Donnelly Brian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
Donnelly Brian: Debate on Prime Minister’s Statement 
[Volume:606;Page:3306] 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY (NZ First) 
: 
 I have often commented that in the area in which I grew up to fly a blue ribbon either on one’s car or on one’s person on election day was tantamount to suicide. That is because it was a working-class area and during those years the legacy of the first great Labour Government between 1935 and 1949 the Savage and Fraser Governments served the working-class families of New Zealand extremely well. Had it not been for the policies introduced by that Government in health and housing and most of all in education I certainly would not have had such a positive upbringing. I learnt the mantra that “Labour looks after working-class families.” before I learnt “Baa baa black sheep.” because Labour was the party of working-class families. The actions of the fourth Labour Government between 1984 and 1990 challenged the validity of that mantra and I for one at the time felt a deep sense of betrayal when Roger Douglas aided and abetted by many of those occupying Government front benches nowadays brought in policies that were disastrous to working-class families. 
This Labour Government claims that it has gone back to its roots. Last week I was made aware of a decision by this Government that I believe makes a mockery of that claim. The decision I am talking about is the increase in the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) fees from $80 to $150. It is an increase of almost 100 percent and it is totally unjustified. I ask members opposite what possible justification there can be for a cost increase of that magnitude. The Government has a monopoly on New Zealand qualifications. Parents have no choice. It is either pay up or do not gain the qualification. That may seem a pretty small and insignificant matter when within 48 hours the world might be plunged into a grotesque war but to the families affected it is not insignificant. To the children who end up without their school achievements recognised it is certainly not insignificant.  
When I heard the information I have to say that I was gobsmacked. How could a Labour Government treat low-income working-class families with such callous disregard? It is nothing more than a parental tax. It the reversal of the old family benefit which was of such importance to my mother during lean times. In those days the Government provided £3 per week per child to parents. This Government expects parents of year 11 to year 13 children to pay it $3 a week for the privilege of being a responsible parent. What is so offensive about that qualification tax is that it will be most taxing on low-income working-class families—the battlers on Struggle Street.  
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon BRIAN DONNELLY 
: Prior to the break for dinner I was talking about what I consider to be an appalling decision—to almost double the NCEA fees. I claim that it is appalling because the very people it will hurt most of all are the people the Labour Party purports to represent. The thesis is that it can no longer claim to be a party that is friendly to the working classes. It is a party that is friendly to the non-working classes but certainly not to the working classes. As Richard Prebble has said from the research he has done through the Parliamentary Library the average New Zealand family’s income has dropped by $14 per week since this Government took over. Now we are imposing upon some of those families who happen to have children and who are responsible and want them to have a good education an additional $3 per week purely and simply as a tax to fund the qualification. 
The Government will tell us that there are financial assistance grants for those facing hardship but they will not tell us that these apply only to those people who are on benefits or have an annual income equivalent to benefits. During the break the Hon Rick Barker publicly stated that the amount the Government gives beneficiaries is the bare essential only. Those people have to pay only $35 but anyone who happens to be earning anything more than the bare essential has to pay the whole $150. They do have a choice: their child does not sit NCEA. Their child does not get the qualification.  
In fact Trevor Mallard the Minister has said: “Oh you can still sit it if you like but you won’t get your qualification until you pay the fee.” What is that going to mean? It will mean a whole lot of people who think they will try but if they bomb out they will not pay the fee and then it will not cost anything. The whole thing is fraught with extreme difficulty.  
What about the family with three children one at each level? What about the family with triplets? What will this mean to those families? Let me tell members here and now that the Child Poverty Action Group has done research on the implications of the fees for 2002 and this shows that there were dramatic effects on average to low-income families and people were simply not paying the fees. There were kids who were too scared to go home and tell their parents so they came to the examination day and had not paid.  
We have quotes from schools: “We had about 20 students withdrawing altogether from everything. They did have credits but they did not pay the bill and at least half of those because they could not pay the bill.” Here is another quote: “In some cases the kids had got the credits and they still wanted to wipe them out. That was one of the saddest things. I was so depressed that day when I walked out of here because so many students had come in to make me reduce their bills so they could afford them.” These were students who had already achieved the standards but their families could not afford them and that is on $80 per NCEA stage not on $150. So I am saying to members of the Government that they should take note of the effect this will have upon average and low-income working families.  
