Thursday, 18 October 2012
Volume 684
Sitting date: 18 October 2012
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Thursday, 18 October 2012
Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.
Prayers.
Visitors
Turkey—Delegation, Grand National Assembly
Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have much pleasure in informing the House that a parliamentary delegation from the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, led by Yüksel Özden MP, Vice Chair of the Inquiry Commission for Gifted Children, is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that the delegation be welcomed.
Business Statement
Business Statement
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): When the House resumes on Tuesday, 23 October, the Government will look to continue the Committee stage of the Alcohol Reform Bill and proceed with the second reading and Committee stage of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill and other matters on the Order Paper, depending on progress on Tuesday.
Points of Order
Prisons, Private Management—Tabling of Contract
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under section 199I of the Corrections Act 2004, within 12 days after a prison management contract is entered into the Minister must present a copy of that contract to the House. According to news reports, Serco Group plc advised the London Stock Exchange 12 sitting days ago of its entry into such an arrangement with the New Zealand Department of Corrections. I wondered whether I might ask the Minister of Corrections, through you, Mr Speaker, about her intentions to table the arrangement with the consortium of which Serco is a member, given the statutory requirement that I have cited.
Mr SPEAKER: I am prepared to invite the Minister to indicate a response to that if that is possible.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): My understanding is that the Department of Corrections has been working with the Clerk on the presentation of that, and I understand that it is imminent.
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask the Minister, again through you, whether “imminent” implies that the contract will be presented, as the law requires, by the end of the sitting day? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The thing is that what Charles Chauvel is referring to is what the law actually requires, and it involves this House in that the contract is meant to be presented as a non-parliamentary paper. That is why, I believe, it is relevant to the House. I believe that the member is raising a relevant issue. If the Minister does not have that information, I would ask her to look into the matter as soon as possible, because it is required by the Corrections Act. That is, I think, as far as the matter can be taken right now.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Question No. 1 to Minister
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I seek leave to hold this question over until the Minister of Education is present and available to answer it.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Schools, Partnership—Operation and Accountability Standards
1. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Education: Is it still her strategy in education to “focus on teaching and learning quality” and “transparent accountabilities”?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Education: As set out in the statement of intent, yes, along with reliable and meaningful information for teachers and parents, and investing in 21st century learning environments.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Will the policies and procedures for how charter schools are run, managed, and deliver educational benefits to students be open to public scrutiny and accountability, or will these terms and conditions be hidden away in sponsor contracts?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Our partnership schools will be held accountable.
Grant Robertson: But not through the OIA.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: They will be held to account by a fixed-term contract that specifies the educational outcomes that they have to meet, and will also provide emergency powers for the Secretary for Education to take over the school where students’ educational or physical welfare is at risk. The Education Review Office will conduct regular reviews based on the sponsor’s contract, and all partnership schools with students in years 1 to 8 will be required to report on progress and achievement against national standards.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What criteria will be used to determine the funding and staffing level provisions for charter schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Each school’s contract will differ according to the needs of the sponsor, but, in fact, the partnership schools will negotiate with the Crown for a proportion of the staff not to be registered as a teacher—but that does not mean that they will be unqualified.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It asked for the criteria that will determine the funding and staffing level provision for charter schools. She did not attempt to outline the criteria.
Mr SPEAKER: I believe the Minister said they would be in the contract, and would differ for each school.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is it her intention to standardise non-registration of teachers in both charter and public schools; if not, why does she believe that public schools should have fully qualified teachers but charter schools should not?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Once again the member is confusing unregistered with unqualified. Partnership schools will negotiate with the Crown for a proportion of the staff not to be registered as a teacher, and this does not mean that they are unqualified. In public schools there are early childhood educators, volunteers, teachers under the limited authority to teach category, tertiary educators, trade course teachers, and staff at private training establishments who are teaching at schools now but are not registered with the Teachers Council.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: In light of that answer, does the Minister believe that a prerequisite for registration is teacher qualification?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is irrelevant what the Minister believes. The Teachers Council actually requires a registration.
Economic Growth and Job Support—Progress and Reports
2. MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) to the Minister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in supporting jobs and economic growth?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The National-led Government has taken a number of steps to support jobs and economic growth. This includes support for investment through the Business Growth Agenda, rebalancing tax to favour work and savings, and removing 170 unnecessary and excessive regulations, saving an estimated $200 million in business compliance costs. In addition, today is expected to be the first reading of the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. This provides a new starting-out wage for a number of young New Zealanders to give them the chance to get their foot on the rung of the job ladder. The starting-out wage ensures that young Kiwis will have greater opportunities in a competitive job market to earn money and gain vital skills and experience they need to succeed. It is yet another campaign promise National is delivering on.
Maggie Barry: What reports has he seen on New Zealand prospects for economic and job growth?
Hon TONY RYALL: I have seen a report from the International Monetary Fund that includes the latest forecasts for the world’s 34 OECD economies. As the member will know, it is economic growth that produces job growth. The latest IMF forecast has New Zealand growing by 2.2 percent this year and by an average of 2.9 percent over the next 2 years. On average, we are ranked eighth out of the 34 OECD nations, so we are in the top quarter for economic growth prospects. In terms of the unemployment rate, we currently have the 14th lowest rate of the 34 OECD nations, and the IMF forecasts that over the next 5 years our unemployment rate will continue to drop.
Maggie Barry: What other reports has he seen on the progress being made by the Government’s economic policy?
Hon TONY RYALL: In just the last week, one of the top financial advisers of the American President, Mr Barack Obama, Peter Orszag, participated in a major international debate on rescuing the world economies from a deepening crisis. Among the panellists was the IMF’s Christine Lagarde, and the German Finance Minister. Remarkably, Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget singled out New Zealand as the only country that has provided the right balance of stimulus for the economy with reducing the deficit in the medium term. This is a very strong endorsement from one of the world’s top financial experts. New Zealand’s combination of positive economic growth and deficit reduction is rare amongst Western nations, and reinforces that we are taking New Zealand through and out of the world’s global financial and debt crisis.
Question time interrupted.
Points of Order
Prisons, Private Management—Tabling of Contract
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Corrections): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member. I gave in answer to Mr Chauvel’s point of order before that the tabling of the Department of Corrections’ report was imminent. In fact, I was incorrect; it was tabled at 1 o’clock today.
Question time resumed.
Questions for Oral Answer
Questions to Ministers
Freshwater Management—Water Quality
3. EUGENIE SAGE (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement that, “My preference will always be for all our sites to be safe for swimming”?
Hon AMY ADAMS (Minister for the Environment): Yes.
Eugenie Sage: If that is her preference, why is the Government not using the Resource Management Act to set clean water rules through national environmental standards?
Hon AMY ADAMS: I would remind that member that, in fact, we are undertaking a considerable amount of Resource Management Act reform, amongst which is the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which we have set up. We have the Land and Water Forum, which we established to give for the first time serious consideration to these issues, and we have indicated that the response to some of those recommendations will, indeed, form part of our Resource Management Act reform. But I would also point out to the member that at least our Government is getting on and dealing with these issues—something that the Labour Government, propped up by her party, failed to do for 9 years.
Eugenie Sage: Given that her Government’s weak National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management gives councils until December 2030 to put in place water-quality limits, does she accept that water quality in New Zealand rivers will get worse, not better, while the Government sits on its hands?
Hon AMY ADAMS: The member is right that the national policy statement gives councils until 2030 at the outside, but I am very pleased to report to that member that in actual fact a number of councils are taking very prompt action, and I am even more pleased to report to that member that it is only thanks to the actions of this Government that we have a national policy statement on fresh water at all. Furthermore, in actual fact, the recent report indicates that water quality has improved under this Government after taking over from the incompetence of the previous one.
Eugenie Sage: Why will she not help those councils clean up our rivers by introducing national environmental standards so that there are consistent limits, rather than leaving it to each council to do it in an ad hoc way and set their own limits for their own waterways?
Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I am sure that the councils are delighted that the Government is putting nearly half a billion dollars over 20 years into assisting them with exactly that. It might interest that member to know that in the time this Government has been in office, we have spent $101 million on freshwater clean-up, which compares with a mere $17 million spent by the previous Government in its last 4 years in office.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a question about national environmental standards, which is a specific instrument under the Resource Management Act, and the Minister failed to address that at all.
Mr SPEAKER: To assist the member, I invite Eugenie Sage to repeat her question, because she asked, if I recollect correctly, why certain things were not being done, and I do not think the Minister actually addressed that at all.
Eugenie Sage: Why will the Minister not help councils to clean up our rivers by introducing national environmental standards with some consistent limits, rather than leaving it to each council to set its own water-quality limits in an ad hoc way?
Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I remind the member that I answered—she asked how we are helping councils, and I gave her one very explicit example of how we are helping councils, which is funding them by $101 million over the last 4 years, compared with $17 million. But if the member wishes me to go on about the extensive actions of this Government on freshwater clean-up, I certainly can do so, and—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister must resume her seat. I listened fairly carefully to the member’s question. She did not ask for that, at all. The member, if I recollect correctly, asked why the Government—
Hon AMY ADAMS: No.
Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me. When the member repeated her question, I believe she repeated the question she actually asked the first time round. I invite her to repeat it again, because she did not ask what councils were doing; she asked why the Government was not doing something different. The Minister is perfectly capable of explaining why the Government is choosing to do what it is doing, but I think the question should be answered.
Eugenie Sage: Why will the Minister not help councils to clean up our rivers by introducing national environmental standards with some consistent limits, rather than leaving it up to each council to set its own limits for rivers in an ad hoc way?
Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, for the third time, we are assisting councils to help clean up their rivers, firstly, in the way that I have just indicated, and, secondly, we have a dedicated programme of experts and officials working on exactly the issue of limits of quality and quantity setting, which will help to guide that work.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: “Why will the Government not assist councils by introducing national environmental standards?”. That was the essence of the question. The Minister talked about many other measures, which is fine, but she did not address the question of why the Government will not introduce national environmental standards.
Hon AMY ADAMS: To introduce a national environmental standard, you first have to develop quality and quantity limits—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The House will come to order. [Interruption] Order! Does someone want an early shower? That is not speaking to a point of order. That is actually answering the question. It would be very helpful if the Minister now actually did answer the question, because that was exactly what the question was asking—exactly what the question was asking. But it is not a point of order. It actually should be the answer to the question.
Hon AMY ADAMS: Before a national environmental standard could be introduced, we would need to develop a system of quality and quantity limits. As I mentioned in my previous attempt at answering your question, that is what we are working on. Whether it leads to a national environmental standard or to other forms of assistance to councils has yet to be determined.
Mr SPEAKER: I call Eugenie Sage. [Interruption] Order! Eugenie Sage.
Eugenie Sage: Is she aware that the Marlborough District Council is today considering whether to “take the opportunity provided by the national policy statement on freshwater management to delay the introduction of cumulative contaminant limits” for rivers until at least 2023-24, and that that means rivers like the Rai and Taylor Rivers will remain at high risk of illness for anyone swimming in them?
Hon AMY ADAMS: No, I was not aware of that specifically, but that is a matter for the Marlborough District Council and that community. But I would point out that under the time that the Labour and Green Government was in charge there was no requirement on councils to have any sort of limit.
Paul Goldsmith: What steps has the Government taken to improve the swimmability and quality of fresh water?
Hon AMY ADAMS: The Government has taken extensive steps to improve the safety, quality, and swimmability of our water, and a number of them have already been mentioned today, but I will repeat them for the benefit of members. We have introduced New Zealand’s first ever national policy statement on fresh water, and we have established the Land and Water Forum, bringing together all the key stakeholders in water management for the first time, and allowing a real, collaborative approach to water management. We have committed to continuing with a 20-year investment of half a billion dollars in cleaning up our polluted water sites. We have spent more than five times what the previous Labour Government, propped up by the Greens, did in its last years in office. We have assisted the industry in refreshing the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord. We have put another $15 million—[Interruption]; well, Mr Speaker, there is so much—into the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund, and we have established a dedicated group to work on water quality and quantity issues. This is a Government that is actually doing something about fresh water.
Eugenie Sage: Given that 52 percent of our monitored rivers are unsuitable for swimming and another 28 percent are graded only fair, why is the Government planning to spend more money on irrigation subsidies than on clean water clean-up?
Hon AMY ADAMS: That is the usual sort of confusion of information. The report the member refers to, first of all, reports only on the monitored sites, and the report makes it very clear that it is not a useful indicator for the state of freshwater bodies in New Zealand. It makes it clear that they monitor only the sites they have concerns about. The other interesting thing is that because of the change in methodology, you cannot directly compare. But what it actually shows is that there has been an improvement in our freshwater lakes and rivers. Having said all of that, we are not happy that quite a number of rivers are unsafe for swimming. That is why we are taking all the actions I previously outlined to address it. But the other thing is that it is not right or fair to land this fully at the feet of the farmers. Livestock is one of the issues, as is human waste, as is wildlife, and as is water fowl. All of them must be addressed.
Eugenie Sage: Was the Minister for Primary Industries correct, then, when he stated: “We need to acknowledge that intensive agriculture has environmental impacts. In some catchments we need to limit those impacts …”; if so, will she not take real action to protect our rivers by introducing national environmental standards now?
Hon AMY ADAMS: Yes, I do agree with the Minister for Primary Industries that intensive agriculture has an impact, or is capable of having an impact, and that we have to address it. We are, in fact, addressing it. The issue around national environmental standards I answered previously. We have a dedicated group working on how we might go about assisting councils with quality and quantity limits, and where that gets to we will know in time.
Eugenie Sage: What does she say to the children and families who want to go swimming at Coes Ford or the Upper Selwyn huts on the Selwyn/Waikirikiri River in her electorate but who cannot do that because those once popular swimming spots are graded poor and very poor respectively and are unsuitable for swimming, with no prospect of that improving any time soon?
Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say to those people is that the quality issues we have with some of our water bodies have taken an awfully long time to come to be. They will take even longer to fix, and at least now we have a Government in place that is doing something about it.
Dotcom Case—Discussion on Unlawful Interception of Communications
4. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Attorney-General: Who, other than himself and the Prime Minister, was present at the discussion on the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I have actually had a number of discussions with the Prime Minister about the Government Communications Security Bureau matter, some in person and some on the phone. I cannot recall who was or was not at each and every discussion I have had with the Prime Minister in person.
Charles Chauvel: Has the Prime Minister asked him which other Ministers were present when they discussed the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom? To assist the Attorney-General, I am referring to the particular meeting that has been the subject of questions to the Prime Minister throughout the week.
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.
Charles Chauvel: Has he checked with his office staff whether they recall which other Ministers were present when he discussed the bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom with the Prime Minister?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I have said, there have been a number of meetings and also a number of telephone calls. There was also a telephone—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked the Minister as to who was present at the discussion. Including telephone calls does not allow him to escape in that way. He must answer who was present, which was the direct question.
Charles Chauvel: I did attempt to clarify for the Attorney-General in the first supplementary question which conversation I was referring to, and that is the conversation that I am asking about.
Mr SPEAKER: When I read the primary question my first reaction to the primary question was, “Well, which discussion?”. The Attorney-General pointed out in answering the question that he had had more than one discussion, some face to face and some on the telephone. Forgive me, but, despite one member’s interpretation, this question does not rule out telephone discussions. It refers to just discussion. I cannot say to a member that, actually, the questioner meant that meeting or that discussion. The question is on the Order Paper, and, despite trying to identify which discussion, the member has not identified any particular date. [Interruption] Just before you—[Interruption] Order! The member may not have noticed—I know I am not that tall—but I was still on my feet and I have not recognised the right honourable gentleman yet.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: More than one person in this House, I am certain, understands the words “was present at the discussion” as being a person who was present, not on the phone—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I finish off my point of order?
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member cannot. [Interruption] The member cannot, because it is not a point of order. Points of order must relate to the proceedings of the House—not arguing about what the primary question means. That is not a point of order. That is a matter for the Minister to interpret—what that question means—and I have ruled that it is not that clear what it means. That is the end of the matter. There cannot be argument about that by way of point of order. The member should know that.
Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister remember what was discussed precisely at the initial meeting that he had with the Prime Minister concerning the bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?
Mr SPEAKER: Did the Minister hear the question?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes. Yes.
Mr SPEAKER: The answer is yes.
Charles Chauvel: Can he inform the House what those matters were?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes. The director of the Government Communications Security Bureau had informed the Prime Minister of the question of illegality, and then the Prime Minister contacted me to report the contents of that conversation.
Charles Chauvel: On what date did this first discussion between him and the Prime Minister occur concerning the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It was in the week prior to the Prime Minister saying on, I believe, 24 September that there was this issue of illegality. I cannot recall precisely exactly when it was. I was certainly with the Prime Minister visiting the Chatham Islands, in the marginal seat of Rongotai, so I do not think—
Hon Annette King: Dream on!
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, look at the party vote, “Your Worship”. The actual conversation could have been on the afternoon of the Friday when we returned from the marginal seat.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who, other than him and the Prime Minister, was physically—that means at the same place; not somewhere else on the planet but at the same place—present at the first discussion on the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The question is vague. When I was present, I think the Prime Minister and I would have been present at that particular meeting, and I do not think anyone else was present at that meeting.
Canterbury, Recovery—Employment Opportunities
5. NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on the outlook for increased employment opportunities in the rebuilding of Greater Christchurch?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): I have seen a number of reports that indicate excellent employment opportunities for those seeking work in Canterbury. TradeMe reports a 43.7 percent increase in job listings on the same quarter last year. Today over 2,000 jobs are listed for Christchurch on TradeMe. The ANZ Job Ads index, released today, said that Canterbury newspaper ads rose 5.9 percent this month alone. The Jobs Online skilled vacancies index was up 24 percent on September of last year. In January there were 5,185 people on the unemployment benefit in Christchurch. In September that number was down to 3,131. In addition, construction companies are gearing up to employ more people as insurers bring more work to their operations. That increased employment will also stimulate the secondary employment market. The opportunities are going to increase as the rebuild gains momentum.
