Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5813] 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 18 August on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. 
Vote Employment ( 
continued 
)  
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Tena koutou katoa. There is one word that dominates the report of the Social Services Committee on Vote Social Development and Vote Youth Development. It is a word that has been found throughout all the reports in this estimates debate: recession. In this vote we learn how Work and Income has changed the way it works since the economic downturn to concentrate more on relationships with employers. We are told about the various governmental responses to the recession including the Restart package the Job Support Scheme and the Community Response Fund. We read about the committee’s concerns for the impact of the recession on young people. 
There is no denial that we are caught in the grips of a volatile financial environment a situation in which around the globe nations have to react quickly to rising unemployment. We are seeing the traditional forms of social protection under threat as markets become fragile and publicly finance services feel the pinch. The Maori Party is of course particularly alarmed at the continuing high levels of unemployment for rangatahi Maori—a trend that was well advanced over the last decade tragically in a time of plenty. These young people are our leaders of tomorrow who will shape the policy direction of our nation who will confront the ever-increasing challenge of new technologies who will drive our economy and who will care for us when we age. We must take care of them as an investment in our future. 
The Social Services Committee reported that the Government would be considering various ways to provide young people with meaningful opportunities in employment and training. It is a commitment we have dedicated ourselves to in our efforts to ensure that there are relevant strategies for Maori and Pasifika youth. The package includes a massive plan to create close to 17000 new opportunities but I want to focus on two initiatives: Community Max and Job Ops. 
Community Max will provide 3000 places on local community and environmental projects over the next year. We know that our unemployed youth live in rural areas that will benefit from the $40.3 million investment in this scheme. The projects will be community based. They could be projects such as renovating community buildings working on marae and improving access to local environments. This will be real mahi in real locations. It is work that can make a difference for iwi non-governmental organisations local Maori and Pasifika groups runanga and incorporations. 
I was really delighted to learn last week that close to 40 percent of the 120 registrations of interest received for the Community Max programme have come from Maori organisations and I want to commend their initiative in coming forward to care for their young. I will be expecting our Government departments to be just as forward-looking in responding to the enthusiasm of communities. I have an expectation that departments will be helpful and that they too will demonstrate initiative to work together with our community in the better interests of our nation. The community groups that have been coming to my door have been saying to me: “Don’t tell us what we can’t do. Tell us what we can do and help us to do that.” That is a very distinctive message for Work and Income. 
The other focus is on the Job Ops scheme which pumps $20 million into funding around 4000 entry-level jobs. In essence Job Ops will subsidise employers $5000 for each young person hired. Just like Community Max the programme is there to support our young people aged 18 to 24 years if they are receiving the unemployment benefit. But it also creates opportunities for any young person aged 16 or 17 who is receiving the independent youth benefit and who has left school. 
When the Maori Party signed up to the relationship with National we gave voice to an aspiration that would recognise mana maintenance and enhancement. Although I would have to say that this is definitely a work in progress there is nothing that enhances one’s mana more than the opportunity to contribute through being involved in meaningful and productive work that helps to support our w’anau and our community. But of course and as the select committee report notes there is also a need to do what we can to support critical community and voluntary sector organisations that are having trouble maintaining their services in a recession and are experiencing much higher demand. 
The opportunity provided by Community Max is that some of these organisations will be able to immediately meet the demands placed upon them for increased labour and I want to call for a united effort on all fronts. None the less being in this House we must ensure that our community groups make the best of this opportunity so that it is a win-win for all. We often hear about the difficulties some groups face in trying to connect with youth and make their services relevant. There is no better time and no better way than using the youth opportunities packages to involve young people and organisations in order to integrate their perspectives utilise their knowledge about modern communication and ensure that youth are shaping our plan for the future. 
Finally I want to focus on our most vulnerable children—those who are referred to in the select committee report under the heading “Child abuse”. In the Families Commission report released earlier today we learnt that over 12000 children and young people were found to have experienced abuse and neglect. That information should break our hearts even more so when we read the statistics revealing that about eight in 10 abusers were family members or were living in a domestic relationship with a child. The facts and figures must provoke us to act and that means all of us. We cannot sit idle nohopuku pretending that it is not happening when it is happening behind closed doors within the sanctuary of the family home. What sort of sanctuary subjects its most innocent children to the devastation of sexual physical or emotional abuse and neglect? 
As the Minister responsible for the Government’s response to addressing and reducing the impact of family violence I am utterly serious about ensuring I live up to that responsibility. So today I have announced the establishment of a ministerial committee to ensure that this Government invests in taking our collective responsibility to protect and care for children. The committee will bring together Ministers from a whole range of agencies so that we can collectively look at the way in which the system responds to confronting such a significant social and economic blight on our nation. We must also live up to our collective responsibility as members of families and communities to do what we can to ensure that families are resilient respectful and safe places to grow up in. 
Child abuse cannot be addressed by a well-meaning caseworker a vocal advocacy group and a ministerial group in isolation. It will take all of us to work constructively and courageously to ensure that our children are protected from harm and are free to develop and experience their full potential. Tena koutou. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to follow the Hon Tariana Turia. She just talked about the 12000 children who are subject to neglect and abuse. I quite agree with her that it is a subject— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I interrupt the member. We are actually on Vote Employment and possibly the points that you want to make come under Vote Social Development. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Correct. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: So I will not take up your time. We will start again on that but I bring that to your attention. We are actually on Vote Employment. Are there any other speakers? 
CHRIS TREMAIN (Senior Whip—National) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek a point of clarification. I realise that this is a time-limited debate and that there are a certain number of calls for each— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have just ruled that I am not taking into account the few seconds spoken by the member because obviously he was not speaking on the vote. I am happy to start again. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Social Development 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I stand to speak about Vote Social Development. It was an interesting process to be there in front of the Social Services Committee. I expected a harsh examination and that morning I had heard via Twitter that members were out to get me and that I should be prepared for a fierce examination before the select committee. But there was not one question on unemployment benefits from the Opposition members—not one question on how Work and Income might be able to help those who were going on to benefits in such increasing numbers. There was not one question I tell members on youth employment or youth unemployment. Thank goodness for the Government because that was where the questions came from on child abuse statistics which we just heard the member before me the Hon Tariana Turia speak about. 
At the select committee we talked about 12116 children who had been assessed as abused or neglected—a number that was up from 9654—and that figure is our nation’s shame. But our nation’s shame should also be that 1356 of those children were abused again within a 6-month period. Yet there were no questions from the Opposition on that issue. Actually Ms Dyson did ask a question about unallocated cases. To be clear about this Government’s priorities I tell the Committee that in June 2005 under Labour there were 1054 unallocated cases with Child Youth and Family. This year on 30 June we had 254 unallocated cases. That is the lowest number of unallocated cases in the history of Child Youth and Family. That is where this Government’s priorities lie. 
This is a Government of action. For three consecutive quarters under the previous Labour Government the number of people on the unemployment benefit rose but did we see anything done? No. As this country went into recession Labour quite frankly hid its head in the sand. But this Government is a Government of action. Within weeks we had introduced Restart a package that thousands of New Zealanders have benefited from. This is a Government of action. 
Within weeks we had turned the focus of Work and Income into one that was about jobs jobs and more jobs. We asked how we could open up those opportunities for people who were coming through our doors and how we could focus our people who were there working to help those coming in to go the right way. This week alone we have had 1123 new jobs come into Work and Income. That is more than ever before—1123 new jobs coming into Work and Income. That is because we have people who are solely focused on working with employers and people who are on benefits to match them up and to get people back into the workforce. When we talk about action we mean that within weeks of the Job Summit we had introduced the Job Support Scheme with the help of the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand. 
We heard the call from community organisations. They were facing a decrease in funding from non-Government sources but an increase in demand in many places where people were asking for more of their services. We spoke to the community got representatives in put them around the same table and discussed the best way forward. What we came up with was the Community Response Fund. It has already had its first meeting. It has taken 293 applications. Decisions are very close to being signed off. I have heard there has been a very robust discussion into where that money will go within our communities and those decisions will be announced within the next couple of weeks. It will deliver $104 million to the sector over the next 2 years. We heard what the community sector was saying. 
As I heard the honourable member before me say we heard that young people were going on to the unemployment benefit at a rate of nearly one in three of all those who were then on the benefit. One in five young people were already on that benefit so quite frankly we had to open up opportunities and we had to see other things coming in to make sure that our initiatives worked. Currently 590 jobs through Job Ops have come through our door. Over 270 organisations are stepping up with Community Max. This is quite clearly a Government of action. 
