Hipkins Chris: Budget Debate 
Text is subject to correction 
Hipkins Chris: Budget Debate 
[Sitting date: 31 May 2012. Volume:680;Page:2776. Text is subject to correction.] 
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
: 
 Some of the old cold and mouldy State houses that the Minister of Housing referred to were in my electorate. They were old they were cold and they were mouldy and they did need some work. Phil Heatley came in and demolished them. He demolished them completely and the land is now empty and the land has stayed empty since he demolished them. Anybody who wanted to move into a State house would have to ring up his 0800 number and wait and wait and wait to get into a house that Phil Heatley had demolished—gone completely. He did not fix the problem; just demolished the houses and left the land empty—demolished gone. So I guess that is one way to solve the problem is it not? Just demolish the houses. Forget about the people who live there. Forget about anybody else. Forget about anybody who might need some State housing; just demolish the houses. Leave the land empty. Now his latest solution is to sell the land—to sell it off. That is another way to deal with it I guess: demolish the houses and sell the land off. It does not actually help the people who were living in those old cold and mouldy State houses. It does not help them one bit at all. In fact it makes them potentially homeless. If someone is living in their car now under Phil Heatley they cannot go to a Housing New Zealand Corporation office any more; they need to ring an 0800 number. So this person who is living in a car is supposed to have a car and ring an 0800 number— 
Charles Chauvel 
: They’ll use a car phone.  
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: That is right because someone living in their car is very likely to have a car phone! They are going to have to wait for at least about 40 minutes before someone answers that call—if in fact the call gets answered. This is a person living in their car. That is Phil Heatley’s idea of solving New Zealand’s housing problems. I think that speaks for itself.  
This is a Government that is interested in governing for today and for the benefit of people like its members. It is not a Government that is interested in governing for a better future for all New Zealanders and this Budget screamed that out loud. It is about making short-term decisions that will benefit people like its members regardless of the impact those decisions are going to have on the future of this country. The Government has cut funding successively in the time that it has been in Government to early childhood education. It has continued to cut funding for early childhood education even though all of the research says that kids who get quality early childhood education are more likely to succeed later on in the system. In this Budget what it did was punish people in New Zealand—hard-working Kiwis who are working and who are at the bottom of the ladder and are trying to pull themselves up. They got punished by this Government. The paper boys— 
Louise Upston 
: And what would you have done eh?  
CHRIS HIPKINS 
: Well we would not have cut the tax credit for the paper boys a measure that saves very little money but sends a message to the paper boys that says: “Don’t work hard to try to get ahead don’t work hard to make your life better because you’ll be punished by this National Government.” People who are from relatively modest backgrounds who want to do tertiary education study particularly at postgraduate level or maybe a medical degree which takes many years to complete are going to have their eligibility for a student allowance taken away. What it says is that if someone is from a family with means who can support them through their tertiary study they should think about a programme of study that is going to be greater than 4 years. They should think about medicine they should think about dentistry and those other sorts of programmes that take more than 4 years. But if you are from a poor family a family who cannot afford to support you for 5 6 or 7 years of tertiary study do not bother applying because this Government is not interested in providing support to those people.  
What it is basically saying about tertiary education is that it should return to being the preserve of the people on the highest incomes and who come from families of means and forget about the low-income families who want to make a better life for themselves and for any children that they might have. No no no this Government is not interested one jot in them. It is content to make life much more difficult for them and to pull the ladder up so that they do not get the chance to work hard and make a better life for themselves. 
 Perhaps the best example of the short-sightedness of this Government’s Budget the zero Budget that we have seen from this Government has been the changes that it has made to class sizes. This is a Government that is arguing that we can improve the outcomes of our education system by putting more kids into every class. That is what it is trying to tell New Zealanders. And every parent and every teacher knows—they know—that that simply is wrong. This must be the only Government in the world that thinks that we will get a better outcome from our education system by putting more kids into every class.  
Not only has it made that rather Draconian decision but it has totally failed to consider the detailed implications of the policies that have gone through Cabinet. It took a Cabinet paper through that reduced the number of teachers in year 7 and year 8 of intermediate schools without one Cabinet Minister at any point asking to see a list of the schools that would be affected by that change. Not one Minister at any point thought gosh do we think we should actually look at what this might mean for real actual schools? Nobody—nobody—not one of those 20 Cabinet Ministers including the Minister of Education thought that it would be a good idea to look at what the actual impact of the policy that they were voting for that they were approving and putting in the Budget was going to be on actual schools. Not one. Twenty Cabinet Ministers and not one of them asked for an analysis of the actual impact of the policy—including the Prime Minister who then tried to deny that he knew anything about it despite the fact that he chairs the Cabinet that approved the policy that was put forward by Hekia Parata the Minister of Education who clearly did not understand it. That is simply atrocious government. It is incompetence at the highest level of our Government and it should not be allowed to stand or to go unchecked. It should not be allowed to go unchecked.  
I have here newsletters from the intermediate schools in my electorate pointing out what these changes would mean for them. This one from Fergusson Intermediate School is headed up “Budget cuts will cripple intermediate schools”. The principal there talks about the fact that the horror of these details is that they show a devastating cut to the staffing of intermediate schools. He states very clearly and I quote directly from it: “Our choice will be to abandon the technology/arts specialist teacher positions or retain these positions and lose at least three classroom teachers.” Further on through the newsletter he points out that the result of losing those three classroom teachers would be that students end up in classes of 38 students. So either forget about doing woodwork metalwork and those other sorts of subjects—the technology subjects—or end up in a class of 38. The thing is the cap that the Minister has applied is a total hoax because it lasts only for 3 years and then the new ratios are going to kick in anyway. So it does not actually solve the problem; it simply delays the implementation of it. Intermediate schools are being done over.  
I will read from a newsletter from Maidstone Intermediate: “The idea that increasing class sizes will improve the quality of education for your child is difficult to comprehend.” That is a direct quote from the principal of Maidstone Intermediate. He points out that a whole lot of the extra activities that parents and students really value will be put at risk by this policy. Again I will quote: “The whole nature of what intermediates provide is under threat. Opportunities such as winter sport personal development options Stage Challenge computer extension groups kapahaka would all cease to operate because we would not have the staffing to sustain these programmes.” That is John Key’s and Hekia Parata’s vision of a better education system. How is that possibly raising the standard of education in this country? This Government claims to care about standards of education. It does not raise the standard of education in New Zealand to put more and more kids into the same classes.  
I will go back to quoting from the principal of Fergusson Intermediate because I think he puts it very well: “Teacher quality will not improve with higher class numbers! Student learning will not improve with higher class numbers! Student engagement particularly for students who enjoy and excel in hands on learning will not remain at the current high level when all of those options are gone from their schooling.” And that is the reality that they will face under this National Government. Hekia Parata’s cap on this policy makes it very clear. Those New Zealanders who care about the future of education will have to vote for a change of Government if they do not want to see massively bigger class sizes in 3 years’ time when that cap is removed.