Nicky Wagner: What support is the Government giving to maximise the employment opportunities in Christchurch?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Recently the Government announced the establishment of a new Canterbury Skills and Employment Hub. This will be a one-stop shop for employers to list vacancies, to recruit from Work and Income, or to recruit from the various building and rebuilding training programmes that are operating in the city. The skills hub was funded from a $42 million fund that has been set aside for additional training places, as part of a comprehensive cross-agency response to meet additional demands for labour for the reconstruction, under the name Skills For Canterbury. We are taking steps to make it easier to provide good quality temporary accommodation for workers as well, and the largely Government-funded Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team is looking for another 1,000 employees to repair horizontal infrastructure. In addition, the central business district blueprint, very heavily supported by the Government, has created interest in private sector players around the world, who are looking to invest. That will bring significant new employment.
Nicky Wagner: What predictions has he seen for continued increased employment opportunities created by the Canterbury rebuild?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Modelling has been undertaken that suggests that perhaps an additional 15,000 employees will be needed in the construction workforce when the rebuild peaks. These estimates are going to vary according to a number of factors that are used in that modelling, but all point to very significant employment opportunities in Canterbury, and that will be attractive for job seekers throughout New Zealand. These predictions are in stark contrast to those of the Labour Party, with its predictions of massive job losses, wholesale exodus from the city—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, order! The Minister is not responsible for the Labour Party.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: When was he first advised that Canterbury employers are not taking on apprentices due to workflow problems, even though the funding and places have been put there by the Government, and when will he address this so that young Canterbury people can play a part in their own recovery?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think that is a highly emotive sort of question backed by very thin fact. The reality is that job prospects in Canterbury for young people are better than anywhere else in the country, and there is little doubt that the money that we have put forward—a total of $43 million that will go towards that training—will see young people taking up those opportunities. Unlike Labour, the Government of today does not think the Government has to do—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was lot of noise at the beginning of my question. My question was “When was he first advised?”.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister obviously disputed the content of the member’s question, and that is my dilemma in asking him to answer further. There are further supplementary questions if the member wishes to pursue that particular issue, because her question went on to include other information that the Minister then disputed.
Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was “When was he first advised that Canterbury employers were not taking on apprentices due to workflow issues, even though the funding and places were there?”. The issue that I guess he went on to respond to was what that would mean regarding young Canterbury apprentices having a chance to have a place in the rebuild, but the primary question—“When was he first advised?”—the Minister did not even attempt to address.
Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a lesson that if a member wants a question answered, to keep it to the point. I do not think I can ask the Minister to go back and answer that first part of the question, reasonable though it might have been, because the member included more material in the question than was necessary, and because the rest of the stuff was opinion-type information.
Prime Minister—Quality of Answers
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): This question is to the Prime Minister and asks “Does he think it is important that his Ministers, including himself, come to the House prepared to honestly answer questions?”.
Mr SPEAKER: That is a smidgen different from the wording here. I am not sure whether it is material—it is not hugely different—but the wording here is slightly different. It is quite an important question and I think it should be as on notice.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say I have had a quick check here.
Mr SPEAKER: It was the last two words. It was not that material. The question on notice says “prepared to give honest answers”, not “honestly answer questions”.
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, you are correct. I was just going from the primary question from my office staff, and they have given me the wrong question.
Mr SPEAKER: I call the right honourable member.
6. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Does he think it is important that his Ministers, including himself, come to the House prepared to give honest answers?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: [Interruption] Yes.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a serious issue.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he give that answer—that the answer is “Yes”—when he has set the standard so low by giving inaccurate information to the House on multiple occasions this year, despite being fully briefed, for example, when he told the House that the first the Government Communications Security Bureau briefed him on Dotcom was on 17 September this year, despite a February briefing, or when he gave two conflicting dates for when he first learnt of the non-disclosure certificate having been signed by his Deputy Prime Minister?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Every effort is made to honestly answer questions, and when there are mistakes noted, they are brought to the House’s attention, as has been the case in each of those ones the member speaks of.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he explain the discrepancy between his written answer to my question on 7 May asking about meetings with the Hon Simon Power in the period between 7 April and 23 July 2011, in which he stated: “There is no record of what was discussed … and I have no recollection …”, and the answer he gave to a supplementary question in the House yesterday, claiming that the honourable Minister did not raise the issue of Kim Dotcom with him at the meeting on 13 June?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Because that is the case.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, then, what is it? That his answer to my question on 7 May, in which he said that there was no record and no recollection of the 13 June meeting with Mr Power, is true, or the answer he gave yesterday to the effect that Kim Dotcom was not raised at the 13 June meeting by Simon Power, because logically both answers cannot be true; or is it that both answers are false?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No what? I am asking him: if the first answer is true and the second one is true, that cannot be; well, they are both false if he says no.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will be aware that with supplementary questions a Minister is obliged to answer only one part of the question. The final part of the member’s question was “are both answers false”, and the Minister answered “No.”, which is a perfectly legitimate answer.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I see. It appears anything goes. Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has given false information to the House on multiple occasions this year—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is quite an important subtlety involved here. The member has now just accused the Prime Minister of giving false information to the House. [Interruption] No, order! The member can question about the accuracy of information. I have allowed some fairly robust words to be used, as was the case even in the primary question. It talked about the requirement to give honest answers. But I think it is going one step too far to accuse another member of giving false information. I am sure the member can word his question just to avoid that direct accusation in a way that is acceptable.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why on earth should I, when the Prime Minister has apologised twice in this House, and he is coming again with another apology for having given information to the House that was not true—the opposite being false. I am not going to be restrained by that sort of dialectic argument.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think I will accept the member’s point on the basis that information that is not correct can be defined as false. I accept the member’s point.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has given false information to the House on multiple occasions this year, despite being fully briefed, such as the first time the Government Communications Security Bureau briefed him on Dotcom, or the certificate to do with the Deputy Prime Minister, or yesterday that there was no record and no recollection yet he could tell me that Simon Power did not speak about it; bearing all that in mind, why does he not apply the same standard that he applies to other Ministers to himself, and step down to avoid what will be most certainly, inevitably, future deepening embarrassment to him and his colleagues?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the proposition put by the member is quite ridiculous. If you just take the situation with the so-called meeting with Mr Power, quite clearly he had no recollection when he answered your question, and upon checking he was able to confirm that—simple.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. But the Prime Minister told us there was no record. How can he check with no record?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I say to the Leader of the House I am on my feet. The member cannot dispute the answer by way of point of order. The Minister has given his answer. The question contained a number of assertions, and the Minister in answering them said they were ridiculous. He is at liberty to do that in answering a question.
Grant Robertson: In light of the Prime Minister’s answers, does he stand by his statement to TV3 last night that he voted for the purchase age of alcohol to be 20 years old; if so, has he corrected the record of Parliament that says that Mr Key voted for the age to be 18 years of age?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That vote was for the split age.
Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, I seek leave of the House to table the personal vote record for the purchase age vote on the Alcohol Reform Bill that indicates a vote of 18 years from Mr Key.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the member has made his point, but we do not table stuff that is actually in the Journals.
Youth Minimum Wage—Eligibility
7. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: How will employers know whether a job applicant aged 18 or 19 has been receiving a benefit for 6 months or more in order to pay the Government’s starting-out wage?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I am advised that eligibility will be a matter for discussion between the job seeker and the potential employer.
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to be unhelpful to the Minister, but there was total silence in the House then, and I know that you and I were both straining to hear the Minister. Could we ask him just to speak up a little and give the answer?
Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister could use a slightly more robust voice, it would be helpful.
Hon TONY RYALL: I am advised that eligibility will be a matter for discussion between the job seeker and the potential employer. The young person will be able to provide verification from Work and Income New Zealand. The starting-out wage is another tool that will help young people get work in this competitive job environment. It pays the same rate as the new entrants wage introduced in 2008 by the previous Labour Government.
Darien Fenton: Will employers be able to advertise that a specific job will be offered only at a starting-out wage?
Hon TONY RYALL: I do not expect that that would be the case. As is the situation now, employers take those matters into consideration when they make their employment decision.
Darien Fenton: Is she aware that the Human Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of employment status, which includes receiving a benefit, and that, as such, the Human Rights Commission advises employers not to ask job applicants whether they have been receiving a benefit, in order to avoid unlawful discrimination?
Hon TONY RYALL: I am aware of that, and I think that is why a number of—and this is nothing new. Employers often are able to determine whether people are eligible for various subsidies or support programmes, and employers ask whether there is eligibility for these matters in terms of their employment choice. They need to be aware of their legislative requirements, as well.
Darien Fenton: How could she claim that the starting out age will not be compulsory and is negotiable, when an 18 or 19-year-old receiving a benefit who does not accept a job on the starting-out wage faces the penalty of having their benefit cut for 13 weeks?
Hon TONY RYALL: Those sanctions apply to people on a benefit whether or not they are going to be applying for a job under the starting-out wage. Clearly, if a person on taxpayer support is able to take a job that they have been offered, and they turn it down unreasonably, then they should be subject to sanction. The same will apply to this.
Child Poverty, Abuse, and Neglect—Children’s Teams
8. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the new Children’s Teams which form part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children?
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development): Last week I announced the first of two Children’s Teams to be piloted—the first one being based in Rotorua. We are bringing together key front-line professionals, who will work with vulnerable children. As they are the ones who work with these families, they know them and have the information to see a whole picture. An individual plan will then be designed around the child, and one lead professional will be responsible for ensuring outcomes.
Tim Macindoe: How will these Children’s Teams work locally to protect vulnerable children?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: The new teams will be made up of local education, health, and social sector professionals to respond to the needs of these vulnerable children. This will build on the work that is already there. These teams take this to the next level of child protection, ensuring that single, multi-agency plans are put in place for each child. When fully implemented, a predictor tool will also mean that we are getting to them before they are abused or neglected.
Tim Macindoe: What leadership and accountability will there be to ensure these vulnerable children are protected?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think this is a key to the success of this initiative. We will be making legislative changes so that a combination of chief executives has shared responsibility for these children. And in each local area there will be a children’s director, who will be responsible for these children and will have to report on outcomes.
Jacinda Ardern: How many children in New Zealand are currently at medium to high risk?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it depends on which set of accountabilities you are looking at for that, and predictors. If you are looking at the recent ones that were put out by Statistics New Zealand, they would say there are around 67,000. We are taking the 30,000 that we see as being most vulnerable. The reality is, as well, that we have to have the number of children that these teams can work with. There is no point in overrunning them. So we are, without a doubt, targeting those we see who are most likely, quite frankly, to end up broken or dead.
Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table a report from Statistics New Zealand showing that there are 268,000 children at medium to high risk in New Zealand.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.
Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Government Information and Communications Technology—Computer and Payroll Systems
9. Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his comment that Government computer systems “can’t actually support radical changes from Government”?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister stands by his statement, which was in relation to the Inland Revenue Department’s existing computer system, but he would suggest that if the member has any questions relating to details of the Inland Revenue Department’s computer system, they would be better put to the Minister of Revenue.
Dr David Clark: When the Prime Minister expressed concerns on Monday that “You’ve quite a lot of very old legacy systems within Government, and increasingly demands for things to be done digital”, were these the same concerns he had back in February; if so, what further breach or other catalyst is required before the Government will outline a credible plan and time line to address the situation?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We need to be constantly vigilant with regard to Government computer systems, and they are being monitored frequently.
Dr David Clark: Given the Prime Minister’s comment in February that you do not want to be in a position where Parliament is held hostage to a lack of technology, when does the Prime Minister expect the Government will outline a credible time line that reflects the Prime Minister’s apparent urgency 8 months ago?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Despite the dramatic attempts behind the question, the reality is that there are a lot of systems operating in the technology sector for Government. They are always being upgraded and they are always being improved. What we do want is to make sure that there is greater vigilance over individual security.
Dr David Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that in its briefing to the incoming Government in 2011, the Inland Revenue Department argued that its dated computer system was hindering its work; and is this why the Inland Revenue Department had more than 1 million filed returns outstanding at the end of 31 March 2012?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What was clear when we came into Government was that the previous Government had presided over a woeful neglect of information and communications technology infrastructure. Under this Government’s business transformation programme the redevelopment of the department’s computer system is the Inland Revenue Department’s top current priority.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister believe that the Government’s approximate $26 million investment in a payroll switch to the new Novopay system was a radical change for the worse, leaving many teachers still waiting to be paid; if not, why not?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. Although there have been some glitches, it is generally working well. I point out that the system was started by the previous Labour Government.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table a response to a written question showing—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, written questions are not tabled in the House. They are available to all members.
Border Control, SmartGate System—Passengers Processed
10. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Customs: How successful has SmartGate technology been at processing passengers at the border?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): SmartGate—
Chris Hipkins: The fruit flies like it.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well, you would know about that, son. SmartGate, which uses electronic information in e-passports and facial recognition technology, has exceeded all expectations. Just this month, the 4-millionth passenger passed through SmartGate. As a good example, last week almost 62 percent of eligible New Zealand and Australian passport holders used it on arrival, and 54 percent on departure. The target that we had set ourselves—which was actually ambitious—was to be at 45 percent. The Customs Service is now confident that 3 million people a year will be using SmartGate by 2015.
Hon Tau Henare: How does this technology benefit the consumer and the country as a whole?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: SmartGate came about following a meeting of our Prime Minister and his counterpart Prime Minister in Australia, in 2009. It is delivering on the Government’s vision for a seamless trans-Tasman traveller experience. SmartGate has brought about a step change in passenger processing. It has allowed more accurate and faster passenger processing, it improves border security by allowing improved profiling of higher-risk travellers, and it frees up customs officers to get on with the serious problem of catching bad buggers.
Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Chris Hipkins.
Chris Hipkins: My question is to the Minister of Education. How long will boards of trustees of the schools she proposes to—
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seriously, in respect of the standards of this House, surely you cannot let a Minister get up and start swearing, like he just did. That is not really acceptable in this Parliament, surely.
Mr SPEAKER: I think it is better not to draw attention to some of these things.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I withdraw and apologise.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has withdrawn and apologised.
Question No. 11 to Minister
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): I seek leave to hold over my question until such time as the Minister of Education is available to answer it.
Mr SPEAKER: The member can seek leave. [Interruption] Order! A point of order is being heard. He started his question, he was interrupted by a point of order, and now he has raised a point of order to seek leave to have his question held over. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Schools, Canterbury—Consultation on Proposed Closures and Mergers
11. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: How long will boards of trustees of the schools she proposes to close or merge in Christchurch have to consult with their local communities before they are required to provide feedback to her ahead of a final decision?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Education: The boards of trustees will have 50 working days from 28 September, when they received their letters, until 7 December, to consult with their local communities.
Chris Hipkins: Have any of the schools proposed for closure or merger approached her asking for an extension of time so that they can report back to her after the 7 December deadline she has set; if so, has she allowed them that extra time?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand that the Aranui and the Halswell clusters asked the Minister for an extension, and the Minister decided that the time frame for individual schools—those that are proposed to be merged or closed—will remain the same. That time line of 7 December remains, but consultation for clusters of schools is an ongoing process that is not linked to the legislative process and proposals that schools are undertaking about mergers and closures. That is a separate process.
Chris Hipkins: How can clusters of schools engage with their local communities in a meaningful way about what education in their area might look like if one or more of the schools in that cluster is already formally the subject of a merger or closure consultation process and others are not?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand that these are two separate processes and that discussions around the clusters of schools—all the schools are involved in clusters—involve more than just individual proposals to merge or close schools.
Chris Hipkins: If one of the clusters of schools presents her after 7 December with a proposal that involves not closing or merging one of the schools that she had already concluded consulting on the closure or merger of, will she therefore reopen the formal consultation for those schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can only repeat what the Minister said in the House yesterday, which is that she is keen to listen to the views of parents and the school communities, and she will take, along with them, the time that it will take. All of us, she said, are interested in getting this right, and getting in place the best possible education system for the Greater Christchurch region.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question about whether she would reopen the consultation and she has not addressed that matter.
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, indeed. That was really the heart of the question—whether, in the ongoing consultation with the clusters, a school that was to be merged or closed, and therefore dealt with already, supposedly, according to the time lines, could have consultation around that merger or closure reopened. I think that was the heart of the question.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understood that, but I think the Minister’s words make it very clear that she is open to ongoing discussions with those schools. She is saying she will take, along with them, the time that it will take. She is making it very clear that she is willing to listen and talk with schools about the proposals and the way ahead.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue that we have is that under the Education Act—I am sure you are familiar with it—there is a legislative process around formal consultation with those schools, the deadline for which the Minister has set as 7 December. The question that I have asked her is whether, if those clusters of schools come up with an alternative proposal that comes to a different outcome from the one that she had already concluded the formal consultation on, she would go back and reopen that formal consultation process. The Minister’s answer still has not addressed that matter.
Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister can help, it would be very helpful.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, I am not sure than I can help, because the Minister’s answers are confined by the legislative process. So the Minister can answer only within the limits that that legislation puts in place.
Chris Hipkins: That is exactly the point, but she has not actually addressed the issue. Within the legislative process, once the schools have made their submissions under the legislative process as it is now, that has to be in by 7 December, and I have asked her whether she would consider reopening it.
Mr SPEAKER: I think, in fairness, the Minister has been pressed and the member has made it quite clear what he is after, but the Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister, and I think it is probably unreasonable to expect the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister to be able to give the House that particular detail about matters beyond 7 December. I think it is probably unreasonable to press further on that.
Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member’s party has used its allocation of 22 supplementary questions today.
Chris Hipkins: I thought we still had one more to go.
Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I think they have all been used.
Question No. 12 to Minister
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I seek leave to transfer the question—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order is being dealt with.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY: In the light of what has just happened, I seek leave to transfer my question to a day when the Minister of Education is in the House to answer it.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Schools, Partnership—Operation and Accountability Standards
12. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement to schools, about their obligation under the Official Information Act 1982, that, “New Zealand is an open and transparent democracy. They [schools] are required to release this information. You are public entities.”?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes.
Catherine Delahunty: Under her Education Amendment Bill, will charter or partnership schools be part of New Zealand’s open and transparent democracy?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.
Catherine Delahunty: Will charter schools be required to publicly release all the information that State schools are currently required to, under the Official Information Act, such as annual reports and details of staffing; if not, why not?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have covered this issue earlier on in the House. Partnership schools will not be subject to the Official Information Act. However, they will have a legally binding contract that sets for them specific performance criteria, they will be reviewed by the Education Review Office, and they will have to report against national standards.
Catherine Delahunty: Will parents of charter school pupils have the rights of other parents, including the automatic right to attend governing body meetings, a say on the appointment of their principal, and the right to complain to the Ombudsman if they think their child has been unfairly treated; if not, how is that consistent with an open and transparent democracy?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Firstly, I would say that partnership schools will not be Crown entities, and therefore they will not be subject to the Official Information Act, but the Privacy Act will apply. Secondly, I would say to that member that parents have a choice as to which school they decide to send their child to.
Catherine Delahunty: By legislating for a separate standard at profit-making charter schools so that they can operate in secrecy that would be illegal in the State sector, does she agree that she is exposing hundreds of children to an unacceptable level of risk?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. This Government is determined that the one in five children whom the previous Labour Government was for 9 years content to see leaving school without the necessary education will get every opportunity to succeed educationally, and we believe that partnership schools have a role—
Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a question about the operation of the charter schools—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister answered absolutely. The Minister said “No.” She was going on to explain a little more than perhaps was necessary, but she answered the question very emphatically.
Bills
Education Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon JOHN BANKS (Associate Minister of Education) on behalf of the Minister of Education: I move, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Education and Science Committee to consider the bill.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before the Minister continues, could I ask members leaving the House, including the two members right behind the Minister on the National benches, to please not be so discourteous as to be talking while on their feet, behind the Minister who has the call. Could members leaving the House please leave quietly.
Hon JOHN BANKS: At the appropriate time I will move that the bill be reported to the House and that the committee have authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting, except during oral questions, during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House, and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House, despite Standing Orders 188, and 191(1)(b) and (c).
Introduction: the Government is committed to ensuring that every New Zealander has the skills and qualifications required to successfully participate in our modern society. Partnership schools kura hourua: the first objective of the bill is to provide for partnership schools. These schools are a new way of delivering public education. They will bring together the education, business, and community sectors to provide new education opportunities for our young people. The schools will help address one of New Zealand’s most urgent problems, which is the fact that our education system works well for most, but not for all.
Equality of education is a promise long held, but not quite delivered. A former Minister of Education, whom members opposite should recognise, once said: “… every person, whatever his level of academic ability, whether he be rich or poor, whether he live in town or country, has a right as a citizen, to a free education of the kind for which he is best fitted, and to the fullest extent of his powers.” That was a direct quote from Hansard and that was the Rt Hon Peter Fraser in this House in 1939.
Partnership schools are about delivering his promise that every young child has an opportunity for a world-class education in this country. The same ends, new means—same ends, new means. The bill sets out the framework for partnership schools and the topics that will be covered in the partnership school contract. It is a best-of-all-worlds model. It is informed by similar international policies that have been successful in raising achievement for disadvantaged students. A sponsor approved by the Ministry of Education will govern each partnership school. The Minister must appoint a body to advise on applications to be a sponsor. Each sponsor will be held to account through a fixed-term contract to deliver specific school-level targets negotiated with the Crown. The sponsor will be required to report learners’ progress to the parents and progress against the school-level targets set out in the contract to the Minister. The Secretary for Education will have the ability to manage concerns under the terms of the partnership school contract and the right to intervene directly, proportionately to the issues affecting the education or welfare of the students. A sponsor may deliver the New Zealand curriculum or Te Marautanga o Aotearoa or an alternative curriculum that is aligned with the existing foundation curriculum policy statements.
The school will report against national standards for year 1 to 8 students and will offer secondary qualifications agreed to in the partnership contract for students in years 9 to 13. The number of percentage of teachers registered with the Teachers Council required at the school will be agreed to in the partnership contract. All non-teaching and non-registered employees will be vetted by the police. Sponsors will be free to negotiate employment conditions, including salary levels, with their employees. Sponsors will be able to set their own school hours, student timetables, and term dates. All domestic students who apply will be enrolled, regardless of their background or ability. A ballot will be used if demand exceeds available spaces in the school.
The maximum number of students enrolled will be set out in the contract. This may be renegotiated annually with the consideration of evidence of parental demand for the school and successful delivery of agreed outcomes for the existing students. The contracts will contain more detail than the bill, which instead creates a framework enumerating the important issues that must be covered. In return for meeting the conditions of the contract, sponsors will receive funding and will be free to run their schools as the contract provides.
The second objective of the bill is to safeguard students by—
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Order! I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. Can I just say to members that if they would like to look at Speakers’ ruling 60/5 they will note that running commentaries by members—constant heckling—is out of order. It amounts to a commentary, and the members will have an opportunity to make a speech shortly.
Hon JOHN BANKS: The second objective of this revolutionary piece of legislation being introduced into this Parliament today and making history is to safeguard students by establishing clear surrender and retention provisions for all State schools, including integrated and partnership schools. The proposed approach will contribute to safer learning environments. The objectives underpinning the amendment to the bill are to provide schools with surrender and retention powers that contribute towards learning environments that are both safe and conducive to positive student behaviour; balance the need of teachers to effectively manage their students and provide safe learning environments, with the right of students to be free from unreasonable search, surrender, and retention; and prohibit methods of search, surrender, and retention that are considered to be overly intrusive and/or invasive.
This bill contains a number of miscellaneous amendments not directly related to the partnership schools initiative or to surrender and retention. They are, firstly, National Student Numbers. The National Student Number is currently allocated when a child first attends an early childhood service or starts school. This amendment will allow for a National Student Number to be allocated when a child is identified who is likely to benefit from attending an early childhood service, but is unlikely to do so.
Flexible school timetables and alternative board constitutions: we are making changes to enable more flexible timetabling and students’ school days, and we also want to allow for alternative board constitutions, following a change to the school network, for example, following the creation of a school or after a merger of schools.
Boards of trustees: the bill will amend the Education Act 1989 to require every school board to perform its functions and exercise its powers in such a way as to ensure that every student at the school is able to attain his or her highest possible standard in educational achievement. This amendment sets out a clear expectation of boards and ensures that student achievement is a critical consideration. The amendment to the Act will also enable the Crown to grant a lease to a third party, with the third party then able to enter into a lease with a service provider. This amendment will allow the Ministry of Education to enter into direct contractual relationships with third parties. The amendment on the publishing of schools’ annual financial statements will allow the Ministry of Education to publish schools’ annual financial statements online instead of sending paper copies to relevant members of Parliament.
This is a revolutionary piece of legislation that will give the bottom 20 percent of kids who fall through the cracks, who leave school with no attainment, with no education, with no further school opportunities, with no work training, with no hope, and with no opportunity, and who are mostly on the dole and written off, an alternative to enter into a partnership school arrangement with a party provider through the Government, through the Crown, with great expectations for young people.
As Peter Fraser said in 1939 in this Parliament, as I quoted, every young person is entitled to a world-class education in Aotearoa New Zealand. This bill is going to put an end to the wrongs that have contributed to the 20 percent of kids in our education system who have failed. They have not failed us, they have failed themselves and their families because we have not grasped the nettle early enough, and we have not taken on board what Peter Fraser said in 1939: that every kid needs an opportunity for a world-class education. Partnership schools will deliver that world-class education opportunity for those kids who currently miss out.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I seek leave to ask the Minister responsible for charter schools a very specific question regarding charter schools.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson): Of course, the House is the master of its own destiny, and the member is perfectly entitled to seek leave. Whether it is given or not is another matter. Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is.
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): It is a shame that the Minister responsible for charter schools, the Associate Minister of Education John Banks, did not answer a question when he was present in the House and there was no one on the Government side available to answer properly in the capacity of Minister of Education on this particular policy. Had he taken on the challenge to answer the question, it would have simply been this: “Will the policy and procedures for how charter schools are run, are managed, and deliver educational benefits to students be open to public scrutiny and accountability, or will these terms and conditions be hidden away under sponsor contracts not accessible under the Official Information Act?”. The Minister is here and did not refer to it in his opening speech in respect of this bill, the Education Amendment Bill. We should be concerned.
I rise to speak on this charter school bill, which is ACT and National’s attempt to privatise New Zealand’s public education system. We have a fantastic public education system. Sure, more could be done, but not by way of charter schools. This will not be the solution to the challenge that faces this nation to lift achievement for all children, every child, in their communities, through their local schools. It will introduce competition. It will take money from the public purse and privatise the profit. How can that be good for every child in every local community, when they are faced now with charter schools?
It is the wrong thing to do in a country like ours. Despite the huge inequities that exist in our country, we sit among the top seven of the OECD countries in educational performance. Under Hekia Parata and John Banks charter schools will see New Zealand lead a race to the bottom of the OECD, because they have fundamentally ignored the systemic challenge in our society, which is to get things moving on the right track for every child. They deserve the best opportunity for education at their local school. Labour believes that a quality public education should be guaranteed—guaranteed—to every child from every community at their local school. This should not be aspirational, a goal, or an ambition. It is an expectation in a country like ours, if we want to assure ourselves that a small country can grow the potential of each and every child, no matter who they are, where they come from, or what their socio-economic background is.
Inequality in a developed country like ours has seen 270,000 children living in poverty, and it is not their fault. There is a growing number of hard-working families who fall into this category and rely on our local schools to deliver to their children an education of a high quality, from the time they start school to the time they finish.
Charter schools are a simple distraction. They take money from the public purse and privatise the profits, with little or no accountability to students, parents, or taxpayers at large. In considering this bill, why are the sponsor contracts not subject to the Official Information Act? Answer that. In considering this bill, parents should be concerned about the real effect of what the Government is proposing.
Setting up new schools where a sponsor, by way of contract, negotiates the terms and conditions for schooling provision may sound attractive, but the devil is in the detail. Under the bill the policies and procedures of a charter school are hidden in these contracts and will not be available to public scrutiny—not via the Official Information Act, and not even as a document tabled in this House. We as parliamentarians should be very concerned, because this is an experiment. It has failed overseas. The Government is bringing it into this country, and why are these contracts not being exposed to greater public scrutiny? It is a problem when taxpayer funds are being used to run these schools with little or no accountability for what they do or how they do it.
The Minister will approve sponsors of charter schools, which do not necessarily need an educational background to lead learning at those schools. An advisory group will be appointed by the Minister to monitor the progress of these schools in line with the sponsor contracts. It appears that these advisory boards may take over some role of the Ministry of Education. Who knows? These are just some of the aspects of the way in which charter schools will operate, and we should be concerned as parliamentarians and as parents about the way in which charter schools are intended to operate. No public scrutiny is available of them whatsoever.
Earlier this year the Minister of Education said that she believed that teachers made all the difference in improving learning outcomes. Yet in charter schools she is letting non-registered teachers deliver education. We heard the former Minister of Education in the House today acknowledge that non-registered teachers could teach at charter schools. She failed to make the connection that teacher training qualifications are a prerequisite to being registered, which guarantees that the quality of a teacher cannot be compromised. Yet there is to be one standard for those at charter schools and another for those in the public school system. How do they reconcile that particular dilemma?
Teachers in charter schools will get paid at a different rate. They are not subject to the same professional standards. Yet they still have the same critical influence on children’s learning, like any other teacher throughout the schools in New Zealand. But why are they being treated differently? My concern is that the Minister either believes that there is value in teacher training qualifications or she does not. Right now she says it is one law for teachers at charter schools and another for those in the public system. She speaks with a forked tongue.
The Government has put the education and safety of charter school children at risk by ignoring the advice of its own officials on who should be allowed to teach them. It is unclear what criteria will be used to fund charter schools, and the staffing levels that will be agreed to. Will she promote larger class sizes in those charter schools or smaller class sizes? Who knows? Who knows how those staffing levels will be funded? Will these schools receive the same establishment funding as public schools or more? Who knows? It is unclear. The bill does not speak to that.
There are more questions than answers and our children’s learning is far too important to be used as an experiment with charter schools. A model that has failed in other countries is being adopted here in New Zealand. Why? The international evidence suggests that charter schools do not work. In 2009—
Hon John Banks: So we should do nothing?
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA: That member says we should do nothing. No, what we should do is strengthen our public school system, and look to the exemplars and innovations that are already happening and are delivering outcomes for Māori and Pacific students, and all learners. We should strengthen the public school system, not suck money out of public schools, put it into a private model, and privatise the profits. We should do more for every child from every community at their local school.
Let us look to the international evidence. In 2009 the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, which is part of Stanford University, analysed the scores from across 16 charter schools. It found that although some charter schools do better than the traditional public schools, the majority do the same or worse—the same or worse. Almost one-fifth of charter schools do worse. It is not the way to go in New Zealand.
National’s agenda for charter schools poses a major risk to our public education system. Charter schools will not have to teach to the curriculum that every other child in the public school system has to learn by. In fact, I am very sceptical about the narrowing of the curriculum through the charter school process, but the devil will be in the detail, and we are looking forward to this bill going to the select committee.
I can only say, as a closing comment, that it is Labour’s sincere hope that if this Government is genuinely wanting to engage feedback from the public on this bill it will extend the period of time for which submissions can come to the select committee and not rush this bill through in urgency before the end of the year. We are in October, and it would be unfair for public citizens in New Zealand to try to rush through a submission process. Let us give them time—time to consider the impact of a charter school within the network of public education provision. Let us not rush them, and let us not put on a Clayton’s consultation round through the select committee. It is Labour’s hope that the Government will ensure that genuine time is given for submissions to come in, and extend that into the new year so that real engagement can occur. They are sick of being treated like the people of Christchurch, who are still fuming over the guise of consultation that happened down there, over being steamrolled over, and about radical reforms being proposed. All for what? So that the Government can introduce charter schools down in Christchurch. It is simply unacceptable. Charter schools are an experiment. They have failed overseas. They should not be here in New Zealand. Kia ora.
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central): I am very pleased to be standing here and speaking on the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I want to acknowledge the Hon Hekia Parata and the job she is doing in the education portfolio, and also the Hon John Banks. This bill is incredibly important for our country, because what this bill is about is actually real policy to help some of our most disadvantaged children in this country. Too often we hear the rhetoric that we care about the one in five children who do not succeed in our education system. The fact is that there are many wonderful educational professionals in this country doing a great job. However, one in five children leave our education system not being able to participate in a modern economy, and what this legislation is about is saying that that is not good enough, and that we are prepared to put in place policies that will give parents and students greater choice and greater options for their learning.
We have already seen some improvements under our Government. At school level nearly 72 percent of school-leavers achieved at least National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, compared with 66 percent in 2009. This is part of a wider range of policies that are about greater accountability in terms of our education system. That is why we have national standards. Through national standards we want to raise literacy and numeracy standards for those children in some very disadvantaged communities. We know where they are and we know how we can better support them, and we can target resource not only from a Government perspective but also in terms of their parents. When you look at the Manaiakalani Project, when you see how these kids are doing in very disadvantaged communities, it is because their parents are involved in their learning and it is because they decided to do something different.
Partnership schools are about actually recognising that one size does not fit all. We hear from the Opposition that this is about putting kids at risk. Well, the greatest risk in this country is to do nothing. What we believe is that through the design of the partnership schools model we are developing a model that is in the New Zealand context and that ensures that we are also requiring greater accountability in the sponsorship contracts. There is a range of provisions there, in terms of accountability. But there is actually flexibility to go into low-decile areas in particular and offer a different type of school for some learners. This is self-selecting, as well. I think that is a really important point.
The other point I would make is that the model has actually been successful. The charter schools model in other countries has been incredibly successful. We have heard recently from Mike Feinberg from the United States, but what we have tried to do in terms of this policy is say that we need to develop it for a New Zealand context. So I look forward to the select committee process, as chair of the Education and Science Committee, and I hope—it is my greatest hope—that the Opposition keeps an open mind. The greatest thing that we could do in this country is not to continue to do nothing with these children, but to develop another option. The other point that I want to make is that we do have varieties of schooling in this country. We do have single-sex schools. We do have kura kaupapa. So this is just another option for parents, in terms of schooling.
The other key aspect of this bill that I want to briefly touch on is about safer environments. We have a number of provisions in here regarding search and surrender. We also have a National Student Number, which is being recognised within this bill. This is part of our target to ensure that we have 98 percent of new entrants participating in early childhood education by 2016. The other aspect of this bill that is very important to mention is school boards of trustees. We will see, through this bill and through guiding this legislation through the House, a range of provisions that clarify the primary purpose of school boards, to ensure there are very clear expectations. I think that if we step back for a moment, what we are saying on this side of the House, through this legislation and through other mechanisms, is that we believe in greater accountability through mechanisms like national standards, and through mechanisms like partnership schools, which provide other options for parents. We believe in greater transparency, through national standards, and through things like partnership schools.
A key aspect of partnership schools that we believe in is that the State does not control the only mandate for the provision of education in this country. There are many community organisations—and the Opposition has focused on businesses that may be sponsors—that have an outstanding role in our community. We think they should be considered for the provision of education. We are not going to bring those kids up by saying that we are going to continue to do what we have always done. That is why this legislation is about choice. This legislation is about raising achievement. This legislation is about transparency. It is about greater accountability in terms of our school trustees and their boards. It is about safer environments, through the search and surrender provisions. This legislation is incredibly important for those one in five children in New Zealand whose opportunities have been snuffed out too often because people have not been prepared to try some things differently. I support this bill to the select committee.