SUE BRADFORD (Green) 
: 
 It is incontrovertible that the unemployment rate is going up more rapidly now than it has for decades. At the time of the estimates hearings 2 months ago over 45000 people were on the unemployment benefit but the number has gone up substantially since then. Just over 300000 New Zealanders were on some kind of benefit at that time and the net number of people going on to the benefit each week was 1100. The Social Services Committee politely reported to the House in something of an understatement that the decrease in vacancies was becoming an issue. Having heard the various forecasts made by Treasury at the time of this year’s Budget about the possible unemployment rates in the next few years it was interesting to hear the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett say that the number of people on the unemployment benefit was expected to reach 80000 in 2010 with a peak of around 90000 in 2011. The chief executive of the Ministry for Social Development Peter Hughes then said that in fact those forecasts were already too low and that the Ministry for Social Development expected the figures to be higher than that. 
I welcome the chief executive’s honesty but would also welcome more ongoing transparency and information from the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Labour about both their forecasts and about the information on which they have based their forecasts including regular reporting of weekly net figures in regard to those going on and off the unemployment benefit. I would also like to know from the Ministry of Social Development the Department of Labour and Treasury—all of which engage in different forms of employment forecasting—on what basis they all think that unemployment will plateau in 2011 and then start falling after that. I am most curious as to what economic financial social or other basis there is for that sanguine prophecy repeatedly propagated by different ministries and Ministers but bearing no relation to reality—that I can find—other than a genesis in the “hope and pray” school of economics. Of course we are talking here not about numbers but about actual people whose lives and whose families’ lives are impacted on a daily basis by the fact that they cannot get paid work. 
Talking about people’s lives I am also most curious at present to discover what the Government has in store in the way of reforms for our benefit system. Not much was said during the estimates hearing about main benefits apart from a passing reference to National’s decision to postpone for at least a year its election policy of requiring domestic purposes benefit recipients to take up work or training when their youngest children turn 6. There was not a word or whisper about other possible reforms yet some of those have started emerging into public view in the last few weeks. Mr Key has raised the possibility of reforming the independent youth benefit in an unspecified way despite the fact that it is a benefit of last resort available to only 16 and 17-year-olds who have no other means of support and who have to meet very tough departmental criteria. I welcome the Minister’s answer on that issue that she gave late last week however. 
The Minister it appears is also carrying out several audits and reviews of so-called high-income beneficiaries and emergency special-needs grants of which she thinks there are too many. The Green Party is concerned that all that may be part of a softening-up process preparatory to actually cutting some entitlements and to reducing access to emergency assistance which is often the only thing standing between a family and total destitution. I call on Ms Bennett to look at the situation a bit more closely. One of the main reasons why so many people are having to apply for emergency special-needs grants is that benefits were never restored to levels equivalent to what they were before the 1991 cuts and also the discretionary special benefit was removed under the previous Labour Government. Those two factors have resulted in a situation in which many beneficiaries simply do not have enough income to meet their most basic costs much less deal with debt or other commitments undertaken while they were still receiving income as employed workers. 
The response of Government should not be further cuts to either benefit amounts or entitlements. Instead the Minister should be looking at how to increase core benefit levels and how to restore discretion to the benefit system and at ensuring that the discriminatory in-work payment is changed into a means-tested but universal entitlement regardless of a parent’s employment status. To focus as the Minister seems to have been doing lately on a very small number of beneficiaries who have comparatively high entitlements for very specific and unusual reasons is to deliberately distract from the fact that for most people benefits are too low for survival. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call this afternoon. Let us be clear: these are tough economic times and this Government is working on many different levels to combat the effects of this economic climate. We have to get the balance right in order to ensure that we have sensible financial management and in doing this we need to preserve our core benefits and implement our key programmes through Restart and the Job Support Scheme. The Government is committed to supporting these core social services. We are maintaining investment in services that people need in these tough economic times because the people of New Zealand are our priority. 
But what is the Opposition’s take on this? What have we seen coming from those members? Labour has total disregard for the economic realities and deficits that we are facing and it is just happy to rack up our debt. What is Labour’s answer? It is to spend more. That is great but there is no more to spend. We are no longer experiencing surpluses. We need good financial management. But Labour’s big idea was to put hundreds of thousands of middle-class people on benefits which is impractical unaffordable and unfair. It seems to be the case that Labour wants people to be on welfare. We want people in jobs. That is the distinction between a National Government and a Labour Government. A Labour Government wants people on welfare; it wants the Government to provide everything for them. The National Government wants to back people. It wants to back New Zealanders it wants to back jobs it wants to back independence and it wants to back people to be responsible for themselves which they desperately want to be. 
We have had media commentators political commentators and former fellow caucus members comment about the Opposition’s “welfare for millionaires” policy. Paul Henry described Phil Goff’s welfare proposal as the biggest blunder he has made since becoming leader. Mr Goff then suggested that his recession package once heralded as the solution to the recession was just a casual interview with the  
New Zealand Herald.  
That is yet another case of “Visa-nomics”. We have seen in the papers that Labour’s deputy leader Annette King is saying that Labour is contemplating extending the in-work tax credit to beneficiaries at a cost of $450 million. Whose taxes would those members increase to pay for this? Who can afford to pay more taxes? Which programmes would they cut instead? I ask those members to tell us which programmes they would cut to fund that. We are not experiencing surpluses; these are tough economic times. It seems as though the Opposition has no real policy to put forward for the country or for this area of need. 
So what has the Minister done? The Minister is supporting redundant workers with a package called Restart. Nearly 4000 people have received Restart since it was introduced—4000. The package gives support to redundant workers who face adjustments to their financial situation. What else has the Minister done? There are job support schemes. We help firms work through the tough times so that they can keep the staff they have; 32 firms have signed up. Collectively these employers are receiving support for nearly 3000 employees and this has saved 489 jobs. 
What has the Minister done? She is going to support community organisations with the Community Response Fund. We recognise that non-governmental organisations face increased demand from New Zealanders who are suffering because of the recession. At the same time those organisations are facing a decrease in funding. Over $40 million is to be invested in this sector in the next 2 years. We talked to the sector and introduced the Community Response Fund—another solution that Labour did not have. What else has the Minister done? She has supported the young people of New Zealand through Job Ops and Community Max. We have created new job and training opportunities for 16 to 24-year-olds through Job Ops. We will pump $20 million into funding. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I thank Mr Chairperson for giving me the opportunity to speak. He was quite correct when I rose to speak a short time ago; I thought I was speaking on Vote Social Development and was quite surprised that it was Vote Employment. 
The Hon Tariana Turia said in the Chamber a short time ago that 12000 children were subject to abuse and neglect and that that should break our hearts. Yes it should break our hearts. She talked about families being places that are resilient and safe to grow up in. I think it is time to look at the real causes of child abuse. 
Over the weekend we had the results announced of the most recent citizens initiated referendum which asked the very simple question: “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?”. In this debate we are discussing the cost of Vote Social Development and I ask myself how much money has been spent by Child Youth and Family investigating parents when complaints were lodged against them. I understand that out of close to 1000 investigations only 13 have followed through with a prosecution. But what is the cost of investigating parents? What is the cost of prosecuting parents? 
If we are to address the real causes of child abuse we need to act on the results of the referendum. The public of New Zealand spoke overwhelmingly over the last 3 weeks through that postal referendum: 88 percent of people do not believe that a light smack should be a criminal offence in New Zealand. The Prime Minister I believe— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is straying from the estimates debate. This is a very narrow debate. Although there is some latitude what you are referring to is outside the scope of this debate. I invite the member to continue. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I thank you Mr Chairman. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Stop misleading the public! 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am not misleading the public. Members need to look at The Yes Vote - NZ Referendum on Child Discipline 2009 website before talking about misleading the public. Child abuse has a real cost to New Zealand—a real real cost. There is huge opportunity— 
Moana Mackey 
: Isn’t Barnardos terrible like that the way they— 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: It is interesting that Moana Mackey talks about Barnardos. Barnardos was behind The Yes Vote website and I wonder how much money is spent by Vote Social Development in supporting Barnardos. Barnardos is sponsoring a website and I as a member of Parliament have received many many emails from people under the guise of that website. I note here that if I go to the website I can custom-make a letter to myself as a member of Parliament and no doubt other members have received such letters. 
