific gained a large mention with regard to overseas aid but not for any positive reason. In fact—surprise surprise—it was the complete opposite. Our aid programmes in the Pacific will be cut by $1.94 million over the next 3 years. Does this National Government not understand that we are renowned for our efforts not only within our own country but across this region? Is this National Government so narrow-minded that it cannot see that an investment in our region is an investment well worth making? While the bilateral and multilateral agencies across the world seem to be moving into our region and strategically courting our Pacific neighbours is this National Government reducing our support for them? Perhaps the National Government needs to take heed of the words of the recently passed Tongan scholar Professor Epeli Hau‘ofa who said: “Let us not be defined by the smallness of our islands but by the vastness of our ocean.” I tell National members to take heed of those words because National’s small-mindedness will do only a disservice to New Zealand. 
As the associate spokesperson on tertiary education and also on social development one decision that has really frustrated me is the National Government’s decision to cut severely the training incentive allowance. That allowance provides sole parents on benefits with financial support towards transport childcare and/or fees associated with training. During a time when the Government should be providing incentives for New Zealanders to upskill and train it has slashed an existing incentive that provides some financial support for sole parents to undertake study. The changes outlined in the National Government’s 2009 Budget highlight changes in the eligibility criteria for sole parents to access the training incentive allowance. The intention now is to allow sole parents who are studying to get the training incentive allowance only when they are training in courses at level 4 or below. What message is the Government sending out? It is saying that single parents should not do diplomas or degrees; it does not want them to get ahead too quickly. They should just do courses at level 4 or below. That will result in a $3670000 cut to the allowance in this financial year and an $8700000 cut in total by 2013. 
Interestingly prior to that announcement I had been looking into the issue. It is feasible to suggest that at the time the training incentive allowance was implemented in 1983 no thought was given to the correlation between the educational attainment of parents—particularly mothers—and the subsequent educational achievement of their children. However research has proven the importance of education for sole parents particularly mothers. Education enables them to increase their earning potential and thus improve their families’ standard of living. In addition their education has a significant effect on that of the next generation. With all of this in mind what sense does it make to take away this incentive for sole parents to train? Sole parent families are evident across all ethnic groups and age groups but the reality is that Maori and Pacific people have higher rates of sole parent families. In addition to a higher rate of sole parent families Maori and Pacific people have a lower rate of post-school qualification achievement. As a Pacific person and a sole parent I cannot help but feel irritated by that type of decision. 
We are bombarded day after day with images of negativity surrounding our youth our educational achievement and our circumstances. Yet rather than seek to invest in our people decisions have been made by this Government that contribute only to perpetuating the challenges we are faced with. What has happened to the National Government’s rhetoric about aspirations for all New Zealanders? The rhetoric can hardly be seen as true when the Government is pulling the carpet out from under some of the most vulnerable members of society by removing incentives that were put into place to ease the financial burden and help us to get ahead. In today’s economic climate competition for jobs means that qualifications are more important than ever. Sole parents are already at a disadvantage. Their earning ability is constrained by factors such as childcare negative stereotyping by employers and a limit to the hours they can work all of which often steer them towards low-skilled and low-paying occupations. Given that higher qualifications increase employment opportunities and earning potential and impact positively on children’s educational achievements the enabling of beneficiaries to attain qualifications should remain a priority of this Government. Furthermore the attainment of tertiary qualifications—in particular university degrees—should be further encouraged. The wider-based education and more adaptable skill sets associated with university study mean that in the long term a university degree will be more advantageous to a beneficiary than any other form of training. 
It is decisions like this one—the slashing of the training incentive allowance—that wreak havoc with those already facing challenges and with the children we are working hard to raise. During a time of recession we do not need to have additional obstacles thrown at our most vulnerable. The repercussions of these types of decisions are felt not only by the sole parents who will no longer be eligible for just over $3000 a year of support towards transport childcare and/or fees but also by their children. Perhaps the National Government does not consider this to be a large amount of money but I can testify to the fact—and I am sure that other sole parents can also testify—that it contributes hugely when we are full-time students trying to raise children by ourselves. The best way to end this speech is by asking the National Government: where is the vision? Where are the aspirations for all New Zealanders? We on this side of the House cannot see them and nor can everyone who has been in contact with me.