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): If the National Party is so proud of this charter schools model, why did National not put it in its manifesto before the last election? Why did not National members tell New Zealanders before the last election that this was what they wanted to do, if they are so proud of it? We know that National was working on it before the last election. Even though after the election National tried to deny it, the paper trail is clear. This process of charter schools started well before the election, and well before the famous cup of tea that did not turn out quite so well in the end. This whole charter schools idea was National’s idea, and its members did not tell New Zealanders about it before the election. If National members are so proud of it, why is it that they do not want these schools to be subject to the Official Information Act? If they are so confident that these schools are going to be the model exemplars for how education should be delivered in the future, why is it that they do not want the public to understand how they are operating? Why is it that they do not want to have the same level of scrutiny applied to those schools as does currently apply to public schools?
There is an absolute double standard operating here. On the one hand we have got the Government saying: “Well, we want to focus on the quality of teaching.” I support it in that. I also think we need to focus on the quality of teaching. I do not think we should have unregistered teachers in classrooms. So on the one hand the State schools are all told: “Focus on the quality of teaching. That is the thing that matters. But you charter schools, do not worry, do whatever you like. It doesn’t matter if you’ve got registered, qualified teachers or not. We’re going to have a different standard for the charter schools.”
Then it says: “Oh, and we want national standards. We want every school to be doing the same thing. But you charter schools, don’t worry about that. We’re not going to apply the national standards to charter schools. Oh no, they are going to have something entirely different.” Then it says that “Every State school in the country needs to be reporting to parents, based on the national standards. Oh no, but not you charter schools. You charter schools can do whatever you like, and we’re not going to make you subject to the Official Information Act.” So even if charter schools did test their kids under the national standards requirements, they would not be subject to the same standards. If charter schools did test kids under national standards, they would not be subject to the same transparency requirements of State schools.
In this very same piece of legislation, the Education Amendment Bill, the Government is telling boards of trustees that they should have student achievement as their primary focus. Name a school board of trustees that does not. Name a school board of trustees that is made up of parents who go into it with a view not to improve the student achievement of their own kids. Name one school board of trustees that does not have that. Why is it that the Government wants to apply that standard to public schools, and yet private schools, these new charter private schools, will be able to do whatever they like? They will not have that requirement. In fact, they will be able to focus on making a profit. There is nothing to stop a charter school from taking taxpayer money that was destined for education and turning a profit out of it.
What is the single biggest cost in delivering State education? What is the single biggest cost? Teachers—teachers are the single biggest cost. So if they want to make a profit out of it, where are they going to get their money from? Unqualified, unregistered teachers is where they are going to get their money from. That is where they will extract their profit from. Funnily enough, this bill allows them to employ unregistered and unqualified teachers. There is a total and utter double standard here. On the one hand, this Government is willing to go into every public school in the country and apply all of these extra bureaucratic requirements to them. Then, on the other hand, it is saying to charter schools “Go off and do whatever you like.” That is what it says to charter schools, and they are not going to be monitored.
We could have the “Exxon Mobil School for Climate Studies”. We could have the “McDonald’s School for Nutritional Studies”, the “Monsanto School for Genetic Engineering”, or the “Destiny Church School of Scientific Discovery”, because they would not have to teach to the curriculum. Charter schools do not have to teach the New Zealand curriculum. If the Destiny Church wanted to set up a charter school to teach creationism with unregistered, unqualified teachers, that is OK. Under this legislation—[Interruption] There is nothing wrong with it, I heard one of the National members say. Under this legislation that is exactly what would be allowed to happen. They would not have to teach to the New Zealand curriculum, which is a fantastic curriculum. It is recognised as one of the best curricula in the world. Other people come from around the world to New Zealand and say: “You guys have got an absolutely fantastic curriculum. We wish we had something like that one in New Zealand.” Now the Government is saying: “You charter schools do not have to worry about that. Do not worry about teaching the same thing the public schools are teaching—teach whatever you like.” There is an absolute double standard here.
But let us go back to a really big concern that I have, and that is that the Government is going to use the earthquake recovery process in Christchurch as an excuse to impose these charter schools on the people of Christchurch. I think that is absolutely disgraceful. I think the public schools in Christchurch have done an absolutely amazing job over the last 2 years of providing stability, consistency, and vital support to those kids who have been affected by the earthquakes. When the earthquakes happened some of those kids were at school for an extended period of time, and the schools did not even know whether the parents were going to be coming to collect them because they did not know what had happened to the parents. Those schools went out of their way to look after those kids and to provide those kids with stability and consistency, and they do not deserve to be the subject of this disgraceful process that the Government is currently undertaking in Christchurch. There is no other description for it than disgraceful.
What we are going to see now is the Government turning round and saying “Why not have some charter schools in here as well?”. The Government is going to force these Christchurch schools into merger and closure proposals, but in the same areas and in the same sites where it is proposing to close or merge public schools, there is absolutely nothing that says that one of these private operators could not go and set up a charter school in exactly the same place. The Government could close a public school and then a charter school could open in exactly the same place. They could even potentially take over the same buildings if the Government hocks them off, and this Government says that is OK.
So how is that process in Christchurch that it is undertaking now, supposedly around genuine consultation—“We have not made up our minds yet; we are just going to go out and announce a whole lot of concrete proposals.”—supposed to have any integrity or credibility, when public schools could be closed to make way for charter schools? I think that is disgraceful. I do not think that the kids of Christchurch deserve that. I do not think that they should be made the guinea pigs for this Government’s charter schools experiment, one that it has been working on for some time, and that it did not tell the New Zealand public about before the last election.
I want to turn to the comments that the Prime Minister, John Key, has made. He said earlier this year: “It’s not the class sizes that matter; it’s the quality of teaching that we’re getting in our schools.” John Key said that. He said “It’s not the class sizes that matter; it’s the quality of teaching that we’re getting in our schools.” But that is OK. We will not have any requirements on class sizes in charter schools. We will not have any requirements on teacher quality in charter schools. That is all OK. Then he said “Don’t get too hung-up about it.” That is what the Prime Minister said. He said to people who are worried about having unqualified teachers: “Don’t get too hung up about it.” I am sure he is relaxed about it. I am sure he is very, very relaxed about it.
The Government’s education agenda is all at sea. The one idea that National has managed to come up with to improve teacher quality in the time that it has been in Government is to increase class sizes. That is the one thing that it has come up with so far to increase the quality of teaching. All of its other major education initiatives have been about testing, form-filling, and bureaucratic exercises. The only thing it could come up with to improve teacher quality was to increase the size of classes. It is no wonder that the New Zealand public—parents in particular—are getting concerned about the National Government. Its own officials—the experts who provided National with advice on this—have said the “potential for a negative impact on students’ education from teachers who do not meet the minimum standards for the profession is high.” That was advice that the Government received. It received further advice that says that these proposals around unqualified and unregistered teachers could “significantly damage the credibility of the Crown.” That was the advice the Government got before it brought this bill to Parliament, and yet it went ahead anyway.
We know what this Government’s modus operandi is around consultation. It is to tell people what you want to do, go out and ask them what they think about it, and then just go ahead and do it anyway—forget about what people think. There is no such thing as meaningful consultation under this National Government. It just does whatever it likes anyway. This charter schools experiment is totally unjust, it is totally unnecessary, and it will not improve the quality of education in this country.
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou e te Whare. The political parties often say that we all want the same thing for our children in this country: the opportunity to fulfil their potential. I do believe that that is true, but, unfortunately, right here and right now, that is where the common ground stops. That great New Zealander the late Bruce Jesson once said “Only their purpose is mad.”, and from that mad purpose flows a logical Education Amendment Bill, which advances the privatisation agenda of the National-ACT Government. This bill has so many obvious issues of concern for parents, teachers, and communities that it is going to take some months to decipher, but there is also some interesting, obscure, disingenuous language that is raising concern in the community.
I am going to devote some time to the core issue, which others have touched on eloquently, around charter schools and the failed model that the Government is attempting to adopt. There are many other issues in the bill, not the least of which are the clauses on merging schools, where Christchurch is the front line of an incoherent experiment at the expense of an already destabilised series of local school communities, and may well see these things being implemented against the wishes of the schools’ students and parents. That will be paid for, I believe, at the ballot box—that is when—but it will not help the children, who do not need any more destabilisation in their lives. That also goes for vulnerable children who struggle in education because of poverty, inequality, or the lack of cultural appropriateness in schools. We are not avoiding issues here; we are saying that we need to innovate in the State sector, but we do not need to privatise.
There are clauses in this bill around boards of trustees, which the School Trustees Association has already raised issues on, and it has raised concerns about what I am calling the “do your best or else” clauses around student achievement. As others have said, who goes on a board unless it is for the good of students? All of us who have been on boards or who are on boards are there for the good of student achievement; we are not there to eat our not particularly generous lunch. So are these rhetorical clauses or will there be consequences for so-called failure? I suspect that consequences for failure are implicit in the description of the board’s so-called new role. There are also mysterious, alternative constitutions and board models that minimise parental involvement, which are going to cause major concerns.
Some other clauses include those around search and confiscation for students. These clauses may be useful if they clarify and limit some of the current practices, but at the same time they may also normalise unnecessary behaviour in schools towards the human rights of students. We are looking more deeply at that one to see whether it is going to be necessary and helpful or whether it is going to normalise a more pathological approach to student and school safety.
Another fascinating clause in the bill is around early childhood education and the leasing of public land for private development, for the profitable side of the early childhood education sector. It is a disturbing development, aimed at removing, again—there is a theme here, people—public assets and allowing the private-profit sector to make money out of that land.
There is another very disturbing aspect of this called the National Student Number for families where people believe that a child is unlikely to get early childhood education. It sounds like colour-coding to me. Is it a tool for facilitating Work and Income to punish parents who are not enrolling their children in early childhood education, or is it just a statistical, practical thing they need to do? That is something we will be asking at the Education and Science Committee.
Then, of course, there is the beauty, the jewel in the crown: the charter schools. I had the privilege of meeting Mike Feinberg from the Knowledge is Power Program, who wears that shirt saying “Work hard. Be nice.” But when I asked him about critical thinking—pedagogy that involved questioning why so many people in our country and his experience inequality—he was not interested in that. You do not question the status quo. You go into a no-excuses environment as students and—I am sorry, Mr Chair; you do not, and I hope no one else does—sign a contract. This is all about the contract. This is like the mafia. You sign a contract and you do the contract or you are in trouble.
I had the privilege of hanging out with Karen Harper-Royal from New Orleans, where they have lost all but six of their state schools because of disaster capitalism, and now they are all in charter schools. It is not working for those kids it is supposed to be working for. They end up being counselled out of these charter schools because they cannot meet the contract. And the contract as written in this current bill is exactly the same. It says that they must be in school for the hours in their timetable, which could be anything from 7 in the morning on a weekday to a Saturday afternoon. Who knows? The point is that there is no scrutiny, there is no public involvement, and there is limited parental involvement. That is what I learnt from Karen, who runs this group called Parents Across America. Parents Across America is trying to deal with the failure of a model that we are trying to adopt. It is very bizarre that we would do that, given that the Finns, who are also in New Zealand, represented by Dr Pasi Sahlberg, focus on equity of achievement and equity of participation, and they get the results that we need. When I hosted Pasi Sahlberg here at Parliament, with the National Party, and we had a conversation, it turned out that Finland actually has indigenous people, and it has the same issues that we struggle with. It has Sami and Roma people who fall through the cracks unless more resources are put into their indigenous languages in schools, which is what Finland is doing, and that is how it is improving. But, no, we are not going to do that. No, no, we are going to privatise instead.
This charter school scheme, this “Pepsi-Cola High”, as Chris Hipkins so rightly said, is on its way, not to mention the Destiny Church homophobia classes. You know, it is all possible. This scheme is going to be more expensive, more risky, and lower quality. The Government will deny it, but we have already seen in this country that every single little religious group, particularly some very fundamentalist groups that have strange ideas about what it is to be a human, and other groups that feel they need more cultural responsiveness, will be flocking to set up their schools. The fragmentation of society will follow. We will be paying a price not only for individual students but for society. We support equity as a goal and the right of communities, especially tangata whenua, to develop kura based on tikanga and Pasifika, but this is not it. This is the contract, and when the contract fails, all it does is reinforce the vulnerability of people and families who are already vulnerable.
One of the issues that comes up under the charter schools but which may also be applied across the board—it is unclear—is timetabling. This appears to apply to schools other than charter schools. It raises the question about what is the problem. At the moment we have flexible timetabling at some schools. Schools can set earlier and later start times. Or is this multiple timetabling really a way to double-bunk school facilities? Again, is it for charter schools to have the opportunity to force students into longer hours and weekends so they can rote learn and meet the standard, so that they can fulfil the contract? That is how it works in the other charter schools. You can rote learn. You have to get students rote learning by keeping them in for more hours, and then they will perform in order to meet the technocratic neo-liberal reductionist model of education, which has got nothing to do with real learning. Dropout rates from this kind of regime are notoriously high, particularly in overseas charter schools, because this mechanism forces performance in a way that hinders success and reinforces failure. So we have many issues with this.
Although the Government is determined to merge schools in Christchurch to save money, on the other hand it is setting up charter schools that are going to suck children from the surrounding schools, putting pressure on the State schools. It is not only irrational; it is wrong. And the Government can hire whomever it likes to be a teacher. National members appear to think that any person can come into a classroom, plan a curriculum, engage the students, set learning goals, and create proper assessment options. You do not need any professional experience to do that! It is just something that you can make up as you go along. That will work for the most vulnerable! The heart of our system, which is why we are seventh in the world, is that only registered teachers with a practising certificate should be able to teach children on a permanent basis. We are not denying the role of school support staff and volunteers; we are saying that the leadership must be from people who understand pedagogy. I dispute the idea that somebody who happens to be enthusiastic can walk off the street and actually deliver the kind of evaluation and pedagogy required. They can support, but they cannot lead, and they should not be there as a school leader. And that is why, despite the fact that in international terms we are underfunded, we do have good schools. They can be better. The new charter schools have been given a blanket waiver, for the reason that we have had the success that we have had. That is arguably legislative vandalism. But the worst thing is the secrecy. The worst thing is this secret contract with the sponsor, who, again, does not need any qualifications. There is no accountability for that person. Again, it can be anyone. It could be anyone involved in the business community who might like to make money. That is fine.
So, in summary, I fear that we are looking at a giant Ponzi scheme that is going to fail our kids. We have a positive view of public education, and we will be fighting this bill to the end.
COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to take a call during the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I must commend the Ministers Hekia Parata and John Banks for the way that they are managing the education system. I would use the words that Dr Stuart Middleton uses: it is about relevance in education. I see that this bill does address relevance. It also represents a Government that has got an unrelenting focus on achievement. It is so important that we get all our children off to a very positive start, that we then know how they are doing, that we give those parents choice, and that those choices are available to those most vulnerable children. The one disappointment I have is that it is very unlikely that we will have a partnership school in Marlborough. I would certainly welcome one. It would be wonderful to see, but I do think that they will have their opportunity within the cities. When you have those children, when you go to the various schools in the cities and they look at you, they all have that shiny aspiration. If you go and see them, they do have that shiny aspiration in their eyes and they want to achieve.
This bill is a serious step forward. I am so pleased to see that we have the opportunity now of using appropriately qualified individuals who may not be teacher-registered according to the Teachers Council, but who do have that ability to teach and inspire. If it is one thing for a person who has been affected a little bit by not being able to get those teachers in front of schools, and tradespeople, in actual fact we now do have that vehicle within the charter and partnerships schools situation. There is a lot of work to be done here. I am looking forward to working with the Science and Education Committee, and that will be wonderful. Thank you very much. I commend this bill to the House.
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora. I rise to speak on the Education Amendment Bill, and I want to start with something that I agree with. I want to start by saying that I agree with Nikki Kaye when she says that this bill is a pivotal bill for this country inside education. However, I think it is in the wrong direction. But I would also say that if Ms Kaye was actually the Minister of Education I would have greater faith and greater trust that open-mindedness would take part on both sides of the House in the conversation. So I am sorry that Ms Kaye is not the current Minister of Education, because I actually believe that she cares for the children of this country and that she understands, has an open mind, and is prepared to work cross-party to make things right for the children of this country.
None of us denies that 20 percent failing or not achieving at their best is not good enough. But I also want to acknowledge that in that 20 percent are a large number of special-needs children—the parents of them were out there today—who have had their special-needs units closed, who are going to be put into mainstream schools, and who are trapped by national standards. Add to that those numbers of children who are not going to be cared for in any way, shape, or form by this amendment bill. So I start with something that I agree with, and it is the quality of Ms Kaye inside this House.
I also want to say that I agree with the surrender and retention clauses in this bill, and I am pleased to see them there. As a current member of a board of trustees, I am pleased to not have to have the conversation in the future with some more virulent members of boards that they cannot bring drug dogs into the school once every week just because they think it looks cool. So I am very pleased that there will be some structure around the search and seizure abilities of the school boards of trustees.
I want to remind the House that when New Zealand First came into this House we said we would vote for good legislation, and we would vote against bad. The way this is worded right now is bad. It is not going to achieve what I think is truly the desire of the Government, which is to start to lift those one in five. I do not believe that this is the way forward. I believe it is going in the opposite direction, and the fact that Mr John Banks quotes from 1938 to justify this bill indicates that he is nowhere near a 21st century learning environment.