I ask myself how much the Government is spending on Barnardos and how much the Government is spending on other agencies that are promoting this misleading information. They argue for example that the referendum was very poorly worded and has produced a meaningless result yet 88 percent of New Zealanders who voted did so to say that they do not believe that smacking for the purpose of correction should be illegal. I ask how much the Government has spent on supporting this website and supporting that misinformation. How much? How much has Child Youth and Family spent in investigating families? What is the cost of parents being concerned that they will be investigated? What is the cost of parents not being able to raise their children as they would like? There is a very real cost and a very intangible cost. Thank you. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Youth Development 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) 
: 
 I stand to speak with regard to Vote Youth Development and to look at its task of looking after young people—757000 young people aged between 12 and 24 years—with a focus on the Ministry of Youth Development. When I first came into Government and looked at this vote and the work it was doing I saw that it was doing a lot of good work. But equally I felt that the vote had moved slightly into doing more work with at-risk young people and young people who were serious offenders and that it was funding more programmes for them. I felt that the ministry actually needed to get back a bit to its knitting and look after the majority of young people who are doing positive stuff out there who are very successful who are getting ahead and who will have some pretty awesome opportunities ahead of them as they get further along. 
We had a good look at everything that Vote Youth Development was doing. We made sure that we moved some of that vote to where it needed to be. We moved some of it into—[ 
Interruption 
] The members opposite are welcome to take a call. I notice they did not take a call on Vote Social Development because they did not see the unemployment benefit numbers as being important enough. Now they have decided to sit and snipe from the sidelines like the headless turtles that they are and they hope that that sniping will make a difference. I will not do that when it comes to our young people. It is easy to look at the negatives and it is easy to think about everyone as failing and not doing well whereas the reality is that the majority of our young people have incredibly bright futures and are doing incredibly well out there in some pretty tough times. They are surging ahead and it is pretty exciting to be their Minister and to be working alongside them. 
When it came to looking at what we could do what was important and where we were going to move ahead naturally we looked at employment opportunities for young people who were not involved in upskilling. It was with real pleasure that I heard the Prime Minister announce that $152 million would go into the Youth Opportunities programme. It is no secret that job opportunities have been the biggest intake under that programme initially: 590 Job Ops applicants have come into Work and Income already. I do not have in front of me the number of those who have been placed in jobs; certainly from memory over 175 are already in jobs via Job Ops and it has been running for only about 3 weeks. 
Literally hundreds of community organisations have stepped up and are asking all sorts of questions about how to get a project together that young people can work on. Maori organisations are talking about how they can renovate a marae and get a bunch of young people together to work on that. I heard of one Maori organisation that is working at setting up a library and is getting young people in for 6 months to work on that community project. Another area is talking about getting young people to go around and check fire alarms. They will offer to go into people’s homes and check that the fire alarms are still working and that the batteries are going. There are awesome opportunities for young people to get involved in doing things like that which give them something meaningful to do in these tough times when there is not as much available to them as there was previously. We have to make some pretty tough decisions. 
It was interesting that the previous speaker Katrina Shanks brought up the independent youth benefit. About 1700 16 and 17-year-olds are on the independent youth benefit. From memory of that number about 1000 to 1100 are involved in education another couple of hundred are involved in other upskilling activity and about 400 are not actively involved at all in employment education or training. We make no bones about and no apology for the fact that we expect 16 and 17-year-olds to be actively engaged in society whether that is through education employment or training. So we will be putting measures in place against those on the independent youth benefit. We will say to them that we expect them to be involved in these sorts of activities. That will mean providing a commitment from the Government to make sure that those activities are there for them: that places are available in upskilling and that there are jobs for them to go to. We are willing to make that commitment to them but we will also expect those young people to step up and to be actively involved. Quite frankly it is National’s opinion that a life on welfare is not a life of full opportunities and we want more for our young people than that. 
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
: 
 Three weeks ago the Prime Minister announced one of the most exciting and significant packages to assist and encourage our nation’s young people that has ever been seen. As the Minister of Youth Affairs Paula Bennett has just been alluding to it represents a total of 16900 new opportunities for New Zealand’s youth. Today I give credit to the Minister of Youth Affairs for the considerable amount of work that she put into developing this next phase in the Government’s rolling maul of measures to take the sharp edges off the very difficult and challenging recession that we are living in. As I am sure even members opposite will acknowledge we cannot ignore the conspicuous plight of our nation’s young people. 
As the Minister noted while wearing one of her other hats as Minister for Social Development and Employment young people are particularly hard hit by the shrinking job market in the current global economic downturn. In my city of Hamilton the consequences of youth unemployment are all too evident. Few sights are more depressing or worrying than young people out of school out of work and out of sorts. As a parent of teenagers I want to see my children and all our nation’s young people empowered to fulfil their potential. Alongside a stable and loving upbringing and a good education one of the greatest things we can and must give our young people is hope. So I was delighted this afternoon to hear of the initial success of these measures: over 500 employment offers have already been made in response to the Job Ops package and 251 community groups have registered their interest in providing and supervising opportunities under the Community Max scheme. That is a wonderful response so soon after the policies were announced and I look forward to hearing of further increases as awareness of the Government subsidies and incentives spreads. 
There is no question that the global economic downturn is forcing the Government to make some very difficult decisions and it will sadly continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Few members of society are not suffering some pain in the current economic climate but young people who are struggling to enter the workforce or to further their qualifications are particularly vulnerable. That is why this year’s Budget put such strong emphasis on enhancing educational and training opportunities and it is why the Prime Minister’s recent announcements and the unstinting efforts of the Minister of Youth Affairs since she assumed her responsibilities are so important in providing real hope and real opportunities to thousands of young people. It is worth repeating that the Job Ops package will inject $20 million into funding around 4000 entry-level jobs around New Zealand. The more of those that we see in Hamilton the happier my constituents local principals education providers youth workers Work and Income staff and others will be. 
Job Ops and Community Max are generous measures but they are also very astute investments and I know that they enjoy widespread support in my electorate and right around the country. I also have no doubt that the young people who take up these opportunities will benefit hugely and as a consequence so will the communities in which they live. The packages that this Minister of Youth Affairs oversees rely on a mutually advantageous partnership between the Government youth community groups and businesses. As we consider the appropriation for her department for the year ahead I urge the Committee to show its full support for the measures that have been announced and I look forward to news that they are having a very positive impact in these challenging times. 
Moving on to another aspect of the Minister’s portfolio I tell members that at any one time in modern New Zealand approximately 6000 children and young people are in State care or custody. Most of those young people come from deprived and often dysfunctional backgrounds. We do not sit in judgment; in fact in many instances we must acknowledge factors that undermine the health and quality of our society and that condemn our children to hardship dysfunction and abuse. But we cannot bury our heads in the sand nor ignore the plight of our most vulnerable young people for the consequences of doing so are devastating for those children costly for us all and often tragic as we know from some of the saddest criminal matters that have come before the courts in recent times. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Fisheries agreed to.  
Vote Housing 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 It has been a delight to manage the housing portfolio over the last 9 or 10 months. The gains that we have made are quite tangible and I will go through them dividing them into two groups. One group is the initiatives that National campaigned on and that this Government led by John Key is pursuing. They are issues that Labour never thought of. We have gone ahead and pursued those. They are in the first list. The second list is issues that Labour talked about for 9 years and campaigned on but never did anything about. The two lists are what National campaigned on and have achieved and what Labour campaigned on and never did but National has achieved. 
I will recap with regard to the housing portfolio over the last decade or so. One particular matter is that the previous Labour Government increased the number of State houses available for State house tenants knocking on the door of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and that is a good thing. I reiterate that under a National-led Government we intend also to increase the net number of State houses by about 1550 over 4 years and that is laid out in the Budget. People will see an increase in the net number of State houses available for tenants in this country. Is it the same number that might have arisen under a Labour Government? Probably not. Labour may have done more but then its priorities are different. Our priorities fall into three categories. First we are increasing the number of State houses particularly during a time when many families are under stress and more people are coming to the Housing New Zealand Corporation for help during the downturn. Secondly we want to upgrade the State housing stock which has fallen into serious disrepair. Thirdly as I announced today we have the Options and Advice Service. As the Minister in the previous Government said the corporation never has housed and cannot house everyone who knocks on its door. The previous Government admitted this and said that those in the C priority and D priority categories may never be housed by the corporation. I would not necessarily echo that view but that is what it said. The number of State houses will increase. 