Today the Prime Minister was crowing about centres of excellence and what the Government has been doing with those but how are these young people ever going to get into the centres of excellence when they cannot get past stage one of NCEA? They cannot get their qualifications recognised because their parents are simply not able to pay. I agree with what the Prime Minister said today but unfortunately it was hollow rhetoric. She said the nation has to make full use of its capacity and the talent within its widest society. We totally agree with that in New Zealand First yet this policy is shutting people out. It is shutting the gate before they even get into the first paddock. That is the effect that this policy will have on people.  
The Minister of Education has said that NCEA actually costs more to administer. He has said that it is more expensive and therefore we have to recoup some of the losses. I ask the Minister of Education why if that is the case parents whose children are doing the transitional Sixth Form Certificate qualification—a very cheap qualification to run because the teachers do the grading and the schools do the allocation of the grades—are also paying $150. It has nothing to do with the costs of NCEA. It has to do with the fact that the implementation of NCEA was done on a shoestring. The Minister knew that that shoestring was there in 1999 when he took over and he did not make adequate moneys available. In other words we have a Rolls Royce of a qualification system that is being run on a Lada budget.  
That is why the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has used up all its reserves in trying to implement the NCEA and now parents are having to pay for it and pick up the cost. This is nothing more than a parents tax and it is a parents tax that is going to hurt people on average and low incomes most of all—working-class families. It will be their children who will not be able to get their qualifications recognised because they will not be able to afford it. Need I say that this will be a terrible burden on families from the Pacific Islands and Maori families particularly larger families. For many of them there will be only one choice—either they have food on the table or the children get their NCEA qualification.  
What sort of system is that? Members of the Government should be embarrassed that they have allowed their executive to come up with this sort of decision and to drop it on people at the beginning of the 2003 academic year. The schools themselves are worried that some of their capable students will now not get past NCEA stage one and we well and truly know what that means in terms of their futures. They have no futures. The futures of young New Zealanders are dependent upon their getting on that ladder of learning and that starts with NCEA. This decision is an appalling indictment on this Government. 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister for Ethnic Affairs) 
: 
 Members of the House have tonight probably heard some very unusual music for Parliament echoing around the chambers here in the old Parliament building. The reason for that is the Government is hosting a Chinese New Year function at Parliament tonight. I would like to make reference to that function and to the words the Prime Minister used in her address to the House earlier today when she said that this Government values diversity in New Zealand and values diversity in our society. Tonight over 400 members of the Chinese community the diplomatic corps members of Parliament the Chinese Ambassador and the Singaporean High Commissioner have gathered at Parliament to celebrate the lunar festival or as we commonly call it Chinese New Year. This week ushers in the Year of the Goat a year that is well known for its celebration of the arts and for good fortune. Hopefully everybody who has been enjoying the festival has a good year coming up. 
Indeed the members of the Chinese community deserve a good year because they have been very valued migrants to our country. Chinese communities have been coming to New Zealand for over 100 years and they have brought to this country the ethics of hard work commitment to education and strong families. They are a very law-abiding peaceful people. Their statistics in crime are very low and their employment figures are traditionally high although we have had some issues with new migrants accessing employment because of their lack of English language skills. Chinese migrants like the many other new communities that have been coming in recent years are very welcome additions to our community.  
Diversity is a good thing. Some members of this House have spoken against diversity. They are fearful of it and they have played on prejudices about it. I believe that diversity is very good for our community for a number of reasons. First of all it is good economically. The sorts of people who travel to the ends of the world to live in our country—we are a very remote country—have been marked out as people who are ambitious and hard-working. In fact the ancestors of all Kiwis fall into that category whether they came as migrants from tropical Polynesia—the ancestors of the Maori people—800 or 900 years ago; from Europe probably as did your ancestors and mine Mr Speaker over 100 years ago; or more recently from tropical Polynesia as did the Samoan Tongan and other Pacific communities. In more recent times there has been a new wave from Asia and from the Middle East.  