It is actually scary that Mr Banks has got anything to do with this bill, quite frankly. However, I do not think we should blame Mr Banks for this bill being here, because this work was done and was started prior to any agreement being signed with the ACT Party. I do not want the National Government to have an excuse that when this goes bad, it is going to blame it on MMP. This was National’s idea. The Secretary for Education was hired some months before the parties actually signed an agreement, so the Government cannot blame this on MMP. This came from its Cabinet.
This Government has turned the word “choice” into a weapon. It is using it to bash every public institution to death, quite frankly. It has altered the meaning of that word and has turned it into a weapon against education, against health, and against our public servants. Part 1 of this bill actually has a statement about the “Right to free primary and secondary education”. We all agree with that. But how about the right to know what your taxpayer dollar is being spent on? Why are these schools not included in any Official Information Act requests? Why have they been exempted? I am very, very concerned.
The bill actually says that charter schools are required to abide by the discipline procedures that are inside the legislation. I am very pleased to see that. However, they are exempt from the Ombudsmen Act. At the end of the discipline procedure, when a child is excluded or expelled from any school, the last point of complaint is to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman can actually seek the records from go to whoa with regard to the discipline procedure, to make sure that the processes of natural justice were carried out and that the board did not unduly influence or unduly require those parents to remove their child. That has been removed from charter schools. That means that charter schools can exclude or expel students with nobody knowing why, with nobody having any oversight as to whether natural justice was a part of that process or what support mechanisms were put in by the schools to try to keep that child engaged in education. That is a major concern. I hope we can discuss it further at the Education and Science Committee.
How about the right to be consulted by your Government before it decides to close or merge your school? I mean, that is another little issue that has come up in here. With regard to that, I asked the Minister a question in the House the other day about whether, for any Christchurch schools that would be merged, the current 3-month period inside the Education Act 1989—the 3-month time frame by which new boards of trustees’ elections must be called for any merged schools—would stand. She said to me that, yes, this bill removes that clause. This bill allows the Minister to decide to not do that. What that means to two schools being merged is—and I want to point out here too that the Secretary for Education has actually been quoted as saying that New Zealand was too immature for Tomorrow’s Schools when it was introduced and that we needed to get rid of primary schools a long time ago. She said that in a public meeting.
It does not give a great deal of confidence when the next thing you see is a clause in here saying that schools can be merged, but there is a removal of the requirement to hold a democratic process to elect the board of trustees to a school. That means that the Minister could actually merge primary, intermediate, and secondary schools into an educational hub, decide that the secondary school board was going to be the governing body, and that is it. Nobody else in that community for a 3-year period gets an opportunity to actually participate in the governance of their school. And what boards of trustees do—let us now go to section 75 in clause 16—is that they are elected representatives of their parental communities, who set the direction after consultation with their communities, through their vision statement, through their charter, and then through the management with the annual plan. That is actually the first rung of the democratic process, and this clause is another attack on it. This clause looks like another attack on that process.
Also, inside the charter schools provision I do not see any provision for that communication—for that partnership, shall we say—with those communities. There is a sponsor and there is an owner—a private owner of a school. I do not even see it in here, actually. I am happy to work with the Education and Science Committee and be proven wrong, but even under private schools when a body is appointed by the owners of those schools, that is not mentioned in here either. So it looks like the sponsor rules.
If ever there was a clause that shows you that this is just a business, then it is clause 23. “Partnership school” is another term that has been taken and, unfortunately, manipulated by this Government. There is no partnership in here—there is no partnership in here. Tomorrow’s Schools created a triangle of support for our students. It brought home and school together for the benefit of the student. There is no elected board. There is a sponsor that runs the school. There certainly is a contract that nobody can see, but there is also now a business leader in charge of the school—not a teaching professional, and not a person who necessarily has any idea about teaching. How can that person judge the educational outcomes? By what criteria can they judge the educational outcomes or the quality of teaching and learning that is happening there? They cannot. They are a business leader. They can tell you—and I was going to use these dreaded words—how much profit they can get from the bulk funding that is going to happen inside these schools by saving on non-registered teachers, or by cutting back on this, that, or the other thing, but they will not be able to adequately report on the teaching and learning and the quality of it inside those schools.
This is me just scratching the surface. We need a long time at the select committee. We need to hear this, and maybe we might get something right.
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie): It is a pleasure to take a call on this, the first reading of the Education Amendment Bill. I want to thank the Associate Minister of Education John Banks, as well as the Minister of Education, Hekia Parata, as well as Catherine Judd, for the work they have done on bringing this bill to the House. What does this bill show? It shows that this Government is committed to ensuring that every young New Zealander has the skills and qualifications required to successfully participate in our modern economy. We agree with members across the House that we have a great education system in this country, and we have some of the highest spending in the OECD on education. But we can do better.
What is the problem? Our Government inherited an education system that saw one in five students leaving school without the ability to read, write, and do maths. That means that their ability to contribute to society is limited. It means that it leads to a high level of welfare dependency, and it leads to crime and incarceration. In terms of National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2, which is considered entry level for jobs, 31 percent of school leavers are currently leaving school without NCEA level 2. For Māori and Pacific students it is even worse—52 percent for Māori, and 41 percent for Pacific. That is a travesty for those students, it is a travesty for their families and their communities, and it is a travesty for this country.
So what is this bill going to change? This bill is aimed at solving the long tail of underachievement in our education sector.
Sue Moroney: How?
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA: The measures in this bill will lead to the goal that we have set out for 85 percent of 18-year-olds having NCEA level 2 or better by 2017. Members opposite ask us how. Here is how, madam. It is about establishing clearer surrender and retention provisions, which Nikki Kaye talked about, and which will contribute towards learning environments that are both safe and conducive to positive student achievement. The bill also supports getting children into early childhood education earlier, by enabling the ministry to assign a National Student Number to children likely to benefit from attending early childhood education services. It also makes other amendments for provisions such as flexible school timetabling, as well as clear expectations for boards of trustees.
I held a public meeting in Maungakiekie, and the feedback from parents was encouraging. They wanted to find out more about these schools and how they worked, and how they could better improve outcomes for their children and their grandchildren. I have also met with a number of Pasifika groups. They have said that they are open to partnership schools being part of Pasifika learning in this country.
I also went to a charter school in the United States called E L Haynes. E L Haynes is a school that is full of minority kids—95 percent. What the data shows is that student achievement was recorded at 77 percent of students proficient or advanced in maths, and 64 percent proficient or advanced in reading. That compares with the state averages of 43 percent and 44 percent, respectively. This is about the educational outcomes of our children, and it is about doing something different to address the long tale of underachievement. It will give our parents, our communities, and our young people a choice. Although we are making great progress in education, we can and need to do better. I welcome and fully support this bill, and I look forward to debating this bill as it goes forward. Thank you.
SUE MORONEY (Labour): It is really sad that none of the National members of Parliament can spend more than 3 minutes espousing the virtues of charter schools, because there just are not any. I noticed that Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga, who has just spoken, barely got to 3 minutes before he had to start talking about other aspects of the Education Amendment Bill, so devoid of merit is this idea of charter schools. But you have only to look at the sponsoring Ministers to understand that.
I think it must be an absolute embarrassment to the Government that the Minister who began the first reading debate on this legislation was the “Minister for Amnesia”, John Banks. He is a sponsoring Minister of this legislation. Can anyone opposite tell me of a Minister who lacks credibility more than the Minister who started off this demolition to our education system? Well, maybe there is one other, and that is the other sponsoring Minister—the Minister in charge of the bill, actually—Hekia Parata. Can anyone tell me of two Ministers who are more lacking in credibility at the moment than the duo of Hekia Parata and John Banks? It is like Batman and Robin gone wrong. They are the two Ministers sponsoring this bill, and that is probably just about all New Zealanders need to know about whether this is going to be successful or not.
Those two Ministers are the Ministers who have wrecked education already. The best idea that Hekia Parata has had in her short time as the Minister of Education was that she wanted to dumb down our education system by—yes—increasing class sizes. That is the qualification that Hekia Parata has for being the Minister in charge of this bill. Then there is John Banks, who is the co-sponsoring Minister. Well, this was a deal done over the teacups, and it has gone bad from there on in.
This bill has nothing to do with increasing student achievement. When the last speaker spoke he alerted us to that, because where was he drawing inspiration from for his speech? He drew it from a country and an area that has much, much worse educational outcomes than New Zealand. He quoted those much worse educational outcomes in New Zealand and said “Why don’t we do what they’re doing?”. Well, that is the big mistake that is going on here. Those members opposite are so devoid of ideas that they are copying countries that are below us in the world rankings in student achievement.
Clearly, this bill has absolutely not one thing to do with student achievement, so what is it about? Well, it is about putting money into the pockets of the likes of Destiny Church. Destiny Church is lining up to become a charter school with no rules and regulations—no rules and regulations. It will have a whole pile of taxpayer money but no accountability back to the public, because—listen to this—the Destiny Church will not be under the Official Information Act as a charter school. There will be no scrutiny from the public about how the Destiny Church is using taxpayer money on its little venture under the guise of charter schools, which, apparently, the members opposite are inviting us to believe, and are trying to trick the public into believing, are about improving student achievement.
I think that all of the New Zealand public listening to this debate will understand that the motivation for the Destiny Church in operating a charter school will not be primarily about student achievement. It has other agendas, and so will many, many other groups that will be lining up behind Destiny Church to get their hands on taxpayer money with no accountability—no accountability—because the Official Information Act will not apply for taxpayers to find out what is really happening to their dollar in the schools with no rules and, if necessary, no qualified teachers.
There is nothing in the legislation that we are debating here today that actually requires any qualified or registered teacher to be in any one of these schools. If I am wrong, I invite the next National Party speaker to put that straight, because I can see nowhere in this legislation where there is a requirement for a charter school to have any registered teacher on its staff. But it is no surprise coming from that party.
I do not know what National has got against qualified and registered teachers, but it started this in the early childhood education sector. National started this in 2010 when it decided to cut the funding that actually supported the employment of qualified teachers in early childhood education. That party said then that it did not believe in having 100 percent qualified teachers in early childhood education, so it cut the funding that actually underpinned and allowed the sector to employ qualified teachers. The writing was on the wall then. It started in early childhood education. Now it is attacking the rest of the education sector with this idea that anyone will do—anyone will do. It does not need to be anyone who understands the pedagogy or has any—any—training in the art and the craft of teaching.
So that is the vision for this country. It is really very disappointing, because only a few months ago John Key was trying to convince parents that it is not the class sizes that matter but the quality of teaching that we are getting in our schools. That was John Key, just a few months ago. Now he is telling New Zealanders: “Oh don’t get hung up on the fact that teachers without qualifications will be able to teach New Zealand children at charter schools.” It is another flip-flop from this Prime Minister.
It is disappointing because New Zealanders need to be able to take their Prime Minister at his word. They need to be able to take their Prime Minister at his word, but this clearly shows that they cannot, because one minute he is saying that it is the quality of teachers that matters, and then, the next minute, he is saying “Oh, don’t get hung up if you haven’t got a qualified teacher in front of your child’s class. It doesn’t matter.” You cannot take this Prime Minister at his word, as has clearly been demonstrated.
I think it is a sad time for New Zealanders when they cannot trust what the Prime Minister says. Yesterday he was trying to tell New Zealanders that he voted for the age of 20 for alcohol law reform, but the record clearly shows that he voted for it to be kept at 18. We are now getting into territory where it is very, very difficult for New Zealanders to trust anything that their Prime Minister says. He said that it is the quality of teachers that matters, not the class size. He says: “You know, don’t worry your pretty little heads about that, parents, because Prime Minister John knows best.” Well, “Prime Minister John” has now changed his mind. “Prime Minister John” now says that the quality of teaching does not matter. It is because he has run out of ideas, though. That is why he is changing his mind—he has run out of ideas along with the rest of them over there.
So devoid are National members of any ideas about how to actually improve our educational outcomes in this country that they are now looking to countries like the United States and the UK for inspiration. Well, here is some news for the members opposite. Those countries have worse, significantly worse, educational achievement and student achievement than we do right now in New Zealand. Why are they looking to countries that fail to improve student education instead of actually looking at and enhancing the success that New Zealand has always had? I would argue that a significant amount of that success has been because of the quality of our teachers, not because we are dumbing down the education system as that Government is inclined to do—as it has proven time and time again.
This is very bad legislation. I am proud that the Labour Party is opposing this. I think it tells New Zealand that we are going to need a Labour-led Government to get any progress and a quality education for our children.
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): Choice, opportunity, and hope—choice, opportunity, and hope. That is what this Education Amendment Bill is about. It is an enormous pleasure for me to stand in support of this Education Amendment Bill in its first reading. I am looking forward as a member of the Education and Science Committee to participating in the debate. I want to congratulate the Hon John Banks on introducing the bill into the House. I am supporting the Hon Hekia Parata because this is a bill that provides choice, opportunity, and hope for New Zealand children.
Like my colleague Colin King, who spoke earlier on in this debate, and who was disappointed that it is unlikely that a partnership school will come to his electorate, I too am saddened that it is unlikely one will come to the very good area of Coromandel, because our kids and our parents would want one. I commend this bill to the House.
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am going to call the next member, Dr Megan Woods. A split call, by the way.
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): Yes, it is. What would be really good when we are debating something as fundamental as introducing a new form of education in this country is to hear some full calls from members opposite to actually tell us why it is that they think this will make a difference to the New Zealand education system, and to not hear slogans—choice, opportunity, and hope coming to a place near you. Well, no, it is not, if charter schools are all they have got. This bill should not be called the Education Amendment Bill; it should be called the “Education Demolition Bill”, because this is what charter schools in this country are going to be about. I am very much, as a member of the Education and Science Committee, looking forward to having this piece of legislation come before us. Hopefully, we will have adequate time to consider this. We do not, will not, and never will agree to National’s charter schools. There is simply—
Simon O’Connor: Ideologues.
Dr MEGAN WOODS: We are not ideologues. We simply are dealing in evidence, and there is no evidence that charter schools work. In fact, Mr O’Connor, I refer you to a 2009 Center for Research on Education Outcomes research from Stanford University. It shows that 37 percent of students in charter schools perform significantly worse than students in other schools. They simply do not work. All we have from the party opposite is a deal done over the teacups to get it back into power, and it is our children who are going to suffer. They are going to have unqualified teachers in their classrooms. The children of this country are going to be used like guinea pigs. What we know from the international evidence is that they simply do not perform any better. What this is about is ideology from the other side.
This is about making education for profit. I would like to read from the general policy statement in the commentary to the legislation. It says: “The sponsor will sign a contract with the Crown that sets out the responsibilities and obligations of both parties.” Hard to imagine we are talking about schools, education, and the future of our children when we have to read sentences like that. For me, education is not about contracts and what to sign in terms of setting out the obligations and the responsibilities. We have over 100 years of an education system that has worked out exactly what those rights and responsibilities and obligations are, and it is working. We have an education system that we can rightly be proud of. We have an education system that performs better than in the countries from where they are modelling what will be this failed experiment.
Hekia Parata has told us this is all about student achievement. It is just irony that she is telling school boards to focus on student achievement in the same bill that allows the setting up of charter schools, which are focused on turning a profit and not on educating our children. For me, there should be one outcome from a school, and that is giving a child the best start in life. This is not what this bill is doing, and members opposite cannot even take full calls to justify how this will be the case. If you are going to make change of this kind of magnitude, then we would actually like to hear what you have got to say.
Where is it that we are focusing these schools on? It is, not surprisingly, Christchurch. Christchurch is going to be a target. We have seen this in other places. Charter schools do not work. They simply have not shown that they work in other places. This is about a National Government that is running out of ideas. It has no ideas for how it is that we can make this country a better place—a place where we do have opportunity and everybody has choice, and certainly where people have something more to hope for than hoping their flight to Australia is on time. What we need to do is make sure that we are putting our children first, and this bill most certainly does not do that.
JAN LOGIE (Green): This Education Amendment Bill represents the biggest shake-up in education this country has seen in decades, and this comes at a time when New Zealand has been amongst the world leaders in education for over a decade.
The latest OECD report from 2012 reviewing and evaluating the assessment of education in New Zealand confirmed this view, and again the Programme for International Student Assessment confirmed this view. In the latest survey New Zealand students were ranked fourth in the OECD in reading literacy, fourth in scientific literacy, and seventh in mathematical literacy. It is not easy to maintain these rankings, but New Zealand has consistently maintained these rankings since they were introduced in 2000. In contrast, Australia has recorded a significant decline, England has also slipped significantly, and the US—the home of charter schools—has managed to be only about average in the OECD. New Zealand is better than average. I do not want to see us reduced to average.
Although I say this, I am not in any way suggesting that there is not room for improvement. A proportion of our young people—one in five, as we keep on hearing from that side of the House—are not achieving their full potential. I am not going to minimise the significance of that, because the Greens want every child to be able to reach their potential.
But when the Waitangi Tribunal, after hearing all the evidence, found that the Crown had failed kōhanga due to Government policy and funding decisions, we can see where some of the problems lie. When the Government has withdrawn funding for the very few Pacific language resources that we had, we can see where some of the problems lie. When feedback regarding ongoing resourcing scheme funding has been identifying significant barriers for students with disabilities for years, we can see where some of the problems lie. When 270,000 children in this country are living in poverty and the medical evidence shows a direct correlation between poverty and IQ development—and we know that it is hard to learn when you are hungry or worried sick about your parents—we can see where some of the problems lie. The failure lies at the feet of the Government, not our schools.
This bill seeks to shift the blame. It is a “psycho-ACT” of transference—
Hon Member: A what?
JAN LOGIE: I know, it was a good line, was it not? I quite liked that. To try to lift educational achievement for the bottom quintile by ignoring all of these factors, and setting up charter schools and forcing national standards, is counter-productive, to put it in my most minimal, non-emotive terms.
The Education Policy Response Group, which consists of 12 College of Education experts, reviewed charter schools in other countries, and looked at the evidence and at what it would mean for New Zealand. The group convener, Professor Emeritus Ivan Snook, noted: “The evidence is clear that charter schools have the potential to cause harm to the very groups of students they are supposed to help.”
I will echo the group’s final warning, which has been proven overseas, that charter schools cream the most motivated or talented students from other schools and cleanse their own schools of those who are most difficult or expensive to teach, and they distort the fair distribution of teachers across the system and siphon money away from existing programmes for most disadvantaged students. So that is this Government’s response to the one in five who are trailing—to take and take and take. I know which babies are going to be thrown out in this ideological bath, and it will not help any of them to live good lives or have fair futures.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): If this debate was about rhetoric without reason from the Opposition, there would be A-pluses, buzzy bees, and little smiley faces. All you have heard from the Opposition is empty, empty rhetoric. The core element of this Education Amendment Bill, of this initiative, is to continue to lift the achievements of students in this country. It is about engaging with providers to provide education that is based on outputs and success. A good idea does not need lengthy debate at this point. What it needs is to get to the Education and Science Committee to be discussed and to get into opportunity. So on that level I will leave it, and I look forward to giving that smiley face to the Opposition for the art of empty rhetoric.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Education Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 63
New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 56
New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Education and Science Committee.
Bills
Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill
First Reading
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I move, That the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the bill. At the appropriate time I will move that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee report to the House on the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill by 28 February 2013.
Nothing can be more sapping for the spirit of a young New Zealander than to be on welfare at such an early part of their life. Everything that Governments can do to assist those people to get into meaningful work is important, and that is why this Government is bringing in this piece of legislation, in order to assist those young people. What is quite clear is that this is intended to assist three groups of people through the starting out wage. They are: 16 and 17-year-olds in their first 6 months of work with a new employer; 18 and 19-year-olds who have been paid a benefit for 6 months or longer and have not yet completed 6 months of continuous work with any employer; and 16 to 19-year-olds in training in a recognised industry training course involving at least 40 credits a year. The starting out wage is voluntary, and it must be agreed to by both the employer and the employee.
As I said, we want to help young New Zealanders get their foot on the first rung of the job ladder, and we want to make sure that they have an opportunity to get that job. This was recognised by the previous Labour Government, which introduced a proposal when it was in Government that would see people paid the same amount as they will get on this starting out wage, but it was called something else and it was limited roughly only to about 3 months. We are extending this to 6 months, and we are making it apply across a wider group of these younger people. So there is nothing mystical or magical about the starting out wage. There is nothing mystical about it, nothing magical about it, and nothing mean about it, because it is the rate that Labour put in place when it was in Government in 2008. But we want to make sure that that starting out wage is there to support young people who are new to the workforce, so that they can get into long-term sustainable employment.
We want to give them an opportunity to take advantage of the labour market to gain the necessary skills and work experience to assist them through their working lives. Indeed, this is what Mrs Dyson and Mrs Fenton said when they spoke in 2007-08 when the previous Labour Government introduced its equivalent of this legislation. What they said was that there was a good argument to recognise that for many young people, the first few months of their employment were a training period, when they were learning skills, getting experience, and providing skills so that they could add value to businesses in terms of their long-term sustainable employment. Labour thought it was right that young people be given that opportunity, and that is what we are proposing in this legislation—to give them their first foot on the rung of the job ladder. So this bill limits the period for an employer who can use the starting out wage for a young person who works for them to 6 months, unless they are training or supervising others, and after this time the young person is entitled to be paid at the adult rate by that employer.
The starting out wage also addresses the issue for many young people who have been on a benefit and who face difficulty re-entering or gaining a foothold on the workforce ladder. What we know is that the longer someone stays on welfare, the harder it is to get into work—
Dr Cam Calder: That’s right.
Hon TONY RYALL:—and, as Dr Calder would say, the worse it is for their health. What we know is that the longer people are on welfare, the worse it is for their health. In fact, Dame Carol Black would say that being on welfare is equivalent to smoking a significant number of cigarettes every day. It has the same impact on your health. If we can provide every opportunity for young people to get into work, it is good for their future prospects, but also for their health. The starting out wage provides an incentive for employers to take these young people on. Those who have been out of the workforce for a while may lack skills and experience, and this provides an opportunity for them to get what is necessary.
As the Minister of Labour said in her press statement, the Government recognises there is also a need to provide more vocational training opportunities for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is important that these young people are able to engage in training for industry, and employers so far have indicated that they are not using the minimum training wage. So this bill changes the status quo by providing for young people between 16 and 19 employed under contracts of service that require them to undergo training to have a minimum starting rate rather than the minimum training wage. So we have reduced the number of training credits from 60 to 40 for 16 to 19-year-olds to give them the flexibility to choose a range of courses without having such a heavy load.
I think that the response to this has been really quite remarkable. Large numbers of employers around the country have said that this makes a lot of sense. I think there has been a pretty muted response from the union movement, really. I think it knows that the previous Government brought something in on this, at the same rate for a large number of young people. We are extending that to a wider group. The rate is the same. After 6 months they move on to the minimum wage that is currently legislated. But what is so important here is that we give these young people a chance and an opportunity so that when they go and apply for jobs, they are able to discuss their eligibility for this support with the employer. The employer can take that into consideration when they make their employment decision.
But people must know that these young people are being supported by the Parliament to get their foot on the first rung of the employment ladder. Just under 25,000 young people have already benefited from subsidised work placements and pre-employment training. The Government’s plan is working. There are around about 60,000 more jobs in the economy today than there were a little while ago, and, despite the uncertainty in so many parts of the world, the latest GDP figures show that New Zealand grew by 1.6 percent in the last 6 months. That is very, very significant. Economic growth is forecast to increase to 2 to 3 percent, and that is what drives real jobs in the New Zealand economy. Getting the private sector up and running creates the wealth and the jobs and the economic growth that creates more jobs and economic growth for New Zealanders.
This Government has taken a number of important steps under the leadership and auspices of the Minister of Labour, Kate Wilkinson. The 90-day trial period for new employees is deemed to create around about 13,000 new jobs. The lower company tax rate is really competitive with Australia, at 28c. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being put back into the economy through lower ACC levies. Hundreds of millions of dollars are being saved by removing 170 unnecessary red-tape compliance measures. We have got one of the lowest inflation rates we have had since 1999. Interest rates are at their lowest level in 45 years. This Government is putting in place the platform that provides the incentive and the encouragement for business to invest and grow jobs and create wealth in New Zealand. The people who are benefiting from that investment will be the young New Zealanders who will get increased opportunities under this change that is being provided by this Government. We promised to do it in the election. We have got a mandate to do this. We have got a mandate from New Zealanders to do this because it helps put the incentives in the right place to give businesses the confidence to grow, to invest in their workforces, and to compete in the world economy.
I am very pleased to be able to move the first reading motion for this bill on behalf of Minister Kate Wilkinson, who works tirelessly with our other Ministers to create opportunities for New Zealanders, and this is a big opportunity for young New Zealanders to get their foot on the first rung of the job ladder to independence and a better life, which we would want for all of them.
DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I rise on behalf of the Labour Party to strongly oppose this bill, the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. In fact, it could be called the “Minimum Wage (Starting-out and Starting-out Again, Again, and Again) Amendment Bill. The Minister of Health is wrong when he compares this bill to Labour’s previous policy and amendments to the Minimum Wage Act around young workers. We had a one-off, 3-month, or 200-hours new entrants rate for a 16 or 17-year-old. It was a one-off whereby in their very first job an employer could employ them on 80 percent of the adult minimum wage. What this bill does, of course, is extend the unfair, discriminatory practices of this Government when it comes to workers generally, and it takes us back to last century. This is a last-century piece of legislation. Not since the last century have we had youth rates for 18 and 19-year-olds. They are old enough to vote, old enough to go in the army and fight, old enough to get married, and old enough to have families and have responsibilities. Yet here we are, saying that 18 and 19-year-olds under this bill will be worth only 80 percent of the adult wage—for the first time since the last century.
What happened last century when we had minimum wages, youth rates, for 16 to 20-year-olds? When Labour came into power in 2000 the youth rate was just $4.20 an hour for a 19-year-old. For goodness’ sake! Did that fix the problem of youth unemployment? No, it did not. We had some of the highest youth unemployment we have ever seen in this country. It is a very, very old-fashioned, last-century idea—the idea that this Government seems to have, that if you cut wages, that if you compete on cheap wages, then that somehow creates jobs. We know, from years of experience of trying that, that it does not work. We need to do better by the workers of New Zealand, but also by our young people.
This bill will add to the disappointment of our young people that John Key’s Government is letting them down. It is letting them down, and it is failing to give them hope. Numbers of them are getting on the plane to Australia, numbers are already saving up their airfare to Australia, because they know that even if there is a youth minimum wage in Australia, it is going to be higher than here. They need a Government that will provide them with a future that provides decent, secure jobs, not the low wage, any job is a good job, kind of approach that we have seen from the Minister of Labour, from John Key, from Paula Bennett, and from others. It is a very backwards-looking policy, and it gives one message to young workers. It says to them: “You’re not worth much.” It says to them: “This Government does not believe in young people. It does not like young people. In fact, we dislike you so much we are going to give you a pay cut. There is going to be a pay cut.” If you are 16 or 17, not only will you be on 80 percent of the minimum wage—$10.80 an hour—once, for your first 6 months of employment, but if you go to a new job, you are going to have to start all over again. That is why it is called the “starting over and over and out” kind of bill.
Many 16 and 17-year-olds work part-time jobs, they work casual jobs, they work to supplement their income while they study. They do not actually have a permanent job that goes for 6 months. So every 6 months or every time they start a new job, if they are working in the holidays, back they go, down the snakes and ladders ladder, back down to the youth minimum wage. They feel like they are just getting to be treated like an adult and respected for the work they do, and down the ladder they go, back to $10.80, over and over and over again. It is even worse in some ways—in many ways, actually—for young people who have been on a benefit. As I said before, 18 and 19-year-olds have not been on a youth rate since the 1990s, and we know that made no difference. But what the Government is planning to do under this bill and under its policy is to say to 18 and 19-year-olds: “If you’ve been on a benefit for 6 months, you’re so hopeless”—even though that benefit might be an invalids benefit or a sickness benefit—“you’re going to get punished if you get a job, by being on a youth rate for 6 months. You’re so hopeless you don’t deserve to get paid an adult wage.” What we will have is people going into the workforce who are 18 and 19, working alongside other 18 and 19-year-olds who are getting the adult rate. That is going to cause mayhem in the workplace. I think it is going to continue to cause real problems.
There are very deep flaws in the thinking of this Government around the process of 18 and 19-year-olds. They were raised in question time today by me, but were not particularly well answered by the substitute Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health. First of all, how will employers know if an 18 or 19-year-old has been on a benefit for 6 months? How are they going to know? The Minister said that oh, they will have a conversation. That just says to me that he has no idea what it is like for a young worker going into a job interview and having a discussion, a so-called discussion, with an employer about their job prospects. What it will mean, in my view, is that employers are going to be led into a trap. They are already telling older workers that they do not want them. I have had three cases of that in the last week—three cases in the last week—where older workers have been told: “No, we don’t need you, because we can get younger workers on cheaper wages.” Employers are going to be led down the path of believing that they can advertise and say they want 18 and 19-year-olds, who have been on a benefit, on a starting-out wage. It may be that Work and Income refers young people, but I have deep concerns about the privacy around that and around the discrimination that arises in the workplace—not only the discrimination for those young people, who may have been on a sickness benefit or an invalids benefit or a young parent payment, but also the privacy of their information. Why should that disclosure have to happen? They should be judged on their merits. They should be judged on their merits as to whether they are the best person for the job. If they are the best person for the job, they should get paid at least the adult minimum wage.
The other question I asked today was about the Minister’s claim in her Q and A that she put out with her bill, that this is not compulsory. That is just simply rubbish. What she said was that it is not compulsory; the worker will have to agree. If a worker is somebody who has been on a benefit, goes along and applies for a job, is sent by Work and Income, is offered a starting-out wage of $10.80 an hour and says: “No, I can’t afford that. I can’t live on that. I’m going to have to turn that down.”, they will be punished. They will be punished by having a sanction of a 13-week stand-down from Work and Income, which is part of the whole sanction approach to beneficiaries from this Government. So saying that it is not compulsory is quite simply ridiculous. A worker in that situation has no power to negotiate, to reach an agreement with an employer and say: “Actually, I think I’m worth a lot more than the starting-out wage.”, when they know that if they turn it down they are going to have their benefit cut and they are going to be punished by this Government, which does not like young people.
It is a very backwards-looking policy. The regulatory impact statement freely admits that the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment did not consult with external groups such as the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. It did not bother. Treasury suggested that this could apply to other groups of workers, so we might see in the future other vulnerable workers—we might see other groups of workers like Māori and Pasifika, who have high unemployment—on a starting-out wage. How disgraceful. Of course it is going to have an impact. We are trying to keep young people at school. We are trying to keep them in training. What this does is discriminate against those who choose to study and make a bit extra while they are studying. It will impact on their incomes and make it more difficult for them to study. This bill is a disgrace.
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): The time is right for the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill now. It is the right time for our economy. We have delivered the platform for economic growth in New Zealand, we have the opportunity there for young people to get jobs, and it is time that we enabled those young people to get on that first rung of the ladder of employment. This first step is an opportunity for somebody to get a job, who feels that it is the appropriate thing. It is the right time now to do this. The economy is in a situation where it is the right time, and so we look forward to the bill progressing through this House.
I think the Opposition makes a lot of assumptions about the profile of our young people and the training they undertake. Training can be a lifelong thing that goes on through one’s career, not just at one stage of somebody’s life. Somebody may take on a job in the first instance, but it does not deny them the ability to get further training and education later as they progress through their career.
This bill gives options for young people. It gives them options at a time when we need those young people to get employment. It is a bill that will deliver a brighter future for those young people, going forward. Thank you.
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I would like to say that it is great to have the opportunity to speak on the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill, but this is a shocking piece of legislation. It is a bill of failure, and of a failing Government that has no ideas and does not care about young people in this country. In a country where the median household income has been steadily going downwards for the last 3 years, where hundreds of thousands of people are struggling to make ends meet, where poverty is afflicting our young in ever-greater numbers, where important sectors in the economy are shrinking—sectors like manufacturing and the service sector—and are letting workers go, what would you do? Would you encourage new investment? Would you support employers to invest in new technology and the skills for their workforce? Would you support our young, especially our young who are hardest to reach, those who are disaffected, disillusioned, disengaged, and now increasingly disappointed with this Government? Would you help them to get into training? Well, not this Government—not this Government. It has only one direction, and I am not talking about the boy band either. It has only one direction, and it is cheaper and it is nastier. It is cheaper and it is nastier, and the cheaper and the nastier, the better this Government likes it.
This bill is about failure. It is a failure in policies, a failure of ideas, and a failure of leadership. It is about appealing to failing businesses, because the only businesses that are interested in paying pocket money to young people to do adults’ work are dumb businesses, bad businesses, and grubby little businesses that we need fewer of in this country if we want a brighter future. This is not about doing anything good for young people. It is not about helping young people to get a start or get ahead. This is, pure and simple, about exploitation. It is about taking advantage of people often in a desperate and distressed state, and compelling them into low-quality, low-grade, and dead-end work. It comes down to this: this Government—the members opposite—just do not understand the labour market. They never have; they never will. They have no qualms about presiding over a gradual decline and reduction in the wages of working people.
The explanatory note of the bill says that it “is aimed at influencing employers’ demand for young workers.” It will not influence demand for young workers, because it cannot. What influences demand for workers of any type—young, middle-aged, or old—is whether there is work to do. Either there is work to do or there is not. If there is work to do, an employer has a choice to make. They can decide whether to do it themselves, they can decide whether to get someone else to do it, or they can decide that they just will not do it at all. Whether or not you get someone else to do it depends on whether there is dollar to be made, or as economists would say, that the margin of cost of employing that unit of labour is less than the benefit or return to the business. That is how the labour market works. That is what employment is about. The members opposite all look down, because they do not understand this. It is too hard for them, and they do not understand working people, which is why I do not care about them and why they pass laws like this, which are unsympathetic and totally fail to understand the reality of working people.
Now we get to the nub of the issue: it is about the price of labour. It is about the price of labour, and this Government wants to reduce it.
Dr Cam Calder: It’s about jobs.
ANDREW LITTLE: No, it is not about jobs, because jobs arise when there is work to be done. Jobs happen when there is work to be done. It is all very well for those like the former police officer opposite who have enjoyed the benefit of the largesse of the taxpayer to talk about that, but the reality is that employment and job opportunities happen when there is work to be done, and it reflects the state of the economy. And the economy is rapidly going down the toilet, as it is under this Government because it has no ideas about stimulating it, giving employers a decent chance, and taking people on. They do not understand that and they do not care about it, so they have put in measures like this. It is not about creating work; it is about displacing good jobs that other people have. If a dumb employer can see an opportunity to pay somebody $10.80 per hour for work that they are presently paying $13 or whatever it is for, then they will go for the $10.80. That is what bad employers do, and, sad to say, we have some in this country; I have met one or two. Fortunately, they are outnumbered by the good employers, the ones who say that they would never indulge in this exploitative behaviour, they want a high-quality workplace and high-quality workers, they want workers whom they can invest in and they are willing to invest in them, and they see it as a relationship of equals, not of one exploiting the other. That is the difference.