When I walked into the portfolio I knew that one of the issues was that State houses were in serious disrepair across the country—not all of them but many were—and that many State house tenants were living in slum conditions. But I never knew that the problem was as big as it was until it was laid out to me as an incoming Minister and I never knew the reason for it. Apparently over the last decade a deficit of about $2 billion in maintenance spending on Housing New Zealand Corporation properties had accumulated. In other words the previous Government decided to use the funding set aside for the upgrade of State houses and their maintenance to get more State houses. That Government was happy to get more State houses for new tenants but not to look after the State houses that current tenants were living in. One can argue the rights and wrongs of that but this National Government has said clearly that it is not prepared to be a slum landlord. We will upgrade the State housing stock over time and add new houses to the portfolio. That is where the capital injection of $124.5 million of stimulus spend came in. We said that we would like to insulate State houses top and bottom; put clean heating devices into State houses; upgrade kitchens and bathrooms; add rooms; and do all the house repairs roofing repairs and underfloor repairs as much as possible in the next 18 months. Why? First because we do not want to be a slum landlord and we want State house tenants to live in decent conditions and secondly we want to stimulate the construction sector and provide jobs. We did that and we are delighted. 
The Options and Advice Service which was announced today is another approach. As well as increasing the number of State houses and upgrading State houses we have the Options and Advice Service. That service is where State house tenants who may wish to purchase the home that they have been living in all their lives and who might like to move into homeownership can go. It might be that someone approaches the corporation and does not realise that he or she can get the accommodation supplement and rent privately. We are now able to help those people through the Options and Advice Service. 
I will move now to the second list: the list of a whole bunch of stuff that Labour promised to do but it never did any of it. National is now doing those things. The first item is the Residential Tenancies Amendment Bill. In 2002 Labour started to look at the Residential Tenancies Act and bring in a significant amendment bill. It never did it. There was never a bill and legislation was never passed under the previous Labour Government after 7 years of those members talking about it. I am intrigued to know whether Labour supports the legislation now that National has finally brought it forward because one of the things that we are doing in the legislation is bringing boarding houses under the Residential Tenancies Act so that boarding house tenants can be protected. I will be very surprised indeed if the Labour Party votes against that. It is very important that boarding houses are brought under the Residential Tenancies Act. 
Moana Mackey 
: It’s our bill. We wrote it. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The Labour member said that it is those members’ bill. It is. It sat in their bottom drawer for 7 years and they did nothing. Hobsonville is an area in Auckland where Labour since 2002 had promised State houses and new houses for first-home buyers. When we came into Government 7 years later we discovered that not a single State house had been built. There was not a single house for a new homeowner. There were no earthworks and no consents. In fact there had been 7 years of talking and no action whatsoever. I tell members that we have the consents that earthworks are about to begin and that first-home buyers will find opportunities in Hobsonville. 
Lastly the previous Government talked about insulating private homes. Labour members reckoned it would cost $1 billion over 15 years. It was not funded and not delivered. It was pie-in-the-sky stuff. What did John Key do? He provided $323 million—close to a third of a billion dollars—to insulate private homes across New Zealand. For the owners of any house built before 2000 that does not have underfloor insulation insulation in the ceiling or clean heating a capital pool of $323 million is available to them. What a delight it is to hear the phones ringing to see the emails coming in and to receive the thank you letters addressed to Gerry Brownlee John Key and me saying what a great idea it is. Private homeowners are also shivering in the cold. The previous Government talked about insulation for a decade. Finally we are seeing some cash and we can upgrade our State houses. I am overwhelmed by what John Key has done and has given me the opportunity to do which is to say that Labour made all these promises for 9 years and we are delivering on them. It is an absolute delight. It is a delight to deliver on our policies. It is a delight to deliver on Labour’s policies. It would be nice if members opposite could give us a list of all the other things that they will talk talk and talk about have focus groups about have committees about and call inquiries about so we could deliver on them. That is what we do. We are not about talk; we are about delivery. We are about housing vulnerable New Zealanders everyday New Zealanders because we do not want them living on the streets or living in the cold. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Women’s Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Immigration 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 Vote Immigration is $197 million and is part of the Department of Labour’s vote. Immigration is obviously a very important contributor to the New Zealand economy. One in five New Zealanders is born overseas. Sixty percent of the growth of the New Zealand workforce between 2001 and 2006 was a direct result of immigration. Immigration has been a very important building block for the economy and it will continue to be so in the future. But there is no doubt that the previous Government left us with some considerable challenges not the least of which has been the performance of the New Zealand Immigration Service. 
There have been some very highly publicised inquiries into Immigration New Zealand. We have had the review of the Pacific division the various inquiries around the Mary Anne Thompson affair and most recently the Auditor-General’s review which I have to say was quite damning of various aspects of the service. I emphasise that we certainly have very dedicated staff working at Immigration New Zealand but the issue we have had is that the current chief executive has inherited a dysfunctional organisation which has meant that it is very difficult for Immigration New Zealand to deliver the services we need so that it can contribute to long-term economic growth. Turning round the performance of the service is a major focus for the current Government. 
There are a number of elements to turning round the service’s performance. The first is implementing the changes that were recommended in the Auditor-General’s report. The Auditor-General made I think 20 recommendations. He painted a picture of a service in which the decision-making quality was extremely variable. On any given day a customer could go into an Immigration New Zealand office and receive a different decision depending on whom he or she saw which day he or she went in there and which office he or she went into. Clearly that is not acceptable. One in five Immigration New Zealand decisions was not up to scratch. In the Pacific division 40 percent of the decisions were not up to scratch. Immigration cannot contribute to the economy in the way that we need it to if we do not have a service that meets the requirements so the first thing we need to do is to implement the Auditor-General’s recommendations. 
The second aspect of turning the service’s performance round is to pull apart all the processes at Immigration New Zealand look at what they actually do and put them back together in a functional way that delivers the outcomes we desire from the service. That is a big project. 
When we found out what we had inherited from the previous Labour Government after its 9 years in office the question was why that Government never did anything about the situation. And why has the Oppositon asked only two questions on immigration in the whole term of this current Government? Both those questions were asked last week. I think the reason for that is quite obvious. The reality is that the previous Government left a huge amount of rubbish behind it. The previous Labour Government left us a real hospital pass. People in the Labour caucus are telling Pete Hodgson he should not ask about immigration. They say there is stuff there that they just do not want to come out so they ask him not to bring the issue to a head. They do not want immigration to be talked about. That is the other thing we really have to deal with. 
On the plus side we really have to make sure that immigration contributes to economic outcomes for New Zealand. Recently we announced our business migration policy. The previous Government had a business migration scheme—[ 
Interruption 
] Labour members like to yawn but they know that this is the truth. In the last 3 years two of the three business migration categories attracted two applicants in total. Clearly under the previous Government the business migration policy did not achieve the aims that it was meant to. We looked at the policy very practically. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: How many are you predicting? How many? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: We listened to the ethnic communities I tell Mr Prasad. We looked at the language requirements and the capital requirements. We asked what we had to do in order to make the policy work. We have come up with a formula for the Investor Plus category: $10 million no English language requirement and after 3 years investors will gain residency. It will be a small group of investors but they will be able to bring serious capital into New Zealand to add to the economy. Mr Prasad asked how many of those immigrants there will be. I can tell him it will be far more than the two whom his Government brought in. We have looked at the language requirements and the capital requirements and have come up with a realistic solution. 
But we also want to make sure that we can get more New Zealanders to come back here so we are streamlining the processes for them. We are making it easier for employers to get the labour that they need. 
There is a lot to do in immigration. We have the policies and the approach that will turn the service round. The service’s future is good. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Food Safety 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 Mr Chair— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry but the Green Party has used its allocated seven speeches so I cannot accept your call. If you wish to negotiate with another party however that is up to you. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I seek the leave of the Committee to make an additional contribution on Vote Food Safety. I understood from our whip that I was entitled to speak on it which is why I came to the Chamber. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No your party has used its time so I cannot give you an allocation. But you could negotiate with another party. Are you seeking leave? 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: I have sought the leave of the Committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member is seeking leave. No I am sorry I cannot accept leave. This debate is a time-limited debate and the time would have to come off someone else’s allocation. I suggest the member negotiates with another party. I understand that the Progressive party has allocated its vote to Labour but Labour possibly will not be using it. Am I correct? I do not want to take a speaking spot away from someone else. 
Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chair. Could I make a few phone calls before that negotiation is agreed to? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: If there is no other speaker I will be putting the vote. The member has sought leave so I will test the Committee on the issue. The member has sought leave to make a contribution on Vote Food Safety. Is there any objection to that? There is objection. I am sorry but the member cannot speak on that vote. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Labour agreed to.  
Vote Customs agreed to.  
Vote Lands agreed to.  
Vote Statistics agreed to.  
Vote Emergency Management agreed to.  
Vote Racing agreed to.  
