Smith Nick: Budget Debate 
Smith Nick: Budget Debate 
[Volume:608;Page:6014] 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (NZ National—Nelson) 
: 
 This was a Budget of disappointment and lost opportunities and in no area is that more so than in the area of education. I had great expectations given all the spin before the Budget that there would be some meaningful initiatives in that key area. But the more I have looked at this Budget the more I think that the education sector and the people who have a passion for the next generation will be bitterly disappointed. I want to concentrate on a number of the announcements because I can now see why this Government has such a strong interest in ensuring New Zealanders do not have basic numeracy skills. There is in this Budget I have to say one con job after another in respect of the spin not matching up to the substance. 
I come to the first great release in this Budget from the Minister of Education. He said we were to have a major boost to literacy in this Budget—a major literacy bid. And I thought that was good because I was ashamed as a New Zealander to read the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study released last month which showed that New Zealand’s results were second to the bottom in the English-speaking world. So when the Minister announced there would be a major new literacy initiative I had the hope that we might do something to address that key issue. And what do we have? We have $15 million over 4 years. 
If people do a little mathematics—I know Government members may struggle to do so—they will find that that works out to less than $4 million per year for the 380000 students in years 1 to 8 that it is meant to help. That works out at 18c per student. I ask the House and particularly the Government members whether we really think we will be able to lift the literacy standards of New Zealanders and get this country back to where it was 30 years ago at the top of the league tables in terms of literacy standards with the 18c per student funding that is in this Budget. If that is not a joke I do not know what is. 
It is interesting that the Government is even to spend more money on treaty education than on literacy. Rather than teaching our young New Zealanders how to read and write this Government is to put more money from this Budget into treaty education—political correctness. 
Edwin Perry 
: $6.5 million. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: $6.5 million. I ask the member who interjected—a Maori member—whether that money would not be better put into basic literacy and numeracy skills. 
Edwin Perry 
: Hear hear! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: “Hear hear!” he says and he is right. Members on the Opposition side of the House say that putting money into the basics like literacy and numeracy should far exceed the sort of political correctness that is to be stuck down the throats of New Zealanders with the proposed $6.5 million for treaty education. 
Now anybody who is involved in secondary education will know that it has been a huge struggle for schools to meet the costs of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). In fact we had an Education and Science Committee inquiry into that and the unanimous recommendations of the committee were that schools needed some funding and resources to be able to implement that new qualification. So when I looked in the Budget I thought yes maybe the Labour members of the select committee the Government or the United Future party had been able to recognise the huge extra costs that there are. We heard at the select committee that the cost of implementing the NCEA would be about $50000 for an average-sized secondary school. 
When I looked in the Budget at how much money had been allocated for schools to implement that qualification I saw it was $1.8 million. That works out at less than $1.80 per student per year. Does anybody in this House believe that less than $1.80 per student will meet the costs to secondary schools that have come about because of the implementation of the NCEA? Does any member of the Government believe that that is true? That sum is less than 1 percent of what was estimated in the evidence to the select committee inquiry into those costs. 
But megabucks are being provided for the bureaucracy. While the schools receive $1.8 million the New Zealand Qualifications Authority is being provided with $36 million. That is the same authority that over two years has doubled the NCEA fees met by parents. So the Government members are saying there should be megabucks—$36 million—for the New Zealand Qualifications Authority and $1.8 million for schools. Does that not speak volumes about how the Government is investing in its bureaucrats and saying “Stuff the teachers and the students.” That says so much about this Government. 
Then I saw a bold announcement in the Budget that all 15 to 19-year-olds are to be in education by 2006. Is that not an interesting year to choose? It is just after the next election so that the Government cannot be held accountable. Well before I will believe that this Government can get all 15 to 19-year-olds into education I say let us get all those children into education who are required to be there by law. We know that 4048 students were reported as long-term truants last year. That is a tragedy. There are another 7407 students on the Correspondence School roll because they have been expelled from school. Does anybody in this House believe that a student who has been expelled from school—in some cases from multiple schools—will receive a meaningful education by mail? I believe not; it is a joke. 
Is there anything—is there a penny—in the Budget for dealing with that truancy crisis? There is not one bean or one dollar. In fact over the last 4 years the funding in real terms for the truancy services provided in this country has been reduced by $3.8 million. I ask this Government where its priorities are. It should not tell us that it will get all 15 to 19-year-olds into meaningful education when it cannot even meet its legal obligation to ensure that all those of school age are in fact at school. 
Then we come to the bold announcement that $61 million extra will be provided for schools’ operating grants—the subtext is that that is over 4 years. Is that not a great trick? The Government must believe that New Zealanders cannot do maths with those sorts of sums. The rate actually works out at 2 percent. What is the Government’s official inflation rate for the last year? It is 2.5 percent. So what does that mean for the funding in our schools? It means they are going backwards. At a time when we have a $4 billion surplus real funding for schools per pupil is being cut and I say that that is a shame. 
 I also want to refer to some of the local con jobs in this Budget. The Minister of Housing stated in the local newspaper in my electorate on Monday that there was a solution to the biggest constituency issue in my area the huge 35 percent increase in housing costs over the last year. He stated that all the answers were in the Budget. He stated that the Government had great new housing initiatives and would be providing $69 million for community initiatives so that local government and iwi organisations may be able to provide housing. It sounded pretty good and the local branch of the Labour Party said it sounded fantastic. Well let us look at the detail. We can see it is spread over 4 years. That works out at $16 million per year. If that is divided amongst 76 local authorities it means my area will get about $180000. That is one house! I have 169 people sitting on waiting lists in Nelson. Does that mean it will take this Labour Government 169 years to provide houses for those people in my electorate? 
David Benson-Pope 
: How many houses did that member’s party sell in Nelson? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes indeed. In fact I have a letter. “Mr Benson-Dope” says he was— 
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: The member’s time has expired.