We know that this Government wants cheaper wages and lower quality, because the Minister of Finance Bill English has boasted about it. He boasted about it this year, saying that a way to compete with Australia was to have lower wages, and everything this Government does in employment legislation and industrial relations is about going down that path. Members opposite know that, they understand it, they are too embarrassed to admit it, and they are going to dress it up and say it is about creating jobs, but this will not create a single job, like every other retrograde measure that they have passed. It is like the silly 90-day “no rights” period that they passed. It has not added a single job. It has not added a single job, it does not stimulate demand, it does not help employers, and it just makes it harder for young people.
The worst thing, if it is possible to say that about different parts of this bill, is that if you are a worker over 20 trying to get an apprenticeship, this bill will now drive down the wages of apprentices. They are the very people who we need to be investing in. The fitters and the sparkies, the builders, the carpenters, and the instrumentation technicians are who we need more of and who we are desperate for. What does this bill do? It says it is OK to cut their paltry wages, paltry as they are. That is the insidious, nasty thing about this bill. Far from incentivising investment in young people, far from incentivising skills acquisition and investment in a new skills base, this does the opposite. It is nasty, it is evil, it is tawdry, it is shameful, and it is embarrassing. It is embarrassing to be standing in this House having to debate a piece of legislation that is so retrograde, that is so bad, and that comes from the 19th century, at a time when we thought we were making progress.
No good employer will be looking to this bill. No good employer will employ anybody under this legislation. The difference between the National Party and the Labour Party is that we will work with the good employers, the ones who are prepared to invest in young people, the ones who are prepared to invest in good jobs, well-paid jobs, long-term, sustainable jobs, and decent jobs that pay well, not employers who exploit young people. We will oppose this bill with every fibre in our collective bodies. We have got 34 of them and we will be using all of them to mount our case against this nasty, insidious piece of legislation. It is just one of many that we know are coming before this House from this tawdry, shabby, disaster of a Government.
We will oppose it, and we will be promoting an agenda of good jobs, of investment in good jobs, and of working with those sensible, good employers who know what good work looks like and who are prepared to invest in people, who want to work with the Government, work with the workforce, and work with industry training organisations to achieve just that. That is why we are opposed to this. It is bad legislation. It is grotty legislation from a grotty little Government.
HOLLY WALKER (Green): I am sure it will come as no surprise to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, or to anyone else in this House that the Green Party is very proud to stand opposed to this detestable legislation, the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill, to lower the minimum wage for young people in New Zealand. As the party responsible for the legislation that removed youth rates in 2008, we are rightly proud in the Green Party of our track record of standing up in this Parliament against discrimination and against driving down wages to subsidise big business, and standing up for young people and their right to a good life and a fair future, including fair employment conditions and fair pay.
The reintroduction of youth rates for 18 and 19-year-olds and the unjustified extension of the training period for 16 and 17-year-old workers is a massive step backwards. We have already heard from some of our Labour colleagues some of the compelling arguments against the reintroduction of youth rates. But why should we listen to just the Opposition on this? Why should we rely only on the arguments from this side of the House when there are plenty of Government MPs who put the case against youth rates incredibly well themselves when the House last considered this issue 2 years ago? I thought perhaps we should hear from one of them.
David Bennett, who spoke earlier in this debate, has actually given one of the best speeches against youth rates that I have ever seen. He said: “The fundamental proposition this bill puts up is that we need to pay people less to get them into their first job so that they can have an unskilled future. That is what this bill essentially will do to New Zealanders. We see a different future for New Zealanders. We want those young people to get into training and skills so that they are not talking about getting the lowest-paid job they possibly can, but instead are looking to get the best-paid job they possibly can. If we can achieve that, we can make the dynamic change in our economic base that will give New Zealand the growth potential we need.”
Hon Member: Who says that?
HOLLY WALKER: I am still quoting—he is talking about the ACT Party, which introduced the last legislation: “I think that is the fundamental point that the ACT Party has not grasped. It is looking at things in a historical perspective. Well, the world has moved on.” That was David Bennett in 2010. He is right; the world has moved on.
I want to quote another Government member, one for whom I have got a lot of respect, actually. Dr Jackie Blue, in the same debate, said: “National has not seen any evidence to show that young people are losing their jobs because of youth rates. We are not convinced that this bill will reduce youth unemployment. We should be focused on growing the economy and providing opportunities and jobs for young workers.” That was Jackie Blue in 2010. That is why the Government members oppose youth rates. I will leave it to them to explain, if they can without tying themselves into rhetorical knots, what has changed since they made those statements.
At the heart of the Green Party’s opposition to this legislation is the issue of discrimination. I would imagine that there is not one member of this House who would today stand up and say that we should have a lower minimum wage for women than we do for men, in order to make it easier and help them find work. I would imagine that not one member of this House would stand up today and say that we should have a lower minimum wage for Māori than we do for non-Māori, to make it easier for them to get into work. Some of them might think it, but I do not think there is one member in this House who would get up and say it, because it is ethically, legally, morally, and politically repugnant to this House and to New Zealanders.
We used to hear those exact arguments. We have rehearsed them in this Parliament. But thanks to some very brave, courageous, and passionate people who stood up and argued for what was right, we have finished those debates and we have moved on. Ours is a society that understands and accepts and agrees that sexual and racial discrimination in employment is not acceptable. I thought that we had taken another step forward in 2008 when we abolished age discrimination in the workplace by removing youth rates. So did David Bennett, obviously, when he told the ACT Party in 2010 that the world had moved on. Apparently, some members of the House are living in the past and they want to take New Zealand backwards.
It is no longer acceptable to argue for sexist and racist employment policies, and it should be equally unacceptable to discriminate against young workers. Let us remember here that we are talking about young people who are doing the same jobs, the same work, as their older counterparts. These are people who are employed to do exactly the same jobs as somebody else who is older than them but who will be paid 20 percent less for doing that same job because of their age.
It has been illegal to pay men and women different rates for doing the same job since 1972, under the Equal Pay Act, and it should remain illegal to pay young people differently for doing exactly the same job as older people. Their work is worth the same. They are equally valuable as employees. Really, as far as I am concerned, the argument should go no further than that. We reject illegal discrimination in New Zealand. That should be the end of the story. But, unfortunately, we have a Government that is pretty relaxed about discrimination and is even willing to overturn the views of its own members just a few short years ago to take us back down the path of youth rates, and it is using the economy as an excuse.
Let us have a look at some of the economic arguments. I start, firstly, with the regulatory impact statement prepared by the Department of Labour, which gives you a flavour of just how much intellectual rigour has gone into the formation of this policy. The officials note that the ministry has “not considered other options for achieving the objectives of the proposed starting out wage package.” The reason that they did not look at any other options is that it was a pre-election policy commitment, so “The analysis has focused primarily on how to implement decisions that have already been signalled by Government.” There is no analysis of whether they are actually a good idea, no analysis of whether there might be better ways to address the problem of youth unemployment. It was a preordained conclusion.
The regulatory impact statement also notes that “Consultation on the proposal has been limited. The Ministry has not consulted with external groups such as the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. The analysis has also been constrained by the relatively short period of time in which to undertake the analysis.” So there you go. That is the intellectual rigour. That is the economic analysis behind this proposal. It was a preordained conclusion with pretty much no basis. But what we do know from the unrelenting and unpalatable rhetoric from the Government side of the House is that the Government has an unrelenting focus on work, and it wants to see young people off welfare and into work or training. We know this. We have heard it time and time again.
The solution you would imagine, if you wanted to get people off welfare and into training, would be to create jobs and training opportunities for young people. But that is not what this Government has done. Oh no. It has decided instead to give businesses a massive subsidy in the form of absurdly low wages in an attempt to make young people more attractive to employers. So how is it going to do that? Well, it is easy. It has made young people incredibly cheap to employ. On the poisonous starting wage of $10.80 an hour it makes young people very cheap indeed to employ. They can employ them for 3 months and pay them $10.80. And then what are they going to do after that? Well, that is easy too, because they have a 90-day trial period they can take advantage of—another attack on young workers by this Government. So they can simply replace young people with another cheap young person on $10.80 an hour.
As Kay Brereton from the Beneficiary Advocacy Federation of New Zealand has pointed out, the result of this is going to be that taxpayers end up subsidising young people’s low wages, and instead of creating new jobs, employers are going to have an incentive to churn through young employees to keep the wage bills low. So they will not be creating new jobs, in fact they will be creating the same job every 400 hours or every 6 months, whichever comes first, over and over again.
As this Government so eloquently argued in 2010, the solution to youth unemployment is not to scapegoat young workers. It is not to pay them less or to discriminate against them and worsen their prospects. The solution is education, skills training, and job creation. But what kind of incentive is it to pay young people, including independent 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds, so little? Every young New Zealander deserves a good life in a fair future, but you cannot have a good life on $10.80 an hour. You just cannot, and you cannot have a fair future when you are discriminated against from the moment you enter paid work. That brighter future, which this Government is so fond of referring to, is clearly not intended for young people.
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany): Andrew Little wanted to talk about failure. Well, I want to tell the House about failure. Failure is seeing 9,000 young people end up on the unemployment heap, when that party opposite decided it wanted to scrap youth wages. We saw 9,000 young people not being able to enter the job market, because of the changes that that party over there made to make it difficult—make it harder—for young people to gain employment.
This bill, the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill, is all about giving young people more opportunities. It is all about giving young people more opportunities to get a foot in the job market. It is all about giving young people the ability to get some experience to become more competitive in the job market, and to get some jobs, because we know that leaving young people languishing on the unemployment heap is absolutely unacceptable.
We know that if young people are out of school, out of work, or out of training for the majority of their teenage years, then there is a 90 percent chance that they are going to end up as long-term welfare beneficiaries, and being a long-term welfare beneficiary has a whole lot of other problems that are more difficult for them to overcome in life.
We know that getting them into training, or getting them into jobs, or keeping them at school is an absolute priority. So this bill is all about helping them in the job market. This bill is all about giving them an opportunity to present themselves in front of employers with a competitive edge, and giving them something so employers will consider taking them on, because we know that if a 16-year-old and a 26-year-old front up before an employer, obviously the employer is going to choose the candidate with the greater experience. But if we give the employer an incentive, through a starting out wage, to take a chance on the younger employee, to look at that younger employee and say “Here is an option for employment.”, and to give them a chance, give them a “go”, and give them the experience, then that young person gains that experience, and gains the opportunity to get a foot in the job market.
We know that the Opposition actually has a very poor track record on jobs. [Interruption] Andrew Little, you should listen to this, because your party has a very poor track record. Your party saw 9,000 young people end up on the unemployment heap. Your party opposed 13,000 jobs being created through the 90-day trial, and we know that the minimum wage changes that the Labour Party wants would see 6,000 people end up on the unemployment heap too.
We are actually about creating more jobs. We are actually about giving New Zealanders more opportunities—more opportunities. We have created over 50,000 jobs in the last 2 years, and we have got another 150,000 jobs to be created in the next 4 years. The only thing we hear from the Opposition is more policies to make it more difficult for employers and employees to meet together and create employment.
This bill deserves the recognition of the House. This bill deserves to be passed through the House, because there are young people out there—young people out there—who are crying out for jobs, and young people out there who are desperate to get a foot in the job market. They know times are tough. They know that it is difficult out there for employers. They know that the 90-day trial has helped them a lot, but they need a little bit of something else, and they know that this bill will help them further. This will help young people get off the unemployment heap. Young people with a steady work history, like all employees, are seen as less risky for employers to take on, but if they do not have that work history, it is more difficult for them. This bill will enable them to get more of a work history and more ability to get through the door.
The only options, the only alternatives we are hearing from the other side, Labour’s solutions to the so-called crisis out there, are more inflation and—the other solution—printing money. They want to join up with the Green Party to print more money because apparently they think that is going to create more jobs as well. They think taxing people, taxing capital, will help employers create more jobs. They are absolutely crazy if they think taxing capital is going to do that. Their other big solution is to go back to the 1970s with industrial relations awards. That was their policy at the last election—another way, another backwards step to make it more difficult for employers to create jobs; to make it more difficult for the economy to create jobs.
We are creating jobs in the economy. This will help young people. They can yell, they can scream, they can moan about it, they can say whatever they like, but the reality is that the statistics show that 9,000 young people left the employment market. This will give them more of an opportunity to enter back in, get a foot on the ladder, get more experience, and become long-term employees. This is a good piece of legislation. I look forward to it being passed through its first reading and hearing it through the select committee. Thank you.
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First): I rise on behalf of New Zealand First to speak against this abominable piece of [Interruption]—well, it is hard to say, really. You know, sometimes it is hard to believe that the MPs who prop up this National-led Government live in the real world—particularly after listening to Jami-Lee Ross—especially when it comes to the wages paid to the ordinary working folk of New Zealand. Since 2008 there has been a steady attack on the rights of workers, with policies by this Government thinly disguised as “pro-jobs” or some other spin-doctored euphemism. The minimum adult wage of $13.50 an hour is apparently, according to this Government, hindering employment opportunities for the young. So a lower rate of $10.80 an hour for teenagers starts next April.
The Government says this will create 2,000 new jobs over 2 years, but the problem is that the latest household labour force survey showed that 61,700 15 to 24-year-olds are unemployed, and that is up from 41,100 4 years ago. So under the stewardship of Messrs Key, English, and company, there has been a 50 percent increase in youth unemployment, but they will create 2,000 new jobs over the next 2 years by reducing pay rates. That is the sort of twisted logic generated by fat cats, the unscrupulous, who believe they can wallow in their wealth off the backs of hard-working young New Zealanders. Nobody minds a successful individual enjoying the results of hard work and ingenuity, but most New Zealanders believe in the concept of a fair go. But not this Government—oh, no. The minimum adult wage of $13.50 an hour amounts to about $540 a week, and that is about $455 in the hand. This is a low wage, but many people are still losing their jobs as under this Government the economy continues to spiral downward. When National came into office, it gave tax cuts to the rich and it increased GST. The Westpac boss, on his multimillion-dollar salary, got a tax cut of $5,000 a week in the hand. We in New Zealand First do not believe this is fair, but at least it clearly shows which side this Government is on, and it is not on the side of those people who are earning $13.50 an hour and it is certainly not on the side of those young people who are soon to be earning $10.80 an hour. Fairness aside, if we combine these cuts, shall we say, with the job cuts such as those in KiwiRail, the Inland Revenue Department, Solid Energy, and it goes on, it begs the question, how does this Government make any money? How does this Government make up for lost taxes? When we then add a low-wage system into the mix, it becomes obvious that this Government is creating a future with a serious shortfall of taxable income because of a low-wage mentality, declining birth rates, increasing longevity, and a complete lack of fiscal prudence or responsibility.
The economic model that this Government subscribes to clearly is not working, does not work, and will not work. This Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill is a lamentable piece of legislation and if the Government thinks this will in any way create some sort of economic nirvana, or contribute as a panacea-type cure for our economically distraught country, then think again. In fact, it should wake up and slap itself for even dreaming about it. It is plunging this country into a low-wage economic downward spiral.
You know, last night this Government had the opportunity to show an intelligent democratic face to the people of New Zealand. It had the opportunity to take Winston Peters’ member’s bill—the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—which would have provided an essential tool to help our country get out of its economic malaise, but, no, that bar was too high for this Government. Here was a tool where, correctly used, we could put a floor and a ceiling on the New Zealand dollar, devalue by 15 to 20 percent, and reinvigorate the manufacturing sector. That means getting back those 40,000 jobs that this Government has lost. We could weight our dollar to our major trading partners to give it relativity, and that would be relativity for our exporters. The floor and ceiling would give surety and confidence, and we could export our way out of this mess.
There would be light at the end of the tunnel—you know, the light that this Government turned off with its narrow-minded course of austerity, the austerity that is driving thousands of New Zealanders across the Ditch, looking for jobs in Australia, and the type of austerity that is strangling our economy here in New Zealand. This Government demonstrated a complete lack of comprehension of that bill last night, because National members started waffling on—along with that turned-out prehistoric alligator skin that sits over there somewhere—about printing money, when the bill had nothing to do with that. But such is the comprehension or lack thereof of this Government when it comes to fiscal responsibility and the economy.
A lot of people have forgotten that it was Winston Peters who saved—[Interruption] Jami-Lee Ross should be listening to this because it is important that he understands that when the Asian crisis hit, it was New Zealand that saved Asia. Winston Peters, on behalf of New Zealand, guaranteed the Korean currency pro rata with Australia and the USA, and it saved Asia. A lot of people do not even acknowledge that. We should perhaps look to history. Last night this Government turned its back on the opportunity. It turned its back on the exporters of this country. It turned its back on the manufacturers of New Zealand. It turned its back on democracy. A great bill could have gone to the select committee, and we could have heard submissions, but, no, spray and walk away.
We in New Zealand First realise that the Government’s role is not to be the solution to all problems, but it should play an essential role in promoting economic growth, job security, and fairness for all segments of society. Where in this bill is there reference to apprenticeships or recognition of new skills and competencies? This bill will be just a recycled course for cheap labour. Perhaps it is the cycleway that this Government has been promising us, but it is a recycled way for cheap labour. Just as the New Zealand public did not believe that larger classes would make their children smarter, they do not believe that cutting wages will make the economic boat go faster. Thank you.
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): As always, it is a pleasure to take over from Brendan Horan, who has just finished speaking—albeit that he did have a bit of a dampener on his own speech towards the end. In fact, you should always avoid raining on your own parade.
I must say, having listened to the speeches, as I stand to speak in favour of the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill, that I have been disappointed to hear the speeches from the other side. Talk about dampening their own ardour. This bill should be something that they support.
Andrew Little: What would they say in Glasgow?
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Why is it that is all we hear from Andrew Little, a nice person in every other way—I am left wondering whether it is just paid-up trade unionists who warrant Labour’s support, rather than job seekers. This is a bill to assist young job seekers. I can well remember when I got my first job that I was delighted to get a job. It was a pretty straightforward one—once a week helping a stallholder pack up his stall. I was delighted to get going. This bill gets young people on the first rung on the job ladder. This is a bill that addresses real problems and creates real opportunities for people who are not locked in the comfort of being paid-up members of a union, with Andrew Little and the Labour Party to look after them.