Vote Senior Citizens 
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
: 
 In Vote Senior Citizens there is an appropriation of $1.035 million. There was the same appropriation last year. There have been no cuts and in these testing times that is the way it should be for our vulnerable and older senior citizens. This National Government is dealing with senior citizens in an honest way and with compassion. This directly contrasts with the scaremongering approach from the Labour members. Right now in these times of recession older New Zealanders need to know that their entitlements are safe and National has pledged to maintain New Zealand superannuation at the current rates and the age of entitlement at 65 years. Such is the watertight nature of that pledge that our Prime Minister the Hon John Key has assured us that should we break that promise he will resign. I can tell members that older citizens have been absolutely delighted to receive a letter from the Prime Minister with that assurance. 
Vote Senior Citizens is very ably looked after by its Minister the Hon John Carter. He is a Minister who through his Northland electorate has shown time and time again that he has the interests of senior citizens in his very being. In fact he has so much experience in handling and assisting senior citizens that this is a fantastic role to see him in. In his role he supports advocacy for senior citizens. He provides the Government with policy advice on older people’s issues and a second opinion or advice to Government agencies on older people’s issues. He promotes positive ageing to Government departments and to local communities and there is a network of 50 older volunteer community coordinators around New Zealand. He works with local and national interest groups and all of this is in Vote Senior Citizens. 
New Zealand’s Positive Aging Strategy was introduced and produced by the previous Government in 2001 and it has been adopted by this Government. It established 10 positive ageing goals with 41 central government and 36 local government agencies contributing to the 2008 to 2010 positive ageing action plan. 
To champion positive ageing National intends to focus on some key goals such as the employment of mature workers changing attitudes about ageing and protecting the rights and interests of older people by raising awareness of elder abuse and neglect prevention. The Office for Senior Citizens is also leading work on a proposed amendment to refine the Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 in relation to enduring powers of attorney. That will clarify the independence requirement for witnesses and allow couples to use the same law firm when making an enduring power of attorney and that has been called for for quite some time. 
There are other votes involved in the advocacy role of the Minister for Senior Citizens. The well-being of senior citizens relies on policies that fall across a range of portfolios—for example health housing and transport. The Minister works closely with his colleagues to ensure that the interests of senior New Zealanders are taken into account. This Minister and this National Government have focused on elder abuse and neglect prevention and I show the House this booklet that is finding favour around New Zealand. Groups are promoting it when striving to prevent and detect elder abuse and neglect. The Government provides $1.553 million a year to elder abuse and neglect prevention services. I have looked at the locations of those offices and there are 18 providing that service in the North Island and six in the South Island. Many of those agencies attended meetings that I held around New Zealand when I was looking at issues for ageing New Zealanders. There are 24 local elder abuse and neglect prevention services nationwide and they are doing a fantastic job. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Internal Affairs agreed to.  
Vote National Archives agreed to.  
Vote National Library agreed to.  
Vote Local Government 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena tatou katoa. This speech will focus on an egregious failure of our parliamentary system in relation to the responsibilities of the Minister of Local Government. A select committee dealing with matters of vital interest to local government the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee has been diligently working up and down the country and it has been held to ransom. Money has been squandered and the process has been undermined. Every day up and down in and around the broader Auckland area people have been told by that Minister the Hon Rodney Hide that their issues not only would be addressed but also could be considered and successfully resolved once they participated. The Minister did not like the nature of the participation. He has abused the system. That member has been here since 1996. Sadly although in earlier years he sought to make himself out as a valiant defender of the parliamentary system he has used it now for his own miserable wretched short-term political purposes to try to cause his party and his profile to grow on the back of racial discord. 
Of course that will not save his bacon. However it will enable him to reward the interests that he has been sent here to advance in terms of local government. There was every right for members of iwi and the broader Maori community in the city of Auckland to expect that this Government and this Minister would give them a fair go. There was $5.5 million spent on the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. There were countless submissions numerous hui meetings and deliberations and they have all been swished aside on the basis of the Minister’s personal political short-term agenda.  
Paul Quinn 
: Your $5 million! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: I know we will be warned to stick to the topic but that interjection was from one of the Maori members who has refused to stand up and be counted. This is a bad day for local government in relation to Maori. At least with Tau Henare we know what he thinks. The fact that he reflects what he thinks is causing him to be very unfavourable with the party he is in. 
Maori have been shut out and Mr Hide is well and truly aware that this agenda of his is cruel to young Maori voters. It has also been demonstrated that he is no defender or ambassador for the interests and the system of this House. It is quite simple. There is major legislation the implementation of which will be funded by the budget that he has stewardship over but he has written out of the script at least 50 percent of the population in terms of the partnership principle under the Treaty of Waitangi. He does not care about their interests. I can understand how he would think it was relevant to humiliate and undermine the Maori Party but he did not need to do that; its members are doing that to themselves and I will have more to say about that later. 
There was a host of very impassioned and well-informed young and old participants and they have been shown that democracy in Auckland will not work for them. That man does not want it to work for them. He has a narrow agenda and it does not include the interests of the Pacific Island communities. In fact he is totally disinterested in the diversity and the pluralism that make up Auckland. He has a very narrow Epsom-centric approach. His stewardship of this portfolio has hit a low ebb in terms of all the previous members who have had to rise to the occasion and be good stewards of this particular role. 
When we go forward there will be more legislation to come back to this Chamber. But it is sad that money is being put aside to drive that local government agenda. There has been a very divisive and gross slur placed upon the tangata whenua of Auckland. They have been told there is no place for them under the views of that man that there is no place for them under parliamentary procedure and that there is no place whatsoever for them in the pact that has been entered into between the prevailing major party of the day and Mr Hide. It is highly likely in the short term that his stewardship of this portfolio will be lauded by the deeper corporate interests of Auckland but that is not an adequate basis to run the super-city. The super-city has to be about people. This man has turned his back on the people. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I just want to say that this debate is about the estimates. I think the Hon Mr Jones the previous member who spoke might have referred occasionally to them but the substance of his remarks was an attack which did not really focus on the estimates. I want to draw the debate back. 
Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) 
: 
 I shall spend a little while addressing what the Minister of Local Government Rodney Hide has done and the trouble he has caused. Watching his performance over the first 9 months was like watching  
Yes Minister 
. He makes courageous decisions and unfortunately the Prime Minister has not seized the wonderful opportunity he presented to him only this week. When a Minister puts his or her head on the block the chopper should be got out—that is what should have happened. We could have had two Ministers from Epsom gone in 3 months. I think that would have been rather good. This Minister not only is not treating Maori properly—and it is not just in Auckland; it is across the country—but he is treating the mayors and the councillors throughout New Zealand in a way that is not very satisfactory at all. 
We have a Minister who wants to bring things back to narrowing local government down—core business. This is going on as he runs it as a smokescreen for what will happen to Auckland. Why did that Minister not proceed with a referendum after the royal commission made its report? Why did that Minister run away from making a referendum a part of Aucklanders having their say? That Minister has his hands on a big chunk of money and he could have done that. Yes I am talking about money Mr Chairperson. That Minister has control over it. He could have got someone else to go along to Cabinet for him and argue for a referendum. He could have talked to the Minister of Maori Affairs not just about what was going on in local government; he could have made sure that not only do they get a fair go when it comes to representation but also a fair share of the money that that department has. I think that one just cannot isolate one from the other. 
The Minister was going to keep rates down as well. There are lots of people who have received their rates demands in the last few months and who have found out that rates are going up. It is interesting that the opportunity that he talked about before the election that he talked about as soon as he became Minister and that he wrote about to mayors all over the country has not resulted in very much pleasure in terms of local government. He talked to the mayors of Auckland he talked to Bob Harvey he talked to Len Brown he talked to Calum Penrose and they are all disillusioned that they have a Minister of Local Government who is hell-bent on his agenda and will not listen. 
I am really sad about that because I thought Rodney Hide as a Minister dealing with a big budget would do something. I thought he would listen to people. But of course it helps to be listened to by the Minister if one is a Pakeha—he will listen a wee bit. But if one is a Maori it seems that his or her views are swept to one side. When we hear people in the Chamber today asking the Minister of Maori Affairs what he is doing and we see that they have to work together—how cruel can one get! What is happening is that two people are being sent away—one with the ammunition and the other with an empty basket. We have a Minister who has his own agenda and it is supported by the Prime Minister John Key. He supports it. He is not supporting the Maori people of Auckland. He is not supporting Maori people throughout New Zealand in having a say in local government. [ 
Interruption 
] Of course there is one of the Maori members from National calling out. Why does he not cross the floor? I invite him to cross the floor but he will not have the nerve. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 First of all it is really pleasing to be here as Minister of Local Government. 
