Robertson Grant: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Robertson Grant: Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:665;Page:12770] 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 It is interesting to hear the Minister of Education get up to talk about all of the things she is proud of. I wonder how proud she is of the Building Act 1991 which created the problem of leaky buildings by deregulating the building industry. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Oh she says: “No”. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Oh yes it did by deregulating the building industry and allowing the cowboys to take charge. If those schools were leaky it would be interesting to see how many of them were built in the immediate period after that National Government put in place the Building Act 1991. She also talked a little bit about empty schools. I tell members that there is one time of the day now when there are a lot of empty schools around New Zealand and that is in the evening. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well that was when night classes were being held around New Zealand. But unfortunately in this appropriation and in last year’s appropriation there was a reduction in funding for adult and community education and night schools. 
Paul Quinn 
: Not in Wainuiomata High Grant. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Mr Quinn interjects very loudly. I ask him how many schools in the Hutt Valley where he allegedly tries to represent people are offering night classes this year. I ask him how many. I tell Mr Quinn that there are zero absolutely none because that member’s Government cut the funding. Mr Quinn can interject all he likes but in the Hutt Valley—where the people he says that he represents live—there are no night classes this year as a result of the funding cut. 
It was interesting to hear in the House today the Prime Minister’s comments on the interest-free student loans scheme. What the Prime Minister said today was instructive. He said that he has no intention of getting rid of the interest-free student loan scheme. Presumably this is a similar kind of intention to having no intention to mine national parks—“Oh no we are not sure; maybe we will; we will think about it in the future.” So it was a decisive statement from the Prime Minister today that he has no intention to get rid of the interest-free student loan scheme except that when he talked to Victoria University students yesterday he said that the scheme is a disaster economically it does not really stack up and there has to be a better way of doing it. Well if he really believes that why does he not do something about it? Why does he not actually put in front of the public the policy that he believes in? Those members across the Chamber do not believe in interest-free student loans. I know that Chris Finlayson does not believe in interest-free student loans. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: How does the member know that? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Because I have listened to the member on many occasions. That Government does not believe in interest-free student loans but it does not have the courage of its convictions to stand up with a different policy which is what the Prime Minister actually wants. We have a lot of proof of what the Prime Minister thinks about the interest-free student loans scheme because in this House on 16 November 2005 John Key said: “What a cost to the country. What an unaffordable and irresponsible cost to the country. It is a sad day.” Then he went on to say that National members would be opposing it with every bone in their bodies. 
Moana Mackey 
: Every bone? 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: Well there is not a lot of backbone being shown here by Mr Key. If he really believes that interest-free student loans are such a cost on this country why does he not have the courage of his convictions to put that in front of the public? 
The problem with National’s approach to tertiary education is that it sees it simply as a sector to take money from rather than a sector to invest in for the good of all New Zealanders and for our future. I think it is very important to note that this appropriation for education covers the period in which a fundamental change will take place in universities. People who have university entrance will be denied entry to university next year. That is a major change and the Government is standing there—Mr Joyce is standing there—like a bystander at a car accident doing absolutely nothing but expressing concern and kicking the tyres. That is all that Mr Joyce is prepared to do while thousands of New Zealanders will not be able to go on to university next year. If they want to go to a polytech they will struggle to get into a lot of those because tens of millions of dollars are being taken out of the polytechnic sector as well. 
Tertiary education should be the engine room of this economy. It should be part of the plan if National had a plan but it is not. Tens of millions of dollars are out of the tertiary sector. There are cuts to adult and community education and to university funding and now there is a tax on the student loans scheme as well. It is quite clear that this Government is not interested in catching up with Australia because it has no plan to catch up with Australia. If it did it would be a plan that would involve investing at least a fraction of what the Australians are but that is not what this Government has done. We will fall further and further behind Australia if this Government is not prepared to invest in tertiary education. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: We now have a motion in the name of the Hon Trevor Mallard to change Vote Education. The question is that Vote Education be changed by omitting from Schedule 1 “1364193” from the item relating to “School Property Portfolio Management” and substituting “1364593” and also by omitting “17610” from the item relating to “Schools Furniture and Equipment” and substituting “17210”.