This starting-out wage is a great step forward from the unpopular and unworkable new-entrant wage brought in by Labour, the party whose current composition and leadership could also be described as unpopular and unworkable, and it is demonstrating it again in the way its members speak about this bill. The new-entrant wage Labour introduced had an abysmal uptake of 2 percent amongst employers, and that is not good enough.
That poor uptake and the 9,000 jobs for young people that were lost, as we heard from Jami-Lee Ross, according to Department of Labour research, in 2008 after the Labour Party’s move to abolish the youth wage, show Labour’s lack of confidence in our young people and in the dignity of work. The people who go on to this starting-out wage will be getting more money than they would get on the benefit. Why does Labour not want them to get more money? I will tell you why: because those members like people on benefits. They like people on benefits. They like areas that are not doing terribly well. It is most unfortunate. This starting-out wage will help inexperienced workers get a foot on the job ladder, helping them set themselves up for meaningful employment. Everyone of that age on a benefit will be better off on the starting-out wage.
We heard from Minister Ryall how it will be better for their health. That is a reality. It is not made up. I listened to Holly Walker. I was disappointed that there is some sort of virtue assumed in opposing this bill. It is a very positive bill. It will help the very people whom Ms Walker is espousing to help, without helping. She is virtually saying that you are better off being on the benefit, because then we can feel sorry for you.
The National Government is committed to creating an environment that encourages economic growth and employment, both of which this policy actively promotes. But it is not only this bill that promotes a more prosperous and encouraging employment environment; the starting-out wage should be seen as part of the wider package of initiatives to help young people into work. These have already been mentioned by other speakers on this side of the House. Let us talk about them a little bit more: the 90-day trial period, creating more than 13,000 jobs; increased flexibility in the Holidays Act, and goodness knows why that was opposed by Labour; the Government raising the minimum wage every year with a balanced approach; and so it goes on.
Let me close by saying that we have heard much hyperbole and uniform negativity from the Opposition around this bill. It is negativity that reminds me of something those members seem to be forgetting: we, as slightly older people, should not be afraid of the ambitious young; we should be encouraging them, and that is what this bill does. Thank you.
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): It is disappointing. We are in the middle of a crisis in this country. We need change, and this bill, the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill, is as good as it gets from the members opposite. This is all they can do: cut prices on wages. All they have got in them are failed 20th century policies and no creative 21st century solutions for the very real problems we face as a nation.
What we have heard from the members opposite today can be described only as astonishing. The last speaker, Mr Auchinvole, the member not for the West Coast, told us that this needs to be seen as part of a package that National has put together to create jobs. Well, you have failed.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr MEGAN WOODS: You have failed—sorry, Mr Deputy Speaker, you certainly have not failed. National has failed in its quest to create jobs. Let me tell you about your record—let me tell National about its record in Government. More than 50,000 more people are not in work than when you took office. Every year 50,000 people leave this country since you took office—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr MEGAN WOODS: —because you—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr MEGAN WOODS: —because National fails to—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! You keep saying “you”.
Dr MEGAN WOODS: —yes, I know—because National has failed to offer them hope. This is something that the Government has to own up to. There are currently 84,000 young people not in education, employment, or training. This is a failure by the members opposite. This is 17,000 more than when National took office. This is not something that members opposite can stand here and tell us is part of a successful package to put young people to work, because simply everything that has been tried to date has failed. There are 17,000 more. In fact, 50.3 percent of Pasifika women aged between 15 and 19 are currently unemployed. That is not something for any Government to be proud of; that is something that any Government should give pause to and reflect on what it is doing.
Then we had Jami-Lee Ross, who stood up and ranted that Andrew Little should take responsibility for the 9,000 people who lost their job as a result of Labour getting rid of the youth minimum wage. This is simply wrong. The Department of Labour’s own reports show that this is simply wrong. A report released says that by 2010 there was absolutely no change in youth unemployment as a result of scrapping the youth wage.
Let us actually deal in some facts and not in some ideology. But you know what? Even if this did work—even if it did work—this is a Government admitting failure that this is all there is for New Zealand: the low road, a competitive advantage of low wages. Well, Labour believes in something more for our country and for our people. We believe in jobs, and we believe in high wages. We believe in creating a real future for people. We do not want to join the race to the bottom that the National Government seems to want to excel in. We were told we like people on benefits. Well, actually, what we like is when people can work and there is a Government that is committed to creating jobs for them, and that is exactly what a Labour Government will do. It is not something we have seen this National Government in any way committed to.
I want to refer to some previous statements made in this House about the youth minimum wage: “… we are not convinced it would reduce youth unemployment, plus it would be a distraction from the really important work of improving productivity and growing the economy in order to create long-term jobs, which will keep young people in New Zealand.” Was it a member of Labour? Was it a member of the Greens? No, it was Paula Bennett in March 2010 in this House. Then we had Paula Bennett say when asked by Sir Roger Douglas whether she would be supporting his bill: “No, we will not be supporting the bill, as we are not convinced it would reduce youth unemployment, plus it would be a distraction from the really important work of improving productivity and growing the economy in order to create long-term jobs, which will keep young people in New Zealand.”
Well, have times not changed? Now National is not only supporting the race to the bottom and a youth rate but giving up on increasing productivity, growing the economy, and keeping people in New Zealand. Actually, the only thing that National seems to want to export are our people. It does not want to do anything to help our industries that will actually create these high-value jobs and keep people here. This bill that is before us shows the lack of understanding that members opposite have of what a modern 21st century economy looks like. You speak to any high-value manufacturer in this country, in an industry that will create high-paid jobs and keep our people here, and 15 percent is around the usual level that wages make of its costs of production—15 percent. So tinkering around with wages is not the way to help these businesses stay in New Zealand and succeed.
If you are content to have a low-wage economy and poorly paid industries, then this is the road that this Government is going down. This is not something that Labour is content to be a part of. Labour has alternatives. We actually believe in giving our young people the skills needed to take part in this high-value economy. Do you know what? We would not let 80 percent of the $42 million budgeted to give young people the skills and training necessary to take part in the rebuild of Canterbury languish there unspent while we do nothing to help our young people. What Labour would do is invest in our young people, and it would get them into work. It would not come up with micro schemes that do very little to address the fundamental problem that we have: 84,000 young people who are not in education, employment, or training. The legislation that we have before us today is going to do nothing to address that. It is not something that is going to fundamentally shift this.
Labour knows that in the 21st century we have to do things differently. We cannot have the disappointing failed policies of the past; we need to think creatively. That is why Labour is backing things such as instead of paying the dole directly to young people, using that as a subsidy to employers to get those young people into apprenticeships, so that they get the skills and the training necessary for them to settle here, live their lives here, and contribute to an economy that will be better for all New Zealanders. But do we have any of that kind of thinking from members opposite? No. All they can think is “Let’s make it cheaper.”—a bunch of salesmen who think the only way to fix anything is to have a 50 percent, cut-price sale and not actually look at improving things. What we have is a Government opposite that has shown that it has no ability to come up with solutions when it comes to creating jobs in this economy. All it has presided over is a growing dole queue and a growing queue to leave the country. There are no solutions.
This is going to be another piece of legislation that does nothing to address the problem. It is another piece of legislation that is an attack on young people. It is expecting people to live on an income that is simply not liveable. I ask members opposite whether they could live on $10.80. I ask members opposite whether, at the age of 19—and they may have had a child—they could really have supported their family. You put this together with National’s 90-day trial legislation—which members opposite have told us, you know, has been so good—but where are the jobs? There are fewer of them than when National took office. It is shedding jobs, not creating jobs.
This is a Government that has run out of ideas. It is a disappointment to all of us. It has no ability to turn things round. All this Government can do is sit there and sneer and not come up with ideas. This is a Government that needs to go back and think about how we really will back our young people in this country, because the Government opposite is failing to do so.
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): In King Lear, the king said “Nothing will come of nothing:”, and empty rhetoric brings about nothing. This Government is committed to activities that support young people to get off the benefit and get into jobs. You can hold and hide behind the empty rhetoric of the ideology of this Opposition, or you can get out there, like this Government is doing, and actually support young people.
This Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill sits amongst a whole panoply of other initiatives supporting our young people: this starting-out wage, Youth Service Corps, Limited Service Volunteers, Straight 2 Work programmes, and various employment programmes. You need only to go on to the Work and Income website to see the wide range of initiatives that this Government has to bring young people to employment. And what is this Government doing now? It is adding more—a starting-out wage for up to 6 months to help young people move forward.
But what do we hear from the Opposition? We hear rhetoric—rhetoric of rights and discrimination. The Opposition says it is a discrimination. Well, we need to remind this House that not every difference is a discrimination. Boy, if it was, the Lobbying Disclosure Bill that the Greens are putting forward would be a discrimination against people who have a particular type of job. My God, I do not hear that being said.
This is a bill that is nothing to do with discrimination. This is a bill that is an opportunity for young people to get jobs. It is a further opportunity on a whole smorgasbord, a panoply, of activities that this National Government is proudly putting forward. We believe in the youth. We believe in their opportunity. Employers believe in it. We are here to back them.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is a split call?
Phil Twyford: It is a split call.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Phil Twyford.
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It is sad on this eve of Labour weekend that we should be in the House this afternoon debating what I would describe as National’s great leap backwards. This is what National believes constitutes an economic growth strategy—
Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just worried about the honourable member when he leapt backwards that he might have hit his head on the back—
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is not a matter of order of the House. Please sit down.
PHIL TWYFORD: As I was saying, this is National’s great leap backwards, and it was particularly galling and irritating to hear Chris Auchinvole, the former member for West Coast - Tasman, opining what a fantastic policy this is. This is the former member for West Coast - Tasman. I challenge that member to go and knock on the doors of the families of the former Spring Creek miners. Two hundred - odd Spring Creek miners recently lost their jobs because of this Government’s monetary policy. I challenge Chris Auchinvole to go and knock on the doors of those families and explain to them that driving down the minimum wage is an acceptable way to manage this economy and build opportunity. Go and knock on the doors of those families and tell them that working for $10.80 an hour is good for them and good for their families. Do it, Mr Auchinvole. Do it, and come back and report back to this House, and tell us what those miners said, because I would be very interested to hear what they said to you.
What a disappointment—what a disappointment—this Government has been to New Zealanders. It came to office by saying that it was going to reduce the current account deficit. It was going to manage the economy back into growth. It was going to reduce the number of people migrating to Australia. It was going to reduce the wage gap with Australia. It was going to build more jobs. And what have we seen? We have seen defeat and failure on every single one of those promises. This Government has taken New Zealand backwards.
Nothing illustrates the absolute poverty of ideas that characterises this Government more than its bringing this bill, the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill, to the House. This is a party that only a few years ago declared that increasing the take-home wages of New Zealanders was its top priority. It comes to the House this afternoon with a bill to legislate down the minimum wage, to deliberately cut the amount of money that New Zealanders take home in their pay packets. It is unbelievable. Those members’ idea of stimulating growth is taking away the workplace rights and the livelihoods of New Zealanders. We saw it with the 90-day fire-at-will bill. We saw it with this Government’s willingness to trade away our employment law and people’s rights at work to Warner Bros, and now we see it with a legislative cutting of the minimum wage. Those members are bankrupt of ideas. They have got no idea. They have given up on any attempt to grow this economy and grow the prosperity of New Zealanders. A couple of days before Labour weekend, on a day when it is increasingly clear that one of our finest manufacturing companies is going to be sold into foreign ownership, this Government has given up. This bill is the best it can offer New Zealanders to grow the economy and improve the livelihoods of New Zealanders.
What kind of perverse logic is it when you legislate the cutting of wages for one of the most vulnerable groups in our society? As Andrew Little said in an earlier contribution to this debate, jobs are created when employers have business confidence, when they believe that there is a market for their products, when they have certainty, and when there is work to be done. There is no way, and it is not credible to suggest, that cutting the minimum wage from $13.50 an hour to $10.80 an hour will create jobs.
This bill will not hurt just young people. By blowing a hole in the minimum wage, what it will do is have a depressing effect on the wages of all low-paid workers in New Zealand. It is bad for young people. It is discriminatory and unfair. It will contribute to the growing sense of hopelessness that is driving thousands and thousands of our young people across the Tasman.
What is worse—worse—is that it undermines all the effort that has been put into raising the productivity of New Zealand firms and New Zealand industry. We know that New Zealand employers are addicted to low-paid labour. That is why they do not invest in capital, plant, and technology to drive innovation and productivity, and this bill makes that situation worse. This country is hungry for political leadership that will raise incomes and grow the productive economy. This bill does the opposite of that, and Labour will fight it every step of the way.
JAN LOGIE (Green): I feel a tad weary standing here this afternoon to talk to this bill, the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill. It is another bill that demonstrates a lack of understanding of the hardship in our communities, and it is based on an economic vision that seems almost Dickensian to me. This is another bill that seems to be part of this Government’s drive towards a low-wage economy, this time directly targeting young people.
My colleague Holly Walker, as well as David Bennett, Jackie Blue, and Paula Bennett have all spoken so eloquently on the real evils of this bill, so today I would really like to just tell a story that I was told recently of a young woman who lives in Hamilton, because I think it is quite informative, and I hope everyone in the House listens.
This young woman is Stephanie. She is making a living—or trying to make a living—by cleaning. She earns what is soon to be the adult minimum wage of $13.50 an hour. Like many other young people she is underemployed, but she is working really hard to stay off the dole. At present she works 25 hours a week, and to work these hours she has to travel from site to site in the evenings to do her cleaning work. She has been trying for a year to get more hours of work or to find a second job, but, as everyone knows, in this labour market and without access to a computer, when you are new to a city that is really hard.
For 25 hours a week at $13.50 an hour she gets $337.50 before tax a week to pay her bills. Out of this she has been able to pay the rent for her small flat, power, food, and a prepay cellphone. There is little left over to save for emergencies like she faced earlier this year. After a year of cycling from site to site—a good green young woman—her bike broke, and it was going to cost her $90 to fix it. This meant that she had to walk from site to site while she saved to fix it. How responsible is this young woman? She is amazing. But, you know, there are consequences of that—two pretty big negative ones. One is that quite often at night while walking she would get harassed by men driving past her, which is a pretty scary experience for a young woman in a new city. Secondly, she wore big holes in her shoes, so big that it was not safe to wear those shoes to work, and she knew that if she did she would get turned away from her job.
Does this remind you of Dickens, or not? Stephanie was forced to make a choice. She had to get new shoes so that she could work, and this meant not paying for something. I would like to ask everyone in this House what you would give up to pay for those shoes. This is a young woman in work whose income, if this bill goes through, will be significantly lower than that. Somebody who is having to give up food or paying for her power to pay for shoes to get to her job—that is what we talking about with this bill.
I think the question before this House should be: how can we better support young people to actually be able to live their potential and work, and be able to have a life as well as that job? If low-wage work lifted people out of unemployment and into well-paid jobs, hey, we would be fine with this, but the evidence shows that it does not. For the member across the House to say that “They are better off than being on a benefit, so really, hey, that’s great.”, is treating them as if they are charity cases rather than workers. It is saying that they should be grateful for a job and take whatever they are given. That is offensive.
If this Government was serious about addressing youth unemployment, then there are lots of things it could do. It could reverse the 2010 tax switch, which cost $2 billion in just over 18 months. It could put this money into supporting small and medium sized enterprises to take on young staff, create jobs, and it could support the member’s bill that was drawn from the ballot today; a Labour member’s bill about committing to a high-wage economy and supporting young people’s employment rights.
SCOTT SIMPSON (National—Coromandel): As this debate on the first reading of the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill draws to a conclusion today it has been interesting to sit here in the Chamber and listen to the stark contrast between Government speakers and Opposition speakers in terms of a glass half-full or a glass half-empty type of approach. On this side of the House we have been promoting optimism, opportunity, hope, and collaboration between young people and employers, and an opportunity to give them something they want in terms of getting that first step on the ladder of opportunity that goes with being in employment. On this side of the House we understand the virtue and the benefit of work, of good, honest, decent work, and we know how much our young people want to be part of the employed and part of the opportunity that comes from having a job and being on the ladder of employment. In Coromandel I have young people who are welcoming this bill. They are saying “Bring it on! Bring it on fast, because we want to have an opportunity to get into paid employment.”
What Labour members are saying is that they want to keep people on the dole. They want to keep people on benefits. Christopher Auchinvole made that point so well during his very fine presentation earlier in this debate. Labour members want to keep people on taxpayer-funded benefits. They do not have any interest in getting people into work. Young people want to work, and Labour does not understand the simple motivation that work and opportunity bring. We on this side of the House support this bill with vigour. Earlier on in the debate we heard that Labour was going to oppose the bill with everything it had. In fact, what we have heard throughout this debate is a half-hearted, empty rhetoric coming from Labour members. They have not had their hearts in it. They have not got any fire in their belly. They have got no ideas, no passion, and no vigour.
In conclusion, let me just say that this is a good bill. I support it, and I am very happy to commend it to the House.
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill be now read a first time.
Ayes 61
New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.
Noes 59
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Māori Party 2; Mana 1.
Bill read a first time.
Bill referred to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee.
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Minister of Internal Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I move, That the Minimum Wage (Starting-out Wage) Amendment Bill be reported back to the House by 28 February 2013.
Motion agreed to.
Sittings of the House
Sittings of the House
LOUISE UPSTON (Junior Whip—National): Given that we are only 5 minutes away from 6 p.m., I seek leave for the House to lift a few minutes early.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the House to rise. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? There appears not.
The House adjourned at 5.55 p.m.