All these migrants are ambitious people who work hard and have contributed to the building of our economy. They have also provided links for our country to other nations. The growing economies of Asia particularly the very dynamic Chinese economy can link in with their own ethnic communities in our country to provide bridges where trade and investment can flow between ourselves and those critical economies just as in the same way 100 years ago my ancestors when they came from Europe built close links with the motherland and continued to trade and exchange ideas and people. That is a very positive thing. It is good for the economy.  
But the greatest of all contributions that the new and diverse ethnic communities have made to our cities and increasingly to the rest of our country is an awareness by the young people who have come from older established communities in New Zealand that the world is a diverse and colourful place. The changes and growth in technology and the breaking down of borders mean that distance is no longer the barrier it once was. The diversity of the world is now a global market and if young people in New Zealand are aware of cultural difference and appreciate and celebrate other cultures they are enriched and stronger in embracing those cultures. They should inevitably do that because of the way barriers are breaking down in the world. 
 The Chinese community has brought a diverse new colour to the Parliament tonight and I am very proud as Minister for Ethnic Affairsalong with the Prime Minister to have hosted tonight’s function. I wish everybody who is listening and members in this House a very happy Chinese New Year.  
Another issue that came up in Parliament today was dog control—the need for a law to protect people in this country from attack by dogs. There have been a number of cases in recent weeks of very savage dog attacks on young children and other citizens going about their peaceful business or just enjoying themselves in public. That is totally unacceptable. As Minister of Local Government—another portfolio I have the privilege to hold—I am working as hard as I can to ensure that people are kept safe in our community.  
But something happened in the Parliament today that has made my job a little bit harder. We had been given an indication from other political parties in this House that we would have cross-party support to deal with this issue. I would like to thank the National Party the Green Party and United Future for their acceptance of the need for quick action on this issue. But today New Zealand First and the ACT party stopped a Government bill in my name on the Order Paper from being referred back to a select committee.  
That bill deals with banning specific breeds of dogs. I do not think that is the whole answer it may not even be part of the answer but it was a vehicle by which we could send that issue to a select committee so that the community and those interested in this issue could make submissions. We could have begun today the process of fixing up the law. Because we were stopped from doing that we now have to draft new legislation. It will have to go through the process of being drafted it will have to go through the process of its first reading and then be referred to a select committee. I say “Shame” because we had the chance to take some quick action on that issue.  
Tomorrow the father of a young girl Carolina Anderson is coming to Parliament. He is coming to meet the Prime Minister. He is coming to meet me in my capacity as Minister of Local Government. He is coming to meet members of Parliament to tell us about the personal anguish that his family has suffered because of this horrific attack on his little girl. I wanted to be able to tell him tomorrow that we are doing something about it—now. What am I going to have to tell that father tomorrow? I am going to have to tell him that the ACT party and the New Zealand First Party stopped that legislation from being open to the public of New Zealand to be able to make submissions on it. I say: “Shame on the ACT party! Shame on New Zealand First!”  
I hope the members of those parties come to my office tomorrow—because there is an open invitation to all MPs to come and meet that father—I hope they come and explain to him why they stopped that bill from going to a select committee and give us some reason.  
Attacks by dogs have been a problem in New Zealand for a very long time. We have to have effective law to keep people safe. The only way we can make effective law—law that will help to protect people—is through a process of good lawmaking. That means sending a bill to a select committee and having experts and people interested in the issue coming along making submissions letting MPs act in a responsible and sensible way. Actually every member of this House knows that mostly at select committees people do contribute in a very positive way. There is cross-party support for making good law. We could have begun that process on this issue in the next week. Now we will have to wait some time and I say that that is sad. But we will do it.  
Finally I want to mention that I did something else very special in the adjournment. I opened the first marine reserve for New Zealand in 4 years in the Auckland Islands. We have protected the biodiversity of 484000 hectares of marine environment in the southern ocean. It was a proud moment for me in my role as Minister of Conservation—another portfolio I am privileged to hold—to be able to do that. I would like to serve notice to this House that the extension of marine protection around New Zealand will be my highest priority as Minister of Conservation. I pledge to this House and to the people of New Zealand that the establishment of more marine reserves around New Zealand protecting our unique environment and providing opportunities for people to learn and to carry out tourist activities and just enjoy themselves will be a very very important activity that I will be engaged in over the next 2 years.