Hon Member 
: Didn’t think you were going to make it! 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Thank you. Let me please see if I can respond to that very sustained incisive and critical attack on the estimates of Vote Local Government in the time available to me. 
It is good to have an opportunity to highlight the key areas of interest in the Local Government portfolio. In particular following on from members who have previously spoken I want to focus first on the work being undertaken to reform local governance in Auckland. To put it simply if Auckland’s economy thrives New Zealand’s economy thrives. That is why the Government is so determined to set up governance arrangements that enhance the productivity and the competitiveness of Auckland’s businesses. 
Second I want to talk briefly about the work I have directed to improve local governance transparency accountability and financial management. There is much good work being undertaken by local councils but I am convinced that we can do more and that we can do it better without burdening ratepayers further. 
The Government has moved quickly to respond to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Working to strengthen Auckland’s governance is one of the key areas of the work of the Department of Internal Affairs in local government in 2009-10 and beyond. This work is critical not just for the prosperity of Auckland but for the country as a whole. The Local Government (Tamaki Makaurau Reorganisation) Act 2009 was enacted in May—and I thank Labour members for their support in this—to allow implementation of the new structure to get under way. That Act established the Auckland Council and formed the Auckland Transition Agency. The Auckland Transition Agency is empowered to design to establish and to manage the transition from the existing eight councils to the new core local governance arrangements for Auckland by October 2010 in time for the next local body elections. Budget 2009 included funding to facilitate the establishment of the Auckland Transition Agency and the board. The department has assisted with the set-up of the agency and has developed a framework for monitoring its performance. The Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill the second piece of legislation was introduced in May. That bill provides for the high-level structure of the Auckland Council and allows for the determination of boundaries and the membership and number of local boards. 
Aucklanders have recently had the opportunity to have a say on these important matters. Over 2500 submissions were received by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill. The committee is expected to report back to the House by 4 September with an enactment expected by late September 2009. A third bill will be introduced late this year to provide further detail on the governance structure functions roles and powers of the Auckland Council and its local boards. 
That bill is expected to be enacted in either May or June 2010. Over the coming months the department will be developing detailed policy for the third bill on issues relating to water transition issues interim arrangements the ongoing governance framework and advisory panels for ethnic and Pacific people. Work is also being undertaken by other agencies relating to transport planning economic development and key projects waterfront development and social development. Some of this work is needed for the third bill. 
Over recent years there has been widespread concern about the growth in local authority rates and the choices some councils have made in their funding decisions. There is strong evidence that rates have been growing faster than local authority input costs. The Government has agreed therefore to review aspects of the Local Government Act to improve the transparency the accountability and the fiscal management of local government which is something I know the Hon Shane Jones is vitally interested in. I want to ensure ratepayers and citizens have better tools for controlling the cost of council rates and council activities and I will be looking at ways to ensure local government operates within a defined budget and focuses on core activities. 
The review is not about prohibiting local government from doing things; rather it seeks to enable the sector while at the same time providing greater opportunities for the involvement of ratepayers and citizens in authorising what is done on their behalf. The review is guided by the following principles: first that local government should operate within a defined fiscal envelope—that is to say a budget; secondly that councils should focus on core activities; and thirdly that council decision-making should be clear transparent and accountable. 
The review will look at how to make local government’s long-term planning processes less complex and costly and look at ways in which each council’s financial reporting can be improved to provide better and more readily understood information. Firstly the department will be working on options for simplifying long-term council community plans and making them more strategic. This will reduce councils’ costs and ensure that ratepayers have access to material they can understand. Officials will also consider mechanisms for plain English financial disclosure and for developing comparisons between councils. Secondly we will look at where the changes are needed to the current requirements around community outcomes. Officials will examine options for a more focused and less costly service performance system. Finally the work will also look at ways of enhancing councils’ accountability to their ratepayers and citizens. I believe that some councils go ahead with expensive projects without gaining a clear mandate from ratepayers. Officials will consider options for the use of referenda to ensure councils have a mandate for those projects. 
That is a very hefty work programme and let me with your indulgence Mr Chairperson take a minute to also say how wonderfully I have been served by the officials of the Department of Internal Affairs. I could not ask for better people in terms of their intelligence their experience their insight into local government their commitment and the hard work they have provided to the Government and to me in particular as a new Minister in getting this work stream under way. I consider myself truly blessed to have such a wonderful team assisting me and I think all Governments are very lucky to have had people of such— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Creating another grievance. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I hear Steve Chadwick jumping up and down about creating another grievance. I have three words for her: foreshore and seabed. Thank you very much. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 We have heard a whole lot about Auckland today and as an MP from Christchurch I want to talk about local government right across the country. This Government’s priorities are to grow the economy and create prosperity and with that to provide security and opportunities for all New Zealanders. Effective local government is an important part of this equation. 
A critical issue for many New Zealanders is managing their rates payments. Rates are increasing and are placing a bigger burden on ratepayers who are already stretched in these difficult economic times. In the past rates have risen much faster than inflation. From March 2001 to December 2008 under the previous Labour Government the consumer price index for all groups increased by 23 percent but the consumer price index rates subgroup increased by 61 percent over the same period. This level of rates increase is totally unsustainable and it is no wonder that ratepayers were in revolt. 
The problem is significant because rates are the single-biggest source of council income and the costs of local government continue to increase as the demands and expectations of citizens outstrip the ability of ratepayers to pay. The result is that many councils are struggling to meet their statutory commitments. They are struggling to provide for the necessary infrastructure and services that their communities demand. An analysis of data from the newly released long-term council community plans shows that the upward trend is continuing. Despite efforts to keep the costs down inflation growth and community expectations continue to generate increases. The projected cumulative increase in rates income over the next 10 years is 59 percent and at the same time public debt for the sector is forecast to increase by 100 percent and operating expenditure by 37 percent. These figures are unacceptable and they are unsustainable. Something has to change and this Government is absolutely focused on finding ways to manage the cost of rates. 
But in the meantime the Government responding to the pressure from struggling low-income homeowners of which there are over 110000 this year has allocated $65 million out of the total funding of $90 million for Vote Local Government—that is 72 percent of that funding—to the Rates Rebate Scheme. In 2008-09 the average rebate was $483. These changes will lift the maximum rebate from $530 to $550 and raise the income threshold for eligibility from $21180 to $21910. 
But this is only a stopgap measure. It does not address the real problem. We must find ways to control council costs capital expenditure and activities and to improve the transparency accountability and fiscal management of local government. We have heard the Minister pledge today to do just that. Over recent years there has been widespread concern about the growth of local authorities and the choices some councils have made in their funding decisions. Ratepayers and citizens want to be given better tools to be able to have their say in what is done with their money and on their behalf. After all ratepayers have to carry the consequences of expenditure decisions by their councils so it is only fair that they have a greater say in council decision-making. We are looking to simplify the long-term council community planning process. It is enormously expensive with some councils spending up to $1.3 million just on doing the planning every year. We want to develop plain-English financial disclosures so that every ratepayer has at least a chance to understand where the money is going. We want to streamline the compliance processes. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
: 
 I shall address my initial comments to what should have been the bright shiny new centrepiece of the Government’s local government programme of work. I am talking about the Auckland super-city. This should have been a bright new day for local government in Auckland and instead it is turning to custard and it is only August. First is the question of local boards. They were a blunder an ill-judged and ill-advised decision made in the heat of the moment presumably by the Minister of Local Government that caused a backlash by Aucklanders— 
Paul Quinn 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is with some reluctance that I interrupt the address by my learned colleague and friend Phil Twyford but I think we have reached a point where numerous Labour speakers in the estimates debate have taken the opportunity to canvass much wider issues. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I think I know where the member is going but that is not the way to raise a point of order. It is not an opportunity for a speech and Speakers’ rulings state clearly that points of order should be made tersely. I think the member was about to say that the speaker was straying from the debate. 
Paul Quinn 
: Yes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Now we have got to it. This debate is theoretically about the Government’s spending and estimates and the Chair has shown some tolerance and allowed some opportunity for members to bring in illustrations etc. The member should draw back to talking about estimates expenditure. He can exercise his mind as to how he might bring in the points he wants but they need to be connected to Government expenditure. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: I shall focus my comments on the money and resources that have been expended over the last 6 months on the exploration of Auckland governance reform. I have talked about the boards and the backlash that that provoked in the Auckland community. The second point is that the proposal of the Minister of Local Government for a quota of “at large” councillors on the new Auckland Council has put the Government under enormous pressure because public opinion has now decisively rejected that proposal. The third key plank in the Government’s super-city model regarding Maori representation has left the Government and its coalition partners in disarray whereby members of the Government are subjecting themselves to name-calling and abuse in these corridors. 
