Mahuta Nanaia: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Mahuta Nanaia: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in this part of the debate and say that National’s Budget for 2012 was a woeful attempt for a second-term Government. It had zero growth zero plans and zero ideas in education. It should be ashamed to present that kind of Budget to this House because hard-working Kiwi families are no better off under National. Vulnerable families are worse off under National and times are really tough. We hear it throughout the country as we visit communities as we visit schools as we visit social service organisations and as we visit health organisations. People are really struggling and they got nothing under this Budget. 
But whose interests are treated like a political football under National? The interests of our children—our kids. There are 270000 children living in poverty and 87000 young people are not engaged in any employment or training. There is intergenerational unemployment predominantly amongst Maori and Pacific families and what is this Government doing about it? Nothing. Not only does it not care but also it does not recognise that inequality and poverty exist in New Zealand. It is shameful in a society like ours which prides itself as being a caring and socially responsible society. But what are people hearing from National? A lack of direction. It does not portray a fair and just society which certainly we in Labour believe that we should be working towards where all boats can rise through education. 
In fact National is chasing its tail on education in a way. People cannot make sense of where it is going. They cannot make sense of the message that they are hearing from this Government. They cannot make sense of the blind ideology that National is pushing through in an agenda that people suspect will eventually see the privatisation of our quality public education system which will do irreparable damage to the great majority of Kiwi kids who go to our public schools and for their parents who want the best for their kids in those public schools. Blunder after blunder after blunder has occurred. 
National treats education like a cost centre where trade-offs need to be made and where inevitably it is the kids learning who are put at risk. This is how it sees one of the most important issues and portfolios that it is custodian for in our society. Well we in Labour say no that is not what the future is about in education. We need to invest in education and in training our people and in upskilling and reskilling those who are in the labour market that exists now. Why? Because their future requires it. If we want all boats to rise and every child in every family—not excluding anybody—to get ahead then it is what we do in education training and upskilling and in our tertiary centre connections that will be the proof of the pudding. Sadly National by its own standard will get a great big Not Achieved—Not Achieved in vision Not Achieved in policy and Not Achieved in delivery. The proof of the pudding is in our communities where people can tell very real stories. 
Let us look at the track record. Larger class sizes is what we heard in National’s Budget in 2012. This was promoted right up there alongside the pickpocket tax—the paper boy tax. What we heard from National was the view that larger class sizes would not make an iota of difference to the learning outcome of children because it was about the teacher. Well in fact the parents heard that message. They shook their heads and thought: “What is National on? What planet is it on?”. 
The Government did not listen to the advice that was coming from its local schools and principals who said: “This is not about one or two teachers. This is about in our community up to four or six teachers being lost because we have the technology centre hub for our school community.” Did National listen? No it was obstinate. For 10-odd days it was obstinate about its larger class sizes policy. Well after 10 days it had to reverse this policy not because the Minister believed it was the right thing to do based on evidence or based on practical experience from the community but because the parental pressure was so great. Well I say that it is a victory for parents but it is a great victory for kids based on evidence that shows that larger class sizes would have done irreparable damage to vulnerable learners and disadvantaged learners. And all the while the Minister did not listen to that advice—information reports evidence tabled in this House and questions to the Minister directly. She did not listen to the evidence but she still had to retract the policy. What has happened? It has left a $114 million budget hole in her portfolio. 
Then quickly on the back of this we got the promotion of unregistered teachers in charter schools. On the one hand in the public school system we place higher obligations on the quality of teachers in our public school system but in charter schools you can recruit anybody. There is a mixed message coming there and people are really sceptical that charter schools are set up to compete with our public school sector and will do irreparable damage to the quality of learning that our children should be expecting under the public education system. It is a crock. 
National standards—well to some extent people know that they will have to implement national standards even though it makes not one iota of difference to children’s learning outcomes. Quickly on the back of that the Minister is promoting a standardised model of reporting through her Public Achievement Information initiative or PAI and those measures are ropey. They are unreliable; they are variable. In fact we know that there is greater variability amongst teachers within schools and across schools to ensure that those standards are reliable so that parents can make good assessments about how effective a school is and what the quality of learning progression is for their child. There is no way that national standards can be used as the comparative. Again people are really really concerned about the potential of league tables coming on the back of national standards. The Minister will not stand up in this House and refute any idea that she is going to implement league tables. We think she will implement them. 
National does treat education like a cost centre. It is not good enough. It is an investment. Our children deserve it. They are the future that we must build hope for and with. They deserve the type of learning in our public education system that will give them a better start no matter what walk of life they come from. This Minister needs to wake up smell the coffee look at the evidence and ensure that she is listening to the sector in ways that will deliver positive outcomes for our children because they deserve it. She is going about it the wrong way. It is not making a difference. She is sending mixed signals to the sector. She is not working with it. 
This is not about quality; this is about blatant ideology under National—blatant ideology in one of the most important portfolios there is on that side of the Treasury benches—and it needs to get it right because all our children deserve it. If it does not what ends up happening is we get winners and losers. We get those children who are most disadvantaged and vulnerable never being able to get ahead. We get the ladder being pulled up by National which will not believe that opportunity belongs to everybody. 
Well Labour does. Labour believes that education is the kind of portfolio where every child from every walk of life and from every community can get ahead but we need to invest in our public education system. We do not need greater competition through public-private partnerships through charter schools through making teachers compete through creating a low-trust environment and through taking away the pillars of what makes our effective teaching practice great which is greater collaboration. National is doing irreparable harm to our public education system. It should be ashamed because far too many people rely on the public education system to get ahead. It is simply not good enough. 
Finally can I say this. There is a $114 million hole in National’s Budget because of the larger class size turn-round. Where will that money come from? What will go next? We are looking carefully at this because we do not believe the Minister will stop and not try to look for greater savings. What will go next? Is it going to be a greater emphasis on amalgamation? Is it going to be capping the number of teachers? We can say all types of things but we can suppose only that the Minster is beavering away looking for savings of $114 million in her portfolio because education is not an investment to National; it is a cost centre. 
Cut cut cut—that is what we expect in the 2013 Budget. It will not look good for education under National. It will not look good for the many many children who need education to get ahead and climb the ladder of opportunity that Labour believes is theirs—every one of them. Thank you.