Maharey Steve: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
Maharey Steve: Supplementary Estimates — Imprest Supply Debate 
[Volume:632;Page:3711] 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the Appropriation (2005/06 Supplementary Estimates) Bill and to look at the expenditure for the Government because of course this debate takes place within the context of the broader programme that the Government has embarked on—and in fact the country has embarked on. It is I think common knowledge now that the focus of the Government is on a programme of very serious change in New Zealand. In fact we have gone so far as to use the words “transformation of New Zealand” by which we mean that we want to go from the way we were to the way we are meant to be if we are to succeed in the 21st century. 
Stated quite simply what I mean by that is that if we look at what we were we can see that most of the people in this House—not some of the people here but the majority of them—who have grown up here during the past century have lived in a country that had low skills low wages and low productivity and that was highly successful in employment. It was a highly successful society but it was a society based largely on the production of things that we did not have to do much about. We took advantage of the fact that we lived in a country with good water good air good grass good growth and a good climate and we lived as people used to say in the old days off the sheep’s back. We know today that that simply will not get us through the 21st century. We know that we must go through a period of major change. We have been going through those changes but we are not there yet. We have not yet got over the hurdles that will take us to what we need to do in the 21st century. 
What we need to do today is to become what most people would refer to as a knowledge-based economy and society. In simple terms that means we have to produce more knowledge in New Zealand—we produce about 0.01 percent of the world’s knowledge in this country at the present time—and we need to apply more knowledge. We may be able to produce a little more but we can apply a lot more because we can take the whole stock of knowledge around the world that is relevant to us and make use of it right here in this country. That is the aim of this Government. We can call it a smart society or a smart economy—whatever we want to say—but we know we need to do that. We need to focus ruthlessly on the process of making ourselves a knowledge-based economy and society. If we are to do that then we have to invest. That is really what this debate is about. It is about how to invest the money we take off New Zealanders like ourselves like the families who are working hard to get by and like the businesses. We take money off them and we invest it. 
One of the arguments we have heard so far is that an investment would be to cut taxes—to give large personal tax cuts. What would happen if that was done? Would person X in Wanganui today say to Mr Ryall or anybody else on the National Party side: “Thank you. I’m an average income earner and I know you’ve just given $250 to people who are well off like Dr Brash but as an average earner I have $10. I am sitting at my kitchen table and I want New Zealand to be a knowledge-based society and economy because my kids need to have a real future. So I will take the $10 and invest a little bit in health to make Mr Hodgson happy that he can do things about trying to resolve the issue of all New Zealanders getting access to health care when they need it. Health care is always going to be rationed. It’s a tough job but he could always use some more money so I will give him some. I will give a bit to Mr Maharey because we want to have great schools and to employ more teachers. And I will give a little bit to Mrs King so we can have a few more roads.” And the old $10 is being split up in that example in a way that just will not happen in reality—it just will not happen. 
Does any member in the House—it is packed in here at the present time I tell those listeners to this debate who are at home—think New Zealanders in the average household who have their $10-a-week tax cut would sit there and divide it up in that way? No they would not. They would spend it across the shop counter and cause inflation in our already overheating economy. So that $10 would be worth nothing in minutes because people would have pumped it into the economy for consumption. That is what would happen and then those people would come back and ask where the investment was for health education roads housing driving our economy science and everything else we need to transform the country. It is a simple choice to make. How do we invest the taxes we take? Do we invest them through individual microchoices in households where people spend their 10 bucks or do we aggregate that money so we can attack the issues that are holding back the transformation of this country? 
It is interesting that in Australia people have had exactly that debate in the business communities there. Where is the investment in the things that will transform Australia? Where is the money that underpins the research and development Australia needs in order to get smarter businesses so they can sell elaborately transformed manufactured products and earn a better living long term for Australia? Eventually Australia will have to stop digging up coal and sending it to China. It will actually have to make a living off being smart. That is what Australia argued for and that is what New Zealand argues for and that is why in this Budget we see investment in the economy in society in groups like Maori in groups that are concerned about our biosecurity and environment in infrastructure like roading and in the creativity that will drive this country to do the kinds of thing I am talking about. 
As someone who is interested in social policy issues I am pleased to see that the Government will continue to invest in the social areas of this country because it is not as many people see it the case that when we invest in areas like health or education and so on it is like having a limitless blank cheque. Those investments are made into trying to keep New Zealanders healthy so they can contribute educated so they can contribute and well housed so they can contribute. In fact we now know that if we do not develop socially there is an eventual break in what we can do economically. If we do not invest in literacy and in the kids in South Auckland who are living in homes where they are not eating properly and who are going to school without having the aspiration to stay there after they are 16 and get a qualification then they are not going to be part of the transformation of New Zealand at all. So social investment is important. 
In this Budget we have seen some wonderful social investment in the areas I am closest to such as education. We know and have argued for a long time in this country that investment in early childhood education—in the kids with the smallest shoes as they used to be called—is the best expenditure we can make of any education dollar. If we can get those kids to become socially and educationally poised to go on to the compulsory school system and really start to take advantage of what they are doing we know they will accelerate right through the education system. So we have put money into free early childhood education and playcentres. We have adjusted the funding rates for early childhood education. We have invested in the primary school sector—in new teachers in school property and in the operations fund going up by $37 per child every year. We have invested in information and communications technology so we can make sure that people have a choice wherever they may be in terms of their education. 
We have invested in the other area that helps us with what we are doing in knowledge and that is research science and technology. We are boosting commercialisation. We are investing more in our Crown research institutes. We are investing in pastoral research energy biosecurity and biodiversity. We are investing in our partnerships with scientists all around the world. We are piloting new programmes to get young people in schools interested in science so they can go on and make a career that includes science in whatever they may do. 
Anne Tolley 
: They should do more research. 
Hon STEVE MAHAREY 
: Making those kinds of investments is what we are doing with taxpayer dollars. 
Mrs Tolley may want the people of Gisborne to sit around with their $10 clip it up and decide whether to put that money into roads education and so on but she knows in her heart of hearts that that would not happen. She knows in her heart of hearts that the only reason the region she comes from is growing is that 6 years ago a Government came into power led by Labour that said it would invest again in the regions and in the things that make regions grow and every single region is growing as a result of it. It is therefore extraordinary to see after 6 years of the Government making that investment that the National Party wants to cash up those advantages and bugger off and spend the money. That is basically what it wants to do whereas for members on the Government side of the House this Budget was another investment Budget that we believe strongly in. 
I close by thanking Michael Cullen for his stewardship over the last 6 years and for another fantastic Budget.