Today the newspapers say that leading figures in Auckland local government are appalled by rumours of Government decision-making on the question of the northern boundary of the Auckland super-city and the negative planning and environmental effects that that would have on the super-city were it to happen. 
So why is that very important project in tatters even before the select committee has reported back to the House? I say to members opposite and to the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide that they should look in the mirror and ask themselves why Aucklanders feel so disillusioned and so despondent about the way the super-city project has been handled. The process has been deficient. Money has been expended wastefully every day of every week for the last 6 months by Rodney Hide from the day that he released his own pamphlet which was less than 2 weeks after the tabling of the report of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance. Then we saw the process ride roughshod over the National Party’s manifesto promise to consult Aucklanders. We saw the first super-city bill being bulldozed through the House. We saw the denial the confiscation of Aucklanders’ right to a referendum under the Local Government Act. Now we see an ongoing fear that the super-city project is not only about curtailing the voice of local communities and corporatising our democracy but is a prelude to privatising our assets. 
In the last few days the select committee which is such an important part of our parliamentary process has been reduced to a farce because the Minister of Local Government and the Prime Minister pre-empted the decision making and deliberation of the committee. Two people are responsible for this parlous state of affairs— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Debacle! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: —this debacle as my colleague says. The first person is John Key the Prime Minister. He is the man who wants to be everybody’s friend or tell everybody what he or she wants to hear but he seems incapable of providing the leadership. The second person who is responsible in this estimates debate for such gross mismanagement of the local government programme of action is Rodney Hide the Minister of Local Government. He is actually exercising too much leadership. For a man who represents a party that is capable of summoning 1 percent of support in the poll he is the tail that wags the dog; or as a commentator said this morning he is the tail that bites the dog. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Tails don’t bite! 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: This one did. This is a tail that bit the dog. 
The Minister of Local Government claims to be the champion of ratepayers and I quote a number of things he said on  
Q 
+ 
A 
 not long ago: 
“I don’t think it’s about me getting my way.” in relation to the super-city. He said it was ultimately not up to him; it was ultimately up to the Parliament. The reality is something quite different. Mr Hide has got his way every step of the way. 
SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Mangere) 
: 
 I rise to make a contribution to the estimates debate and I say to the members of the House that councils should be about communities not corporations. Mr Hide’s Local Government Act reform is about gutting local government and clearing the way for the privatisation of income-generating assets and services. Those assets and services were built up by ratepayers over many many years. Many people in Mangere would find the words used tonight by the Minister in the chair the Hon Rodney Hide in referring to accountable and transparent councils to be hollow when we consider that the Auckland reform disestablishes the eight local councils in Auckland and instead establishes the Auckland Transition Agency made up of people who are not elected by the people but appointed by the Minister and accountable only to the Minister. 
Local Government New Zealand is critical of Mr Hide’s suggestions about core services and we ask Mr Hide how he defines core services. We ask whether housing for the elderly is a core service or whether social housing is a core service. We ask whether community art is a core service. We ask whether social well-being or cultural well-being is a core service. We ask whether economic and environmental well-being is a core service. We ask about Maori participation Asian and Pacific participation and indeed youth participation. All of those things currently exist in local government throughout Auckland and it appears that the Minister is attempting to get rid of those things. 
Yesterday Radio 531 PI invited callers to express their views when a caller complained about an Auckland billboard that states: “At least our brownies won’t eat your pet dog”. Pacific callers were outraged at the insensitivity and racism that those remarks portrayed. This is 2009 we say and still some people in New Zealand—and I have to say with the greatest respect to this House they are mainly Papalagi—cannot seem to live in one of the world’s biggest multicultural cities without making derogatory remarks about people’s race or the colour of their skin. 
Then again we heard that Mr Hide was prepared to throw his toys out of the cot because he could not support race-based seats. Yet Maori see themselves as New Zealanders as Kiwi not as a race. Maori are mana whenua tangata whenua. We have Maori of Samoan ancestry and Maori of Tongan Cook Islands Niuean Indian and Pakistani ancestry. We even have Maori of Dalmatian Scottish Welsh and English ancestry. Some of them are good-looking; others on the other side of the Chamber may not be. All of them see themselves as home-grown Kiwis who are proud to be New Zealanders. Those are the people who make up local government in Auckland. All of them share a vision of being inclusive. They recognise that we each have great strengths and that we would be a better country if we accepted that Maori have a special place in our history and in the culture of Aotearoa but more important they recognise that if Maori are not included in local government decision-making processes in this country then we perpetuate the minority view that what is European is best. 
I say to members that is not the view held by the majority of the people who live in the Greater Auckland region. Pacific people are united in our support for Maori and for Maori seats on the Auckland super-city. Manukau was one of the first local councils to establish Pacific advisory committees and they exist today. That was followed by the establishment of such committees in Waitakere Auckland central and North Shore. Those advisory committees exist today and they desire to be part of the future Auckland super-city. We know that if Europeans were able to recognise the strength of Maori then they would be more open to recognising the strength of Pacific and Asian people in all facets of New Zealand decision-making. The Pacific Island advisory committees of Manukau Auckland central Waitakere and North Shore all advocated strongly for there to be Maori seats on the Auckland Council. Organisations and individual submitters who represented people from the Cook Islands and from Samoa Tuvalu Niue and Tonga all supported the establishment of Maori seats. Pacific people were prepared to sacrifice their own ambitions regarding the super-city in order to ensure that Maori were treated with the mana and dignity that they deserve to be treated with in their own land. 
Sadly this is not to be. One wonders about the mana-enhancing relationship that the Maori Party has with the Government. Many people in my electorate are asking whose mana has been enhanced by the decision to deny Maori a seat on the new super-city. This decision is very short-sighted. It reflects the lack of long-term vision the Prime Minister has for the building of strong and inclusive cities in New Zealand. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Consumer Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Maori Affairs 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to speak briefly on the great work that this new Government under an outstanding Minister of Maori Affairs is doing this year. I want to talk about the allocations in the appropriations for this financial year and compare them with the wastage that occurred under the previous administration. One of the things the new Minister took on was the early challenge of the Maori economic summit conference in terms of developing new ideas and a fresh approach to how we could better allocate the appropriations for this financial year. I would like to compare the output from that Maori economic summit with that thing called the Hui Taumata set up under the previous administration. I cannot believe that it was set up under the previous Minister of Maori Affairs because he is such a great guy so it must have been that in the Cabinet of the day he was driven to set it up. 
I think this Hui Taumata was formed in 2005 and the Government spent millions of dollars of previous appropriations on it. But what did it achieve? It achieved absolutely nothing for the millions of dollars thrown in those appropriations at these grand talkfests yet along comes the new Minister who is focused on the job and who immediately realised that Maori economic development is the thing that will take our people forward. Increased opportunity and aspiration for our tamariki are critical to ensuring the future economic benefit of the Maori people. 
I want to share some of the things that came out of the Maori economic summit. For instance let us talk about the infrastructure industry training organisation—InfraTrain. It is a new programme to give hundreds of Maori adolescents the opportunity to upskill to enable them to take on opportunities in the infrastructure industries that our Government will be focused on. We as a Government intend putting billions of dollars into the infrastructure that lagged behind under the previous administration. It is one of many steps to improve productivity in this country. This Government has ensured that Maori will be part of that by providing money in the appropriations this year to enable funding to develop skill sets in that area. 
Another area of training for our young Maori adolescents and tamariki is in the Aviation Tourism and Travel Training Organisation. Another one is the Seafood Industry Training Organisation. Again we have put money aside to enable young Maori adolescents to uplift their skills so that they can partake in the fishing industry which is an industry that provides enormous opportunities. I want to compare that against the record of the previous Government which used to dish out money to support its cronies. I read in the newspaper about Charles Waldegrave—now there is a doyen of statisticians! Let me tell members about Charles Waldegrave. He was on Te Puni Kokiri’s books for $20000 a year supposedly to produce some reports on social health and well-being but he never produced one report. That is the sort of thing that Te Puni Kokiri used to do with its money under the previous administration. 
Again I feel sorry for the previous Minister of Maori Affairs because I know that Parekura Horomia would never have employed that man. It would have been done under the direction of the then Prime Minister because one of Labour’s cronies had to be on the payroll of a Government department. However he did not produce one report while on Te Puni Kokiri’s payroll. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I welcome the report of the Maori Affairs Committee on the 2009-10 estimates for Vote Maori Affairs. In this tight fiscal environment my focus for Budget 2009 is on bringing about a change in focus for Maori development. Although the vote was reduced by $27 million this was largely due to some one-off commitments made by the previous Government that we were quite happy to honour. The new initiatives include the Maori Economic Taskforce and the Whanau Advocates Programme which is a flagship in terms of a change in direction. These initiatives are to be administered amongst the Maori community by Te Puni Kokiri. 
As the Minister of Maori Affairs I will be seeking to empower Maori communities to develop their own solutions to their issues. In doing that I propose to put people into the community who will be responsible to community organisations and not to Te Puni Kokiri although the funding will go through Te Puni Kokiri to them. This will empower communities to get involved with their own people and create their own solutions. Workers will be selected by the community and not by Te Puni Kokiri; they will be the people whom the community identifies as ideal for that kind of whanau development work—whanau awhina. I also intend to put a number of our nannies—our kuia—into the community so that they can work amongst women who are expecting babies and can get into the homes of children. Perhaps while they are visiting and caring for those children they can take cognisance of their situation in terms of resources in the house the tone of the house the behaviour and so on. Hopefully this initiative will bring some information forward that will allow us to apply the appropriate social service. This is not intended to bond people to social services but rather to put them on their feet so that they can make their own decisions. 
In addition the economic task force that we have developed which in these hard times does not have a big budget and will not be in the field of creating employment will prepare Maori for coming out of the recession in terms of opportunities for development of small businesses for investment for training and for various other ventures that I will not talk about at length here. That is what is happening. 
Once again I say that I am very pleased to take this call to represent the vote. I thank the Committee for its support on this vote. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe e te Kaihautu o te Whare. This is the first time that the Minister of Maori Affairs in a much diminished status—not as a member of the Cabinet—has stood to address the estimates. The fact that the position has been deprecated is shown in that very poor speech this afternoon. Of course there was a richer speech from Mr Tau Henare and I now know that the buffoon he had in mind—my apologies to Rodney Hide—was actually a colleague of his sitting closer to him based on that previous speaker’s miserable contribution. The Minister of Maori Affairs has a very important role and his stewardship of the lives of our rangatahi our kaumatua our whanau our hapu our iwi has been critically undermined in the way in which he has been marginalised in Tamaki-makau-rau—and this does relate to te reo Maori and the broad interests. 
Of course the Minister has a broad writ and I would invite the Chairperson to show a little indulgence. The Minister’s writ is so broad. This afternoon he had every right to stand and give a view on Tau Henare because mental health and employment prospects are within his writ and those two things are at stake in relation to the Maori members on that side of the Chamber. However this Minister needs to come back to the “meat and potato” basic issues of employment housing and education. He should not be diverted by singing a new waiata about the flag. “The answer my friend is blowing in the wind.” because that is what this Minister has delivered as a consequence of this Budget: a great deal of wind. It is wind that might cause a flag to flutter but there will be no rangatira there will be no kanohi Maori at the top seat of council tables up and down Aotearoa—no. He has been listening to cheap rhetoric and going to endless numbers of hui and has been hoodwinked by the National Maori members who after this turn will no longer feel proud enough to regard themselves as authentically Maori given that they turned their backs on New Zealand’s largest concentration of Maori voters and Maori whanau in Tamaki-makau-rau. 
Maori members may have had the opportunity to visit the area that the Minister of Maori Affairs hails from in terms of his residency etc. in Tamaki-makau-rau but they brought none of that message back. That is why he is marooned. This Budget did not grow one inch one dollar more from what my proud colleague from Hikurangi mountain Parekura Horomia was able to secure in years gone by. Rather the Minister of Maori Affairs played a dangerous and childish game of moving bits and pieces around on a chess game. This Minister is now about to find that this Budget will not advance his calls; it will show that the Maori Party in the context of this Budget is more interested in trophies more interested in symbolism and not the essence—not the ngakau not the mauri of the people. That is why his short stewardship of this role is an enormous disappointment. 
Paul Quinn 
: Outstanding! Outstanding! 
Hon SHANE JONES 
: His contributions are in inverse relationship to the loud noise that comes from that member over there Paul Quinn—no content here lots of noise there on the outside. The Minister may have organised the hikoi through Tamaki-makau-rau but it is Rodney Hide who has marched over this Minister and it is John Key who has walked over the Minister’s Party. Kia ora tatou katoa. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Tena koutou e te Whare. It is a marvellous time to be a Maori in New Zealand. It is indeed a wonderful time given our fantastic Minister of Maori Affairs who is doing some wonderful things and our fantastic Associate Minister Georgina te Heuheu. What a good job our Minister is doing! He is highly regarded in this country by Maori and Pakeha alike. Between him and the leader of the National Party John Key a close strong and mature relationship has emerged that I am sure will long continue. I also pay tribute to the Minister for securing an additional $120 million over 4 years in Budget 2009. 
Hon Member 
: How much? 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: One hundred and twenty million dollars. That of course is in tough times—times when budgets have had to be carefully examined. The Minister has done a very good job to secure additional money. 
Of course it is not just about the dollars and cents. A lot is going on that the Maori Party working together with National has been able to achieve going forward. There has been a review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act which I am sure will right some of the wrongs created by the previous Labour administration—wrongs that Parekura Horomia could not stop. I know that the women Maori MPs tried to stop the wrongs and stood up strong on them but even they could not stop them. A Maori flag being able to be flown on the Auckland Harbour Bridge is important to a lot of people. We have a Prime Minister who goes to both the lower and upper grounds of Waitangi during the Waitangi Day celebrations and a National-led Government that is continuing the good work—in fact speeding up the process—in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. So there have been some very proud achievements by this National-led Government and by Pita Sharples and Georgina te Heuheu. 
Let us just look at where some of that $120 million in tough economic times will be spent over the next 4 years. For Maori education initiatives—educating our youth—there is a $19.9 million boost. Kohanga which are doing well and thriving in places like Tauranga are about to do even better with this money. There is an additional $12 million to keep key aspects of the rural housing programmes going. I very much enjoyed and got a lot from going to a marae out Te Puke way with my colleague Te Ururoa Flavell seeing some of the things going on there and hearing what we as a Government are planning to do with the papakainga lending programme for Maori housing. 
There is an additional $4.5 million for te reo over the next 3 years in a whanau development programme to help Maori families access te reo. Iwi radio stations will receive additional money. How good is that? And the Treaty negotiation process which also receives substantial assistance from Minister Chris Finlayson will receive an additional $22.2 million to reduce the time taken in Treaty settlements. What does that mean? Well it is more than just pie in the sky; it recognises the wrongs of the past but also importantly it creates and unlocks economic potential. Iwi around this country including in Tauranga Moana with the money they will hopefully receive will see tourism initiatives— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: They don’t even know who you are boy. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: I tell Shane Jones that my voters do and that is all that matters. I say to members that in Labour we have a party that is very keen to be holier-than-thou on these issues. Clayton Cosgrove has been quite happy to talk against Maori prison initiatives and Trevor Mallard likes to blog on these issues. What a disgrace! 
Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rawhiti) 
: 
 Mihi atu ki te Minita Maori ki a Pita tena koe. Mo te raru inaianei kia kaha kia maia. 
[ 
I acknowledge you Pita Minister of Maori Affairs greetings. In regard to the current problems be strong be courageous 
.] 
I just respond to that young chap from Tauranga Simon Bridges. One thing I know about the previous Minister of Maori Affairs is that he was pioneering. A lot of the stuff that is being painted up as brand new is actually about 6 or 7 years old. Fishing training has been going since 1999; 684 people have gone through it. The trade training in Tai Tokerau has been going for 5 years. There are a host of things. I commend the present Minister of Maori Affairs Dr Pita Sharples for staying on the same track as the previous Minister because that is where he is safe. He understands the nuances of Maoridom unlike the shabby buffoonish shallow leadership that will not even recognise Maori and has used all sorts of excuses. It is outrageous. 
I can talk to members about the appropriation for Vote Maori Affairs because the Maori Party members came and said they wanted to do a lot of things. They wanted to have a $15 minimum wage. That did not happen. They promised no tax on up to $25000 earned and instead they voted to reduce tax cuts. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time for the debate has now expired. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: This is outrageous. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I am on my feet. I will now put the remaining votes as one question. 
The question was put that Vote Maori Affairs Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Revenue the preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to. 
Votes preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted.