Volume 682 Week 18 - Wednesday 1 August 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 682 Week 18 - Wednesday 1 August 2012 
[Sitting date: 01 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4145. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Wednesday 1 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Amended Answers to Oral Questions 
Question No. 5 to Minister 31 July 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I seek leave under Standing Order 354 to make a personal explanation to correct an answer I made in the House yesterday.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yesterday during question No. 5 the member for Ikaroa-Rawhiti asked me this supplementary question: “What advice did he give to the Minister of Finance in so far as the transfer of 49 percent shareholding interests in State assets is not a contravention of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?”. I responded: “As Minister I did not give any advice to the Minister of Finance on that particular point.” In reviewing my notes I find that I actually did provide the Minister of Finance advice on this matter. My advice was to bind the 49 percent shareholding interest on top of binding the Crown in line with the Treaty clauses found in our free-trade agreements written into the deeds. I recommended the wording “that shareholders of enterprises should do nothing to prevent the Government from meeting their obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi”. 
Questions to Ministers 
KiwiRail—Rolling Stock Replacement and Turnaround Plan 
1. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Is he satisfied with all aspects of the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes but there is room for improvement. The Government is backing the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan with an investment of $750 million over the last three Budgets. It is important to understand that this plan is mainly about freight and KiwiRail’s plan to make its business viable. 
Brendan Horan 
: In view of the multiple faults that have been found in Chinese-built rail wagons and locomotives purchased under the turn-round plan will the Government order an immediate Audit Office inquiry into KiwiRail’s contracting processes; if not why not? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am comfortable that the decisions of the KiwiRail board have not been taken lightly and were the result of considerable analysis. The board is responsible for those investment decisions and making the best use of the Crown’s investment. 
Brendan Horan 
: Is the reason that there has been no investigation into KiwiRail’s failure-ridden overseas contracts with China that Ministers interfered with the original locomotive tender and had it extended to allow Chinese companies to enter? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I understand that the premise of the member’s questions is incorrect. I certainly do not think that this could be described as a failure at all. What it indicates is that there are some errors and in a commercial way those problems are being remedied. The member’s other claims have been described as rubbish. 
Brendan Horan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a point of order? 
Brendan Horan 
: I am just asking about those claims being described as rubbish when they were in the  
New Zealand Herald  
at the time— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member will resume his seat. The member cannot dispute an answer by way of a point of order. The member has further supplementary questions to dig into an answer given but he cannot dispute it by way of a point of order. 
Brendan Horan 
: Why did KiwiRail purchase locomotives from a Chinese company with a poor record given that Malaysian Railways had to mothball 20 of them due to severe technical problems? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am sure that the board of KiwiRail took into account all the information that was appropriate for it to take into account at the time of the decision. I think it would be fair to say that the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan is a significant challenge and I think all New Zealanders would want to make sure that the board was taking all appropriate commercial steps in order to put that company on to a viable platform. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Can both front benches please desist. 
Brendan Horan 
: Was the term “Turnaround Plan” deliberately chosen to mislead the public when the reality of what is happening to KiwiRail is mass redundancies maintenance cutbacks outsourcing and privatisation? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think the definition of the description of it as a turn-round plan is quite appropriate. The previous Government spent close to $700 million to buy that business. It is the sort of business that has seen this Government have to invest another $750 million over three Budgets in order to help that business become viable and the board is making decisions where it sees that as making sense. 
Brendan Horan 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With regard to maintenance cutbacks and New Zealand First’s concern for— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! This is not a point of order. Is the member seeking leave to table a document? 
Brendan Horan 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. The member must indicate what his point of order is. He is seeking leave to table a document? 
Brendan Horan 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member may describe the document. 
Brendan Horan 
: Well as I was saying with regard to maintenance cutbacks and New Zealand First’s concern— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The member must identify the source of the document and identify the document. It is not “with regard” to anything. 
Brendan Horan 
: Thank you. I was getting there. This photograph was taken by concerned KiwiRail workers who are concerned about the safety issues arising from maintenance cutbacks in the Government’s KiwiRail Turnaround Plan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that photograph taken by KiwiRail workers. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I must be able to hear members. 
Clare Curran 
: Has KiwiRail already paid using Kiwi taxpayers’ money for the second batch of Chinese locomotives which have been put on hold due to serious systemic failures with the first batch which cost the country $75 million? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not have that information with me but if the member was to set down a question I would get that information to her. 
Hon John Banks—Donations to Member’s Political Campaigns and Compliance with  
Cabinet Manual 
2. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in relation to Hon John Banks “The law may be very loose as I’ve said before and the law may well need reforming and that’s something we’ll consider in due course but I’m comfortable with what he’s done”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Grant Robertson 
: In establishing that he was comfortable with what Mr Banks had done did he ask Mr Banks whether he was aware that he had received substantial donations from SkyCity and Kim Dotcom; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister accepted Mr Banks’ assurances. 
Grant Robertson 
: Why is he comfortable to have a Minister in his administration whom editorial writers in both the  
Dominion Post  
and the  
New Zealand Herald  
have said should be stood down and whom the police have established directly solicited and received donations which he later claimed to be anonymous? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The test is whether the police decided to advance a prosecution and they did not. Secondly the Minister retains the confidence of the Prime Minister. In fact there is a history of Ministers who have actually been convicted of crimes retaining the confidence of the Prime Minister such as the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Point of order the Hon—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! Members clearly heard a point of order called and know they cannot interject under a point of order. I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That member knows that fighting is not a crime under the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet and this will desist. And that member knows that that was not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet and if the member interjects like that any further he will not have the chance to interject further this afternoon. 
Grant Robertson 
: With reference to the Minister’s last answer is the standard he is now setting for participation as a Minister in his administration that lying is OK so long as you can get away with it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No the standard is that the Minister retains the confidence of the Prime Minister. In this case he does. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will he support the introduction of a bill that tightens up the laws on local electoral donations including by making them consistent with the obligations on candidates in general elections? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes the Government would be likely to support such a law. It seems to make sense that the disclosure laws for local government political donations would be similar to those for central government political donations. 
Grant Robertson 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Point of order Grant Robertson. 
Grant Robertson 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! A point of order has been called. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to introduce and set down for first reading the Local Electoral (Enhancement of Transparency) Amendment Bill which makes the donation regime for local government consistent with that for general elections. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that he retains confidence in Ministers who lie? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not the intent of this Government to lower itself to the standards of the previous Government where regular recklessness with the truth was almost a qualification to be a Minister. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that John Banks told reporter David Fisher the whole truth when Mr Banks said that he “kept the finances of the mayoral campaign at arm’s length.” given that the police found that Mr Banks had met with the chief executive officer of Skycity and received an envelope containing a $15000 cheque and that Mr Banks had personally solicited other donations from people like Kim Dotcom? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Before I call the Minister to answer this there are of course issues of ministerial responsibility here. The Prime Minister is not responsible for what another Minister might say. I have not ruled the question out but I just alert members that that is the case. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member can speculate about who said what to whom when. The fact is the police made a decision not to proceed with the prosecution and the Minister retains the confidence of the Prime Minister. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Minister retain the confidence of the Prime Minister when John Banks as a Minister said “I kept the finances of the mayoral campaign at arm’s length.” and the police found that that was manifestly not true and that as a mayoral candidate he sought and received donations personally? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister takes the view that the Minister has conducted his role as a Minister to a standard that maintains the confidence of the Prime Minister. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That will be sufficient. I have already alerted that member that he is skating on thin ice. That kind of interjection is unacceptable. That is the last one. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I warn the member. This had better— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Sit down Trevor. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That member will sit down. I am fast losing patience because the member knows he has breached the Standing Orders of this House several times this afternoon and I will not tolerate it any further. If he wishes to call a point of order he may. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it now the ethical standard of the Key-Banks Government that Ministers can tell reporters statements that are manifestly untrue and that are found to be untrue by the New Zealand Police and yet retain their jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will be aware the police conducted whatever investigation they conduct and made a decision not to proceed. The Minister retains the confidence of the Prime Minister. I think pretty much everyone agrees that the law as it applies to central and local government political donations should probably be better aligned. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was as to the ethical standard as referred to in the  
Cabinet Manual 
 of the Key-Banks Government and I have not heard an answer with regard to the ethics in the answer that the Minister gave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question sought an opinion in that regard and I think the Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister gave a pretty clear answer in relation to compliance with the law and I cannot require Ministers to give any particular answers when their opinions are sought. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I appreciate that but this was a question not a point of law. It was about ethical standards and the reason why that is relevant is because of the  
Cabinet Manual 
. The Prime Minister needs to have confidence in his Ministers that they are sticking to the  
Cabinet Manual 
 which speaks of ethical standards and the Minister did not address that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! In fairness the Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister has made it very clear that the member in question—the other Minister in question—retains the confidence of the Prime Minister. He has identified that the standard that is important is that the law has not been breached. If that is the standard in relation to the question the member asked I cannot ask the Minister to identify any further standards. That was the answer the Minister gave. 
Denise Roche 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave for the member’s bill the Local Electoral (Finance) Amendment Bill to be introduced forthwith and for it to be set down for first reading as members’ order of the day No. 1 on the next members’ day. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. I take it is a different piece of legislation? 
Denise Roche 
: It is indeed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Economies International—Effect on New Zealand 
3. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the international economic situation and its impact on New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 There are a number of reports on recent developments in Europe and they are somewhat sobering. Spain and Italy continue to struggle. Spain is the eurozone’s fourth-biggest economy and the world’s twelfth-biggest economy. A bailout of Spain would probably cost double that of Greece Ireland and Portugal combined. There is also come concern about Italy. The Italian economy is twice the size of the Spanish economy and is among the top seven economies in the world. The outlook for the one bailout that has been attempted in Greece is somewhat sobering in that Greece is behind on its reform timetable and discussions are now focusing on some last-chance options to keep Greece in the eurozone. Any significant change in the situation of these economies could have an impact on New Zealand. 
John Hayes 
: Given the ongoing uncertainty in Europe what is the outlook for the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think we are all adjusting to the ongoing uncertainty in Europe because it could last for some years. The New Zealand economy is continuing to grow moderately. One impact of these events in Europe is that yields on New Zealand 10-year Government bonds have now fallen to 3.2 percent—the lowest interest rate we have ever paid for 10-year money. This rate reflects New Zealand’s status as a highly rated stable economy with a prudent fiscal strategy. 
John Hayes 
: Why is New Zealand considered to have a relatively strong outlook? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the important word there is “relatively” strong. By the standards of say 10 years ago our outlook is pretty moderate. By today’s standards it is relatively strong. That is simply because other economies such as Europe the US and Japan are growing significantly more slowly than New Zealand’s and our own growth rate is broadly in line with Australia’s. The relative strength of our economy is allowing New Zealand households to reduce their debt in a moderate and considered manner without the significant cuts in standards of living in incomes or in Government assistance that are increasingly applying across most developed countries. 
John Hayes 
: What do recent interest rates and inflation data tell us about New Zealand and the world economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Our current inflation rate is around 1 percent and as I indicated earlier our interest rates are at historic lows. On the one hand it is giving New Zealand households a bit of room to reduce debt as well as pay the interest on it and that is good news; on the other hand those low rates here and around the world are indicators that the outlook for the global economy is not that good. I would notice that there is a growing divergence in interest rates between those economies that are stressed such as Spain and Italy and those economies that are seen as safe havens such as Germany where people are now paying the central bank to hold their money—that is negative interest rates. 
New Zealand - Australia Migration—Effect on Regional Areas 
4. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement regarding migration to Australia “What’s the point of standing in the airport crying about it?”; if so are the numbers of people leaving New Zealand from the regions being replaced by people moving into the regions from elsewhere in New Zealand or overseas? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. I stand by my full statement which went on to say “We’ve just got to compete.” because I believe that that is the case. We need to compete for our young people by doing everything we can to provide more affordable housing and higher-paying jobs. As to the second part of the question as I understand it there are no regional statistics that specifically isolate the number of people leaving any particular region to move overseas. The statistics that do exist for population in the regions show that almost all the regions are increasing in their population. The one significant negative is for the Canterbury region and that is for understandable reasons. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has he seen figures showing that although young New Zealanders are leaving for Australia from every part of the country inward migration is mainly into Auckland and what is the consequence for the regions of New Zealand systematically stripping out a generation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I just do not agree with the exaggerated language the member is using about what is happening. The fact is that there has been internal migration in New Zealand to Auckland for quite a long time and it is attractive to migrants. I might point out to the member that in terms of total population change the only region in New Zealand that has seen a reduction in population in the year to June 2011 is Canterbury for understandable reasons and some of that may have turned round now. Every other region actually increased its population. 
Hon David Parker 
: Well then did Whangarei lose more than 1200 people in the last year alone to Australia and did Opotiki Rotorua Whangarei Kawerau Waimakariri Kaikoura Buller and the Queenstown Lakes also lose more than 1 percent of their population to Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well what we do know is that Waimakariri lost an ineffective MP and got an effective one at the last election—that is for sure. I cannot verify those figures. What I do know is that the Government is doing and will continue to do everything it can to support businesses to make decisions that will encourage jobs. I look forward to that member of the Opposition supporting the measures the Government takes to help businesses to encourage the creation of jobs and to make investment decisions much easier not much harder because that is how we get jobs. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did Nelson lose 460 people to Australia in the last year and did south Waikato the far north Gisborne Marlborough Central Otago Taupo Napier Thames-Coromandel Horowhenua Invercargill and Gore also lose more than 1 percent of their population to Australia and how long can these communities go on losing population at that rate? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can only point out to the member that every region of New Zealand except for Canterbury had a population increase in the year to 30 June 2011. Any number of those regions the member referred to one of which I represent understand the reality that if you want to have more people in Gore then you need to create more jobs and you need to be as attractive a place as possible for investment and for businesses to grow. We know that the Opposition does not like businesses being profitable or growing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister has got no responsibility for that. 
Tracey Martin 
: Kia ora. In light of the Minister’s earlier response and with regard to the Government’s involvement in the Auckland Plan does he accept that housing affordability and shortages in Auckland are being exacerbated by migrants into New Zealand being concentrated in the Auckland area and is he aware of any plans to mitigate that impact; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am sure that the inward migration does put some pressure on Auckland infrastructure. That is unlikely to change as our migration inflows are fairly steady and have been for quite a long time. What we are discussing with the Auckland Council now is the need for its planning laws to enable greater flexibility in the supply of new housing to respond to that demand so that average Kiwis living in Auckland do not have to pay ridiculous prices to get into homeownership as they do now. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Does he see any irony in concerns about population moving from the regions to Auckland being highlighted by a member of Parliament who moved from Dunedin to Auckland? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am not sure the Minister has any responsibility for that whatsoever. Normally I am pretty liberal on allowing questions but I do not think there is any need for that question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Has the Minister received any reports of anyone pledging that New Zealanders would stop waving goodbye to their loved ones; if so has that pledge been fulfilled? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I believe it will be because this is a Government that does not stand around like the Opposition wringing its hands about the fact that we live next door to the fastest-growing economy in the developed world. We are getting on with helping our businesses take advantage of that so they can create more jobs and opportunities for young New Zealanders. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Discussions with Minister of Maori Affairs 
5. 
Hon TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Did the Minister of Maori Affairs discuss with him how the Crown would meet its Treaty obligation with respect to the Mixed Ownership Model? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes the Minister of Maori Affairs has discussed that issue frequently with me. This year the most significant of those discussions was earlier in the year when the Minister of Maori Affairs discussed with me and other Ministers the need to carry section 9 from the State-Owned Enterprises Act into the Public Finance Act in order to retain the obligation of the Crown to meet its obligations under the Treaty. It is our view of course that the part-sale of shares in these companies does not compromise the Government’s Treaty obligations or its ability to settle any particular claims that have been put forward. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: Is the Minister satisfied with the assurances of the Minister of Maori Affairs regarding protection of article 2 Treaty rights and did his advice contradict that of water claimants who met with the Minister? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the Minister means did the Minister of Maori Affairs seek assurances about the Crown’s intention to protect article 2 Treaty rights then he certainly did and those assurances have been given. In fact the Government has gone to considerable lengths to ensure that it fully understands those rights partly on the encouragement of the Maori Party and to assure itself and the Maori Party and claimants that the sale of shares will not compromise the Government’s ability to protect those article 2 rights. I would assume that the Minister of Maori Affairs has passed on those assurances to water claimants and I know that in a number of cases those claimants are keen to get on with discussions with the Crown to have their claims resolved and are not participating in the action in the tribunal and are not threatening subsequent court action because they believe that discussion with the Crown is much more likely to see their claims resolved. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: Did the Minister of Maori Affairs receive Crown Law advice regarding the effect of the Treaty clause in the mixed ownership model legislation and its ability to protect Maori interests in water? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: You would need to ask the Minister about that. In my experience the Minister of Maori Affairs does not always agree with Crown Law advice and often takes a more assertive approach to ensure that whatever the legal advice the Government fully recognises article 2 and article 3 rights and is committed to protecting those rights. In fact I think any number of claimants are starting to see that working directly with the Crown over those rights can be a more constructive process of settling them than going through the courts and opening up potentially years of litigation over some novel legal concepts that may not ever be resolved. 
Hon Tariana Turia 
: What was the Government’s response to advocacy from the Minister of Maori Affairs that shareholders of State-owned enterprises should do nothing to prevent the Government from meeting its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s response to the Minister may not have been completely satisfactory to him but that is part of the healthy discussions in a coalition. The Minister was seeking legislation that the Crown bind the private shareholders in the same way that the Crown is. We decided not to do that as the member may be aware. The fundamental Treaty obligations are between iwi and the Crown not private shareholders. The Crown assumes all the obligations of meeting whatever flows from the settlement of claims in respect of water or these assets or any other assets that claimants might succeed in obtaining. 
Christchurch Recovery—Funding and Potential for Sale of Council Assets 
6. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: What advice if any has he received on the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets to help pay for the rebuild of Christchurch? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I received advice from Treasury and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on a range of funding options for the rebuild of Greater Christchurch to which the Government has committed $5.5 billion to date. Alongside the Christchurch City Council I support the regeneration of our city which will be enhanced by the central city development plan released on Monday. I publicly acknowledge the funding challenges for both the Christchurch City Council and the Government. Councillors and I have agreed to discuss alongside our respective organisations a sensible and achievable time line and funding programme for the delivery of the blueprint. I approach these discussions in good faith as the thousands of city residents would expect us to do so. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just before I call the member did the answer actually say yes the Minister had received advice on the potential sale of such assets or did it not? Because that is what the primary question asked. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is what the answer gave. I will repeat the answer. If the Speaker did not hear I will repeat the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister will resume his seat for the moment. This was a very specific question about advice on a particular matter—the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets. Although the Minister has no responsibility for those assets he does have responsibility for any advice he may have received. The Minister if I heard him correctly said he had received advice from both Treasury and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority but what he did not say in his answer was whether that advice covered the issue that the question asked about. If the Minister could clarify that that would be helpful. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have given an answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Speaker did not hear the answer to the question asked. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have received advice from Treasury and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on a range of funding options for the rebuilding of Greater Christchurch to which the Government has committed $5.5 billion to date. Alongside the Christchurch City Council I support the regeneration of our city which will be enhanced by the development of the central city plan released on Monday. I have publicly acknowledged the funding challenges for both the city council and the Government. Councillors and I have agreed to discuss alongside our respective organisations a sensible and achievable time line and funding programme for the delivery of the blueprint. I approach these discussions in good faith as the thousands of city residents would expect us to do so. I intend to say no further on this matter. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The relevant phrase was “a range of funding options” in the Minister’s answer but what he has not made clear is whether that range of funding options included the potential sale of certain assets which is the question in the primary question—it is written down. Unless he is claiming a public interest defence which I did not hear him say then he needs to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister is asserting that it is not in the public interest to answer the question that is absolutely the Minister’s prerogative to do that but the question is a primary question and if it is— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have ministerial responsibility for the recovery; I have no responsibility for the Christchurch City Council and its finances. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister is absolutely correct in that matter and I pointed that out previously. But what the Minister does have responsibility for is any advice he has received especially advice from officials. In the Minister’s answer he has indicated he has received advice from Treasury. The question asked whether that advice covered the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets. Now that is a primary question on notice. If it is not in the public interest to provide the answer to the question that is absolutely the Minister’s prerogative. The Speaker is not going to second-guess that. But so far I just have not heard an answer to the question. If it is not in the public interest I absolutely respect that. That is the Minister’s sole judgment not the Speaker’s. But just to ignore the question—a primary question—is not on. This is Parliament. The House deserves an answer to a clear question—if it is in the public interest for an answer to be provided. The Minister has so far said he has received advice on a range of funding options. The question did not ask that; the question asked what advice if any he had received on the potential sale of Christchurch City Council assets to help pay for the rebuild of Christchurch. He may have received some on that; he may not have. But at the moment the House is none the wiser and that is what is not acceptable in this Parliament. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just for clarity because it was a very brief— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. Order! I am on my feet. The Minister gave a perfectly clear answer. 
Eugenie Sage 
: When will the Minister be revealing that advice and the discussions that he has had with the Christchurch City Council about the possible sale of council assets? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have not said that there are discussions with the Christchurch City Council about the sale of the assets. This is a particular concern for the Green Party. It is something that has been ramped up hard by the Green Party. The people who live in Christchurch know that there is a huge amount of work to be done down there for us to get back and they have a $5.5 billion commitment from the Government a plan that will revitalise the city a number of other problems that the Government is trying to work through at the present time. Sitting around angsting over what may or may not be sold or where the money is going to come from is of no use until there has been a proper discussion between the two parties. That will now take place. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Is the comment attributed to the Minister in today’s Christchurch  
Press 
 that “the council would have to find a lot of funds but it had options to deal with that.” correct; if so was he referring to selling assets? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I was referring to the fact that the Christchurch City Council has indicated in its annual plan that it is prepared to find I think a figure of around about $600 million with perhaps a further $155 million towards the regeneration of city assets. By anyone’s measure that is a lot of money. I admit you could barely buy a broken-down railway company for it but none the less it is a lot of money. When it comes to the second part of the question I cannot recall what the second part of the question was. 
Eugenie Sage 
: If I could help the Minister when he said that it did have options to deal with that was he referring to the sale of assets to deal with the shortfall? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are a range of options. I note that the council has so far opted for very high rate increases for Christchurch residents. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Does the Minister agree that the $30 million to $40 million in dividends that the Christchurch City Council receives annually from the trading companies in Christchurch City Holdings Ltd is a useful revenue stream that would be lost or reduced if those council assets were sold off or sold down? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am sure a revenue stream of that amount is useful and no one would suggest it is not. But in the environment where you have got a provision on your balance sheet that means the city is very financially strong you do that largely I suspect over a number of years to provide for the rainy day. If anyone wants to suggest that Christchurch has not had a rainy day I think they would have a very hard battle to win. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Does the Minister accept that several of the facilities proposed in the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority’s blueprint for central Christchurch are bigger and more expensive than those planned by the Christchurch City Council and that this creates a funding problem for the council? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I think there are two things that are important here. Firstly the Christchurch City Council made some provisions in its annual plan as it was required to do. I did not think it was appropriate to use the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority powers to suspend that annual plan process because there is a whole lot more that the council is doing and has to do outside the central business district and as a result of earthquake damage. So the place holder positions that it took I think were perfectly appropriate. It could not run ahead of the release of the plan. But there is a plan. It is a very good plan. It has been well accepted and embraced by the people of Canterbury. The member knows full well that there are around each of those proposals a range of funding opportunities that do need to be explored and will be discussed. 
Eugenie Sage 
: Will the Government reconsider introducing a temporary earthquake levy as proposed by the Green Party given that the city council’s equity in Christchurch City Holdings Ltd is about $1.3 billion and the levy would raise almost this amount in 1 year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is not a levy; it is a tax. It is a tax that is going to be applied to all New Zealanders to look after Christchurch if you believe the hype that the Greens say. The reality is that the Government is doing that. The Government has put up $5.5 billion. If the Green Party wants to say that it would support the $5.5 billion plus the extra money that might come from the increased tax that is an interesting proposition. How you would fill up the gap between what is planned and the revenue stream that is proposed is beyond me. 
Electricity—Generation from Renewable Resources 
7. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What reports has he received on renewable electricity generation in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 The National-led Government is focused on ensuring that renewable electricity generation thrives here in our country. I am pleased to report that the ministry has said that renewable electricity generation was 77 percent in 2011 up from 74 percent in 2010. Although it is important to bear in mind that the level of renewable electricity fluctuates because of a number of factors including lake levels I am pleased to see us well on our way towards achieving the goal of 90 percent renewable generation by 2025. 
Jonathan Young 
: Has he seen any forecasts on the future of renewable electricity generation in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Yes. Forecasting by the Electricity Authority shows that almost 3700 megawatts of renewable generation is consented but not yet built. To put this in perspective this implies that there are enough consented renewable generation projects to meet our demand growth out past 2030. On this basis it is clear that the renewable energy sector in New Zealand has a strong future. 
Social Development Minister—Discussions with Actuarial Consultants 
8. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What was discussed at the three meetings she has had with Australian company Taylor Fry known for its actuary services to the insurance industry? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: What was discussed was the contribution that Taylor Fry could make to measuring the future cost of the benefit system as one tool for helping to provide a sound footing for the investment-based approach to the welfare system. Taylor Fry provided Ministers with a wide range of information and advice. We expect the initial public valuation to be publicly released relatively soon as we are making good progress on trying to evaluate the future cost of the current population on welfare so that we can take a more active approach with investing more public money in order to reduce the future cost. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Why has Australian firm Taylor Fry been commissioned at a cost of up to $1 million to undertake an actuarial valuation of the welfare system in New Zealand given that her department produced the  
Future Liability: Estimating time on benefit and the associated cost 
 roughly 18 months ago? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because the Ministry of Social Development does not actually have the kind of expertise that will allow the Government not just to calculate the future costs but to differentiate the population. We want to move away from the model overseen by that previous Labour Government which was to put money in the bank accounts of the most vulnerable New Zealanders and leave them to it. The Ministry of Social Development is good at that; it is not good at this so we used some experts. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What evidence does the Minister have to suggest that her department is currently failing given that Cabinet is suggesting a radically different funding model whereby “a portion of … Social Development’s baseline funding could depend on their performance in meeting a target for reduction in the future liability.”? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not know what the “Ohs” are about. The department does its best with the tools that it has. It happens that that has left us with 320000 people at least on benefits 170000 of whom have been there for 5 years and 100000 of them have been there for 9 of the last 10 years. I know the Labour Party does not think we can do better than that. We believe we can and we are willing to invest $1 million in Taylor Fry and more important $200 million in the last Budget in doing more for the most vulnerable population which is the young mothers of young children. That decision is directly connected to the investment approach informed by these experts. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Why is the Minister proposing to decrease her department’s baseline funding if there is growth in the number of people on a benefit who need support to move into work and increase its funding when there are fewer people who need this support as proposed by her Cabinet papers and how does this represent an investment approach? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not surprised that the Labour Opposition with its history of feeding off the misery of so many long-term beneficiaries cannot quite understand— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I find it difficult to accept that that was an answer to the question asked. The question was seeking an opinion as to why the Government was doing. The Minister should come to the question asked. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the investment approach does not consist necessarily of more money technically going into the departmental baseline which is what the Labour Opposition would do. This is about spending more money on the beneficiaries. The best example I can give the member is that we have identified 2800 young New Zealanders under 18 who have children. We are investing roughly $5000 to $6000 per head in those 2800 young people to get them qualifications to get them decent housing and to protect them from violence and drug addiction and we believe that is a sound investment in reducing our long-term welfare cost. That will not appear in the departmental baselines. It will appear in another part of the estimates but it is a significant investment that we believe will be effective. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can he confirm that the number of people on the domestic purposes benefit and the unemployment benefit was lower under a Labour Government than since he has come into office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can. I can confirm that which just confirms that on “Planet Labour” there was no global financial crisis. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Can she assure the House that she is the one with the primary responsibility for the investment approach funding agenda when other Ministers have signed off every single Cabinet paper on this issue with one in particular signed off by Bill English as finance Minister Bill English on behalf of the Minister of State Services and Bill English on behalf of the Minister for Social Development? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Minister of Finance is a—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. If the question was asked in seriousness the members asking it should be silent enough to hear the answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well one would expect that such a busy and influential Minister would have his signature all over the place. What I can say on behalf of the Minister of social welfare is that—[ 
Interruption 
] Was it? Mr Speaker I better start again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would be very grateful. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can assure that member that the Minister for Social Development is applying all her energy and capacity which is enormous to solving welfare problems that the Labour Party did not care about and could not solve. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Wairoa Family Health Centre 
9. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What investments are planned for improving health facilities in Wairoa? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The go-ahead has been given by the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board for a $5 million integrated family health centre in Wairoa. This medical facility on the Wairoa Hospital site will have a new clinical services block a complete refurbishment of other areas to integrate mental and community health services a complete IT upgrade and an ambulance bay development. It will be incorporating significant numbers of health professionals: occupational health physio community health Maori health public health diabetes—the list goes on. The building is expected to be completed within a year and I would like to congratulate the community and the district health board on their work futureproofing health services for the people of Wairoa. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How is it that this district health board which only 4 years ago was in financial deficit and getting worse is now able to invest $5 million in an integrated health centre in Wairoa? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What the Hawke’s Bay board has shown is that a financial turn-round can be achieved when a district health board focuses on getting its finances into balance. With this achieved this district health board has gained the ability to determine how it invests its health resources in its community. This is in complete contrast to the out-of-control rapidly rising $150 million worth of deficits owed by district health boards that were left by the failed outgoing Labour Government. Turning round those deficits from a track heading towards $200 million has been a major achievement. I think the Hawke’s Bay board is a great example that expanded services can be delivered to local communities with the elimination of deficits. 
State-owned Assets Sales—Progress 
10. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Does he agree with the Minister of Finance that “The asset sales programme remains on track”? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Of course I agree with the Minister of Finance a busy and influential Minister especially since we have just started what he calls negotiations over next year’s health budget. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the asset sales programme is “on track” then is he prepared to rule out a delay in the float which he promised would be in the third quarter of this year even despite 80 percent of New Zealanders being opposed to the sale? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: As the Prime Minister said today a delay cannot be ruled out but it is too early to speculate. We are currently considering how we can incorporate the tribunal’s processes within the broad time line we are working towards. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the asset sales programme is “on track” then was it his Government’s plan to inflame the Maori water rights issue and have the Waitangi Tribunal request a delay of the float of Mighty River Power—was that part of the plan? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Certainly it is not part of the plan but it is not to say that it is not expected. I think what is more important for New Zealanders is to find out whether the Labour Party supports the Maori Council claim on the water or not. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: If the asset sales programme is “on track” then why has his Government cobbled together an uncosted loyalty bonus share scheme potentially costing hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ money as outlined by one of his own Government agencies in order to save face for the Prime Minister? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think what is quite clear is the fact that the use of loyalty shares is not unusual in these sorts of floats of Government-owned businesses. In fact I think I saw a report that in Finland nine of the 14 floats involved loyalty shares—Finland. But the key question that needs to be answered in this House yes or no is: does Labour support the Maori Council claim on ownership of water yes or no? 
Adventure Tourism Sector—Adventure Activities Regulations 
11. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What advice has she received regarding the implementation of the new adventure activities regulations? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Our international reputation is tied to our adventure tourism sector with around 36 percent of international tourists taking part in an adventure activity whilst in New Zealand. That is why in November last year we introduced new regulations designed to ensure that adventure activity operators comply with the highest of safety standards. I am pleased to report that an estimated 99 percent of adventure tourism operators have now notified the Labour Group of their activity following a joint effort between Government and the industry. This is a great start towards ensuring every operator is part of a safe and robust adventure activity regime by 2014. 
Louise Upston 
: What are the next steps towards full implementation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Earlier this week the first 16 safety auditors were announced. This is a key step in enabling operators to fully register under the new regulations. I am pleased to report that the first of the activity-specific guidelines—for canyoning—is due for release in the coming weeks with a further two caving and indoor rock climbing to follow soon after. I have also had feedback from the industry that the recently launched Support Adventure website is enjoying a high level of usage and support. These are important steps to help ensure the safety of participants and the protection of New Zealand’s reputation as a safe and exciting tourist destination which is central to New Zealand’s future economic success. 
Christchurch Recovery—Housing in Aranui 
12. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What recent reports has he received on housing in the Aranui area of Christchurch? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I receive a variety of reports on housing throughout Canterbury and Christchurch including the Aranui area. The information is used to inform the wide range of Government initiatives that we are undertaking to help the people of Aranui and other Christchurch suburbs. 
Hon Annette King 
: Did he receive advice from the Housing New Zealand Corporation regarding living conditions for families in Aranui including information about the 17 people existing on one property seven of them in a two-bedroom house 10 others in caravans and a tin shed sharing one toilet a shower and a washing machine; if so does this sound like a housing challenge or a housing crisis? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have not heard a specific report about that particular tenant but I do know that when I came in as Minister of Housing there were reports that over a third of the State houses right across New Zealand in 2008 were of the wrong size in the wrong place or in poor condition. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I am on my feet. I think the Minister said he had not received any reports on that particular question raised and that was the end of the matter. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he received a report from the Earthquake Commission saying that State houses in the Aranui area that are boarded up and unable to be occupied are now assessed as livable with repairs; if so what urgent action is he prepared to take to make these houses available to desperate people? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Of the 500-plus houses in Aranui 132 roughly are vacant and damaged 45 are currently on track for repair and the others may be repaired but these repairs are $80000 each. What the corporation is considering doing is subdividing these properties and building new State houses rather than upgrading the old ones. Old State houses—old mouldy cold State houses—were under the Labour Party. We want to upgrade and insulate State houses not just in Canterbury but right across New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked him whether he had received a report from the Earthquake Commission saying that State houses that were boarded up are now able to be occupied with repairs. He did not answer that at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure. I accept he did not specifically say whether or not he had received that report but he gave information about the number of State houses in the Aranui area that were boarded up some that were available for repair and what the Government planned to do about it. I presume he must have had a report to have that information. The thing is the Minister does not have to answer every aspect of a supplementary question. I think it was a reasonable answer to the question in respect of the serious issue around State house availability in Aranui. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you made a very valid ruling I think on the previous question where you cauterised the Minister after he had confirmed whether I think he had received advice. The primary part of this question was not about those other related but extraneous matters; it was whether he had received a specific report from the Earthquake Commission etc. etc. I would have thought that in order to be consistent with your first ruling—you ruled he had confirmed he had advice—all he had to do was confirm whether he had received a specific report or not. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is all a matter of whether in an answer the Minister is treating the House with respect and giving information that seeks to answer the question asked. I accept that on the particular part of the question relating to advice from the Earthquake Commission the Minister did not actually indicate that but he got to the substance of the matter around availability of houses in the Aranui area. He did not try to claim that everything was perfect at all. He I thought gave the House very useful advice. The member has a further supplementary question now to check that out further. If the matter causing crucial concern is a report from the Earthquake Commission that is obviously—given the answer just given—to be the subject of the next supplementary question. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question is asking him whether he received a report from the Earthquake Commission. He talked about houses—how many and how many they were going to repair. I wanted to know whether he has received a report from the Earthquake Commission. That was the fundamental part of this question. He did not answer it. It might have been nice all the other things he said— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No the member is not going to comment like that. Members have seen me—I try to treat the House evenly. They have seen me pull up a Minister on a primary question face him down on it and require him to answer to the House. This was a supplementary question and the Minister did not try to play politics with it. The Minister gave information about State housing in the Aranui area. What the Speaker cannot know is the reason why questions are being asked. Clearly if this particular Earthquake Commission report is of crucial interest to the member asking the questions and the Minister has not covered that particular aspect—whether or not his information is based on that report or some other report the Minister has received—then that is obviously the subject for further questioning. If the member had wanted to know whether the Minister had received that particular report if the member knows of a particular report the question should have been whether the Minister had received report such-and-such provided by the Earthquake Commission on such-and-such a date—end of question. Then I could have insisted that the Minister answer that. But the member included more material in her supplementary question. I have got to listen to questions asked and it is my view that the Minister gave a reasonable answer to that supplementary question. I accept he may not have answered the first part of it but that is why further supplementary questions are available to— 
Hon Annette King 
: So I’ll get an extra one then? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member has a further supplementary question indeed and she may use it should she wish to. 
Hon Annette King 
: Well thank you Mr Speaker. I will pursue that in another way. How many tenancy managers operating in the Aranui area have laptops to help them provide a “Smarter. Faster. Fairer.” service to the desperate people in the area—technology he said this morning was available to all tenancy managers now? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I have not talked to those particular tenancy managers. What I indicated I think this morning on Radio New Zealand is that the changes we are making in the Housing New Zealand Corporation are that tenancy managers will spend 70 percent of their time out of the office visiting tenants inspecting houses and looking at maintenance programmes. They will have a laptop. They will no longer be stuck behind a desk in the office using whiteboards. We are moving to modern technology not old technology because those State houses are worth $15 billion they house 70000 families and they deserve some attention and some modern servicing. 
General Debate 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. What an extraordinary week it has been. We have seen something that I did not think was ever possible and that is that David Shearer has shifted his position on the fence. And he has done that—[ 
Interruption 
] I think it is the same fence. It is about mining. We have heard 4 years of Labour against mining and how we should turn ourselves into Australia except without the mining and all of a sudden we have got “No now we quite like mining. We are quite close to the Government.” I think that is what we heard from Mr Shearer or someone of his ilk. I never thought we would see it. But he is still not quite sure about it so he is going to check. It is extraordinary. Of course we ignored him because I mean why would you not? 
At the same time what we have seen from the Government is the Christchurch recovery plan which was delivered just the other day—a fantastic plan—and I would like to congratulate all the people involved in that. I can also say too that we have seen some announcements coming out. My colleague the Hon Steven Joyce is making an announcement today on industry training—a very very good announcement. We have also seen as part of the Christchurch rebuild the justice sector and emergency services hub. This is a first for this country. This will be building on the work of the justice sector from the Christchurch-Canterbury earthquakes where they learnt to work together where they learnt to pool resources. This is the way forward. 
That hub was announced and I think it is going to be a fantastic event a fantastic facility. We are going to have the police working together based in the same area; the courts are going to be just along the building; we are going to have the Department of Corrections there—that part of the prison service that does not actually involve the prisons—and we are also going to have emergency services like fire and ambulance. That is going to lead to not only obviously some efficiencies around funding but also some massive efficiencies around operations. It is looking at where we should be looking not these silos that we have always had under Labour before but actually looking at how we can deliver better public services. 
That is what we are getting on with. Unlike Labour which all week has been rolling around wallowing around in the mud we are getting on with the business that we were elected to do along with our support parties—United Future ACT and the Maori Party. I would like to thank them for the support that they have been giving us to get this programme through. 
In the meantime what we are doing in law and order is well in the justice sector just the other day the Prime Minister and I announced our Better Public Services justice sector plan. Yet again it is a plan to deal with the issues—a target around reoffending targets around crime. Of course the Opposition members might bellow and say: “Well it’s easy for National because National’s got the crime rate down to 1982 levels.” I did not hear them say that quite but they could say that because that is where it is at the moment. Under Labour all they did was build more prisons and not back the police and not back the Department of Corrections’ service. 
Instead what we have now are levels of confidence in the police that are I have to say even greater than those in general practitioners—doctors. The police are now the most trusted agency in New Zealand bar none. That has nothing to do with the state that Labour left them in under the Hon Annette King and others. It has everything to do with what this Government has done: backing the police giving them the powers letting them get on to do the job not second-guessing them and not doing what Annette King did the other day after one of those trials—the Urewera ones—where she bagged the police. She went on TV on  
Q+A 
 and said comments like they should be apologising. Well forget that Mrs King; not under this Government. We back the police. We back them to fulfil the law. 
When the police needed the Search and Surveillance Bill through did Labour deliver on it? No. That bill started in 2007 under Labour. Who got it through? This Government along with ACT and United Future got it through—got it through. And what happened? Crime has fallen to 1982 levels—1982 levels. I know that Mrs King loved the police and they did not mind her compared with some Ministers they had had before. But I have to say this: the police are in such great heart—they are in such great heart. 
The court system is being renewed and regenerated. I have a big announcement tomorrow—I am sure Mrs King will want to know all about that—it will be very appropriate. My colleague the Hon Chester Borrows is working very hard along these areas he is doing the most fantastic job of modernising the court system as well— 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 The problem for New Zealand is that it is not working. Minister Collins of those 10 targets not one of them was an economic target by which you will be held to account. Five years ago your Government came to power— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! It is not the Speaker’s Government. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Five years ago the National Government came to power pledging that it would stop waving goodbye to our loved ones. [ 
Interruption 
] Four years ago. Thank you Maggie. Since then what has happened? Record numbers of New Zealanders are moving to Australia—158000 more New Zealanders have left. In the last year the largest number ever in the history of New Zealand left—53000. The saddest bit of that is that 40 percent of them are between the ages of 18 and 30 years. We are losing 40 percent of a generation of young people who should be having hope and opportunity in New Zealand. Instead they are choosing to put their shoulder to the wheel of the Australian economy. What is it like in the regions? Twelve-hundred people have left from Whangarei and 460 people from Nelson. This is just from 1 year and just to Australia. 
Why is it happening? We heard Mr English say “Oh it’s Greece.” These people are not going to Australia because of Greece’s problems; they are going because of New Zealand’s problems. We have had record terms of trade we have had booming economies in Australia and China—our two largest trading partners—plus booming terms of trade and despite that record numbers of people are leaving because they have no opportunity in New Zealand. Why? Because this Government has no adequate vision for our economy—nothing that will improve job prospects and nothing that will address this housing crisis we have in Auckland of unaffordable housing for young people. 
We have had mining in national parks. Well that did not work. We have had cycleways. Then this year we have had asset sales. The biggest part of the Government’s agenda is asset sales. Changing who owns what already exists does nothing to improve the output of the New Zealand economy. What it does do is increase the Government deficit by $100 million per annum. What it does do is increase residential power prices and the current account deficit. 
Then we had the zero Budget—the zero Budget where the centrepiece was improving educational outcomes by increasing class sizes. Well that went down as it should have. It was another example of ineptitude—ineptitude that we have had in ACC. We have had Dr Nick Smith fall on his sword. We have had Mr John Judge tossed out unceremoniously. Whatever you might think of some of the things he did he was treated shabbily by this Government. We have lost the head of Work and Income who moved back giving 2 days’ notice before heading back from Australia. We have had Mr Key’s chair of the electorate Stephen McElrea in charge of New Zealand On Air influencing programming. 
We have had the tea-tape disgrace where the Prime Minister and John Banks called in the police to use them against the media during an election after their publicity stunt went wrong. Then we have got the same Mr Banks now not even being prosecuted despite the fact that he was the person who asked for the donation he was the person who picked up the envelope and he was the person who was responsible for the declaration that said that he did not know who donations were from. Is that believable? Well that is a jury question. We are never going to know because Mr Banks is not being prosecuted and because the Prime Minister stands behind him and leans on him in order to maintain his wafer-thin parliamentary majority. 
We have got record numbers of New Zealanders going to Australia. We have got the Government putting off the agenda the important economic steps: a neutral investment signal to the economy through a capital gains tax increases to the pool of capital available to improve labour productivity and to grow our exports that we need universal KiwiSaver and a research and development tax credit to direct investment into the innovative productive part of our economy. These are the changes the Government has said it will not move on and yet these are the very changes we need as a country. We need fiscal responsibility moving forward and yet the Government says it is going to ignore the looming superannuation problem despite the fact that within 4 years the Government will be spending more on superannuation than on the whole of the education system. No wonder record numbers of people are leaving to Australia without hope. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 This John Key - led Government with our coalition friends and partners is investing in the future of New Zealand. It is investing in our future getting on with the leadership and the governing of this great country—of this great country—and not being distracted by sideshows and not being distracted by gotcha politics which the current leader of the Opposition said he was not all about when he was appointed late last year after the election. 
The previous speaker David Parker asked what was going on in the regions. Well let me point it out. We learnt today that in Wairoa of the great Hawke’s Bay region more investment from health is in fact going into the medical centre up in the region of Hawke’s Bay. It is amazing how the Bay has turned since it turned blue just a few years ago. The cycleways that the other members seem to let us say take the mickey out of somewhat were to be fair a joint project with the Green Party. Actually in the Hawke’s Bay it is probably the best national cycleway network in New Zealand. Just this past weekend linked to that we opened the iWay where $4.5 million of taxpayer funds were invested in the region of the Hawke’s Bay. 
The audacity of that member asking what is happening in the regions just after he was talking about Australian jobs or something when the Leader of the Opposition criticised New Zealand jobs coming to Hastings in the form of Heinz-Wattie in the Hawke’s Bay. Australian jobs are moving to the regions—Hastings Hawke’s Bay. I challenge the Opposition members to go to Wattie’s in Hastings. I challenge them to go there and tell Wattie’s that its jobs are not worthy. I challenge that member who was part of a group that had some interesting interactions with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board the same district health board that is now in surplus and managed to fund itself and its own capital spend.  
We are focusing on what matters. We are focusing on those things that New Zealand gave us a mandate for—47 percent of them. I guess the other side is focusing on the mandate that 27 percent of New Zealand gave them. We are putting legislation statutes amendments and regulations in place to focus on what matters. We have put 10 targets in place for the public sector; 10 targets for the public to judge us on. That is how firmly we feel about them. The public needs to know and the public should know that Labour members have voted against every single initiative we have put in place—every single one—to try to reduce long-term welfare dependency. They have voted against every initiative where we have tried to support vulnerable children. They have voted against every single economic growth initiative for boosting skills and employment. They have voted against every single initiative that we have tried to put in place to reduce crime. They have voted against every single initiative we have put in place to try to improve interaction with the Government.  
The public has a right to know because I would not actually mind if the Opposition got up and said “Actually we agree with the goal but we think we should get there this way.” and engaged in some decent debate perhaps; not pretending that some of these things do not happen and not putting its political expediency in front of what is right and good for New Zealand New Zealand children New Zealand’s education New Zealand’s health New Zealand’s Treaty obligations—members could name it. We are putting legislation through. We are a very very busy Government. Just today the finance minister Mr English and Mr John Banks announced better economic performance through better regulation. We are simply putting the borax on ourselves on our accountability on our transparency and on our integrity and focusing on the goal and what matters for a much better and brighter New Zealand that all New Zealanders have the potential to realise and fully and totally deserve. This John Key - led Government is getting on with the job it was elected to do: investing in our great future.  
DENISE ROCHE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe ki te Whare. Tena koutou katoa. I have got some concerns about this Key-Banks Government. I have got some worries about a Government that maintains its majority in the House by relying on a legal technicality. I have taken a really close look at the Local Electoral Act and it does say in subsection (2) of section 134 which deals with false returns that every candidate commits an offence if they file a false return unless they can prove that they “had no intention to mis-state or conceal the facts;” and that they “took all reasonable steps to ensure that the information was accurate.” Mr Banks—or Mr John “Fill my Banks” as he is known in some circles—physically took a cheque from Skycity and he also solicited two other cheques. He asked for them from Kim Dotcom and then he forgot. He forgot to mention it when his campaign helper filled out his return and he forgot it again when he signed his return saying it was a true and accurate record. It is the forgetting bit that means he did not have the intention to misstate or conceal the facts. That is the technicality. 
The problem with this type of technicality is that it is an entry into the moral low ground. It is a swampy place filled with dubious deeds and dodgy deals and it is probably a place where you would definitely need a cabbage boat. The Government entered into a pact with this man and Mr Banks is now shoring up this Government and its agendas—the Key-Banks Government. It is Mr Banks’ one vote that allowed the passage of asset sales legislation—the legislation that the majority of New Zealanders do not want. It passed by 61 votes to 60. This is a man with a memory problem who maintains the trust of this Government despite the fact that he is prepared to bend the rules and nearly break them but he is still rewarded for that by keeping his place as a poodle in this Government because it needs his vote. This man is a Minister. 
The Prime Minister has said that the law—the Local Electoral Act—is an ass. I thought the Government and the Prime Minister could create the law. We can blame the law or the Prime Minister could hold his Ministers to account and demand the type of ethical and moral behaviour that the New Zealand public deserve. This Government should sack Mr Banks. Every parent knows that bad behaviour should not be rewarded and that is what this Government is doing. The law is not the only thing that is an ass. 
As it happens this Government can do something about the law. Helpfully—and I tried to table it earlier—I have a bill in the ballot the Local Electoral (Finance) Amendment Bill which brings the rules on local government election spending and declarations about donations more into line with central government election finance rules. Among the purposes of this bill one of the purposes is to “(a) maintain public and political confidence in the administration of local body elections; and … (c) prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes; and (d) provide greater transparency and accountability on the part of candidates and other persons engaged in election activities in order to minimise the perception of corruption;”. It will lower the amount that can be donated anonymously. That will certainly ensure that Mr Banks and his memory problems are a thing of the past. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it won’t. No it won’t. He told lies then; he’ll tell lies again. 
DENISE ROCHE 
: The Government needs to urgently adopt this bill and support its passage through the House and I am looking forward to your support too Mr Mallard. 
We need to up our game. No wonder the numbers of people turning out to vote in central government and local government elections are dropping. Mr Banks’ dubious actions cast aspersions on all politicians. We are all seen as untrustworthy. Certainly a Government—the Key-Banks Government—that relies on that one vote from Mr Banks to pass legislation is seen as untrustworthy too. You know my mum had a saying. She said that she never lied. She never lied but sometimes she would evade the truth. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 I would like to take a call on the housing situation in Tamaki Makaurau in Auckland City. We have a desperate need for medium-priced and in some cases low-cost housing—a very acute housing shortage. One of the activities we have in place at this time is the Tamaki Transformation Programme. 
Tamaki is a central eastern suburb of Auckland City and the project basically is to remove old Housing New Zealand Corporation housing—take it out—put in new housing there make more houses available and move other people in amongst the suburb. It is based around Glen Innes township and there are two marae operating in that area. What has happened is there have been quite a lot of protests about this project. I would just like to acknowledge that the Housing New Zealand Corporation has taken every step possible to communicate the process and the people on the ground I have met with are doing a very good job. However when you take away houses from a community and when you bring new people in to be dispersed amongst them you actually interrupt a society and a community. 
As a result there have been widespread protests. A number of us local MPs in Auckland have attended some; I have attended all of these protests. They are pretty vigorous and are aimed at MPs councillors and so on. However they got so political that they conjured up a sort of fear amongst many of the residents about coming forward and stating their wishes to the Housing New Zealand Corporation about what they would like to do whether they would like to move stay or have their house mended repaired or whatever. As a result the protests got pretty hot and you ended up with people lying under the wheels of trucks that were shifting buildings—one woman ended up in hospital—and stuff like that. But the reality is that a lot of people did not come forward to say that they wanted to shift because they were scared of the protest movement. 
So I think we have got to think about this when we do a mass project in a community because what you are actually doing is you are interrupting the sports club the kura kaupapa Maori the marae the bridge club the schools and all the community things that have made Glen Innes and that whole community what they are—taking out selected places and interrupting the community activities the bridge club and all those kinds of things. There is a real need for us to take the community into account and not just deal with the residents who are involved there. 
Hon Annette King 
: So has that happened? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Yes it has happened. 
Hon Annette King 
: What influence has the member had in resolving these issues? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Well I have set up an office there to assist the process and I have put two of my Kaitoko Whanau workers in. They have visited the houses of the people who are too frightened to come forward and they have taken them to the Housing New Zealand Corporation to negotiate its service and stuff. Nevertheless there is still that disquiet amongst the community that their whole community has been disrupted that the people who meet there will not meet there any more. It has been a really traumatic thing for them. So although it is good that we are bringing more housing into Glen Innes and into Tamaki nevertheless it is a lesson for us that if we intrude into a community we take the community with us. Kia ora. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
: 
 I note that my colleague David Clark in order to further his political career has just come and sat next to me before I make my speech. I congratulate him on his two members’ bills he has had drawn from the ballot. I am not at all bitter at the fact that in 9 years I have not managed to get any of my members’ bills drawn from the ballot but I congratulate him because they are very good bills. 
That was a very disappointing speech from the Minister who just took his seat the Hon Pita Sharples. The reason the people in the community of Tamaki are upset is not just because of the displacement that happens when you have a major housing rearrangement like the Tamaki Transformation Programme; it is because the Government promised them it would keep the same number of State houses in that community and then it broke that promise. That community is upset because the Government lied to them. That is why they are protesting; not because of the reasons he outlined but because— 
Simon O’Connor 
: When was that member last there? 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I turned up to the public meetings on the Tamaki Transformation Programme that the member did not turn up to those in Tamaki that the National Government did not show up to because Minister Phil Heatley refused. He did not even tell the Tamaki community that the Government had changed the commitment. The commitment was that the proportion of State houses would drop but that the number would stay the same. That was the commitment. It was broken over a long time and Minister Phil Heatley did not even show up in that community to tell them that that commitment had changed and that now the number of State houses would drop. Suddenly the document that had promised that disappeared from the Housing New Zealand Corporation website when Labour put in an oral question on the matter. That is why the people of Tamaki are angry. 
This is the kind of behaviour that we are seeing more and more of from this National Government as the wheels come off in its second term as we have seen with Mr Banks. I want to make it quite clear that the police report back found insufficient evidence to support a prosecution but it noted that Mr Banks did personally solicit and receive donations from Skycity and Kim Dotcom. 
It might be nice to be able to live in the National Party world where you just forget $80000 worth of donations where it just happens every single day that you get an envelope with $15000 in it. Maybe in the National Party’s world that is normal and you could be forgiven for forgetting that but I think most New Zealanders accept that it is impossible to forget soliciting up to $80000 worth of donations to forget asking for those donations to be split into $25000 lots to evade electoral law and to forget that you took a helicopter ride to a mansion of an internet billionaire and attended his birthday party. Maybe that is easy to forget if you are a National Party MP but most people in New Zealand know full well that Mr Banks knows what he did and that he got away with it. It might be OK for John Key to say: “Well I still have confidence in him because he evaded the law and didn’t get prosecuted.” but most New Zealanders would hold Ministers to a much higher ethical standard— 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: He wasn’t a Minister. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh Anne Tolley says that he was not a Minister when he did it so that makes it OK. So it makes it OK that he broke electoral law as he admitted and as the police have pointed out. It is OK as long as you did it before you were a Minister and you got away with it then when you were caught out you prevaricated about whether or not it had happened and when the evidence was finally presented you admitted that you had been lying about it—that is OK as long as you get away with it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
MOANA MACKEY 
: I withdraw and apologise Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I sincerely hope the Speaker has not been admitting that. 
MOANA MACKEY 
: Oh no certainly not Mr Speaker I would never ever—Mr Banks. 
Apparently for the Prime Minister John Key that is absolutely fine. The John Banks affair has been a little bit of a distraction from another debacle that is happening at the moment which is the Government’s response to the Waitangi Tribunal issue on Maori claims to water rights. This is an incredibly important debate for our country. This has massive implications. For the Government to just say: “Well we’re going to pretty much ignore it and carry on with our asset sales programme.”—it so incredibly defies belief that it does not understand the importance of this report and the deep implications it has for all New Zealanders and in particular for the taxpayers of New Zealand. They are going to have to foot the bill if in the future the Government is found to have been wanting in its protection of the rights of those people who are going to come in and buy the shares. If they can say that the Government was warned about this and it did not take it seriously and it pushed ahead with its programme and now they are going to come in and legally challenge the Government then who is it that picks up the bill? It is the taxpayers of New Zealand. 
I know that the Government has no plan other than asset sales. I know that that is it so if it does not push ahead with that and if it does not—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry and mining off the East Coast as Anne Tolley is pointing out in the Raukumara Basin 3000 to 4000 metres deep with inadequate protection in terms of legislation. That is a great plan Anne Tolley and I will be pleased to report to the  
Gisborne Herald 
 how supportive you are of it. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
: 
 I would like to say that rail is a vital part of New Zealand infrastructure— 
Simon O’Connor 
: Where are the pictures? 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: —but New Zealanders are asking—I have pictures do not worry. I am bringing them out. But I am bringing them out because of the safety aspect. There are derailments every week but a major one is imminent. I would like to see a Government actually stand up and say that safety is important. But what is very important is jobs—jobs for New Zealanders. 
I would like to take a walk back in memory lane because history is important. If we know where we are going to go we have to know where we have been. I would like to take you back to October of 1992. The National Government of the day gave Fay Richwhite financial advisership on New Zealand Rail. Then we started to see outsourcing. We saw Kiwis losing jobs in maintenance. We saw it attack passenger rail. And in April of 1993 with full knowledge of the financial dealings of New Zealand Rail all of a sudden Fay Richwhite brokered the deal with the Wisconsin rail firm and sold New Zealand Rail. Overnight it made millions of dollars and the New Zealand taxpayer lost hundreds of millions of dollars. 
It is starting all over again. What are we seeing at the moment? We are seeing outsourcing. We are seeing the morale of KiwiRail at its lowest ebb since 1993. And we are losing workers and they are not being replaced. It is all part of the process of this Government to privatise KiwiRail. The writing is on the wall. 
If we look at the cost of contracting out it is not best practice. In fact it is dangerous practice. That is why I have these photographs here. This photo is of a mudslide which creates spreading in railway tracks. I mean it is there and it is a safety issue. The photo was given to me by concerned KiwiRail staff who do not want to see a derailment. This one here is of a number of sleepers that were bought by KiwiRail that are rotten. They have a virus within them. They were supposed to be hard wood but it got them from South America with a virus within the wood. You can see the growth within those railway sleepers. You can go along with a great bar push down and you will go through the sleeper. This is extremely dangerous and I will say it again: a major derailment is imminent in New Zealand unless we act. 
Look at some of the other things that happen when you bring in contractors. I will look at something just on Monday night in the Kaimai tunnel there where they use contractors to do some maintenance. Some of them did not even have gas masks. This is an occupational health and safety problem. This is what happens when you get in contractors. It is bad practice and it is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Speaker is unlikely to get in contractors. 
BRENDAN HORAN 
: National is undermining KiwiRail whilst pretending to be supportive. 
New Zealand First asked the question 3 months ago about the Gisborne rail link. What happened there? We were told: “Oh no KiwiRail is looking after it. It is its problem.” But then we find out in a radio interview with Jim Quinn that he turns round and says that the Government is stalling. So one hand does not know what the other one is doing. One hand is saying one thing and the other is doing something entirely different. So New Zealand First is asking on behalf of the people of Gisborne and those workers in Wairoa what the Government is doing with the Gisborne railway link. What is this Government doing with KiwiRail? 
Today New Zealand First asked a question about the locomotives and about the railway wagons. When you spend $100 million in a foreign country and you are using hard-earned taxpayer money to do it that money goes straight away into that foreign economy. Were you on the other hand to build the wagons here in New Zealand that money would go into the economy. Truck drivers would be paid. Form workers would be paid. The rail workers would be paid. They would go down the road and they would buy some bread. The dairy owner gets paid the baker gets paid— 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) 
: 
 The previous speaker Brendan Horan is a man whom I have always regarded as having a cheerful disposition but oh how dismal the speech. I am sure it is not a natural way for him to discuss things. Those members seem to have this mindset that everything has got to be covered in mud and be miserable. From the other side of the House the people who have had the full experience of being in the Government are they coming forward saying what an exciting time we live in? Are they heck! But we do live in a particularly exciting time. We have the Olympic Games where New Zealand is putting its young people against the best in the world and doing extremely well. Congratulations to everybody who is involved in that. We have the Christchurch development with $1.6 billion already spent out of the $5.5 billion with the remainder coming through by 2015 and the recent release of a plan which shows the excitement that exists in Christchurch. 
If we look at our Government services—and other speakers have spoken at length and I know there are people in every party who are very familiar particularly with health—health has been a wonderful achievement for this Government with the improvement in and the more efficient and effective delivery of health services. Approximately $1.5 billion extra over the next 4 years means more operations shorter waiting times and a reflection at last at last a reflection of the real work that has been done for a long time in health services suddenly being made very effective. We do indeed live in exciting times. 
Meanwhile on the other side of the House Opposition members have opposed every single growth initiative that we have put forward. They should remember when they were in Government when I came into the House in 2005 we did debate issues hotly but we actually provided support for the better things that Labour did—not that there were terribly many of them. We have this constant opposition to growth initiatives. They have opposed every single restraint we made to get back into surplus and the Opposition lacks credibility on growth on jobs and on responsible fiscal management. That is such a pity because I am sure there are some good ideas on that side of the House. On this side we are working hard to get back into surplus in 2014-15. We will be one of the few developed countries that is actually not increasing debt over that period. That is our intention. We will establish and maintain international credibility that is hard won and easily lost as we continue to see in the outside world. We are increasing spending on science and innovation to more than $1.3 billion a year by 2015-16—a wise investment giving those people who are really good at technology the opportunities to give effect to some of the changes that we are all benefiting from today. 
There is also a particularly big opportunity and it is something I would like to concentrate on in handling our natural resources in keeping with a sound environmental programme. I would suggest that we are having the success that we are having because of the hard-working nature of this Cabinet and the leadership it is providing to the ministries. I would like to say that I am particularly admiring of the work of Minister Heatley. He is doing very very good work in the minerals and energy role. The potential is staggering. The future royalty income from oil and gas is estimated to be $3.2 billion with a potential to rise to $12.7 billion with a 50 percent increase in exploration. Rather than talk about renewable energy this Government has got on with the job. There was 77 percent—a very proud figure: 77 percent—renewable energy in 2011 and 74 percent in 2010 but under Labour in 2008 it was 65 percent. Minister Heatley is as I say doing a great job. A greater realisation of the benefits of modern mining is coming from him all the time. I enjoy the way he answers questions from the Green Party which to the Green Party’s credit is now reconsidering its position on mining. This was well expressed during its annual conference. Now we hear that Mr Shearer is reconsidering Labour’s approach to mining and minerals. That is all very healthy and I do not agree with the cynics who say that those members are slaughtering their sacred cows because they have finished milking them. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 Can I first of all take the opportunity to say happy birthday to every horse in New Zealand. They all turn a year older today and they have got a wonderful birthday present with a bronze medal from our eventing team. Congratulations to them. 
The member who just resumed his seat Chris Auchinvole has asked for good ideas from this side of the House. Well I will give the member some. One is extending paid parental leave. What about a $15 minimum wage? What about requiring 75 percent of our Parliament to agree before we sell our precious State assets? These are just three great ideas that have come from this side of the House in just the last week alone—just the last week alone. Mr Auchinvole asked for great ideas from this side of the House. I think they have been flooding forward in this Parliament not from the Government but from this side of the House. 
I want to focus for a little while on the requirement for a 75 percent vote in this House before we can sell State assets. That is what a sensible Government would do but not this Government. It is hell-bent on selling our most profitable State assets to private interests. And why is that? Why is it so hell-bent on it? Despite everything going wrong for the Government and the shambles that it is turning out to be it is still hell-bent on doing it. I think the New Zealand public know in their gut that the reason for that is that the Government and its rich mates get to profit out of buying shares in our most valuable and profitable assets. That is the real reason that underlies this. 
It is a complete shambles from the public’s perspective. We have a loyalty scheme that the Prime Minister is talking about but he does not know the cost of it. He never costed the loyalty scheme before he announced it. What a shambles. The estimates go from $250000 to $500000—oh no there are several more zeros than that. The brokerage fees—there has been $1 million spent so far and nothing has even been sold. Nothing has been sold yet but there has been $1 million spent so far. Then there is the cost of iwi settlements over water rights and the cost of advertising and public relations. John Key and Bill English will not say what the cost of that is. They will not even tell the New Zealand public how much money they are spending on advertising to flog off their State assets. Then there is the lost revenue—the lost revenue from those very profitable State assets that the Government did not even write into the Budget. So it is a complete and utter shambles but it is hell-bent on doing it despite the interests of the New Zealand public. 
I want to talk about amnesia—I want to talk about amnesia—because it is an affliction; it is something that is deeply afflicting the National-ACT Cabinet. Take John Banks for example. He seems to not remember despite the fact that the police can confirm it that he personally solicited at least $80000 in donations. He cannot seem to remember it. There is a video game called  
Amnesia.  
Its subtitle is  
The Dark Descent 
— 
Amnesia: The Dark Descent.  
I think that is exactly what is happening to that Cabinet opposite. It is catching—this amnesia is actually catching—because Bill English had amnesia last week too. He could not remember that he over-inflated the cost of paid parental leave by almost double in order to try to justify his financial veto on that. So the amnesia seems to be spreading from John Banks— 
Hon Annette King 
: John Key forgot his shares. 
SUE MORONEY 
: Oh John Key! He forgot about shares that he had bought. He forgot about what his position might have been on apartheid. There is a whole range of things a whole lot of amnesia that is going on there. I would say are they fit to govern? If they cannot remember really important facts like personally soliciting at least $80000 in donations and are seeming to forget that I would ask whether John Banks is fit to be a Cabinet Minister if he has got that level of amnesia. But of course the New Zealand public know that he does not suffer from amnesia. What he suffers from is a lack of ethnics. 
 What the Prime Minister also suffers from now is a lack of ethics. He once said that he was going to lift the bar. He was going to have high standards for his Cabinet Ministers but he seems to have forgotten that—amnesia again. Now he says that ethically it is perfectly fine for John Banks to have actually broken the electoral law but to remain as a Cabinet Minister. That shows that the higher standards are actually dropping. In Mr Key’s defence that was last term. This term he seems to be a tired Prime Minister who has forgotten all about higher standards. 
MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore) 
: 
 I have always believed that saving the planet starts in your own backyard and that is why I joined National’s ranks because I think this Government has a very proud track record of looking after our environment. We are determined to safeguard the environment and it is an absolute fundamental bottom line for us as is safety and transparency around it. It is through that lens that we want to look very carefully at all of the assets that we have and that includes our mineral and our oil resources. 
National has an excellent track record on environment and conservation. Over the past 3 years alone for example we have cleaned up our lakes and our rivers with our Fresh Start for Fresh Water programme. In March of this year on the North Shore I hosted the Bluegreens Forum where we made some significant announcements including about providing $265 million to clean up iconic waterways such as Lake Taupo and the Waikato River. We have also improved our air quality which is amongst the cleanest in the world now. We launched Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart a nationwide scheme that has now resulted in insulation and heating for 188500 homes. We have helped minimise waste with almost $10 million this year alone for the Waste Minimisation Fund and that really works because it encourages people to look after their own waste to reduce it to reuse it and to recycle it. We have empowered communities by enhancing environmental awareness in the community—$7.6 million. This Government puts the money where it counts and where it can make a difference. It was announced just last week that $105 million will go to 16 community groups to help them improve the environment—very exciting regional efforts. 
Now let us contrast those very tangible make-a-difference measures from our Government to what has happened in the past. The party in particular that calls itself the Greens—let us have a little look at the measurement of its effectiveness and commitment. Let us look at question time in the House. I did a bit of homework on this. In the past couple of months the Greens have asked 26 questions. Of those how many do you think reflected the environment in any way at all? 
Paul Goldsmith 
: None. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: 22. 
MAGGIE BARRY 
: Five and that is a stretch. There were two on mineral exploration two on climate change and one on fracking. Really when we look at the Greens we are looking at a party that is not exactly bright green is it? It is more your watermelon green. It is kind of green on the outside; the more you cut into it the redder it appears. We are looking at a guy for example—the Australian co-leader—who clearly harbours aspirations to be the Minister of Finance if the unholy alliance of Labour and the Greens ever gets off the ground. These are the people who have a woeful insignificant contribution to any discussion of substance around the environment and conservation. 
The Opposition parties in general Labour and the Greens—as my other colleagues have detailed—have opposed every single growth initiative we have proposed. Their naysaying ways have been well documented in the House this afternoon. I mean Labour is bad enough but the Greens just automatically chorus “No no no.” to any growth initiatives except when it comes to taxes. They love taxes: we have an earthquake levy on households ecological resource taxes a hazardous substances and pesticides levy a corporate tax a diesel tax a landfill tax and a carbon tax on energy-intensive imports. But wait there is more. As well as supporting Labour’s daft capital gains tax wanting to make the emissions trading scheme even more burdensome and overseas investment laws even more restrictive the Greens also want to saddle the poor farmers with an irrigation tax costing them—get this—up to $50000 a year. This is absolutely so despite the fact that water pollution is not related to irrigation intensity. Our Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson and Minister for the Environment Amy Adams have a firm grasp on what works for the environment. Labour will need the Greens in any Government it manages to cobble together in whatever peculiar unholy alliance it manages to do. It would be bad news for farmers. It would be really bad news for our environment and conservation. Labour’s environmental and conservation track record is woeful and it is of course supported by its watermelon mates. 
Let us look at some of the other things it did. It allowed 30000 hectares of forest to be cut down. That was just between 2005 and 2008. Deforestation—how good is that? Yeah Labour propped up by the watermelons. It insulated only 50000 homes in the whole 9 years of its last term in Government. We have insulated 130000 homes in 3 years. There was a conspicuous lack of progress on water. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
: 
 That was the perfect segue into acknowledging our home insulation programme. Thank you Maggie Barry—that was beautiful. Today I would like to speak about the status of women in New Zealand and that is particularly coming on the back of the draft report back from the United Nations Committee on the Convention of the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women commonly called CEDAW. The Government acknowledged this report back in a release and talked about the UN commending New Zealand women’s progress with more progress to be made. It went on to state: “The Committee has expressed its appreciation for the comprehensive report on women in New Zealand presented by the delegation and acknowledged New Zealand for implementing a number of positive legislative and policy reforms for the advancement of women” and it went on to itemise three positive things. 
Well I read the report and to be fair to the Government I actually found seven things that it could have acknowledged that were positive. That is pretty good eh? You know—seven. It is just a shame that there were over 50 concerns and recommendations. If you are looking on the scale of commendation and work to be done I think it falls on the side of “work to be done” team. This Government has a lot of work to be done to progress the rights of women. In fact the rights of women under this Government are regressing. 
I would just like to remind my colleagues if you can see this beautiful picture which may be a little hard to see. When we wonder why the rights of women may be regressing I remember back to the day after the election and the front page of the  
Dominion Post 
. Here we have the National Party in caucus albeit non-officially. Here we have John Key Bill English Steven Joyce Murray McCully and Gerry Brownlee. This is the face of this Government and may I say it is not women-friendly. This Government has been consistent with that image in this term. It has not been women-friendly in its progress. In fact only 5 percent of women in this country feel as if they have equality—5 percent. 
Maggie Barry 
: How do you know? 
JAN LOGIE 
: Well there has been some quite good research actually Ms Barry. According to a  
New Zealand Herald  
survey last year 65 percent of women felt they were actively discriminated against in their workplace. 
Women’s unemployment has increased. This is most notable in Christchurch where I think it would not be going too far to say there is actually a bit of a crisis in women’s unemployment with over 60 percent of women being outside the workforce in Christchurch. There is an increasing reliance as stated in the report that came out today of women using credit and relying on credit debt to be able to get through which is really worrying because they cannot afford to get by in any other way. There has been an increase in the gender pay gap and women are three times as likely to be working multiple jobs compared with men. Women are working the same hours as men now but 65 percent of those hours are unpaid and 90 percent of sole parents in this country are women. So this is the status of women in this country which this Government thinks the UN has commended it on. You know economics are fundamental to women’s ability to achieve agency in this world. 
Another aspect that is really important for women’s ability to act in this world is to be free from violence and what has this Government done around that? Well it has no plan in relation to family violence. It has shut down the unit within the Ministry of Social Development. There has not been a report from the task force for family violence since last year in June. It has changed the police reporting of statistics in a way that the Minister for Social Development did not even know about so it is no longer able to actually even monitor the problem. It has cut funding—the funding for the women’s refuges is in a bit of a crisis I think you could say. So altogether this Government and the face of this Government have a lot more work to do. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take this final call I believe in the general debate. Look it is always good to put a whole collection of facts together regardless of where you have pulled them from but they really need to come and focus somewhere. One of my colleagues mentioned that—do you realise—100 percent of mothers are women? Yes there are some statistics there. [ 
Interruption 
] I know. I am shocked. So it is all about statistics and figures. There have been a lot of statistics and figures being thrown around. We heard from another member earlier: more money for wages more money for paid parental leave and we are hearing about unpaid people in the House. Do you know what? We need more Crown funding for that as well but of course where does it all come from? Most New Zealanders are pretty smart and that is why they voted this Government in and they continue to support this Government. 
But I think one of the things that has happened in recent days is that I have heard that some in the Labour Party are supporting mining. I have not actually pushed to find out exactly what type but I think I have got the answer to what form of mining. You see the Labour Party in particular and the Opposition are very keen on strip mining—the strip mining of individual Kiwis. If you sit here today and you listen to what they have had to say with all the ideas that are coming forward that has to be paid from individual New Zealanders. They will be strip-mined of their success to pay for the dead-end ideas of this Opposition. 
But I am going to stop there because that is not exactly where I want to go today. I want to actually address some questions. [ 
Interruption 
] Well I was enjoying it really; it was thoroughly enjoyable. I want to address some questions about my electorate the great electorate of Tamaki. Can I acknowledge Minister Sharples and what he was sharing about his experience? I am conscious that another member I believe from Gisborne was up. I am sure she was trying to learn the great art of being a politician in a great seat like Tamaki. 
But I want to talk about the Tamaki Transformation Programme and what is occurring there. The people are aware that transformation requires change. It is a simple principle. If you are going to transform a community it requires change. All of us know in our own experiences and lives that change is difficult. I have been saying that to the community and it is a community that I deal with every day. I know some people will jump up and down and say: “Oh I attended a meeting.” Well done—kudos there. But in my electorate in my community I am there every day engaging. It is not that everyone is happy but no one is upset as well. What is happening is that most people understand that transformation requires change and change is difficult—change is difficult. 
I have said this to a number of people out on the street and in the communities principals those who are leaving their homes—because again I do not intend to go to meetings where people just keep screaming and yelling obscenities and empty rhetoric; I will go in to the families who are being affected sit on the floor and have a conversation. Boy is that patronising? I know they have gone very quiet. So it is about engaging with the community. I have always said to the community that these are the Crown’s houses but they are people’s homes. They are the Crown’s houses and people’s homes and this is the balance that the Government the Minister and Housing New Zealand Corporation are dealing with. It is about acknowledging that that change is difficult but doing all that is possible to facilitate that change. 
Just recently in our  
East and Bays Courier 
 there was a great positive news story of one of the Glen Innes community who has chosen to move. He has moved into a new modern home within Glen Innes within his community with his family and he absolutely loves it. So there is an immense number of positive stories out there of people who are prepared to move want to move and understand again that transformation involves change. 
I want to endorse the work that the Minister is doing and that Housing New Zealand Corporation is doing with great compassion and with great empathy. I want to add at the end that there is talk of these protests and so forth and I have engaged with some of those protesters. But empty rhetoric is not reasons and using people’s lives—particularly by political parties—to score cheap political points is just cheap politics and cheapening people’s lives. The people of Glen Innes are proud they are vibrant and they are wonderful people. They want their community transformed and the understanding is that transformation brings about change. The challenge I put to members is to actually step away from the rhetoric step into the communities and hear their voice. That is something that I continue to enjoy because again this is a vibrant and strong community—a strong community. I am very proud as the member of Parliament for Tamaki to be in that community engaging every day and I endorse what is occurring. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Good afternoon honourable members. Kia ora tatou no reira e te Whare e nga iwi e nga reo e nga hau e wha. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Honourable members—and my good friend the honourable member Trevor Mallard; thank you for the comments about my wonderful tie—the House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate on the estimates. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. All votes are available for debate and will be called in order of seniority of Ministers commencing with the Speaker’s votes. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes is available on the Table. 
Vote Audit agreed to.  
Vote Office of the Clerk agreed to.  
Vote Ombudsmen agreed to.  
Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment agreed to.  
Vote Parliamentary Service agreed to.  
Vote Communications Security and Intelligence agreed to.  
Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet agreed to.  
Vote Security Intelligence 
STEFFAN BROWNING (Green) 
: 
 The Greens are very very concerned that the SIS effectively and also for that matter the Government Communications Security Bureau both go without decent surveillance themselves. They have got in combination fluctuating budgets and we have no idea what that fluctuation represents. 
 I will start with for example 2007 and 2008—there was expenditure of $73 million between those two agencies. The next year it was $80 million the next year it was $97 million and from 2010 to 2011 it was $110 million. Last year it was $98.5 million and in this one we have got $100 million—the highest ever. You have to wonder why that is being spent. Is that being spent to beef up Mr Key’s security or something? They then assume in 2013-14 they can go down to $94 million and then $72 million respectively. But we have no idea what that is actually being spent on. Anything else that comes through this Committee we can pull apart—there may be some small amounts that we cannot actually get to grips with—but with these two agencies we have effectively nothing. So I do wonder what Mr Key and his spy friends his close friends his schoolmate friends who are now heading the spy agencies are doing with their extra millions. It would be really good if the Prime Minister could come here and actually explain a little bit of what he is doing with his millions. 
How many millions are actually coming from the US or the UK towards their agencies that we spy so much for? I am thinking in particular of Waihopai with the Echelon system that connects in with the spying agencies of New Zealand. How much is the New Zealand taxpayer the sole contributor instead of the USA and UK communication dredge? How much is spent on domestic surveillance with the SIS? I would think in case others in the Chamber do not realise that the Government Communications Security Bureau and the SIS are very closely linked and so any discussion that verges back from one agency to the other is totally on board. 
How much is spent on international surveillance? How much is spent when they are repairing the domes? How much is spent as I said before on the Prime Minister’s surveillance on his bodyguards or this that and the other? There is a lot of crossover of agencies here but we cannot get down to it. How much is on capital expenditure and how much is on those people who are actually dedicated to peace and justice in New Zealand? How much is being spent on surveilling them? How much was spent by the SIS working with the police on the Urewera raid material? 
Hon Member 
: This year? 
STEFFAN BROWNING 
: This year? How much in any year—that is the relevant part of this. We cannot drill down in this because it is woefully inadequate and it should not be presented in such a woefully inadequate way. I wonder with the Government Communications Security Bureau bit how much was covered by insurance when the dome got ruptured by those who were dedicated to peace and justice. How much is spent on staff; how much on capital expenditure? 
Regardless of barracking in this Chamber by those who seem to find it quite acceptable that people including past members of Parliament have been spied on by our agencies when do we actually get to find out what spies are carrying in their bags—whether it is a  
Playboy 
 and a pie or something of that nature? We are getting nothing that shows what they actually do in substance for our taxpayers. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I have listened to the diatribe from the Green member of Parliament Steffan Browning. I thought it was important that I take a call at this juncture to say to the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service over these matters that I support the activities of the intelligence agencies of this country. I want to put upon record the fact that I am a member of the Cabinet committee on intelligence and security so we will not be discussing those matters. 
What I will say is that the intelligence agencies of this country do a very good job in the interests of this nation’s intelligence security. I want to place that on record today on behalf of the ACT Party and I want to say to the Minister in charge of the intelligence agencies both security and intelligence that the workers and the people inside those agencies work hard in the best interests of the economic security of this country and security for citizens of this country. They work tirelessly in the pursuit of delivering for this nation economic sovereignty and you cannot have economic sovereignty if you have foreign agencies spying on this country without counter-intelligence agencies like the ones that we are talking about today. 
I want you to know that the ACT Party and people on this side of the Chamber believe in strong robust security agencies in the best interests of this country and we support them totally and denounce the myopic backward-looking views of the Green Party around security and intelligence. If matters of security and intelligence were left to the Green Party then we would be taken advantage of by many many nations that would use the barriers and infiltrate us in terms of economic security in particular. So I want to say to the security agencies which work tirelessly on behalf of this country that we appreciate you we thank you we applaud you and we support you. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 That was John Banks talking on security and intelligence. I am tempted to take the Maggie Barry approach to this one and say: “What right does that member have to speak about intelligence?”. I want to say to that member as he scuttles around the Chamber—scuttles like a cockroach towards the door scuttles like a chicken across the Chamber—that John Banks is the person who wanted to keep the tea tapes secret. He thought that was a matter of national security. He called in the police against the poor cameraman and complaining whinging and crying he went to the police—crying he went to the police—and he said: “Please please get the SIS involved to protect me from what I said to the Prime Minister. Please get the SIS involved to protect me.” 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have been here a long time and I clearly understand the Standing Orders as you do Mr Chairperson. This is very very wide and it is stretching the parameters of Vote Security Intelligence and the debate in the Committee stage. I ask the member to start focusing on the issues that we are discussing which have got nothing to do with tea tapes. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. The member had just started to talk about this being involved with the SIS. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is pretty easy to talk about. What I want to talk about is Kim Dotcom. We know that the SIS was involved. The SIS was involved with the FBI but what I want to know is whether it also got the record of all the money that John Banks was given by Kim Dotcom. Was the SIS involved in that? Did it look inside the secret envelopes? Did the SIS look inside the secret envelopes? Is it the intention of the SIS to give evidence in the case of Kim Dotcom as to the money that John Banks got inside the paper bag and then pretended that he did not get? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Would it have been on the hard drives? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well it might have been on the hard drives that were exported to the United States. I want to know in this current year whether the SIS is going to give any evidence to any court in the country about the money that went to John Banks from Kim Dotcom. We know that Kim Dotcom has been quite open about it but John Banks has said something else. Outside the House John Banks said something else and I— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I seek leave to get some guidance from you. This is far too wide. This is an appropriation debate and it has got nothing to do with the SIS listening to someone called Mr Kim Dotcom. I ask the member to get back to the debate under the Standing Orders because he has been here long enough to know that it is a little bit like discussing fighting in this Parliament— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! I am on my feet. What I can advise the member is that the debate should be limited to the operating and investing activities of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service. The member links to the Security Intelligence Service. He is being very inventive but he has not strayed too far yet. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I take great offence at your suggestion that I have been inventive. It is a matter of record that Kim Dotcom is before the New Zealand courts. It is a matter of record that the SIS has been involved as well as the FBI. It is a matter of fact that this case is ongoing. It is absolutely within these estimates and there is nothing inventive about that whatsoever. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: What the member is saying is factual. That is correct. But what I want to tell the Committee is that this debate has to be about the total annual and permanent appropriations. So that is where we have to position this debate. 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I just want to remind you having had my colleague Trevor Mallard interrupted twice now that the sole judge of relevance in this debate is you as the Chairperson. Just because a debate cuts a little bit too close to the bone for a particular member that does not give them the right to interrupt another member to question their relevance. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I thank the honourable member for his contribution. Members of course are free to raise different issues within the House as they so choose. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Let us now just go straight to the facts. Is money to be spent this year by the New Zealand Government on evidence on behalf of the FBI that goes to how much money John Banks took from Dotcom and how much he forgot? Outside the House John Banks said he got none and Kim Dotcom indicated that it was quite a lot. One of them is telling the truth and one of them is a liar. I do not think that Kim Dotcom is a liar and I want to know whether the evidence from the SIS— 
Dr Cam Calder 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is not appropriate to suggest by innuendo that a member of this House is a liar. That is one point. The other point is that this is an appropriations debate and I have heard nothing to suggest that that is what it is. It sounded more like a general debate. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I have two points. One is that I listened very carefully to Mr Mallard and he did not breach the Standing Orders in his use of language on the first issue that the member raised. The second point was raised with you I think by Mr Hipkins that the constant and deliberate points of order interrupting a member’s speech have been ruled on as inappropriate. You are the person who sets the rules. If Mr Mallard had breached the Standing Orders I am sure knowing you and your eye for detail you would have hauled him in. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you. Can I just advise members. I have had a look at a couple of Speakers’ rulings here. Under Speaker’s ruling 42/2 it says that the use of the word “lie” is out of order: “Many other expressions can be used …”. Under Speaker’s ruling 42/4 it goes on to say that “calling another member a liar … is an offence against the dignity of the House and the assumption that its members behave truthfully and honourably.” The member has come close. I am listening very carefully to the debate and I am also taking into account the content of what is being said. I just ask the member to be responsible. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: And I will. As I make the point about the spending of New Zealand taxpayers’ funds on the SIS I make it clear that I have not accused John Banks of lying to this House. I have not; I did not do that and I will not do that. But I will not back up his comments—the comments that he made outside the House. I will not make comments on those but I do say I prefer the version of Mr Kim Dotcom because I think he has been shown to tell the truth and I think that the evidence from the SIS that has been collected—those computer records that are going to be in court in I think August or February depending on when the appeal is sorted out—will make it absolutely clear who is telling the truth. 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The Standing Orders are very very clear about members of this Parliament making comments about matters before the courts—very clear. The member should give away the shadow-boxing and start getting back to the debate. But making comments about matters before the courts is not appropriate under the Standing Orders of this Parliament. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Trevor Mallard speaking to the point of order. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No no. I am just going to keep on speaking because that is nonsense. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Based on your coaching I am very careful not to reflect on your management of the Committee but I am struggling during points of order to hear the points because of the constant interjections. It is my understanding that points of order should be heard in silence and I am having difficulty hearing what the points of order are. So I just wanted to point that out to you. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I just want to say that in no way does this impinge on your judgment but I simply reiterate the point I made. You are the sole judge of what goes or not in this place. I have lost count of the number of points of order from that member over there. He tried it on last night as well to try to break members’ speeches and it is not on. I do not have the Speaker’s ruling nor the Standing Order—forgive me—in front of me but I am pretty sure from other learned members that there is a Standing Order and a Speaker’s ruling about deliberate attempts to break up a member’s speech with spurious points of order. It may be that certain people should leave this place if they are going to continue to challenge your ruling and continue to try to prevent a member who is making a speech that falls inside the Standing Orders from exercising their freedom of speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I thank the honourable members. I have actually pointed out the different Speakers’ rulings that are here. The member is correct. I am the sole judge and the constant interruptions could lead to disorder. I invite the member to continue his call. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. The point that I want to ask the Minister in the chair the Minister of Internal Affairs is how much is going to be spent on the salaries of agents who go to court or who play voice recordings of John Banks talking to Dotcom because Mr Dotcom has said one thing and Mr Banks has said another. Let us sort out who is telling the truth. How much is going to be spent by the SIS in the current year on establishing the truth in the Dotcom case? I tend to say that most of that case in my opinion is rubbish. It has been done at the behest of people offshore but there is an interesting facet in this case because there is the conflict of evidence between Mr Kim Dotcom and the Hon John Banks. I want to know how much is going to be spent on that matter— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. OK I now want you to refer to Standing Order 112(1). This is a serious matter I raise. I know the Standing Orders. I have been here a long long time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member will be seated. When a point of order is on the floor it is to be heard in silence. The point of order is to be terse and to the point and not a debating issue. 
Hon John Banks 
: Terse and to the point. Standing Order 112(1) states: “Matters awaiting or under adjudication in or suppressed by an order of any New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion debate or question … subject always to the … Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to consider delegated legislation.” Matters before the courts should not be debated here and this matter is before the courts subject to extradition. I tell the member for wherever he comes from Mr Mallard that he should not pursue these matters that are subject to a court decision under Standing Order 112(1). 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order Mr Chairman. If that member gives us an assurance that the matter to do with his discussions with Dotcom is currently a matter up for adjudication in the court in New Zealand I will accept his word and stop referring to it. But I want him to be absolutely specific that that is a matter before the court. If he does that I will stop referring to it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I can only look to Standing Order 112(1) which states: “Matters awaiting or under adjudication in or suppressed by an order of any New Zealand court may not be referred to in any motion debate or question including a supplementary question subject always to the discretion of the Speaker and to the right of the House to legislate on any matter or to consider delegated legislation.” I am mindful also of course of a number of Speakers’ rulings that relate to issues that can actually lead to disorder—in particular referring to people as not saying things in the way in which they should do. I want to take the member’s word that the matter is subject to a court order. I ask the member to return to the debate. I have to take the member’s word that it is subject to a court order and if that in fact is the case then I ask the member to return to the debate. 
Hon John Banks 
: Which member are you referring to? 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is that a point of order? 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. The matter I am referring to is the matter that the member has continually referred to: a man called Dotcom—nothing to do with me whatsoever. The matter is in relation to Dotcom’s extradition to the States which is a matter before the courts and under Standing Order 112 the member for Hutt South cannot raise it in this House. It is nothing to do with me whatsoever; it is to do with Standing Order 112(1). Dotcom’s extradition is subject to court proceedings and cannot be raised in this House. You should tell the member for Hutt South to desist. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: All I can say to the member is that if it is before the courts then it cannot be debated. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. That is the germane point in the Standing Order that the member quoted: “Matters awaiting or under adjudication …”. You indicated that he had confirmed that the matters were under adjudication. I do not— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I understand that that is what the member has said to the Committee. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I do not know whether that is the case. You may want to seek some clarity on that because I do not know whether he did say that. The question is if those matters referred to by Mr Mallard do not as I understand it form part of any extradition proceeding or court matter—they are separate pertaining to the member in question—then as far as I understand they are in no way related to a court case unless that member can confirm that they are. I would invite you to check that with him because I do not think he did confirm it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am advised that anything pertaining to Kim Dotcom’s extradition cannot be debated here because that is subject to a court order. That is where we are: anything to do with the extradition of Kim Dotcom cannot be debated. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Thank you Mr Chairperson. I want to go right back to the core here and that is the spending of SIS funds. I want an assurance from the Minister that not one cent of SIS funds is going to be spent in the current year on any court case whatsoever dealing with Banks and Dotcom. I want to know that the voice tapes that the SIS has of Banks and Dotcom are not going to be used in an extradition case. I want an assurance— 
Hon John Banks 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Get him on a short chain— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! The member will be seated. What I was signifying to the member is that he has to use a member’s full name or his title. That is what I was saying. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We know the habit of this Government of spending an enormous amount of taxpayers’ funds—the amount the Prime Minister wasted on the teapot tapes and all that police time. I want to know that the Prime Minister is not wasting SIS funds on covering up John Banks’ relationship with Kim Dotcom. We know that the SIS is holding the tapes of the conversation that Banks had with Dotcom. Banks said one thing; Dotcom said something else. I prefer the Dotcom version of what occurred but I want to know that not one further cent of taxpayers’ funds is going to be spent on protecting John Banks—the way it was with police funds right through the teapot saga. 
New Zealanders are sick of the apparatus of the State being used to protect the ACT Party and those people who are not prepared to be full and frank with the truth and not prepared to be full and frank with the people of New Zealand to always tell the truth and to always make proper declarations. The SIS should not be used to protect those people. They should be allowed to stand or fall on their own word rather than a cover-up occurring where Dotcom’s tapes which show what Banks said have been stolen and sent to the States—stolen and sent to the States. That is an extreme way of protecting a Minister. It is an extreme way of protecting John Banks to have the apparatus of the New Zealand courts system the police and the SIS used to take the evidence right out of the computers of Kim Dotcom and send it offshore. That is a waste of New Zealand taxpayers’ funds. It is a waste of the SIS and we want an assurance from the Minister in the chair—and frankly I am very surprised that we have such a junior Minister in the chair representing the SIS. I am surprised. The SIS would normally be present during the estimates. Clearly— 
Hon Annette King 
: In raincoats. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well no not normally in raincoats; they normally leave them outside. The SIS which would normally be present for this debate has chosen not to come and back up John Banks. It is embarrassed by John Banks as most New Zealanders are embarrassed by John Banks because he is— 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Tourism 
RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I am pleased to make a contribution in this appropriations debate. Can I draw the Committee’s attention to the low-budget movie set known as the tourism portfolio. It is a “best supporting actress” in the John Key show. The tourism industry deserves much much more. The Prime Minister just like Prime Ministers of the past has been entitled to pick his portfolio as a matter of priority. Robert Muldoon had finance David Lange took foreign affairs and Helen Clark made a name for herself in the arts. For better or for worse these areas became their legacies. John Key gave himself the tourism portfolio as a matter of priority and yet 4 years on he has let it languish. 
Hon Annette King 
: Flop. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: It is a flop. Talk about taking his job too seriously! In colloquial Te Reo we say that John is taking a tiki-tour on the job. He is taking a tiki-tour. I am reminded of that memorable New Zealand ad which I am sure members of this Committee will remember of a generation ago where Kiwis were reminded: “Don’t leave town until you’ve seen the country.” On that ad there was a Kiwi bloke— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Tell that to John Key. His country’s Hawaii. 
RINO TIRIKATENE 
: That is right. On that ad a Kiwi bloke is paddling down a river and he is asked by a local if he knows where the Victoria Falls are. Our intrepid Kiwi kayaker replies: “Somewhere near Taupo.” Or in those days he said “T-ow-poe”. But Mr Key’s efforts to date remind me of that punchline because the Prime Minister is taking tourism over the Huka Falls. In colloquial Te Reo we say he has gone tipi haere.  
If we look at the tourism portfolio and at the tourism industry $63 million a day is contributed to New Zealand’s economy. It employs—directly and indirectly—180000 Kiwis. It is our second-biggest export earner. It provides jobs money and vibrancy to our communities. But it is not getting the leadership it deserves under this Minister. If we look at what is in this appropriation there are no significant changes to the tourism funding only $97.5 million on international marketing and a fraction on policy advice and research. 
But I think in terms of the reaction from the industry itself we just have to look at the mood of the industry in terms of its tourism sector report which was reported recently. If we look at the wording from tourism operators themselves right across the country they are saying that the sector has lost its edge it is in holding-on mode and it is economically flat. Tourism has fallen off the radar with this Government. New Zealand is no longer the desirable destination that it was amongst our key visitor export markets. We are stuck in a rut and the industry needs to change. 
The industry is calling for change and it has called Martin Snedden. He did a fantastic job leading the Rugby World Cup last year in addition to his heroics when he was on the cricket pitch in the 1980s. But Martin Snedden alone cannot pull the industry out of the doldrums. There needs to be leadership from the Prime Minister on this portfolio. We need some more hard graft being put into the tourism portfolio. We are not getting that hard graft and the tourism sector is suffering as a result and those comments are being made by operators up and down the length of the country. 
The tourism sector is made up of small businesses—large and small businesses the length and breadth of the country and they are hurting. We are not seeing leadership and we are definitely not seeing resources and funding being put in to stimulate the sector. So tourism is not where it needs to be. Unfortunately this Government does not have a plan and it has not got the right amount of resources that it is putting into such an important sector our No. 2 export earner—$63 million a day as I mentioned and 180000 jobs. It is a vitally important sector for our country and we need to have more leadership taking place. 
We want to see that tourism is no longer the supporting actor of this Government. We want to make sure that tourism is at the forefront and that we are seeing growth because the comments that are coming out of the sector are not encouraging. We need only to turn to Rob Fyfe the outgoing chief executive for Air New Zealand— 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN (Associate Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 It is a real privilege to stand on behalf of the Government to shape up our debate in this wonderful estimates debate. It has taken us half an hour to get to some substantive debate in this. Up until now it has been about playboys pies and conspiracy theories from Mr Mallard on the other side of the Chamber. 
But I want to shake up the debate on how our team will be approaching this going forward because there are four key priorities for this Government in this estimates debate—four key priorities. The first is to responsibly manage the Government’s finances the second is to rebuild Christchurch the third is to deliver better public services and the fourth is to build a more competitive and productive economy. Just on each of those issues—before I get into the substantive part of the tourism debate—if we think about responsibly managing the Government’s finances well if there is a Government that is right for the moment it is this National Party and its coalition parties. We have set an agenda to get us back to surplus by 2014-15 and to keep our debt under 40 percent of GDP. On any measure that is putting us amongst leaders in the globe. 
On a second point in terms of rebuilding Christchurch you saw the Prime Minister and Gerry Brownlee present that wonderful plan down in Christchurch to take it forward. At the moment I hear the Opposition members not saying too much about that because they support that plan too. They do not want to get out there and talk too much about it but they support that plan. In terms of delivering better public services across the Public Service we are seeing a commitment a real focus to taking public services forward whether it be in health or in police. They are doing a fantastic job and I congratulate them on that. The 10 result areas that we have rolled out will back up that and provide key targets as we try to improve the statistics going forward. 
The key area that I want to focus on—which many of my colleagues will also join me on—is in building a competitive and productive economy. If there is a part of the economy that is important in that it is our second-biggest export earner tourism. The direct contribution to GDP for the year ending March 2011 was some $6.9 billion. This industry is a fantastic industry in the country. I had the pleasure this morning of opening the international events management conference down at the Wharewaka and talking about the priorities of our Government in that tourism space. What could the Opposition say about that? Mr Tirikatene-Sullivan stood up and talked about it being a low-budget movie set. I am not sure how $84 million is low budget Mr Tirikatene-Sullivan. And what does that party do to support the promotion of our country?  
The Hobbit 
 set of movies—the trilogy of movies—has the opportunity to promote this country like never before and what did that party do? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What did they do? 
Hon CHRIS TREMAIN 
: It voted against  
The Hobbit 
. These are the Hobbit haters over that side of the Chamber. Will Labour members be lining up at the premiere for their tickets? Do you think David Shearer will be there? Do you think Clayton Cosgrove will be lining up for his premiere tickets? They will be there. They want to be at those  
Hobbit  
premieres. That set of movies will promote this country like never before. 
We have a business growth agenda that will drive that productive economy. Within that business growth agenda tourism is a huge player and there are a number of initiatives that I want to talk about today. Firstly in terms of the $84 million that goes to Tourism New Zealand we have seen a new strategy that will roll-out focusing on the markets that are growing particularly China. We have seen a 20 percent growth—a 20 percent growth—from the Chinese market. It is somewhat low value at this point in time so we are looking at how we can increase the value out of that market away from the shopping tours and improve the fit independent traveller market. It is a fantastic initiative and a wonderful opportunity. We continue to see growth from Australia coming across here. They love our tourism opportunities—absolutely fantastic. 
I know that Mr Cosgrove is waiting and dying for me to talk about the wonderful New Zealand Cycle Trail. Nineteen trails including the Otago Central Rail Trail have been rolled out. The Otago Central Rail Trail was launched in 2000. By 2003-04 there were 6000 riders; after 10 years there will be 12000 riders. A huge number of jobs are attached to the Otago Central Rail Trail. It is an absolutely sensational opportunity in terms of tourism. We are rolling out 18 other rides as part of our initiative. People around this country love the cycle trails. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Finance 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I am interested to hear from the Minister of Finance why he thinks that after 4 years in Government it is acceptable to be overseeing an economy where record numbers of New Zealanders are moving to Australia notwithstanding the fact that New Zealand has had the best terms of trade in a lifetime and notwithstanding the fact that our two main trading partners China and Australia have been having very good rates of growth. How can he say that he is succeeding as Minister of Finance when record numbers of people are leaving for Australia given that that is the very metric that he invited the New Zealand public to judge him by prior to being elected? He said that if National were elected they would say to goodbye to higher taxes not their loved ones—I think that was one of its catchphrases. Another catchphrase was promising New Zealand a brighter future. How can he accept that 4 years into his Government he can blame Greece? He stands up in this house and he says that “Planet Labour” is out to lunch—that is essentially what he says. 
He tries to claim the excuse that the problems of other parts of the world like Europe are responsible for the record number of people leaving from New Zealand to Australia. I think it is 158000 people since he took office and 53000 people in the last year alone and 40 percent of them are between the ages of 18 and 30. These are people who should have hope and opportunity in New Zealand who have given up on a decent lifestyle in New Zealand and are instead putting their shoulder to the wheel of the Australian economy. I want to suggest to the Minister that the reason that they are doing that is that he has failed in his ambitions and he has not rebalanced the economy towards the jobs and growing incomes that New Zealand needs from growing our productive export sector. He has not pulled the levers that need to be pulled in order to grow the depth of our capital markets through having a universal KiwiSaver scheme. He has not addressed the concern that was raised by Treasury in its briefing to the incoming Minister where it said that this differential between taxing capital income and other sources of income needs to be fixed otherwise we have too much money going into the speculative sector and not into the productive export sector. He is not willing to pull those levers and as a consequence we have a rising current account deficit. We are getting poorer every year as a country. This is projected to get worse. 
By 2016 the very cause of the last downgrade of New Zealand’s credit rating is said to be getting worse again rising to over 6 percent of GDP. In the 2016 year—by which time if we are unfortunate to have a National Government it would have been in power for 8 years—New Zealand’s current account deficit will be at 6.7 percent of GDP. We will have borrowed or sold assets worth $16.8 billion in that year alone because our economy will have not rebalanced and this Government is not bringing forward the new jobs the new exports that we need not only to get wealthier in the world but also to keep our New Zealanders in our own country by giving them hope and opportunity. 
We are seeing the hollowing out of the provinces. This is not just a city problem. In fact it is worse in the provinces because the inflow that we have from migration is largely concentrated in Auckland yet the people that we are losing are from Whangarei for example with 1200 people from Whangarei going to Australia and 460 from Nelson to Australia. These are big population losses. These are our young productive people. We have an ageing population as a consequence of this according to the demographer from Massey University Paul Spooner on  
Q+A 
 recently 
— 
Phil Twyford 
: Spoonley. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Sorry Paul Spoonley from Massey University told us on  
Q+A 
 that this increases the problem we have with an ageing population which is another problem that this Government will not address. This Budget—this zero Budget as National tried to describe it at the start—brings forward assets sales that make the Government deficit worse by $100 million a year that do not change the output of the economy that put up power prices and that put up the current account deficit. The centrepiece of Mr English’s Budget was wrecked within days when the Prime Minister backtracked on improving student outcomes by increasing class sizes which was never a good idea. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 Citius altius fortius—faster higher stronger. We all recognise the Olympic motto but “faster higher stronger” can also describe New Zealand’s performance in the tradable sector under this Government. It is a stark contrast as despite the best economic times in decades under the heavy regulatory hand of the unlamented last Labour Government the tradable sector languished. We have turned that round. We are building a more productive economy. We are encouraging faster growth. We are producing products that people want and need and getting higher prices for our products and our tradable sector is stronger and more resilient under the indefatigable Tim Groser and his team. We have got a clear goal of trade contributing to 40 percent of our GDP by 2025. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What are you doing about it? 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: Growth in New Zealand Mr Cosgrove over the next 4 years is forecast to be higher than growth in Europe the US the UK Japan and Canada—citius altius fortius. This Government is a safe pair of hands a responsible pair of hands and we are getting on with the job. 
Prudent management of our debt and fiscal discipline is fundamental to New Zealand’s well-being. The financial markets are intolerant of poor fiscal policy. Any profligacy would be penalised by higher interest rates and increased debt-servicing costs. We need a buoyant New Zealand economy weighed down by the least debt possible to ride out the troubled waters ahead. The global markets in case you have noticed or have not noticed are experiencing ongoing turmoil. 
Let us take a look at the international financial situation. In the US unless Congress acts across-the-board income taxes will expire on 31 December meaning there will be steep tax increases. The deep automatic Government spending cuts of US$1.2 trillion over 10 years are slated to begin on 2 January 2013. There is a need early in 2013 of course to raise the US borrowing authority or face a debt default and Congress must decide to fund programmes beyond 30 September the end of the current fiscal year to avert Government shutdowns. 
These factors combined will be enough according to some commentators to push the US economy over a fiscal cliff—colourful language but what does it mean? Well the Congressional Budget Office estimates that with these spending cuts and the increase in taxes the US gross domestic product could drop by 4 percent—4 percent. Right now the US economy is not looking a picture of health as growth has slowed to an annual rate of 1.5 percent as Americans have cut back on spending. This will not be enough to lower the unemployment rate which was 8.2 percent last month. House sales are weakening and there is a fair old notion that the US economy is threatening to stall. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Let’s talk about the New Zealand economy. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: Sadly the political environment ahead of 6 November is not likely to be one of compromise and negotiation. Once again local political brinkmanship and posturing in the US is likely to severely discommode the global financial confidence in structures. 
Let us look at Europe Mr Cosgrove. I know your view is normally somewhat more insular—summit follows summit band-aid is applied to elastoplast. Two elections were necessary before Greece could receive its latest tranche of funds. The IMF the European Central Bank and the EU are all looking at it to see whether the austerity measures demanded will be enforced and already last-chance options are being considered. Portugal and Ireland are also under scrutiny. Are they following the tough austerity measures demanded of them? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I apologise to the member. I was very reluctant to raise a point of order given what we had some half an hour ago and I am conscious of Speaker’s ruling 20/8 but last time I checked these are the New Zealand appropriations. This is Vote Finance—in New Zealand. It is not Greece or Spain or the US or Botswana or anywhere else. This is the New Zealand financial accounts and a New Zealand debate. I know it is appropriate to refer to other jurisdictions from time to time but we have had 4 or 5 minutes talking about every country other than this one. Last time I checked this was the New Zealand Parliament. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well thank you for bringing it to the attention of the Committee Mr Cosgrove. I appreciate that. But I know that the member is coming closer and closer and he has not got too much time left. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: Thank you. I will speak more slowly for Mr Cosgrove because I did mention that the whole point of this was prudent financial management. Meanwhile Spain is putting up its hand and signalling that between now and 2015 we are going to need €540 billion to bail Spain out. And of course the principal point here is that a Greek-style bailout of Spain is not possible once— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I have done a quick check of the estimates and there is no €540 billion to bail out Spain in these estimates. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Can I just say to the member that it is a debatable point and the member has— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No it’s fact. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Well I can only go on what the member is saying in the Chamber and I would expect the member to be able to refer to the appropriations as they reflect for this financial year. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: Thank you Mr Chair. It is all about context and really the Opposition benches are showing why it was such a disastrous period of time when they were in power because they had no idea of the global context that this country is operating and trading in. The President of the European Central Bank Mario Draghi told business leaders in London just in the last week that it will do “whatever it takes”. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this debate on Vote Finance. I want to speak briefly about the central if you like economic strategy of the John Key - John Banks Government. The central economic strategy of the John Key - John Banks Government is around asset sales. What the John Key - John Banks Government has as its central pillar is the privatisation of assets. This has been justified on financial grounds and I think it is worth referring to the Government’s own books as to what the fiscal impact will be of going ahead with this privatisation programme. 
I think the Government has misled New Zealanders about what the real fiscal impact of this privatisation is if it goes ahead. If you look at the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update from 24 March 2012 on page 42 you will see Treasury’s estimate of the actual impacts of this privatisation programme if it goes ahead. What you will see is that the estimate is that in 2016 the loss to the Crown as a result of privatisation would be $360 million in a single year because of the forgone profits and the savings because of the reduced finance costs would be about $250 million. 
What this means is that if the privatisation of the assets goes ahead the Crown position will be worse off by $100 million per year. That I think puts to a lie the fundamental argument that the Government has put forward that this is a fiscally rational strategy. So when the John Key - John Banks Government tells us that it makes sense to go ahead with this privatisation programme fiscally the lie is to be found in the Government’s own books. When you look at the Government’s own books the estimates— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Order! The member just needs to be very careful about saying the word “lie”— 
Speakers’ Rulings 
 page 42. I just bring the member back. Just be very careful about that. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. If you look at page 42 of the Government’s Budget Economic and Fiscal Update you will see there the actual fiscal impacts of the privatisation programme. I think it is worth repeating the numbers in this table because in this debate around asset sales and privatisation there have been a lot of arguments put forward that this makes fiscal sense but when you look at the actual numbers you realise that this is not the case. I would like to repeat those numbers for the benefit of the Government members who obviously have not looked at it very closely. If the John Key - John Banks Government goes ahead with privatisation it means that in 2016 in just that single year the forgone profits as a result of it will be $360 million—$360 million. It means the estimated finance cost savings—the benefit to the Government—will be about $250 million. So we are $360 million worse off and there is $250 million in savings for finance costs. What that means is that the net impact on the Government’s operating balance will be that it is worse off by about $100 million in a single year. 
This is the Government that says it is going to veto the extension of paid parental leave because it is going to cost $108 million a year. This is the Government that says it cannot afford to help working families and new mums and dads with paid parental leave because it costs too much—it would cost about $108 million a year. Yet here it is: as a direct result of the asset sale programme that the John Key - John Banks Government is promoting the Government books will be worse off by about $100 million per year. That is the fundamental fiscal reality of this asset sale programme. 
So when people are considering whether this makes any fiscal sense whether it makes sense in terms of the Government’s position and in terms of the Government books you need to not listen to the rhetoric from the Government; you need to look at the actual figures that are printed in the Budget Economic and Fiscal Update 24 March 2012 put out by the New Zealand Government. I refer you again to page 42. You will see in black and white the reality of the impact of the privatisation programme. This privatisation programme remember went through on one vote—the vote of John Banks—with 61 votes to 60. It went through with one vote. 
The impact of that programme will be that the fiscal position of the New Zealand Government is worse off by about $100 million every year going forward into the future as a result of privatisation. That is the truth that underpins the John Key - John Banks privatisation programme. That is the truth that we need to keep at the heart of our minds as we have this debate around asset sales going forward. We actually look at the Budget documents rather than the rhetoric. 
TODD McCLAY (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) 
: 
 It gives me pleasure to rise and speak on Vote Finance in the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill debate. Can I say that there was the real Opposition the real leader of the Opposition that great Australian Russel Norman. He is the one who is standing up and speaking up for everyday New Zealanders at least as far as he says. 
Here is the problem you see. What has happened in this last Budget is that this Government led by the Prime Minister John Key and with our Minister of Finance Bill English has delivered a Budget to New Zealand that focuses on responsible management of Government finances and on how to make the engine that is New Zealand go faster—how to make it grow and grow faster. What we have seen in the last week or two is the Labour Party rebranding itself grabbing great strong National Government policies and saying: “We’ll have a little bit of that as well.” 
So what have we heard from those members? They are in favour of mining. In fact they want to do more mining. It is good that they have finally woken up to that because before the Budget they were saying they did not mind New Zealanders going to Australia to work in mines but they could not be doing that here. Well everyday New Zealanders want to work hard they want to stay in their own country and they want good jobs. This Government is focused on finding the very best way to balance the environment with mining so that our economy can grow. So Labour is saying it wants more mining. The real Opposition that great leader of the Opposition that great Australian Russel Norman is saying he is not opposed to mining; it is just he has never found a mine that he agrees with: “No problem we don’t mind mines but we don’t like any of the ones that are here or any that are proposed.” 
We have also heard from the Labour Party that it is now in favour of reducing debt. It does not like borrowing any more; it is in favour of reducing debt. The problem with that is that before the last election and before this Budget was delivered those members said they had no problem with getting some more debt as we could pay it off some time in the future. Well here is the difficulty: the real Opposition that great Australian the real leader of the Opposition Russel Norman is saying that debt is fine: let us tax New Zealanders more let us go out and borrow a lot more and spend it on lots of things for New Zealanders but let us not find a single way to grow the economy to grow a way for the Government to get more resource and make our economy stronger and better. 
And then finally what has happened? The Labour Party has said that it too now accepts that we should get back to surplus by 2014-15—that is its policy. Labour members have said they believe that the Government will do it then or thereabouts and that that is something that they too would do. Before the last Budget that was not their policy at all. Certainly before the last election they were saying they would borrow a lot more money make a lot of rash decisions around spending and make New Zealanders work longer and harder to pay that back into the future but now they have changed their position. Getting back to surplus by 2014-15 is acceptable to them. 
The problem they have got on the other side is the real Opposition that great Australian Russel Norman who is the leader of the Opposition is actually saying that it is not about going back to surplus then; it is about borrowing more money spending more money racking up debt on behalf of New Zealanders and then finally some time in the future paying it off. 
The reason I raise this is because our Budget and our focus on finance deliver a better more competitive and productive economy for New Zealanders. We have heard others in this debate today refer to the John Key - John Banks Government. Well I have got to tell you based upon what we have heard from the Opposition I would rather have that. I would rather have John Banks any day than a Russel Norman - David Shearer - Hone Harawira Government which is what the Opposition parties are pitching to us. So it is fine for the Labour Opposition to say at the next election: “We’ve changed our position. We’ll have more mining. We’ll have less debt less borrowing and we will certainly get back to surplus sooner.” but the people it will have to do a deal with to try to form a Government in New Zealand are that great Australian the real leader of the Opposition Russel Norman and Hone Harawira who have different policies across the board and will not accept that at all. 
On this side of the Chamber we are focused on what matters and I say it again: give me John Banks any day over some of the others whom that lot over there will have to cast their lot in with come the next election. I look forward to the debate that we will have as we go forward and to hearing from the Labour Opposition what its position is on water in New Zealand and whether it backs some of the claims that are being made around the country. I bet you we are not going to hear anything about that at all. 
Delivering better public services is something the Opposition hates. It hates us doing better with the money we are entrusted with to spend on behalf of New Zealanders. Well the Budget that has been delivered by Bill English does that. It focuses on better public services for New Zealanders rebuilding Christchurch— 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 We have heard it here and it will go now in the annals of this Parliament as Todd McClay wraps his arms firmly around John Banks—firmly around John Banks—who is the political version of a human pinata in this House being pinged every day for his conduct. He is the walking dead the political version of a cadaver that is hanging this Government together. It is selling our assets that people already own on the vote of John Banks the human political cadaver. Todd McClay gets up and flings his arms around John Banks like a lifeline. Well I am going to enjoy quoting from that speech for years to come. 
Here is the issue with this Budget with these appropriations and with this finance. This Government is responsible for some achievements that is true: exports are down the current account deficit is up unemployment is up and 1000 people a week—1000 people a week—are leaving for overseas. These are all things that the English-Key Government said it would fix. 
I do not want to get on to tourism because we have done it. The only thing I will say as we are talking about jobs is that if one consults page 582 of the Estimates on tourism one will see that we asked the Associate Minister of Tourism about jobs—job creation in relation to the cycleway—because this finance appropriation helps to fund that. He could not tell us how many businesses and how many permanent jobs have been created thus far by the silver bullet of this Government which was to be the cycleway. The Associate Minister of Tourism could not tell us. He could give us a few anecdotes about a fish and chip shop that had opened in Napier and apparently the local cycle shop in Napier is going gangbusters but apart from that he could not name how many permanent jobs had been created. 
We know that 1000 people a week are leaving these shores. I say to Mr Calder that it is not about Greece as Mr Parker has said. Mr Calder spent 90 percent of his speech ironically talking about every other country in the world except the one that he represents in this Parliament. He talked about Greece talked about Spain talked about Ireland talked about the US and talked about every other country except the one that he is in charge of as part of this Government. 
We look at asset sales. I remember a debate during the election campaign the famous “Show me the money” debate. Remember that? I say to this Government because this Government is always quick to hold everybody else’s feet to the fire in terms of fiscal prudence fiscal accountability and costings that we had an example of utter—I cannot say that; it is the “h” word. We had an example of saying one thing outside this Parliament and doing another thing inside this Parliament when it came to the asset sales loyalty scheme. We had a Prime Minister get up at his conference and come out—as if you know everybody loves this Prime Minister coming out at his conference so the National Party people said; people are going to love these asset sales—and announce a loyalty scheme without one dollar of costings having been done. He announced hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of a loyalty bonus shares scheme. When asked in this Parliament how much it was going to cost where the dough was coming from and what the counterfactual was in terms of losses to the taxpayer and the Crown of providing these free shares for those who can afford $1000 or $2000 he had not one shred of evidence or data to back up the policy. If that had been us oh would we have been shredded by the National Party for not costing things! 
It seems it is OK to dish it out but not be accountable when you are in Government and announce a major plank of a policy costing hundreds of millions of dollars so that those at the top again can get a major wealth transfer in bonus shares and those who have their noses presses against the glass who cannot afford the $1000 and $2000 they need to get in to buy back what they already own end up paying for it. So I say to Mr English that I would be really interested as is addressed in the report of the Finance and Expenditure Committee whether he could tell us the costings around the loyalty scheme and whether he could also tell us if his Government is so certain—as it has told us week after week and month after month—first that Kiwi mums and dads will be first in the queue and secondly that they will hold on to these shares ad infinitum because it is such a good deal. I would like him to tell us if he is so confident of that why it is that he needs a loyalty scheme. 
I would like him to tell us when this loyalty scheme is going to mature. Is this loyalty scheme going to mature prior to the next election? Oh no. The stated position on the loyalty scheme is that it will mature after the next election—about 6 months after it I think. The Government said that it would be a 3-year scheme. 
Dr David Clark 
: What a coincidence. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: It is quite a coincidence as my colleague Mr Clark said. Why is that a coincidence? That is a cynical con because that is simply about the Government being able to try to cobble together an argument in the next election campaign to say: “Oh look at all these Kiwis. They’re hanging in there; they’re keeping their shares. We told you so.” Mr Key will say that and then hey presto 6 months after an election campaign the free bonus shares will mature and be delivered and the same thing that happened with Contact Energy will occur when Kiwi mums and dads—those who remain—will sell out the windfall gain. 
Of course those who have got in to get that windfall gain will be those Kiwi mums and dads who can afford $1000 or $2000 to flick on to the old share market. I do not see many of them in Christchurch or around the country. By the way if you are paying 20 percent on your credit card and you are going to get 5 percent maybe off the back of these asset sales then would not the smart thing to do—and I do not think many financial advisers would disagree with me—be to pay off your credit card or pay down your mortgage if you have a discretionary $1000 or $2000 just hanging around in your back pocket? 
The point is this. I know that Mr Goldsmith the member for—no he is not the member for Epsom; I got confused there for a minute—the soon-to-be member for Epsom will be able to afford 1000 bucks or 2000 bucks. I would wager that most people in his electorate would probably be able to have a go and that is the nature of it. But for those people on Struggle Street—those people who do not have 100 bucks to get the kids a couple of new pairs of school shoes pay the school fees or put bread on the table—I cannot see too many of them sitting around with you know mum talking to dad and saying: “Hey we’re going to dig up $1000 or $2000 and do you know what we are going to do? We’re scratching to make ends meet but we’re going to take Bill English’s advice. We’re going to invest in shares that we already own and we’re going to buy them back again.” 
So let us get real about this. This is about a wealth transfer from those who have the least to those who have the most. This is also about an election year con. 
I just ask Mr English again if he is so confident that Kiwi mums and dads will hang on to these shares why does he need a loyalty bonus? There is no answer apart from the fact that he knows the inevitable will happen. Contact Energy it was floated in 1999 had a share register of 225000 individual Kiwi shareholders. Today that number is 78000 and that company is overwhelmingly and predominantly owned by foreign interests most of them in Australia. 
I just say to Mr English that if I am wrong—and he can laugh and cackle—he should stand up take a call and tell the Committee why it is he is promoting a loyalty share scheme if he does believe in his heart of hearts that Kiwis will hang on to these shares and that it will not be the case that in say 3 years just after the loyalty scheme expires the share register is turned on its head because the Kiwis go out with their windfall gain and the foreign investors move in. That has been the precedent after precedent with asset sales historically. 
 Eighty percent of New Zealanders do not want it. Mr English has botched this from stem to stern. He has inflamed Maori interests. He has not spoken. We had Tuwharetoa come to the select committee lawyered up saying that they had gifted back water resources to the Crown for the public good but now the rules had changed and they wanted a slice of the action. What was the Government’s reaction to that? Well according to Mr Ryall in this House it had planned for all this. So it had planned for a dust-up with Maoridom it had planned for a Waitangi Tribunal hearing and it had planned presumably for the inevitable court action that will follow and therefore for the delay in the initial public offering. Only a fool—to quote Mr Key—would float an asset would do an initial public offering with court action and tribunal action hanging over their head. 
I say this to Mr English. He will go down in history as the person who dudded—to use an Australian expression—the Kiwi taxpayer by selling assets that they already own dudded them because the least in our community could not afford to buy them dudded them because he transferred the wealth to the most and then dudded them with a loyalty issue that should be unnecessary if he believes in his heart of hearts that Kiwis will hang on to these shares. “Dudded the taxpayer” will be his legacy and that is what we will go to the next election about. 
PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) 
: 
 I am very glad to hear from the member for “Struggle Street” Clayton Cosgrove. By my calculation he could get about 17 lots of shares worth $1000 each. 
Todd McClay 
: How much does that add up to? 
PAUL GOLDSMITH 
: About $17000 I recall. 
I was interested to read a couple of days ago of what was said of Mr David Parker: “if you closed your eyes and just listened to David Parker speaking—it could just as easily have come from National”. If only it were so. If only it were so of David Parker that if you closed your eyes you could think that he came from the National Party. If we were to contrast the Government’s Budget—we have this excellent Budget here which is about investing in New Zealand’s future stimulating jobs and delivering better services for families while keeping the Government on track for surplus in 2014-15 with what we would have seen if Mr Parker was the finance Minister aided and abetted by that great Australian Russel Norman we would be looking at a capital gains tax would we not? We would be looking at a partial capital gains tax which excludes the family home. 
It always amazes me to wonder how it would help grow the economy if we were to add a new tax on all businesses and small businesses in the form of a capital gains tax and if every farm had to pay a capital gains tax. How that is going to grow prosperity and encourage entrepreneurialism in New Zealand is beyond me given the fact that such a tax is in place in Australia the US and the UK and they seem to have had housing bubbles. How that is going to solve New Zealand’s housing affordability is beyond me. 
Another aspect is that we would be looking at GST reform right now would we not? We would be taking the GST off the asparagus that is flown first-class into my local fruit and vegetable shop at Jack Lum’s. We would be taking the GST off that in order to bring about greater social cohesion in New Zealand. I do not see how that would have helped New Zealand by any stretch. 
Mr Parker is now in favour of fiscal responsibility. Well it is one thing to talk about it; it is another thing to actually do it and actions speak louder than words. When we look at the last term of the Labour Government—when I was not nearby—it did not show much fiscal responsibility in my book. It increased incredibly the growth of Government spending and left this country pregnant with 10 years of deficits ahead of us. So those are the actions rather than the words. In terms of fiscal responsibility for Mr Parker and the Labour Party it seems to be all about not controlling spending but just raising taxes more and more in order to meet the never-ending desire for more moneys that they can spend. 
Apparently he is now in favour—this member who if you closed your eyes you could believe was a member of the National Party—of labour flexibility. Well I am not sure. Is Mr Parker now supporting the 90-day trial for workers? I do not think so but I hope he is because that would make good sense. That is the sort of flexibility that we need when employers are starting out and trying to grow their business—to have some flexibility about who they employ. That is how we grow the economy. At the end of the day it is businesses who think that they can sell something the world wants who will feel confident to hire new people and to grow their businesses. That is how the economy grows not by taxing hard-working New Zealanders even more in order to grow the size of the Government and somehow think that that is going to grow the economy. 
What about mining? I understand now that Mr Parker is in favour of mining. Well that does not seem to have filtered through to the Local Government and Environment Committee where Labour members are opposing the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Changes) Bill with everything they have got. The exclusive economic zone bill is all about balancing the needs of growing the economy and preserving the environment where the Government has come through a very careful balancing of those two aspects and Labour opposes it every step of the way. I do not know how he is in favour of mining on that score. 
Let us look at some of the other areas. Intensification and development of the agricultural sector? No Labour is not in favour of that. Australian companies moving jobs to New Zealand? No it is not in favour of that. Making welfare work? Well here we are having had the welfare system in place now for 70 years. It was supposed to end poverty when it was brought in by Mr Parker’s great—[ 
Bell rung 
] It was supposed to end poverty back in 1938 and we have not quite got there yet and we have entrapped 300000 families in the welfare system relying on the Government. Labour seems to think that that is perfectly acceptable and that it is a good thing. 
This Government does not. We have reformed and we want to continue to reform the welfare system not because we do not care about people but precisely because we do care and precisely because we do think we can do better and we must do better. That is what this Budget is all about in terms of focusing on getting more effective results out of the welfare system rather than just continuing to pour the money in: “Here’s your money. We don’t care anything about what you do with it. We don’t care how long you receive it. It can be for ever and a day as long as you like.” That somehow was supposed to reflect a caring Government. Well that is not a caring Government in my mind at all. 
What else would we be looking at here—$1.5 billion to invest in ultra-fast broadband in terms of opening up schools and businesses to the world. Would Labour be investing in that? No it would not be. Foreign investment in New Zealand? I have been surprised at the Labour Party which for a couple of decades now has been a party that has understood the importance of trade and there has generally been an awareness across the House that New Zealand makes its living out of international trade. Getting ourselves closer to free trade in a number of industries and environments is very important to the future of New Zealand but I cannot help but get a sense that Labour is backing away from that now. It is continually talking in a protectionist way about stopping the foreign investment coming into New Zealand and opposing that on every score. So how is that being supportive? Finally I just want to see whether if you closed your eyes and thought that Mr Parker was a member of the National Government he would be talking in the same way about the emissions trading scheme where Labour wants to extend that to farming and a whole range of other areas. I do not see how that is going to help New Zealand grow faster. 
So all in all when I look back and see what the Government has achieved through this Budget and when we stand and look at the international economic context of developed countries around the world struggling New Zealand in this context has continued to have growth—albeit modest growth but growth nevertheless—over the last 4 years. It has been a remarkable achievement and one that I am very pleased to be a part of in a small way. So I support the work of this financial element of the estimates debate. Thank you very much. 
Dr DAVID CLARK (Labour—Dunedin North) 
: 
 We have just heard from the member Paul Goldsmith some very rich rhetoric and I guess that is what we might expect from the member from Epsom. Unfortunately however the facts will get in the way of that good story. If we examine the Government’s record we will find that the growth he has spoken of has not eventuated. 
The Government’s record on growth is the worst record of a Government in 50 years—the worst economic growth record of a Government in 50 years. There are over a thousand people a week leaving for Australia for good reason. People are discontented with the growth or the talk of growth that this Government has offered. They want real growth. They do not want talk. We have had a 50 percent increase in unemployment. That member said that he was concerned about it and that the Government must do better. Well it must—it must do better. It needs to be providing jobs. Talking a big game does not achieve anything at all. If we actually look at the record on growth we can look at the GDP record of the last Labour Government which grew the economy in real terms—in real terms—by 25 percent. That made the pie one-quarter bigger and that contrasts starkly with this Government where real wages per capita are dropping. That is all about priorities. 
When it comes back to Vote Finance it is about where the money is being spent. Is it being spent to best effect to grow our economy to grow the policies within Treasury that will grow our best economy and to make sure that jobs are provided for New Zealanders who want them and who want to contribute to our country’s future? 
That raises a very important question which was covered in the estimates and related items for Vote Finance in the Finance and Expenditure Committee. We asked the Secretary to the Treasury about the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme and asked just what work Treasury was doing or indeed what work the Minister had asked for in respect of that scheme. We know that it is quite likely that hundreds of millions of dollars were lost as a result of the Government’s mishandling of that scheme. We know that its handling of the scheme could have lost more taxpayer money than INCIS did. This could be the greatest loss of taxpayer funds in New Zealand history. I want to know in the current financial year what Government resource will be allocated to finding out just how much money was unnecessarily lost in addition by Treasury’s poor handling of this scheme. I would like the Minister of Finance when he takes his call to tell us how much resource he will be devoting in his department toward quantifying this loss to the taxpayer—quite possibly the greatest loss to taxpayers in New Zealand history. 
A quick look at the estimates tells us that the Government’s priorities are not Labour’s priorities. We know that the asset sales programme will take this country back by $100 million a year. We know that because Treasury has quantified it. We know that it was a rushed process. We know that the Government is trying to rush it through because it is embarrassing—80 percent of New Zealanders are against it. We know that 99.4 percent of the submissions that we heard in the select committee were against it and we know that New Zealanders do not like it because it is a bad idea. But the Government continues to push ahead. It continues to push ahead with its plan to deprive us of revenue that the Crown could have to ensure that we pay off our debts faster and that we can invest in the assets that we all value as New Zealanders over the longer term rather than some kind of sweet sugary quick fix. We know that the sale of these assets will lead to future cuts in services for all New Zealanders. We are talking about hospitals and schools. Once the capital that is gained from any asset float has gone the revenue will dry up and we will all be worse off. 
This Government is refusing to take the big decisions. That is also clear from these estimates. We know that superannuation is one issue it is not prepared to tackle. It is saying it is not an issue until 2020. Well it is an issue. We all have to plan for our retirements. We need to know with certainty whether this Government intends to go on spending more money on New Zealand superannuation than it is spending on the entire education system or whether it is actually prepared to tackle these harder issues. 
We also want to know about the Government’s economic management. We know that this Government has borrowed more from overseas under John Key than any previous Government. This Government’s borrowing would make Muldoon blush. This Government’s borrowing record is shameful. We know that we need pro-growth tax policies we need research and development policies and we need proper savings policies. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Well there was another visit from one of the aliens from “Planet Labour” David Clark. Funnily enough a lot of them look the same. Just a couple of points that were raised on the way through. Apparently low-income New Zealanders cannot afford—and this may be right—to buy $1000 worth of shares in Mighty River Power but according to Labour they can afford compulsory superannuation contributions. So can those members explain that to us? We have heard all this ranting about how those people cannot afford $1000 once in their life for $1000 worth of shares but they can afford what Labour euphemistically calls universal KiwiSaver which means compelling people on the minimum wage to make savings every week for the rest of their lives. Apparently they can afford that. So I look forward to the explanation of how those two bits fit together. 
Listening to the Labour Party lecture about the current account deficit is unbelievable. I recall the campaign in 1999 when a finance spokesman from the same city who looks a bit similar to this one campaigned on getting rid of the current account deficit. At the time it was 4 percent. Then Labour had 9 years of the great moderation—the best economic conditions apparently that the globe had seen in a generation—and at the end of it not only did Labour not get rid of the current account deficit but it was double what it was when Labour started. 
Mark Mitchell 
: Double? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Double. First mortgage interest rates were 10 percent there was 5 percent inflation and we had a doubled current account deficit. And today we are hearing in this debate about the estimates the same kind of hocus-pocus of some magic mix of research and development incentives and something else that apparently will fix all this. The Government’s plan is a consistent plan and if we stick to it—which this Government certainly will—then we are going to see New Zealand less vulnerable. It will be less vulnerable over time but it is a huge challenge not only because of the multigenerational build-up of that external indebtedness but also because we are now in a world where dealing with it is going to be a bit more difficult. 
One of the speakers talked about the greatest losses over the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme. Let us just run through a quick list of the mess that the wasteful hopeless last Labour Government left. There were multibillion-dollar losses in ACC because it cranked up entitlements and cut and tried to hold levies—multibillion-dollar losses. The Housing New Zealand Corporation has $5 billion worth of houses in poor condition in the wrong place that cannot really be used to help serious housing need—$5 billion. It is not a theory. That is paid for by the PAYE of people who voted Labour believing it knew what it was doing—$5 billion of PAYE invested in housing that cannot be used properly to help the people Labour says it stuck up for. Student loans—$1 billion worth of write-offs because when we became the Government no one was in charge of student loans. No one in that whole Government was in charge of a $10 billion asset and I had to sign off write-offs of hundreds of millions of dollars because of negligence and lolly scrambles being the outstanding characteristics of the previous wasteful Labour Government. 
Then today in the House Labour was criticising us over welfare reform. It was another one of its lazy thoughtless spokespeople who do not do any work and contribute nothing even in the area where Labour is meant to be the experts: welfare policy. Labour members are a generation behind in their thinking if they are thinking at all. These estimates include hundreds of millions of dollars invested to get on top of long-term welfare dependency—dependency on which labour parties rely because that is what feeds the government system from which they draw their personnel and their ideology. We believe we must change long-term welfare dependency and these estimates show the best ideas in a generation to get on with that. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will respond to a couple of issues raised by the Minister in the chair the Minister of Finance. He asked why it is that we think New Zealanders can afford compulsory savings through a universal KiwiSaver scheme. The truth is New Zealand cannot afford to ignore these long-term problems. New Zealand has slid down the rankings of the international wealth tables over recent decades and although it is true that in the next few years there are a couple of countries that are going to pass us going down faster than we are—some of these European countries to which Bill English has referred—the truth is that the countries that have done better than us do better in labour productivity. They do better in labour productivity because they have the right tax signal into the economy and their precious investment capital goes into businesses based on the profitability of the investment rather than tax advice. And they do better in labour productivity because they have more money to invest in their economy because they save more. 
How is that paid for by low-income people? It is a very good question because low-income people spend everything they earn. That is why allied with our policy of a universal savings scheme we have a proposal to increase the minimum wage because an increase to the minimum wage is necessary in order to help those people save. Mr English you might laugh in the chair but you know one of the reasons why people head to Australia is that it has got a more competitive wage structure. That competitive wage structure is born of the universal savings scheme. New Zealand would be in a similar position if an earlier National Government under one of his predecessors the Rt Hon Robert Muldoon had not abandoned an earlier Labour universal savings scheme that was designed by Roger Douglas and put in place by Norman Kirk. That is how the contributory saving scheme would be introduced and as one of the New Zealand First contributors interjected there is a difference between a lump sum and a contribution over time even if the Minister of Finance does not get that distinction. 
We heard from Paul Goldsmith. Paul Goldsmith biographer of John Banks—another person who is very close to Mr Banks—said that it is a new recipe from Labour that we were in favour of returning to surplus by 2014-15. It is not. We campaigned upon it. We produced detailed fiscals at the time of the last election that are the most detailed that have ever been prepared by an Opposition—far more so than we had from National when it was in Opposition. Not only that but we actually properly costed what was happening with the State-owned enterprises; the Government did not. In fact the Government did not come clean on the fact that the State-owned enterprise sales were going to make the deficit worse by $100 million per annum until this year in this very Budget process in the pre-Budget fiscal update. 
Not only that but under Dr Cullen we did run nine surpluses in a row. In a time of plenty when a lot of Governments around the world were not putting away money for a rainy day New Zealand was. Every one of those Budget surpluses was opposed by Bill English—every one of them. Every one of those Budget surpluses was opposed by his finance spokesperson predecessor John Key and by his predecessor Don Brash. Every one of those Budget surpluses is absolutely essential if you are going to run Keynesian economics. There are lots of people now who favour a Keynesian approach in a recession and they are right. You have a danger of running into a deflationary spiral if you do not run a deficit and that is why I am not critical of Bill English for having run a deficit in the last couple of years. It was absolutely necessary. If you run surpluses for all those years then you have the worst recession around the world since the Great Depression. It is absolutely appropriate for the Government for a period to run a deficit in order to keep the economy moving. He has done that. We have not criticised that. We criticise the shape of it we criticise the fact that 40 percent of his income tax cuts went to the top 7 percent of people but we do not criticise the fact that there has been a deficit. New Zealand can afford that deficit for a period because for 9 years we—and indeed the prior National Government—ran surpluses during the good times so as to put money away for the tough times. 
In terms of welfare reform I am not going to put up with being lectured on welfare reform by a Government that says that it does not have to move on the age of eligibility for superannuation despite the fact that a million people within a decade and half—or a bit more than that—will be on superannuation and that by 2016 we will be spending more on superannuation than on the whole of Vote Education. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Finance be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 59; Maori Party 3; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1. 
Noes 57 
New Zealand Labour 34; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 8; Mana 1. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First does not underestimate the magnitude of the issues facing New Zealand over the Canterbury earthquakes. We acknowledge the efforts made so far by the Government to address these but we do have a duty to highlight what we see as the Budget inadequacies of those efforts. 
Firstly regarding the new central city plan it is of course the people’s plan not the Government’s plan. It was based on submissions by Christchurch people and the employment of local architects and others. It is conceptually sound. The use of a green “frame” the emphasis on the Avon River and anchor projects are well identified. But all this is very expensive to implement. It is all very well to dream up a vision; it is another thing to see how it might be implemented. Private insurance and Earthquake Commission contributions will be very substantial but council insurance is completely inadequate. Additional council investment in the plan will mean a large burden to meet all demands. 
Additional Government investment is required over and above the land purchase requirements. It is not good enough to leave the Christchurch ratepayers to foot the bill alone. That would require excessive borrowing beyond prudential limits by the council. It is also likely to so pressure the council and community that unwise and short-term decisions might be made. Christchurch deserves better from the Government. The whole country has an essential stake in Christchurch’s success and early recovery. Without additional Government investment the risk is that the rebuild will take far too long to achieve the building of the major anchor projects especially the convention centre the stadium and the sports facility in particular. 
What is not an option would be Government pressure to sell the city’s strategic assets especially airport shares port company shares and Orion shares. They deliver a dividend stream far exceeding the cost of borrowing: 15.2 percent on average recently versus under 5 percent. They also underpin the city’s asset base which enables borrowing on advantageous terms. I have had decades of experience serving on the boards of some of these companies and I am certain that the sale of any part of the shares in them would weaken the city’s recovery and would not enhance it at all. To do so would be only a band-aid fix and what we need is long-term recovery. 
So what should the Government’s priorities be? Firstly to ensure that the residential areas are fixed very soon—that is the first priority—then to assist the city council in the overwhelming burden it faces concerning the central city recovery. Firstly it should actually invest adequately in the major projects indicated in the plan such as the convention centre the stadium and the sports facility. Secondly of course it should ensure that basic infrastructure is quickly repaired—and that is happening far too slowly currently if you look at the performance especially that of New Zealand Transport Agency. The third priority would be to fast track the replacement of major Government buildings—courts police administration offices and so on. That also needs a boost. So the Government’s provision for these purposes I think is completely inadequate. 
The Government often talks up the Christchurch recovery as one of its main priorities. But I question its actual commitment to dealing with those priorities for the reasons I have just given. But that is not all. There are other issues and one of them is insurance. It is still too hard to get. Insurance companies are still acting far too slowly—some quite deliberately I think. And it is not enough for the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery just to talk tough about this. We need some funding support too. The funding would be used for issues such as a decent disputes resolution process that is able to take classes of issues for resolution and to ensure practical results for people and that is not happening currently. In addition long term we need to reassess the whole regime of disaster insurance the place of the Earthquake Commission and the need—we in New Zealand First think—for a State-operated New Zealand insurance company to ensure availability of cover on fair terms and to be more responsive in a large-scale disaster. 
I would like to go on and talk about the white zone because there we have similar issues. Delays so far taken are excessive—acknowledging the technical issues involved. The issue here is also who pays for remediation actions. Uncertainty causes failure to act especially for example with rockfall fencing. I know of one area near me in Sumnervale where people are very worried by the fact that the council originally decided to put up rockfall fencing because it thought that it was going to be paid for by—shared between—the Government and the council. When the council found out that that is not likely to be the case it suddenly decided that it would not put such fencing up any more. Of course this is a serious safety issue. The Government needs to take its fair share of that sort of burden to make sure that those safety issues are dealt with. 
When we come to resources generally for the rebuild with homes progress is still far too slow. Yes thousands of homes have been repaired but there are tens of thousands still to go. Fletcher EQR is the sole manager. We in New Zealand First think that what we need is at least one other manager to ensure competition. That would allow a cross-comparison of the performance of the two and would increase the management resource available and in those ways would speed up we think the progress with the repair of homes. 
Similar issues apply to the business rebuild. We think there needs to be a 5-year target for the central city for people to focus on for investment. They need incentives. They need rates holidays tax holidays and fees exemptions. We see none of those sorts of incentives in this Budget which is silent on those obvious needs. 
When we come to red-zone purchases yes there has been good progress made and that is good to see. But our concern is for people trapped by red-zone land decisions because in too many cases the sale price is not enough for a new home and no other funds or mortgage are available to many people. New Zealand First calls again on the Government to ensure there is bridging finance for people in this position of up to $100000 at zero interest repayable upon sale or upon death. That sort of provision would help people who are trapped in the red zone because they cannot afford a new home with the proceeds of sale to move on. 
Those are the sorts of practical provisions that New Zealand First wants to see implemented. Again we are not seeing any good practical policies of that kind included in this Budget. So it is not good enough to hear Government members constantly say that one of their top priorities is the Christchurch rebuild and recovery when there is a complete failure to address so many of these issues and to make a real commitment in the Budget to see that those things are done. 
I was at an announcement on Monday hearing the Minister talk about the new central city plan and it was good to hear it—there is a lot of good stuff there—but he did mention that there would be billions of dollars more required. But there were no details no serious commitment and no indication of where that money would be spent and what it would be spent on. 
What we in Christchurch want to know is what those priorities are. How will people in their homes find that their repair programme can be sped up? How will people with businesses in the central city know that there is going to be not just a plan but actually a financial commitment from the Government beyond just land purchases to ensure that that plan gets implemented? Those are the sorts of issues that we do not hear about from the Government and are not provided for in the Budget. We in New Zealand First do not think that is a good enough commitment whatsoever. Much more needs to be done and there needs to be more investment in the Christchurch recovery than we have heard so far. 
Finally I want to repeat this: any expectation that the Christchurch City Council can borrow its way out of these difficulties is a myth and any expectation that Christchurch people will commit their valuable strategic assets is also a myth. 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the estimates for Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery—that is CERA or the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority. It is a highly important part of Christchurch and Canterbury. Although it was established only in March 2011 the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority has overseen an enormous amount of activity in the last year and has a huge amount of work to look forward to supervising in the next year. 
I just want to take up what Denis O’Rourke was talking about. This Budget covers the cost of running the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and it is for it to work in partnership with the three local councils and to plan and administer the recovery. But of course it does not cover the cost of the overall recovery or rebuild which Treasury actually estimates at over $20 billion; many believe that it is going to cost even more than that. The appropriation for this Budget in 2012-13 is $90.653 million. 
I would just like to pay credit to Roger Sutton and his team for the excellent work that they have done in the time they have been there under really difficult circumstances. This cost is much less now simply because of the work that has been done in the past. The last 22 months have been a time of great uncertainty for Cantabrians because we have had thousands of earthquakes—over 11000—and with those earthquakes have been many accompanying challenges and they have come in waves. But I think we are making some real progress. When I say the appropriation for the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is significantly less this year it is because so much has been paid out in 2011-12. The majority of the red zone residents have been paid out. I think over 6000 people in the red zone have settled and 5000 of those have been paid out. 
There has also been over $1 billion of work done in terms of infrastructure. That is the repair work for roads for waterworks for pipes for sewers—the things that you do not see but the things that are incredibly important. That work is being done by SCIRT which is the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team of which the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority is a participant. As Denis O’Rourke mentioned thousands of houses have been repaired. About 20000 have been repaired and people have gone back into them. That is more houses than there are in Timaru but of course there is still a lot more to do. They are saying that probably about another 40000 have work to be done on them. There has also been quite a lot of work done in terms of preparing land for subdivision and people are beginning to be able to move out of their houses and onto new land. Of course there are many more huge challenges in front of us and a huge amount of work to do. 
I would just also like to reflect on what happened this week when the CCDU which is the Christchurch Central Development Unit announced its blueprint for Christchurch. That blueprint was developed with the Christchurch City Council and Ngai Tahu. It was launched on Monday night and I think it was really impressive. In fact I think it was brilliant. Again I would like to give credit to Warrick Isaacs and his team who have worked long and hard to get that 100-day plan out there. It is inspirational it is innovative and it is going to create what looks like a very people-friendly and environmentally friendly city. The good thing about this is that it really builds on the ideas that have come from the people of Christchurch. The city council developed its Share an Idea campaign and 106000 submissions were put in by the ordinary people of Christchurch to go towards the development of this plan. I think the blueprint really delivers on their vision that came out of that project which was for a garden in the city.  
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Before the dinner break I was talking about the new blueprint the 100-day plan for Christchurch and how well it has been received how it is inspirational and innovative and how I would like to congratulate the team of Warwick Isaacs and his people who have worked so long and hard to get this result. The blueprint identifies a dozen or so exciting anchor projects for the city. They will provide real amenities for local residents for the Greater Christchurch area and also for tourists. [ 
Bell rung 
] But the beauty of this new plan— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! The bell may not be very loud. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Are you seeking another call? 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Yes please Mr Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well you must do that the moment the bell rings. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: Thank you Mr Chair. The beauty of this new plan is that it will build a more compact well-designed and we hope people-friendly and environmentally friendly city. I really like the idea of the green “frame” and the fact that the River Avon runs through the city and that will be a focus. It will be a focus for walking for sitting for biking for just enjoying the outdoors on the two sides of our city and on the other two sides we will have this large green space. I think that that is going to make our city something that we will all be proud of. 
It is also a compact city so near the Square you will have the convention centre and that will open up into Cathedral Square and Victoria Square. We will also have the theatre complex very close to it and on the other side of the retail area we will have the new justice and emergency services centre and also the bus exchange. Past that we are going to have the innovation centre which is based around the Christchurch Polytechnic Institute of Technology where young people will want to go. But the whole key here is that the whole city will be very walkable and will be a place that people will want to hang out in and spend some time there. 
It is particularly important that this city plan works well. There has been some debate in the community that we should really be focusing on the residential areas before we focus on the central business district and I agree with that—it is really important that people are in homes that are warm and safe—but the problem is that unless we get this central business district up and running we lose the attraction of our centre city. Not only do we have to be responsible to our local citizens and the Greater Christchurch area but also we have to be responsible to the South Island because Christchurch is the gateway to the South Island. We need to have a vibrant city that will attract tourists so that they not only will come to Christchurch but will feed out through Christchurch right around the South Island. We have seen a drop-off in tourism in the rest of the South Island because Christchurch has been damaged. 
I think this exciting new-look city will bring people back to the centre. Christchurch people have been amazingly resilient. It is hard to believe that before the earthquake 63000 people worked within the four avenues and there were 10000 people living there. All those 63000 people have found another place to work and gradually over the next few months and years they will be able to come back to the city. 
I also just want to focus on the residents within the four avenues for a few minutes because that is where I live. Before the earthquake there were 10000 people living within the four avenues. Of course that was immediately shut down after the quake in February. We had the police and the army at the end of the four avenues and nobody could go in and out. Many people had to leave their homes and could not get back to them. Some of the people who lived in the centre which is still under the red cordon never got back to their homes and could not even get their possessions out of them. So the people who live in the centre city have had a pretty long row to hoe. We have also got quite a large red zone around the Avon River and we have got plenty of technical category 3 land. So it is really good that the people who live there—and I think there are probably only about 5000 of that original 10000 left—have got these new things to look forward to and can use the amenities. The amenities are cleverly planned so that we will bring people into the city and they will be able to work there to play there and to enjoy our new city. 
Overall I would like to thank the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority for all the work it has done. I know it has been a really tough time. I know the authority has been challenged but it has managed to bring in a large number of really skilled professional people who have got through the work that had to be done. They have come up with innovative solutions in terms of the Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team and also the Christchurch Central Development Unit with the 100-day plan. They have dealt with these issues creatively they have been innovative and I think they have come up with good results. I think that there is no doubt that the people of Christchurch will and can rebuild a stronger better more beautiful city. Thank you. 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on schedule 1 of the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. Vote Canterbury Earthquake Recovery totals over $90 million. As the Finance and Expenditure Committee report notes this is a substantial reduction on previous appropriations as most of the demolition costs and purchases of the red zone properties were funded over the past 2 years. But $42.5 million of that $90 million is funding to support the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority in planning and facilitating the city’s recovery and for policy advice. Quite a chunk of that money in last year’s appropriation has obviously gone into the blueprint document which was released earlier this week. 
I would like to congratulate the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Christchurch Central Development Unit team of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority on many of the concepts that are in that blueprint. The “frame” on the south and east of the city to contain a much more compact central core is a very good idea as is the potential for more intensive residential development in that area to make Christchurch a more compact city and to reduce urban sprawl. The Otakaro Avon River park is narrower than some of us would like it at the moment but that is a welcome concept as is the proposal to improve water quality in the river. There is very welcome recognition of Ngai Tahu and its heritage in Otautahi. So certainly the team deserves congratulations on the hard work that it has put in. 
But one of the key principles in the recovery plan is to listen to the people—whakarongo ki te tangata. That is based on the very innovative consultation exercise that the city council did in Share an Idea. So the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority needs to continue that theme of listening to the people. People in Christchurch have a strong voice. They want it to be one that the authority listens to not just in developing the recovery plan but also in implementing it. Where concerns have arisen have been in the authority’s very hasty demolition of a number of heritage buildings—the way in which it issues notices under section 38(4) of the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. That needs to be followed up. We need a recovery strategy for heritage. It is supposed to have been produced but has not been. Then there is the issue of the public being shut out of decisions around heritage buildings. But there is also a concern that the public is likely to be shut out of decisions around buildings and facilities in the heart of the city. The recovery plan provides that where buildings breach the development standards in the plan in relation to matters that are quite fundamental for the amenity of the city like recession planes and the amount of sunlight those resource consents are restricted only to discretionary non-notified activities so there will not be a chance for public input. 
Another key issue is that several of the civic facilities that are proposed in the authority’s blueprint are much bigger and more expensive potentially than those proposed by the Christchurch City Council in its annual plan and long-term plan. So that raises the fundamental issue of who is going to make the decisions on the affordability and the scale of some of these civic facilities—the city council or the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and the Government? The Christchurch City Council’s long-term plan provides for example for a 21000 - square metre convention centre at a cost of $205 million plus inflation but the blueprint provides for a bigger facility of 24000 - square metres. The Christchurch City Council in its plan has a preference for retaining the iconic Christchurch Town Hall and the outstanding acoustic qualities of the auditorium in the town hall. Yet the blueprint maps show that the town hall is demolished and that area is completely green. So the Christchurch City Council and the people of Christchurch need to have a say in the funding of these facilities and whether we are going to get the big shiny facilities proposed in the blueprint or something that is more affordable. Today’s  
Press 
 reports that there have been discussions between the Christchurch City Council staff and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority about the council contributing another $155 million for new projects in the central city. That would bring the council’s contribution to more than $787 million. I assume that the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority will encourage the councillors on behalf of the people of Christchurch to decide whether that $155 million should be provided— 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Transport 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It is a great privilege to take a call to speak about transport. 
Phil Twyford 
: This is the junior Minister. Where’s the real one? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: It is a very exciting sector the transport sector. The Government within the transport sector is of course providing real leadership. Gerry Brownlee the Minister of Transport and I—Mr Twyford—as Associate Minister of Transport have four goals that we are pursuing vigorously in transport— 
Andrew Little 
: What happened to the 120-point plan? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: —better quality regulations better investment in infrastructure—just four—creating a safer transport system and opening more international and domestic markets. Mr Brownlee is taking a real lead in pursuing that vigorously. 
These are important goals. I want to focus on infrastructural investment very shortly but can I just say this: despite what some in the Labour Party and the Green Party say we are committed to a multimodal approach. We do roads we do rail we do public transport very well in this country and we are investing in it. When we are characterised as being just about roads I say that is absolutely wrong. Of course we invest in roads and we are proud to do so because that is where pragmatically speaking people are still driving and the vast majority of freight is still being moved. 
To talk about infrastructure I think it is important to start out and say how vital it is to transforming our economy to creating jobs and to lifting productivity. I know that in my own area for example the Tauranga Eastern Link is going to reduce a huge amount of time and allow many more journeys from heavy trucks as they take produce and as they take logs to the Port of Tauranga. This is a multimodal approach. 
Let me just say that in the period 2009-12 we have spent some $8.7 billion investing in transport infrastructure. That is $4.6 billion in the State highway network. That is $1.9 billion in local roads—that is in addition to what our friends in local government are investing—and $900 million in key urban public transport networks. In direct investment—I know Julie Anne Genter of the Greens will be interested in this—there has been direct investment of $2 billion in metro rail in Auckland and in Wellington so that commuters can get into town on rail. And there has been a $750 million additional investment into KiwiRail—I was going to say KiwiSaver—and its Turnaround Plan. 
Let us just focus in on some of what I think are the significant pointers in relation to roads. As I say there has been big investment. Over a decade $12 billion has gone in to improve the State highway network. Of course a big focus is roads—and we are unapologetic about that—in Tauranga in Auckland and all over New Zealand. Well-targeted investment in infrastructure is going to help lift productivity over time resulting in better wages and higher living standards for New Zealanders and their families. It is a substantial investment that we are making. I remember some time ago an economist saying that in a recession when you are wondering where to spend money investing in quality transport infrastructure is a very good way to go. 
 We have heard a lot about rail. Of course some of the members here in the Opposition have asked questions in the House about the Turnaround Plan. It is not going to be easy. It is not going to be something that is going to happen overnight as Andrew Little or Rachel Hunter—it was one of the two—once said. But we are committed to KiwiRail becoming sustainable by 2020 so that it can fund itself and so that actually the jobs that members like Clare Curran say they care so much about can be sustainable in that industry. Could I just say this: some 4300 people I think it is work for KiwiRail at this present time. I say let us back them. 
JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe. Thank you Mr Chair. It is a great pleasure to speak on Vote Transport following the Associate Minister of Transport Simon Bridges. I would really like to address some of the specific points that he made. I think that the great tragedy of this Vote Transport is the incredible missed opportunity. The Government is missing a huge opportunity. At a time when the world is undergoing a fundamental economic restructuring—of course the Government does not even bother trying to analyse what the reasons for that might be; it uses it to justify whatever policy it would like to implement—we need to be investing in the smartest transport infrastructure that we possibly can and that is infrastructure that will reduce cost to the household and cost to business. 
What we have learnt here in the House over the past few months through oral questions to some of the Ministers and what we have seen even on Television One on Saturday night is that this Government did no economic analysis before it decided on its programme of roads of national significance. In fact in 2008 Sinclair Knight Merz the consultants that are now working on the investigation of the project did a report on strategic options for State Highway 1 north of Auckland to Wellsford. What it determined in that study is very very clear: the costs of a brand new alignment of a new four-lane motorway vastly outweigh the benefits. What is clear to me is that the National Party when in Opposition sat down and did some focus groups and it asked these focus groups what they would like to see it invest in. National got back the answer “infrastructure” so it came up with a little package of motorways that are going to look like it is doing something important. The Government is throwing most of our money now at five projects—$14 billion at five projects. 
What I heard from Mr Bridges just now is that this is well targeted and that National is unashamed to be investing in roads. But unfortunately it is not even investing in roads. It cannot even be said to be a Government that is investing in roads because what it is doing is spending 95 percent of all new money on infrastructure on roads but 75 percent of all new money on infrastructure in Vote Transport is going on five projects—just five. How many vehicle trips travel on these routes that it is focusing on? It is less than 3 percent. So the Government is spending 75 percent of the money on new infrastructure on 3 percent of vehicle trips. How is that logical? How is that going to improve economic productivity? It is not going to affect 97 percent of vehicle trips in the entire country. 
At a time when oil prices are rising the Government should be interested in the opportunity that it has through our increased understanding of how it is that transport infrastructure contributes to economic development and that actually this is the time to be investing more in rail and to be investing more in buses and trains and walking and cycling. What happens when you invest money in buses and trains? Well more people take buses and trains so that is good. But then what also happens is fewer people are on the roads so the people on the roads find it easier to get where they need to go. So that kills two birds with one stone there. 
Phil Twyford 
: Stop being so logical! 
JULIE ANNE GENTER 
: I know! I have all the figures right here. I even have Treasury’s advice on the National Government’s policy statement on transport funding which is that Treasury would prefer to see economic evidence that the Government policy statement of 2009 has been a success before we continue along these lines. Even Treasury has significant doubts about the Government’s infrastructure programme. But all we will continue to hear I am sure from the National Government is an empty mantra. It thinks that if it says it enough times it will be true and unfortunately it will not. 
What the Government has missed is an opportunity to invest in transport infrastructure that would actually make our roads safer that would actually reduce transport costs and that would actually address congestion issues at peak hour in our towns and cities. It is missing that opportunity which would even save us money at a time when it is worried so much about debt. You would think it would be interested in saving money. Thank you. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
: 
 I want to make three points. The first is that the National Government’s fetish for building new State highway projects otherwise known as the roads of national significance has crowded out and squeezed out every other category of Government funding including local roads. All over New Zealand provincial communities are having to face up to the fact that this Government has slashed the funding for local roads. 
My second point is that the roads of national significance themselves are poor value for money overall. This National Government has utterly corrupted the whole process of evaluating the economic value of these infrastructure projects. 
My third point is that the National Government’s approach to transport is so completely unbalanced in favour of roads that other important parts of our transport network are suffering. I am talking particularly about public transport—and I want to talk some more about that—and also about KiwiRail. As a vital piece of our national transport infrastructure KiwiRail has been set up to fail by this National Government. 
But let me go back to local roads because I recently in the last adjournment travelled around parts of the South Island including Invercargill and Southland but also including parts of Otago and Clutha Queenstown Lakes and Central Otago. What I found in every place I visited is that the community the local council and the local mayor were very upset with the National Government for having cut their funding to local roads. If I may say so the people of Southland were particularly embittered by the fact that the National Government has cut the funding for local roads in that area. As you will know Mr Chairperson— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! You cannot bring the Chair into the debate. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: Sorry. As I was saying— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member can traverse the area as he is but he must not bring me into it. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: As I was saying the member from Southland knows well that that area has the largest network of local roads in the country. It has one of the smallest bases of ratepayers and it is feeling the financial squeeze because of the policies of this Government. Everywhere I went the people in those communities said: “You know what? We haven’t seen Bill English for a long time around here. We haven’t seen Jacqui Dean in Alexandra for a long time. She hasn’t shown up since the last election.” And they said: “When you go back to Parliament say to the National MPs that we’d quite like to see them we’d quite like them to show up and we’d like them to explain why rural and provincial New Zealand has been hung out to dry by this Government.” They are told that they have to pay more for their local roads. They do not want to subsidise the roads of national significance because they know that mostly they are a crock and that they are a waste of taxpayers’ money which is being badly spent—billions and billions and billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money wasted on projects that will be white elephants around their necks just like the Think Big projects. It is Think Big all over again. This Government wastes billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money and it does not care if rural and provincial New Zealand has to subsidise its follies. 
It might be justifiable it might be defensible if the roads of national significance made economic sense to this country but they do not. Most of the roads of national significance would never have been built 5 years ago because their benefit-cost ratios are so low. Several of these gold-plated motorway projects were made roads of national significance even before the most basic economic assessment—the analysis of their worth—had been done. But no the colossus of roads Steven Joyce the former Minister of Transport declared with a great triumphalism that National was going to build these seven great motorway projects come hell or high water. We found out the other day that more than $200 million has been spent by this Government on design and investigation work for motorway projects many of which will not be built for a very long time. That is absolute profligacy. There is no justification for it. 
You know what? Under this Government transport has become a kind of Bermuda Triangle of Government spending. Vast amounts of cash go missing constantly nobody can explain it and the normal rules of public sector financial management somehow do not seem to apply. It is amazing. What did we have the other day? We had Gerry Brownlee saying that one of the things you have got to be careful about is relying constantly on cost-benefit analysis. That is very strange. In the next 10 years $12 billion will be spent on the so-called roads of national significance and the benefit-cost ratios for some reason are a bit overrated—you must not rely on them. That is very strange. But when it comes to something like the city rail link in Auckland oh well then the benefit-cost ratios are very important. In fact the city rail link has to be subject to the Government’s better business guidelines. That makes complete sense. Why not? We want our Government infrastructure spending to be sensible to be well spent and to be rigorously tested. But that does not apply to the roads of national significance and this Government should be ashamed of that. 
Hon Annette King 
: The vote-buying roads. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: That is right the roads of national vote-buying. 
The third point I want to make is that transport under this Government is so completely unbalanced and the city rail link is a really good example of that. Not only was the Mayor of Auckland elected on a platform of building a city rail link not only did the opinion polls tell us that an overwhelming majority of Aucklanders regard it as the No. 1 transport project not only has its business case been internationally peer reviewed not only will it double the capacity of the existing rail network in Auckland and not only will the Britomart Transport Centre hit capacity by 2020 unless the city rail link is built but this Government has no plan to deal with Auckland’s traffic congestion. It has no idea and it has no plan. The Minister sits in this House day after day and rubbishes the city rail link yet he has got nothing constructive to put on the table to address the problem of traffic congestion in our country’s biggest city. All the Minister has got is a proposal that the Ministry of Transport has written up that would see 1000 diesel buses in the Auckland central business district per hour—1000 buses an hour. That demonstrates the utter bankruptcy of transport thinking by this Government. 
My last point is about KiwiRail. The Government loves to trumpet the Turnaround Plan. It is going to put $750 million into KiwiRail’s capital expenditure. Yet the real story about the Turnaround Plan is that KiwiRail has been forced to put in $4.75 billion from its own balance sheet. This is not some act of charity by the Government. KiwiRail is having to pump its own balance sheet for $4.75 billion. That completely unrealistic Turnaround Plan is forcing KiwiRail to do things like lay off 220 track workers and defer 3 years of track maintenance. The Government is forcing KiwiRail to do crazy things like sell off the Hillside railway workshops sell off the tourism side of the business— 
Todd McClay 
: That’s enough punishment Phil. 
PHIL TWYFORD 
: The member does not like to hear this because he is ashamed. He is embarrassed by this Government’s transport policy. It is forcing KiwiRail to close regional lines and regional commuter services like the Capital Connection. It is unrealistic. This Government does not like rail it does not believe in KiwiRail and it is setting KiwiRail up to fail. Because of the Turnaround Plan and the completely unrealistic financial targets in it KiwiRail is in a situation where it is chopping off one limb after another and soon it will be left with only a torso. Nowhere else in the world is a national railway expected to run as a stand-alone corporation and turn a profit. It is a vital piece of our country’s transport infrastructure. This Government does not believe that. It is setting KiwiRail up to fail instead of investing properly in a multimodal approach. And I am afraid to say that the junior Minister in the chair the Associate Minister of Transport would not know a multimodal approach to transport if he fell over it on a dark night. 
National’s transport policy is unbalanced. The Government has a fetish for building new State highway projects at the expense of every other activity class in the transport budget. That is leading to the neglect of local roads. The Government has cut the funding for new public transport infrastructure. The Minister would know it if he bothered to pay attention but he is so obsessed with building his roads of National Party significance that he does not give the time of day to any other major transport project. The Government is wasting billions and billions of dollars of precious taxpayers’ dollars— 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 This debate is supposed to be about Vote Transport and all Phil Twyford can talk about are fetishes. But Mr Speaker I just want to talk on— 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Mr Speaker? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Pardon? 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I don’t think the Speaker is there. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yes whatever. 
Phil Twyford 
: He doesn’t have anything to say. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh I have got plenty to say. I have got plenty to say. All I can say to poor old Phil Twyford is this: just say yes. You know this is the guy who is having a public meeting in a couple of weeks and he has already promised two things. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I thought that this debate was specifically on Vote Transport and so far I have not heard the member refer to Vote Transport at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The point is well made. This is Vote Transport. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: How long have I got Mr Chair? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Not long now—4 minutes. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Four minutes. I have been talking for a minute. This is what he has promised in Te Atatu: a ferry service from downtown Auckland to Te Atatu—a ferry service from downtown Auckland to Te Atatu. We have not even got any of the infrastructure and he is promising a half a billion dollar exercise. But that is not the only thing that he has promised the good folks of Te Atatu. He has promised them a busway that is going to cost up to about $600 million. So two promises—two promises—are already over the billion-dollar mark. I wonder how he is going to pay for that. I wonder how he is going to pay for that. 
Todd McClay 
: Is he promising to bring the ferry back to Te Atatu? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No he is not bringing a ferry back to Te Atatu; he is bringing a ferry service to Te Atatu. It is a billion-dollar promise for the good folk of Te Atatu. 
How is he going to pay for all of this? Well he is going to screw the people. He is going to screw the people of Te Atatu out of their own taxes. That is what he is going to do. How is he going to pay for it? I have got another bit of news for— 
Phil Twyford 
: “Holiday Highway”. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Oh he does not like it. You see for every question about the ferry service and the so-called new busway not once has this guy got up and said how much it is going to cost. Not once has he said: “This is how we are going to pay for it.” He says: “We might stop a couple of roads that National is building.” That is not enough for Mr Twyford’s promises. 
Phil Twyford 
: That’s more than enough. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: Actually that’s plenty. It would be more than enough—14 times more. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: More than enough—a billion dollars is more than enough! This is how he is going to pay for it. He is going to up the petrol tax because he is a mate of— 
Hon Simon Bridges 
: Brown town. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Brown town—274. That is how he is going to pay for it. He is going to take it out of the back pockets of good working-class people the very people whom he professes to represent. And he has not even got the cojones to go and say yes to the gay marriage bill for goodness’ sake. He has not even got the cojones to do that. But I digress. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I am sorry Mr Chair but I really do not believe that this speech has referred to Vote Transport at all. He has been talking about something completely different which is the transport policies that have been proposed by Mr Twyford but those are not actually in Vote Transport. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! Points of order are not an opportunity—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. Points of order are not an opportunity to make a speech. Members raising points of order should do so succinctly. Can I also say that it is tempting to use points of order to interrupt speakers who are actually speaking and I think the Chair normally has a fair appreciation of what the Standing Orders are and where members are moving. I think that on this occasion the member has been inside the boundary of what the tenor of the debate has been to date. But I will just caution the member: do not get off-track. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: No I will not get off-track; I will stay on roads Mr Chair. I will stay on roads because here is a fact that poor little Phil Twyford does not really know: in fact funding for local roads has actually gone up. All he needs to do is go to—[ 
Interruption 
] In fact the funding has gone up by 2 or 3 percent. All he needs to do is sit down like a good local member and have a look at the plan for Te Atatu Road and Edmonton Road and the widening and the cycleway. That is what he needs to do. 
So instead of the pie in the sky fetish that he thinks he is talking about he needs to front up to the good folk of Te Atatu and say: “Mr and Mrs Te Atatu this is how I am going to pay for the new ferry service. Mr and Mrs Te Atatu this is how I am going to pay for the busway.” But he has not. And do you know why? Because he has not got a clue—because he has not got a clue. Labour thinks that by having a good idea—or an idea; it does not even have to be a good one—it will just appear. It is the same with “Planet Green”. I cannot wait—well I actually can wait—until they get to the Treasury benches but this is how they do it. They sit there smoking the old weed—well not these fullas—and then they come up with some harebrained idea and because that harebrained idea sort of sounds OK then it is just going to appear: the road and the ferry is just going to appear. 
I wonder whether he has even asked the good people of Te Atatu about the ferry service. 
Hon Member 
: He is. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He has not. So not only has he not costed it out but he was told by the New Zealand Transport Agency that it had already looked at the busway and it was cost-prohibitive. 
Julie Anne Genter 
: That is untrue. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: My advice to the Green member is to jump on one of those roads and get the other half of the tattoo done. I tell you what: there is no way in hell that the good people of Te Atatu can afford the harebrained schemes of Mr Phil Twyford who has only been in the electorate 5 minutes. He has not even paid off a quarter of his mortgage. 
David Bennett 
: Has he got a mortgage? 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: He has got a mortgage all right. This is nothing but pie in the sky dreams from a party that is not going to be anywhere near the Treasury benches for one reason and one reason only and that is that they do not do the hard yards and they do not do the costings. Those costs will be put on the good folk of Te Atatu—a billion dollars. We cannot afford it and here he is promising the earth to the good folk of Te Atatu. Shame on that member. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 Just before I start I would like to put on the record that on this side of the Chamber there are a few people who have got a bit of experience in transport. Speaking as someone who has got their heavy traffic licence I would love to know who else in the Chamber has got their heavy traffic licence. Hands up those on that side of the Chamber who have got their heavy traffic licence. OK good—pretty good. Hands up anyone who has had anyone in their family who has worked in the railways. That is good. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation about just that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Look— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: I have a right to seek leave. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: You have but the practice of this House is that it is done after a member has finished speaking not to interrupt. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: She called me a liar. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Well look the member should raise a point of order about that if that is the case. I never heard that and I am not entering into dialogue with the member. If the member wishes to make a personal statement he should do that when the bell goes. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Maybe he can talk to me about it later. I would like to agree with Simon Bridges on one thing and that is to let us back the workers. Let us back the workers of KiwiRail—4300. Let us back the workers of KiwiRail. Let us back their skills let us back their jobs let us keep their jobs in New Zealand let us value their jobs and let us make sure that those jobs are valued in our country and that those people have a future. We actually do think that it is worthwhile building rolling stock in this country and not buying dodgy stock from other countries. 
There are a few things that New Zealanders are known for the things that make us as a nation stand out. The first one is Kiwi ingenuity. That is that thing that No. 8 wire thing that thing that makes us creative. We are a nation of resourceful people. We are creative inventors. The other is value for money. We like to get the best out of things and we do not like to spend too much. We like quality and we like things to last. We also like a fair go. All of those values have been undermined by this Government’s decision to put the screws on KiwiRail and to buy cheap. You buy cheap and you get cheap. That is what this Government has done. It is rueing and will be rueing the day that it did. 
This Government’s KiwiRail Turnaround Plan is coming back to bite it. It is turning round to bite it on the bum. Its decision to procure the rolling stock from outside New Zealand is coming back to bite it. The first one—well the one that we heard about a week ago—was the 500 wagons that had to have all of their brake pads replaced. What an outrage. All of those wagons could have been produced in this country. Then this week we hear that the prize locomotives—$75 million worth of locomotives that John Key Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee have all praised to the heavens—are a lemon. In fact they are a whole lemon tree. They are plagued by serious faults faults of execution—faults of execution. 
The Chinese have built lots of locos but they have never designed them. We were a test market for them to design those locos. As a result the locos have got serious faults and we are having to pay the price for that. They are costing us around $150 million and the Minister for State Owned Enterprises today could not answer the question in the House as to whether we have paid for the second lot. So maybe the junior transport Minister could get up here tonight and tell us whether this country has paid for that second lot of locos. I think it is pretty important that we know the answer to that question. 
There are some serious questions around this. How long does this warranty last? What is the estimated cost of repairing those locos? What is the loss of revenue to KiwiRail from freight movements while they are under constant repair? And what is the impact on KiwiRail’s freight business? That business is so important to the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan and it is integral to this Government’s turn-round plan. 
I just want to read you a little story about what is happening. The Hillside railway workshops are currently up for sale. Currently KiwiRail Freight wants the ZH wagons modified— 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I seek leave to make a personal explanation with regards to the comments made earlier about my New Zealand Railways whakapapa. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Back in the 1920s my grandfather was a locomotive driver here in Wellington for some 25 years. He had three sons. His oldest son Mita Robert Hoturoa Henare was actually general manager of the New Zealand Railways Department the first Maori to be head of a New Zealand Government department outside the Department of Maori Affairs. He was also the first Maori to graduate as an engineer from Auckland University. His son— 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: You clearly missed your calling. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Actually you are not supposed to interrupt. 
His other son my father was Paul William Henare who was a plumber on the New Zealand Railways. His other brother my uncle Maui David Henare was an electrician on the New Zealand Railways. All three sons of Mita Te Tai Henare also have sons on the railways including my two brothers one an electrician and one now in Perth who is driving trains. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) 
: 
 One has to be a little concerned about what happens in the Labour Party during the dinner break. Firstly we have got Phil Twyford talking about fetishes then we have got Clare Curran sitting directly behind him talking about people getting bitten on the bum and then we have talk about lemon trees as well and what goes on underneath a lemon tree. I am a bit concerned about what happens in the Labour Party during the dinner break. 
What we know from the speeches that we heard from the Opposition benches is that they are completely missing the point about the economic benefits that transport has for New Zealand. We know that the Labour Party members oppose just about everything we do on the economy. We know they oppose just about every job creation policy we have. And now we also have further proof that everything we want to do that will bring an economic benefit to New Zealand through the transport system they also oppose. 
Let us have some real figures around roads. We know the Opposition dislikes roads. Those members hate roads. They think they are evil. They think every dollar spent on roads is terrible when actually the opposite is true. Let us have some numbers. Six percent of roads in New Zealand carry 35 percent of traffic. They carry 19 percent of freight. These high-use roads need further investment. They did not get the further investment required for the last 9 years but we are putting our money where our mouths are. We are spending an extra $12 billion over the next 10 years—$12 billion on transport and roading infrastructure that would never have been spent if it was up to the Labour Party if it was still in Government. That $12 billion is going towards those high-use roads. Ninety-two percent of freight in this country moves on roads. Freight in this country helps to build the economy in this country and 92 percent of freight would be under-invested in if Labour was in office. 
We have got the priorities right with transport. We have got the priorities right with transport because we know New Zealanders have endorsed our plans. They endorsed our plans during the election. They like what we are doing. The provincial areas in this country have been heavily supported through the roads of national significance and the other National Government roading projects. 
One of the most offensive comments that Opposition parties make on transport is to call the Puhoi to Wellsford road a “Holiday Highway”. The people living in the far north and the people living in Rodney know the economic benefits that road will bring. They know that they need to grow as a local economy up there. They know that moving freight from one part of that local economy to another is important for their future growth. And they know that provincial New Zealand needs investment in roads—the investment we are putting in. The Minister in the chair from Tauranga knows this. Todd McClay from Rotorua knows this. Provincial New Zealand knows that we need further investment in this area. 
 The Labour Party probably woke up after election day last year wondering why it had such a poor result in provincial New Zealand. It had such a poor result in provincial New Zealand because it offends provincial New Zealand by speaking against the important roading infrastructure that we are making progress on around the country. 
Let us take the central business district rail loop because the panacea the great transport hope in New Zealand is the central business district rail loop. The central business district rail loop has a benefit-cost ratio of 0.3. Those members like to go on about the roads of national significance. At least the roads of national significance programme has a positive benefit-cost ratio but the great hope for transport in New Zealand the central business district rail loop has a 0.3 benefit-cost ratio. 
Let us talk about the number of cars that the central business district rail loop would take off the road: 1400 cars. That is all the central business district rail loop would do. For $3 billion we would see 1400 cars taken off the road out of the 29000 car movements every day that we have in Auckland. 
I am an Auckland MP. I know that Aucklanders are very very sceptical about the central business district rail loop. They like the fact that we are putting money into the Waterview Connection instead. They like the fact that we have put money into the Victoria Park Tunnel. They like the fact that we are putting money into the Puhoi-Wellsford project and other roads of national significance. Money going on the central business district rail loop without the numbers stacking up would be a waste. For members opposite to tell us that a project that has a 0.3 benefit-cost ratio is more important—[ 
Bell rung 
] Mr Chairman. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Jami-Lee Ross. 
JAMI-LEE ROSS 
: I will be very short Mr Chairman. I will just say that for members opposite to make comments saying that the central business district rail loop is more important that the roads of national significance is wrong it is poor policy and it has been rejected by New Zealanders. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I want to make a contribution to this debate in respect of the comments that have been made about KiwiRail. There has been some talk about people whakapapa-ing back to their railway destiny in terms of the future of KiwiRail. I started my interest in politics as a consequence of an experience with the railways. Rather than talking about dads or somebody else I was working on a rail bridge project in North Canterbury. Let me give you the experience each day: each day we were building the bridge and there were five of us contractors there to build the bridge. Every day a bus full of railway workers—26 of them—came to supervise and ensure that we did not get in the way of the trains. It was a total disgrace. In fact what actually happened was that I was so appalled that this was going on in my country that I borrowed my brother’s VHS recorder—he had one of those newfangled recorders—and sent it to Mr Quigley who was then the Minister of Railways. He invited me to become part of Young Nationals and the rest is history. 
The reason this is relevant to this debate about rail is that what has been the death of rail is the interference of politicians in running a good business. I am appalled that members in this day and age somehow believe that it is politicians who should be making the decisions about the sorts of locomotives that KiwiRail should be buying. If that is the sort of backwards culture that we are going to go into we are going to drag this country back to the sort of Greek rail system that has dragged that country into bankruptcy. 
You see the Government plan that has been set down around the KiwiRail Turnaround Plan is actually about— 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Why did you fire John Judge? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —Mr O’Connor—running rail as a proper business. That means not having decisions about the types of locomotives and the number of staff who are employed—all of those decisions—being made by politicians with agendas a long way from making a successful business. 
I plead with members opposite and with this Committee to learn the lessons of history around railway. The deal that the previous Government did to pay over $600 million for rail in 2008 was totally driven by politics it was a dog of a deal for the taxpayer and it cost this country a fortune. I urge this Parliament if it really wants to have a quality transport system and if it really wants to have a railway system that can serve this country well to let us appoint a qualified robust board of directors. Let them run that enterprise in a proper way rather than the sort of politics that members opposite want to drag railways back into and that will destroy that important part of our transport infrastructure. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Economic Development agreed to.  
Vote Employment 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 We come to what I believe should be a centre point for this Government. One of the key platforms that it should be campaigning on currently is a plan around employment and job creation. This is where we should be seeing the most significant forms of relief to the New Zealand public. It is work and jobs that people desperately need in the midst of what is a very dark recession. Instead what have we seen from this Government around the area of employment? We did hear a very grand plan around the potential creation of 170000 jobs some Budgets ago. Unfortunately at that time we saw no proof that those jobs would actually be generated. In fact over the period through to March 2012 we were meant to have 36000 new jobs coming on stream. 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: That was 36000 new jobs. What have we seen? We have seen roughly 20000 materialise. That may sound significant to some. But when you take into account our growth in population those coming on to the job market and those coming out of tertiary education Mr Joyce because they cannot afford to stay in there any more with the changes that are being made by this Government to that sector 20000 is simply not enough. That has been manifest in some of the statistics that we have seen through for instance our household labour force survey: 6.7 percent of the New Zealand public are unemployed and seeking jobs. We have 87000 young people not in employment not in education and not in training and that is an absolute waste of potential. When your unemployment rate for young people sits at 19 percent that is an explosion just waiting to happen—a ticking time bomb as it were. 
But that actually does not go across all of the measures that tell us we have an issue. The number of people who are jobless has gone up. That is the number of people who are actually willing to work if there was a job for them but have simply given up. Underemployment those who want more hours than what they already have—we have seen that trending up as well. Yet the Government across all of these indicators chooses instead to hone in on the number of people on an unemployment benefit because those numbers are often smaller because of the eligibility questions around who can access that benefit and who cannot. Even on that measure we have gone from roughly 18000 when Labour left office to roughly 50000 now that National is in office. 
The Government tries to have it both ways. Any time you bring up the staggering statistics around unemployment and joblessness what do you hear from this Government? It is the recession. It is the global financial crisis. Any time you hear us raise that the statistics were so much better under a Labour Government you will hear the Government again say that we did not have a global financial crisis or a recession. Yet what do you hear when the Government stands up and talks about benefit changes and about welfare reform? You hear that people are lazy that they do not want to work and that they are taking advantage of the system and that is why we need reform. You cannot have it both ways. Kiwis want to work and the Government’s job is to make sure that businesses are supported to create those jobs that the economy is thriving and that people have the skills training and education to move into work. What should we be seeing therefore in our benefit system as an enabler? We should see intensive case management and we should see as I said sound economic management. 
As I have said fixing the welfare system is actually linked to the idea of a strong well-functioning economy. It is a link that this Government chooses not to make. If you want to fix welfare fix the economy. In fact on this side of the Chamber we have promoted a few ideas around that area. We have a housing shortage. Anyone who lives in Auckland knows this to be a fact. In Christchurch equally we have a significant housing crisis. We also have a skills crisis. We also have a huge number of people seeking work and employment. Labour put all of those things together and suggested to the Government around the last election that it bring in a dole-to-apprenticeship scheme. We said to transfer the amount of money you are spending on the dole for a young unemployed person to a willing employer to subsidise an apprenticeship for that young person. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairman. I would like to take a call on employment because although MPs do not exactly create jobs they are in a position to influence the creation of jobs and most certainly training. Everyone knows that many of the unemployed are Maori and many of them are young people. The previous speaker referred to trade training and creating opportunities for people to enter into the workforce and that is what has been happening. Under Te Puni Kokiri we have established 1800 cadetships in a scheme where people go and work for a company for 6 months. It is subsidised by Te Puni Kokiri—$10000 per student. They are trained for 6 months and are often kept on longer. Many find jobs in those particular areas. These include the electrical supply industry aviation travel infrastructure InfraTrain—all those companies. It is working very well. 
But the good thing that I believe that we have to move into is actual trade training. In Christchurch straight after the earthquake we negotiated with the main builders down there that they should become involved in supporting a trade training programme in particular for Maori because that is my portfolio but also because they are overrepresented in the unskilled untrained and unemployed. So we started this programme He Toki ki te Ringa which is “a tool in the hand to work with” and trained 200 Maori in trade training. It is a joint deal between the Maori education institutions down there along with the Christchurch Polytechnic and the iwi Ngai Tahu. So working together—one providing pastoral care another one providing the actual tuition and another one providing tools and support in that area. It has worked very well. Just recently the Government has put another $1 million into that project so it can carry on and grow. 
That is the formal programme but also down there the Maori who trained in trade training in the 1960s 1970s and 1980s who live in Christchurch where a lot of it was done have come together. They now own companies in carpentry plumbing and the like—the trades—and they have come together and formed a co-op. They have tono-ed and got jobs from Fletcher’s Mainzeal Property and Construction and Hawkins Construction the builders down there. They have got contracts and what they do is they take on young unemployed Maori to work alongside them for a minimum wage but afterwards they give them a full wage in working towards an apprenticeship. I think that is a really good thing that they are doing. 
Now we are going to do another one in Auckland under a programme called “MITE”—Maori into Tertiary Education. It is a programme between all the tertiary institutions there where any young person can trace how to become a carpenter how to become a nurse how to become a doctor how to become a lawyer or whatever profession or trade they are interested in. Once again we are going to get different employer groups together to see whether they would also take on young people and train them in those areas of work as well. We will be calling all the trade trainees of the 1960s and 1970s in Auckland to come together for a hui and a dinner and at that time we will present the kaupapa to them. We expect quite a lot of support from them to take up these apprentices to work for them. 
I think these are all positive and what I do think about it is that it is something that any of us can get involved in. For example down in Napier we have a situation where young gang prospects were gathered together by the local iwi and told to take off their jackets and come into the compound. A tutor from the local polytech in Napier comes in and he gives them free tuition for 1 year in carpentry. At the end of that they enrol formally into the polytech and become students there to carry on and do their apprenticeships. Out of the 29 students or gang prospects 27 are still on that programme. They have lost only two. They have got rid of their jackets; they do not even bring them any more. They are looked after in pastoral care by the elders who teach them the etiquette of the marae and teach them how to speak Maori. They teach them about pride dress and the basic pastoral care of living and belonging. I think that combination for many people who have been long-term unemployed of pastoral care together with training and together with guidance is a very good formula that actually works. So I look forward to that programme extending. We are going to take it to Waipukurau just a few miles down then hopefully it will extend to Wairoa where there is real need for employment. So there is much we can do even though we are MPs and do not actually have the industry ourselves to create jobs. But we can work with other people to do so. Thank you. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 It is very important that we have this discussion around employment because it is a crucial thing. I think what the whole Committee is interested in is the growth of jobs in the economy. In fact I think nearly everybody in the Chamber if you said to them: “Do you want more and higher-paying jobs in New Zealand?” would say: “Yep that’s a very good thing. I’ll sign up to that.” Where the problem comes immediately is where they go next. 
I would firstly like to thank the Hon Pita Sharples for his comments on the training programmes because they are an important part of bringing the economy forward. In fact I made some announcements on industry training today which we may get the opportunity to discuss in a later vote. 
The real challenge of growing the economy is what you are prepared to do to let jobs grow here and what you are prepared to do to let businesses have the opportunity to succeed in this country. That means what opportunities you are going to let them take to actually be successful. Where it all unravels on the other side of the Chamber is that they say they are very concerned about jobs but all of their initiatives involve effectively taxpayers subsidising some activity some more. As we know from Spain Greece and other countries like that that is a path that leads down in only one direction and that is too much debt which basically removes the sovereignty of those countries to decide what it is they want to do. So that is your problem. The solution for everybody on that side of the Chamber is to spend more borrowed money in order to persuade people to do things that they would not otherwise do. 
What are the opportunities? The opportunities are hugely important. There are opportunities in things like oil and gas in things like the intensification of agriculture in things like allowing people to build convention centres and in things like allowing foreign investors to come in and invest in businesses here. All those things are things that the Labour Party opposes and that various other members of the Opposition oppose. So on the one hand we have the member Jacinda Ardern popping up and saying: “I really care about jobs. I really care about jobs.” and then she sits down and once again those members go back to opposing oil and gas exploration they go back to opposing intensification of agriculture they go back to opposing most things that could immediately— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Aquaculture. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Aquaculture is another one that they are against and all of those things. They do not want to change the Resource Management Act and they do not want to speed up the consenting processes to get decisions made more quickly—not to change the decisions but to get the decisions made more quickly. That is why nobody takes them seriously when it comes to economic growth and jobs. Every time they open their mouths they prove they are not interested in them. It is weasel words and crocodile tears about the job situation in this country. 
Do you know that the lowest unemployment rate in Australasia is in a place called Western Australia? Western Australia has the lowest unemployment rate in Australasia. It is about 3.5 percent— 
Hon Member 
: And why is that? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —and that is in Western Australia. Well why do you think that is? I think it is because in that state they allow oil and gas exploration and mineral exploration. That is why. Tasmania incidentally has strong opposition to economic growth and its unemployment rate is 7.4 percent. That is where the Labour Party would take us. It would take us further down the Tasmanian path. That is where the Greens want to take us. Well frankly we on this side of the Chamber know what it takes to create jobs and growth and we are focused on it. It is not about just sitting there wringing your hands and thinking up another rinky-dink scheme where you can borrow some more money from incidentally foreign moneylenders spray it around the place and consider that you are doing something useful when in fact you are just heading us towards the Spanish situation which nobody in this country wants except for the Labour Party. That is why it is as popular as it is. 
Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram) 
: 
 I am more than happy to take a call on Vote Employment because we have a major problem in this country: 87000 of our young people are not in any form of education employment or training. We just heard the Minister in the chair the Minister for Economic Development take a call. He spent the whole time telling us the problem with Labour without actually putting out a plan to get people into jobs. We have a dole queue that is growing and we see him sitting there saying that Labour opposes things but we are not seeing any kind of positive plan from the Government about how to arrest this. 
We have 87000 of our young people thrown on the scrap heap. There are 87000 of our young people who do not see hope in this country. They do not see opportunity in this country and what is happening? They are leaving on a jet plane. They are literally stampeding to Australia—61937 young New Zealanders aged 18 to 30 have packed their bags and have given up making a life in New Zealand since 2008. 
We have 19 percent unemployment amongst our youth. There are no jobs there is no hope and there is no opportunity. All we can hear in speeches and chipping across the Chamber from members opposite is that this is because Australia has mining. This seems to be the extent of the analysis that the Government is capable of when it comes to looking at what it takes to grow an economy. What we have here is a Government that has an inability to join the dots. 
We heard a very good speech earlier this evening about the Maori trade training scheme of the 1950s 1960s and 1970s and what a success that was. That was Labour Prime Minister Peter Fraser’s willingness to see a problem that we had with unemployment amongst Maori youth and to see a solution—that we also needed a stock of housing built in this country. He did not sit idly by and wait for it to happen magically. His Government was an active Government that joined the dots and made it happen. 
There is so much similarity with what we are seeing in this country now. We have a housing crisis we need young people with skills we need young people equipped but we have a Government that is failing to even spend the money it has appropriated to train our young people. It is failing to spend the money that it has set aside to train the next generation of carpenters sparkies and plumbers. The Government is failing our young people. It could be setting them up for employment for life. There is a failure to seize these opportunities. 
The Minister told us at the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the Government was not about to frogmarch young people into training but it is actually reluctant to even see the connections with the opportunities that exist. We have a Government that is more than willing to frogmarch young people all around the places it has shown us with its welfare reforms but it has an unwillingness to use this opportunity that we have to train a generation of our young people. It has shown time and time again that this commitment is not there. The Government voted against my amendment that would have explicitly named trade training under Skills for Canterbury as one of the options presented to our 87000 young people who are not in work education or training. It voted it down. 
This is a Government that does not even know how many of our 87000 young people are moving off benefits and into training because it is not bothering to collect the data that goes across on this. There is absolutely no commitment. We have a whole lot of rhetoric. We have crocodile tears but we are not seeing an active Government connecting the dots and making sure that young people in this country have a future. 
The Government is willing to lay down the law to those on benefits and suggests training schemes that are not leading to real employment and career opportunities. What the Government lacks is a positive plan to give those on benefits the skills and opportunities to make something of themselves. Canterbury and New Zealand are crying out for skilled workers and yet this Government just cannot make the connection between our unemployed young people and what is needed in this country. There is a lack of jobs for our young people. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Science and Innovation 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: The question now is that Vote Science and Innovation stand part of the schedules. Those who are of that opinion will please say Aye to the contrary No. The Ayes have it. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry I have already put the question. It is gone. You were too slow. All I can suggest is that the member seek leave. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I seek leave to have a call. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action? There is. Sorry. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Tertiary Education 
TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the tertiary education estimates for 2012-13 as the education spokesperson for New Zealand First. There is little time to cover all of the contradictory statements and actions with regard to education that this Government this Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment and this Budget make to the students and education professionals of this nation but I will start with the fact that this Minister and this Government keep making statements about the need for a knowledge-based economy and then put financial barriers in the way of the very citizens who are seeking to be part of that economy. This Minister and this Government speak of lifelong learners but one of this Government’s first actions when it came into power was to cut funding to the adult and community education field removing the opportunities for second-chance learners to the tune of $14 million. The overall tertiary education expenditure for 2012 is $60 million less than it was in 2011. Adult and community education has suffered even further cuts and so has the funding of adult literacy and numeracy while at the same time in this Budget there are increased subsidies for private companies that want to make a profit from selling education. 
In my community from Orewa to Whangarei women hoping to return to the workforce—well not just hoping any more; these are widows and women living alone who now under new legislation must go out and upskill themselves and find employment—employees who are seeking to upskill to improve their promotional possibilities and older students who need to get National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1 2 or 3 so they can partake in the Minister’s focus on level 4 have zero access to adult and community education. There has been no adult and community education in the area from 2009 and therefore they have zero opportunity to get anywhere near the Government’s rhetorical targets. 
Here we have a Government and a Minister that laud our education system overseas. They recognise and market our international reputation as an exceptional education system. They market that fact so that they can draw in foreign students to our shores with the view to making money from those students while at the same time removing support for its own citizens—the children the students of their own taxpayers. 
 Previously in this House I have had to commiserate with the Rt Hon Dr Lockwood Smith on the direction that the National Party is taking on education matters. Previously that was around technology teachers; now it is around the student allowance. In 2006 Dr Smith told the  
Sunday Star-Times  
that he would have preferred a universal student allowance scheme or at the very least one that hit wage and salary-earning families less hard. 
Let us not forget in all this argument here that the very people making these budgetary decisions the very people who are telling our students to go out and protest on the streets like in Greece are the people who pulled the educational investment ladder back up from behind them—that is Bill English Steven Joyce John Key Hekia Parata and Peter Dunne to name just a few. They all got a tertiary education for nothing. They were all invested in by the grandparents of the students who today under this Budget get nothing—or virtually nothing—and I would suggest that those grandparents need to come and get a refund. 
When National’s Wyatt Creech introduced the student loan scheme in 1992 20 years ago this year the upper allowance for students living away from home was $109.25 per week. Under this Budget the same student can now look forward to $170.80 per week. So over the last 20 years this living allowance—because it is an allowance to live on—has increased by $61.55. That is just over $3 per year. We have heard a lot about the Labour Party living on “Planet Labour”. I do not know what planet the National Government or the Minister live on if they think that over the last 20 years the cost of living in this country has risen by only 1.8 percent per year. In the year 2011 alone the price of fruit and vegetables—just fruit and vegetables for that single year—increased by 8.1 percent. 
To add insult to injury in 2006 when Dr Smith was concerned about these things the parental income threshold to get a student allowance was $64000 gross; now it is $55026. So not only have parents’ incomes got lower because of the rising cost of living and not only have their children’s allowances got less valuable but the Government tells their children that without this education they and the country will not be a success. And it has extended the freeze on the increase in the parental income threshold— 
DAVID CLENDON (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I would like to talk a little about the tertiary sector. To say that the sector is under stress is almost an understatement. Right throughout this year for staff for students for general staff for academics and for technical staff everybody is feeling the stress of an under-resourced underappreciated and under-supported sector. This is despite the fact that as the previous speaker Tracey Martin noted we are constantly told of the significance and importance of the tertiary sector in producing the New Zealand we want in terms of economic development and in terms of building a stronger better society. Unfortunately the rhetoric is not matched by the support by the Budget as we see from the documents we got earlier this year. 
The increased funding committed for the 2012-13 year to the tertiary sector looks like a 3.5 percent increase on the previous year. We know of course that with the growing demand for tertiary education at universities at polytechs at private training establishments and elsewhere there is a greater demand costs have gone up and actually the 3.5 percent nominal increase looks very much like a cut for the sector. I think that the lack of support and the lack of resourcing of the sector reflect the fact that this Government and this Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment seem to think that tertiary institutions are more in the nature of machines for processing people. You plug people in one end and you drop lumps of information on them. They swallow those lumps of information and come out the other end with a degree and a credential. 
Actually teaching and learning are not like that. You do not start with a clean slate. Institutions of learning are communities. They are learning communities or ought to be. I know this because I worked in that sector for 12 or 13 years. When you get a genuine community of academics of support staff of funders of teachers and of course of students that is when tertiary education actually works. Tertiary institutions are not simply machines for processing for delivering a commodity called education because education is not a commodity it is a lifelong process of give and take teaching and learning and ought to be seen in that context. 
One of the obvious symptoms of course of the lack of support for the tertiary sector is the announcement this afternoon that Canterbury University is going to be obliged to lose some 150 staff over the next 3 years and that is a great tragedy in many ways. I had a meeting with some senior academics from Canterbury just a couple of weeks ago and they flagged what they knew was likely to be a fairly uncomfortable future for them. They gave me a copy of this document entitled  
What If an Earthquake Made Us All Smarter? 
. Being good Cantabrians they have not sat around waiting for somebody to come to them with a solution. They have been thinking and working incredibly hard to look for a positive future to rebuild that university and not only to make it as good as it was—which was very good—but actually to make it better more sustainable and more resilient. 
They make the point in this document which has been around for a few weeks or a month or two at least that “Without significant investment the earthquakes foreshadow a concerning future for [the University of Canterbury] over the next 10 years.” The announcement today indicates that that concerning future is a reality. I have some sympathy for the vice-chancellor Rod Carr. I am sure he did not enjoy making that announcement today that 150 academics and/or other staff can expect to lose their jobs over the following 3 years. 
Canterbury University is in an incredible position to exploit a tragedy quite frankly. These academics understand this. They talk about having a centre of research a “global centre of research and teaching in earthquake studies and disaster resilience and recovery;”. Canterbury has always had a very strong reputation. The Centre for Advanced Engineering along with Scion and other agencies has been doing a great deal of very good work around building in timber. We know that there is a laboratory a living laboratory called Canterbury where we could discover how it is that communities rebuild how they come back—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! There is a telephone ringing in the Chamber. This is not a tollbooth or a telephone box; this is a debating chamber. The member who has it please turn it off. 
DAVID CLENDON 
: There is a wonderful opportunity to attract academics internationally to provide opportunities for our own academics and our own students to engage in action research which is research intended to understand to discover things as they happen and to feed back projects processes— 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker David Clendon for his lecture as to what a university does and also for his assertion that this Government is about rhetoric when it comes to tertiary education. I would like to now dispel that with some facts. I would have thought that somebody who lectured at a university might be focused on a few facts because facts can be quite helpful to discern the difference between what is actually happening and what could be known as rhetoric. So I would like to make a few comments if I could because I think this Government has made very good progress in strengthening our tertiary system. Here is some of the evidence. In 2012 we are funding the highest number of core tertiary places that have ever been funded in New Zealand universities and the wider tertiary system—13200 more places in 2012 than in 2008. It is not “bums on seats” either as we are also funding for performance for completing courses and for qualifications and every institution has 5 percent of its tuition funding at risk so that they focus on that. 
We are getting better results for priority learners than has been done previously for those who have struggled historically. For example Maori at university now have 5500 more places than in 2008 and their completion rates are up too. 
We are making great progress in literacy and numeracy. I note that the member for New Zealand First was concerned about that. Well she will be pleased to know that the expectation out of embedded literacy and numeracy at foundation levels means that this year there will be 122000 people taking courses at foundation level with embedded literacy and numeracy which is up from 36000 2 years ago and is up from 15000 just after we came into office. 
 We have also made great progress in simplifying and reducing qualifications in New Zealand which was a big issue when we arrived in office. People were crying out for a reduction in the number of qualifications between levels 1 and 6. We are down to 3500 and we will be down to about 1300 by the end of 2014. 
We have also made some very good progress in the industry training space which is very very important because the industry training space was not going at all well when we came into office: 53 percent of trainees in 2008 and 54 percent in 2009 achieved no credits at all—no credits. They were phantom trainees. They were trainees of the previous Government’s imagination. We have since seen a real lift in performance of industry training organisations. We have had a 19 percent increase in credit achievements from 2008 to 2010 and the provisional results for last year now suggest that we are getting a 70 percent credit rate achievement in industry training. So that is a good result too. 
On top of that we had the Green member saying that New Zealand universities were poor and struggling. Well I can tell him the good news. They may have been in 2008 but in 2012 we have now got university incomes up by 13.5 percent in the global financial crisis. So they may have been struggling 4 years ago but their incomes 13.5 percent higher today with a 2.9 percent increase in university incomes in the last year alone. So that should help Mr Clendon with his problems with the facts. 
New Zealand’s tertiary education system is healthy it is getting healthier and it is also doing it during the global financial crisis. And in Budget 2012 we are investing more. We are investing an additional $42 million in engineering over the next 4 years. We are investing an extra $17 million in science teaching at universities we are putting $100 million extra into research at universities we are putting in $30 million to reduce the funding gap between public and private tertiary providers and we are putting in 3000 more Youth Guarantee places over the next 4 years. That is what we are doing to invest in tertiary education. So we have a member popping up criticising the Government for being about rhetoric and telling stories and then doing exactly what he said the Government was doing. Then he sits down and he does not realise that all these facts say that the New Zealand tertiary system is going much better. 
What is more we are supporting Canterbury University. Yes it is in times of trouble. We have maintained its funding. We have made sure that we have stood behind it. We are working with the university in terms of investment opportunities going forward so that it can lift itself again to actually invest in areas where there is strong student support. We are taking that business case forward. Yes Canterbury University has had difficulties. One of its faculties has lost 1000 students as a result of the earthquake and the member seems to be suggesting that it should not adjust its staffing at all to reflect its new reality. Well it is tough and I feel for those people who are not necessarily going to be able to stay in that role but for the sake of the other 2000 people working at that university and the thousands and thousands of students we have to acknowledge the reality of what happened. We have to invest in the future but we have to take it forward and we have to be realistic about what is going on. 
We are investing significantly in the tertiary education system. Before I sit down I would like to make one comment for Tracey Martin the speaker before Mr Clendon who criticised the idea of international students coming to New Zealand as if it was a bad thing. Well it is not a bad thing. It is good for this country. It is good for this country to have the people-to-people links that international students bring to this country when they come in. Frankly when the Chinese the Indians students from the other Asian communities the English the Europeans and those from the US come here they do some learning. Yes they provide some income for New Zealanders and when they go back they are lifelong friends for New Zealand. That is helpful to have when you are a small country in a small waka at the bottom of the world. International education despite what New Zealand First members think is not bad. It is good for this country actually. Those members need to realise that it is a positive thing that we invest in it and happily it does not take away any places from domestic students. So it is all good stuff. 
So you can relax Mr Clendon because the tertiary system is in good hands. If you want to debate facts I am happy to do so at any time. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I call the honourable member— 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: I am taking a short call on the tertiary education estimates— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have not called the member yet. I have not called the member. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Oh! I thought you had. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I see you were out of the starting gates really early this time. I call the honourable member. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Oh you have called me without naming me. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I have called the honourable member. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 It is an absolute pleasure to take a call on the tertiary education estimates. I must say I thought it was somewhat mean-spirited and sad that Mr Hipkins from the Labour Party denied me a call on the science and innovation part of these estimates because tertiary education and science and innovation are inextricably linked and we have a great story to tell. It is very very sad that the Labour Party is not interested in this vital area for New Zealand’s future for our economic growth— 
Chris Hipkins 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. As you well know members are entitled to object to leave being sought and it is not in order to then go into a rant and a rave about that. If the member is too incompetent to get up and seek the call— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! The member was doing very well up to a certain point and then he went a step too far. But I notice that the member is coming to the debate. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: Absolutely. I am talking about the estimates for tertiary education because it is all very good news. What I wanted to make very clear was that the total direct cross-portfolio science innovation and research funding which includes tertiary education has risen significantly—17 percent year on year since 2008—and this is in pretty difficult economic times. So the record is one of substantial progress. 
What is of particular note is that this Government has indeed recognised that New Zealand’s future economic growth cannot be dependent just on primary products and cannot be dependent just on tourism but indeed is highly dependent on value-added products whether they are manufacturing or our agrifood products which this Government has indeed concentrated on. I wanted to just make the comment that the Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment did—that these estimates include $100 million of additional research funding in terms of the Performance-based Research Fund to $300 million by 2016. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Judith wants to get on to ACC. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: This is hugely welcomed—hugely welcomed Mr Hipkins—by the various universities because this is the one area where they do indeed have the opportunity to do this sort of research. And this is the funding that creates the idea flow that is absolutely vital for innovation and its ultimate commercialisation in New Zealand and I would hope Mr Hipkins that in the future you may take some interest in it—Mr Hipkins? 
Chris Hipkins 
: Yes. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: So the point is Mr Hipkins be well aware that this Government has cemented in a substantial $100 million in these estimates over the next 4 years. As well as that there has been this increase of $42 million in operating funding for engineering; an additional $17 million operating funding for science students which is a 2 percent funding increase per equivalent full-time student; and $100 million as we have said for the Performance-based Research Fund which is hugely important for the wider science and innovation budget. Clearly this Government has made a great focus on this area over the last 4 years making a transformation from a time when New Zealand had really forgotten about the area of science and innovation. The percentage of GDP that was invested had been static for 9 to 10 long years and now fortunately it has come up. 
So I just want to finish by once again saying that this is an area that under this National Government has seen a renaissance in funding has seen a renaissance in focus and indeed is going to make a huge difference in terms of the economic development and the ability to retain graduates who go through our tertiary education system as we have it right now. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote ACC 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
: 
 As we all know ACC is a very vital institution to the well-being and the livelihood of this great country of ours. It contributes enormously and it is a key part of the productivity of this country. Every wage and salary earner contributes to it every business contributes to it and every owner of a motor vehicle contributes to it. It is a very vital institution in this country. This House appropriates around about $1 billion a year for it in this current financial year both for the non-earners account and also to fund the work of what was the Department of Labour which is now a division of the ministry of various other things under Steven Joyce in terms of the support work it does on ACC policy. Because of the importance of ACC in New Zealand the need for careful stewardship cannot be understated or underestimated. So the question has to be asked: why is it that this Government has made such an almighty hash of this vital institution? 
We all know it started with the previous Minister for ACC who will go down in New Zealand’s history as the worst Minister for ACC in the entirety of the life of that institution. He ran it in such a way that he has fleeced New Zealanders of $5 billion or more over 3 years. He ran down the quality of the service of ACC and led a culture of disentitlement that the present Minister has now had to try to fix up. The question now looking ahead will be: is this Minister for ACC and the measures that she has put in place up to the job of restoring confidence in ACC? 
Until now we have had the massive levies that had to be cut because this Government was so embarrassed about the size of them. 
The number of reviews and appeals being applied for by claimants has shot up. The proportion of cases lost by ACC has shot up because the truth is that the previous Minister for ACC and the previous administration could not care less about what happened to ACC claimants until Bronwyn Pullar came along. Then the previous Minister showed an interest in ACC that hitherto had not been shown. It was his old mate Bronwyn Pullar. The Minister intervened. It was a bit like an episode of  
Undercover Boss 
 where in a large organisation the boss descends from on high finds one problem with one person and fixes that problem but forgets that there are systemic problems throughout the organisation. So he did such a fantastic job that when the Government was re-elected he had to resign as a consequence. That is the successful performance of the previous Minister for ACC with this institution. 
But the truth is that that privacy breach—that massive privacy breach—was symptomatic of much deeper problems in ACC. There was a total failure of service and support to so many claimants particularly those who were long-term claimants who had serious conditions and who needed the attention of ACC. It has led to a meltdown of catastrophic proportions. What have we seen? We have seen a chair of ACC go. We have seen the chief executive officer go. We have seen three directors of ACC—and it does not have that many—go. We now have three separate inquiries two by the Privacy Commissioner and one by the Auditor-General into this once-fine institution. Public confidence in ACC has been totally shattered and it is entirely because of the failure of political leadership. 
The fact that so many people at the governance level have left ACC is in my view a stunning vote of no confidence in this Minister. But let us give her the benefit of the doubt. She has set out a new plan. There is a new service and purchase agreement with this Minister which she herself signed last month. Let us just have a look at it. “Priority 1:”—for ACC in the period ahead—is “Improved Trust and Confidence”. Then let us have a look at the detail of that. Improved trust and confidence—a demand for a culture change. It says: “ACC will invest in ensuring quality leadership of the Corporation through increasing management capability and training. The investment will aim to facilitate a real culture change within ACC resulting in better management of relationships …”. 
What is the measure for this improvement? What is the measure for this lifting of public trust and confidence? “Quality leadership will be measured by an increase in the number of managers who participate in management and leadership training modules.” That is the measure. It is not about the number of complaints that go to ACC’s internal complaints office. It is not about the number of reviews and appeals that it faces because people have had bad decisions made about them. It is about the number of training exercises that management have been on. 
So what is the answer going to be to a claimant who is deprived of their just entitlements in the scheme? “We have declined you but goodness me don’t complain because the person who declined you went on a management training regime just recently.” Well that is not an answer. That is not about lifting quality. There is no measure in the service and purchase agreement that is about measuring what actually matters to people who use ACC and that is the quality of support and service that they are getting. 
What else have we got? Vocational rehabilitation and home care—under this Minister a whole new arrangement has been entered into a procurement arrangement for rehabilitation and home care. A contract has been let for the management and coordination of vocational rehabilitation. The largest contract has gone to would you believe it an Australian company to manage ACC vocational rehabilitation. This is another Australian company—30 percent of ACC’s vocational rehabilitation is now going to be managed by an Australian company. 
The way it works is this. ACC decided that 12 percent of the cost of vocational rehabilitation is tied up in management so ACC is going to give that to the Australian contractor—at least the 30 percent of the business that it has got. That is going to come out of the back pockets of the service providers who are stressed enough as it is and ultimately the price will be paid by those who look to ACC for vocational rehabilitation. It will be paid through fewer visits and less service and support by those providers. So much for the culture change. So much for improving public trust and confidence in ACC. 
What else have we got? We have got the Cabinet decision made in October last year on the eve of the election to expand the Accredited Employers Programme. This is the private part of ACC but we do not hear much about it. It has got its own problems. But under this Minister we have a plan by this Government to expand it. The complaints we are getting about the Accredited Employers Programme are that HR managers are intervening in decisions about health care treatment and rehabilitation which are properly the province of medical providers. 
What else have we got? Spending on injury prevention has been going down steadily under this Government and is expected to go down more in the year ahead. 
Then what about this? ACC—more than $20 billion of funds under management—is expected to have an ethical investment regime. What do we see it investing in? ACC is a 30 percent investor in the private company now set up to build and run Wiri Prison. ACC is an investor in the Wiri Prison. How is it that an institution that is set up to provide care and support for those who are injured those who are victims of accidents finds itself investing in locking up people removing their liberty and penalising and punishing them? That is not part of ACC’s remit. That is not part of its mandate. 
I say to this Committee that if the current plan is anything to go by this Minister who is called upon to restore public trust and confidence is simply not capable of doing it. Restoring public trust and confidence is not going to be measured by what we know is written in the plans for ACC in the year and years ahead. That is the appalling thing about it. 
The challenge for this Government is to restore this institution to what it once was—an institution that was about giving people the support and assistance the medical care the medical treatment and the vocational rehabilitation that sometimes are needed for those who are victims of accidents. That is what ACC was set up for as part of a community partnership between people wage and salary earners business and the Government—not as an investor in prisons and not about cutting vocational rehabilitation and making it worse for those who need it but as an institution that we can look to again to be proud of and to do the job that we expect of it. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 Just listening to the previous speaker Andrew Little my mind drifted to an old Elton John song—remember the one from the 1970s or 1980s—that went something like this: “Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word”. I think there are a couple of members on the other side who might reflect on whether “sorry” is such a hard word to say for the things that they have said inside and outside this Chamber. But the biggest apology should come from the party and from the previous Labour Minister for ACC Maryan Street for the total mess that that party when in Government left ACC in. It seems like it is a broken record having to remind the public and members of this Committee what that mess was: $2.4 billion in 2008 and $4.2 billion in 2009. The member who has just resumed his seat talked about the almighty hash of ACC. I kind of agree with that; I just do not agree with the time frame that he was talking about. And I can think of a few worse Ministers for ACC in its history than the previous Minister Nick Smith. In fact I would suggest to that member that it is not quite mission accomplished but given the financial mess that this Government has inherited and the $7.2 billion— 
Sue Moroney 
: Ha ha! What a joke. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: See they chuckle they laugh and they think it is a joke. They think that somehow reporting a combined deficit of $7.2 billion is something of a joke. 
Andrew Little 
: It wasn’t a deficit. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: And that member when not a member of Parliament accused everybody else of a jack-up—accused the Minister— 
Andrew Little 
: This member can’t read accounts. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: I am sorry did the member say I cannot read an account? Well I am sorry I am only a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. Apparently a union hack now can read accounts better than a chartered accountant. Well I am sorry but I think it is worth repeating something in this Chamber: how many times have you been an accountant— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: —has that member been an accountant? I apologise. We have heard that a bit before. 
Hon Member 
: How many times has he been sued? 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: That is right. Clearly if you think that a $7.2 billion loss is OK then somebody needs to go back to accounting school do they not? If they do not think the loss was real here is what was real: the 55 percent increase in levies that the levy payers of this country were faced with on average had the turn-round not been put in place—a 55 percent increase. That is not mythical. Every single levy payer in this country—every employer every employee every motor vehicle user every person who uses those services—was faced with a 55 percent increase. And why? Well it is a simple reason. The previous Labour ACC spokesman David Parker seemed to think it was because of the economic downturn. There is no doubt that the investment returns in ACC were lower as a consequence of the recession but that is only half the story. The simple fact is that ACC had budgeted for that and had built it into its levies. In fact its investment returns were higher than budgeted and certainly higher than the average returns being enjoyed by other institutional investors. Here is why— 
Hon Maryan Street 
: No they had not built it into their levies Mr Woodhouse. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE 
: Ah welcome to the debate. It is a simple word I say to that member; it is just a five-letter word: it is “sorry”. And here is why: rehabilitation rates plummeted. Exit rates at 90 days 180 days and 12 months dropped. For every percentage that the rehabilitation rate at 1 year dropped that was $500 million more on the levy payer—$500 million more. The cumulative effect of that on the net present cost of the claims into the future was billions and billions and billions of dollars. It is absolutely not acceptable to say that ACC had a few billion dollars in the bank. It had a $24 billion liability. Thankfully it is being turned round. I congratulate this Government on being able to return half a billion dollars of levies back into the pockets of hard-working levy payers. There are some issues with privacy I accept that and I have a lot of sympathy for those who have been affected by the privacy leaks. But I am very very confident that the Minister is able to articulate very clearly what this Government’s expectations are for ACC. It is about restoring trust and confidence because no doubt they have taken a dent but I can tell the members they are much much higher than they were 3½ years ago when this Government inherited the mess and took office; it is continuing to fix the mess. I look forward to that continuing under this Minister. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this matter of Vote ACC. I have enjoyed the contributions tonight particularly those from Mr Woodhouse and I was interested in some of the comments made by Mr Little. I thought I would come back to the estimates because after all this is actually the debate on the estimates and see just how important Mr Little thought this area of ACC was. I found out that it was not at all important obviously because there is no transcript and there is no report; it is simply all accepted. Not one question was asked of me in the estimates hearings. That tells me that the crocodile tears that we have referred to tonight were in fact absolutely there present this evening. 
I also noted his comments describing my predecessor Dr Nick Smith as—what was it—the worst Minister for ACC. Oh no I beg to differ. The worst Minister for ACC was the Minister who completely forgot about the injury prevention programme and who got caught drink-driving. I think that was the worst Minister for ACC. That was the Hon Ruth Dyson who as I recall after a wee while out in the cold was brought back in as a Minister in the Helen Clark - led Government. What was that about standards I heard them talking about today? I actually think she was the worst Minister for ACC and I thought that was a stunning—stunning—comment from Mr Little given that he must know about Miss Dyson’s problems and yet he continued to go down that road. 
I think it is a very serious issue to actually look at the service agreement and I notice that Mr Little referred to only one of the areas where I said to ACC that I expect to see improvement. I thought I would speak to the Committee tonight about some of the areas. Apart from improving public trust and confidence which I believe is an absolutely paramount important issue for ACC I expect to see improved management and security of private information. I believe that that has not been given the priority that it should have been given primarily because the board and the organisation of ACC were so focused on having to fix up the financial mess they inherited. 
The next one is to maintain a focus on levy stability and financial sustainability. That is absolutely crucial. ACC is an icon in this country. This is the only country in the world with accident compensation. It is a world leader and we are pretty much out on our own. Some countries and jurisdictions have things similar to ACC— 
Andrew Little 
: How much in funds under investment? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —but nothing to the extent that it is here. I see that Mr Little is now going to be a big lion. He was a real mouse in the select committee I understand. 
The other focus is to provide high-quality services for clients and to ensure early resolution of disputes. Mr Little was talking about the reviews in that. He forgot to mention that to the Committee—he has forgotten a few things. It is about ensuring early resolution of disputes and providing high-quality services for clients. What is there to argue about with that? 
Andrew Little 
: Why have you cut the funding for vocational rehabilitation? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Did he mention that? No he did not. Oh he is talking about vocational rehabilitation. Of course Mr Little does not like Australians. We found that out tonight. We already know that the Labour Party does not like Chinese—we heard that today in question time—but now it does not like Australians. I did not hear a peep out of him when he was a trade union official and he realised just how much money ACC pays to the trade unions to provide health and safety assistance. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: How much? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I understand that it is around $1 million a year—around that. It is all contracted of course to provide that. So Mr Little when in his New Zealand Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union organisation might have received some of that. I am not sure whether he did. Did your organisation receive any of that Mr Little? He does not want to answer that one. We do know that Mr Little does not want to answer it because he does not like Australians. We already know that the Labour Party does not like Chinese and now it does not like any organisation that might take some of the business away from trade unions. I have got no problems working with trade unions on this. I am happy to be able to do so. I met with Helen Kelly the other day who is very good to deal with. I am happy to work with them but I think we do need to be just a little bit up front about some of the financial realities in this. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: What did she say about Andrew Little? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Oh she did not say a thing. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Justice 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I want to take just a short call on this. There is so much good news. In fact I thought what we would do is talk a little bit about the courtesy and the very good questions that I have received from the Justice and Electoral Committee. I thought it was an outstanding committee well chaired by Tim Macindoe MP for Hamilton West and as I say the questions were all intelligent and focused on what they needed to be and mostly that is about delivering better public services. 
I will happen to indulge members by showing them the fantastic booklet that has been put out for everybody to be able to see. This is the Government justice sector agencies working together with 
a plan. We all have our areas obviously: the Ministry of Justice the New Zealand Police the Department of Corrections Crown Law and the Serious Fraud Office. All these various agencies of Government in the justice sector have committed to not just working together but seriously working together with the leadership board with our justice sector Ministers meeting very regularly and with something that is a serious innovation for this Government—and any Government frankly—for the first time ever which is a Justice Sector Fund. What that means is not that the New Zealand Police loses its budget or that the Ministry of Justice loses its budget; it means that we have our budgets but we also are looking across our sector to say how we can better use the money that we have got within our sector. 
We have been given the confidence of Cabinet to be able to say this is how we think we could better spend our money and this is how we could get a better result. Our results are very clearly and unashamedly focused on bringing down crime having less youth crime—having fewer young people go through the Youth Court—having fewer people coming before the courts in the first place and having less crime and so far it has been working really well. Even though we did not have a formal system of this in the last term of Government we were certainly working towards it and this is formalised now. 
We have a great story to tell in New Zealand about justice particularly in the last 3 years and that is that crime is now down to 1982 levels. Minister Tolley as the Minister of Corrections was able to announce a wee while ago the closure of a couple of prisons particularly old dilapidated prisons like the one at New Plymouth and also Mt Crawford prison which belong to not just another century but another two centuries ago. It is absolutely impossible to expect serious rehabilitation to be undertaken in prisons such as the Taranaki one—the New Plymouth one—which was built as a hospital during the Land Wars of Taranaki. 
I have visited most of these prisons and I can tell the Committee it really is important to focus on rehabilitation and we have to have the right environment for that to occur. We also need some economies of scale so that the right rehabilitation programmes can be undertaken and that the culture of the organisation in the prison can be very much focused towards that. So we have a great story happening in the Department of Corrections and happening in the New Zealand Police—particularly around the Policing Excellence programme which I announced about 2 years ago and that is now tracking along well. Neighbourhood policing teams have been put in place and the police are focused on Prevention First which I think is incredibly sensible and is showing such reductions in the crime rate but also increases in public safety the public’s feeling of safety and the public’s confidence in the police. I can advise the Committee that the New Zealand Police is now the highest ranked and rated agency in the country even ahead of family general practitioners. That has never happened before. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: And nurses. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: They are the highest—according to what I have read Mr Ryall—ranked and rated organisation. That tells me that the police have been doing a fantastic job. They have great leadership they have the right people there and they are backed 100 percent by this Government to do their job. 
That does not mean to say that we accept any slacking behaviour any behaviour that is not in accordance with their code of conduct but what we do know is that they joined the police for the right reasons and we want them to be there for the right reasons. I would like to also thank members for the amount of support they have given the police over the last few years. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Health 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee) 
: It is an absolute pleasure to speak on the estimates of Vote Health because the National Government has been growing and protecting our public health service during very tough times. In fact these latest estimates are a benchmark in showing that we are investing $14.1 billion in health. This is $2 billion more than was invested back in 2008 and we are making every endeavour to ensure that every health dollar is well spent with better services and less bureaucracy. 
Undoubtedly it is quite extraordinary that this Government has been prepared to continue during these tough times to invest in this very vital area of health in education and of course in science and innovation—all areas where the increased investment has occurred. I think it was particularly significant a few weeks ago when under the excellent leadership of the Hon Tony Ryall it was pointed out that New Zealand had the third-highest growth in health spending of 28 OECD nations for 2009-10. This is quite remarkable as the average growth of health investment by OECD nations was zero. During these tough times there have been quite a few countries that have actually reduced spending such as Denmark Norway and the UK where there have been considerable funding cuts. We have seen New Zealand continue to invest in health with spending increasing by 3.4 percent per year in real terms which is a very remarkable record. We now have the fifth-highest level of public health spending as a percentage of GDP in the OECD. This may or may not be a great thing but I believe that in New Zealand’s case where we are concentrating on increasing productivity and increasing front-line services we are indeed making great headway. 
I think we have seen across the spectrum in the world—for example countries like Singapore which has a remarkable spend on health totalling about 4 percent of GDP compared with Australia which is a bit above us. I think for public and private we are at about 10 percent; public is probably at about 8 percent. Australia is a wee bit above that and the UK a bit under. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: A much younger population. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It has a much younger population as you say. But the United States is at about 18 percent of GDP. In Singapore Singaporeans live longer and infant mortality is less than half of ours. So what we have got to do is exactly what the Government has been doing: increasing focus on diminishing bureaucracy bringing in the front-line services and ensuring that productivity is increased. This is in stark contrast with what happened with the previous Labour Government which doubled the health budget yet in real terms fewer people got operations—an awful indictment on those last years. 
It is very very encouraging when we look at what has happened to the health workforce over the last 4 years. Only today I got the updated numbers and I understand we have delivered over 1000 extra doctors in the last 4 years and 2400 extra nurses in public hospitals. That is a pretty good record because all we heard from the previous Labour Government was Annette King strutting around talking about her workforce reports. She had 42 of them—42 of them in 9 years—with very little increase in the workforce during that time. It was a huge amount of talk. 
It is very exciting again that this National-led Government has brought in a programme to combat rheumatic fever a Third World disease which indeed was identified by the previous Labour Government. It talked and talked but it did nothing. In these estimates there is an increase of $12 million which adds to the previous $12 million and already those children in various parts of New Zealand are being swabbed and treated as appropriate. 
Of course not only has the National Government done that but also it has insulated in the order of 140000 homes—more than that Tony Ryall says; it is more than that. One hundred and sixty thousand? It is something like that. Whatever it is it is a significant amount and a significant amount more than the previous Labour Government ever did. 
Then we go on to elective surgery. Once again the record of this National Government is extraordinary. Twenty-seven thousand extra patients a year are now getting elective surgery. Indeed we have decided that there is going to be a new target. We are lifting our game by ensuring that all patients booked for elective surgery receive it within no more than 4 months by the end of 2014. That was something the Labour Government could never have dreamed of. What did it do? What was the term? “Cull”. It used to cull patients in their thousands—not just in their thousands but in their tens of thousands. Thirty thousand at a time were culled by the previous Labour Government from waiting lists. 
I must say that I am very very excited by the National Government’s record in immunisation because it is spectacular. It is absolutely spectacular that only 4 years ago for the average 2-year-old the immunisation rate was 73 percent and it has now boosted to 92 percent. In 4 years’ time it has gone from 73 percent to 92 percent. This is one of the most effective methods of preventive health that we know of and under National it has been delivered. We have set a new and ambitious target for this as well: to have 95 percent of 8-month-old children fully immunised by the end of 2014. 
I think it is worthwhile at this point acknowledging all those wonderful health professionals who are out there making this happen up and down the length and breadth of New Zealand. They have been absolutely wonderful with the passion they have for their patients. I must say I happened to be in Middlemore Hospital the other day with a relative who was having a baby and the service she had was superb. Ten years ago there might have been six or seven shifts during a 24-hour labour but while I was there one midwife came on for 12 hours during the day and during the night there was another midwife for 12 hours. It was very very impressive. Then my relative went off to a little country hospital in Pukekohe where they looked after her just superbly. There was no rushing home; she was allowed to go home when she wanted to when she was ready to go home and when the breast milk was in. It was all being done under a new philosophy and a new efficiency where front-line services are being focused on by an excellent National Government. 
I want to say that the zero fees for doctors’ visits for under-sixes scheme is also going extremely well under this Government. National has boosted the proportion of children under 6 receiving free doctors’ visits during the daytime to 93 percent. That has got to be pretty good. This is a massive improvement since 2008 when it was 70 percent—70 percent at the end of Labour’s tenure. 
Dr JIAN YANG (National) 
: 
 Ni hao. I also would like to speak about National’s commitment to growing and protecting our public health system. The honourable member Paul Hutchison has done an excellent job of elaborating some of those achievements. We are committed to delivering a strong reliable public health system for all New Zealanders. This commitment is illustrated by our investment of $14.1 billion in health—the most ever—in Budget 2012. This investment is a clear signal that our National Government is delivering on our priority of providing better sooner health care services for all New Zealanders. 
As the honourable member Paul Hutchison just said I am very proud of the National Government’s track record on delivering our health services. A recent OECD report said that out of 28 OECD countries we had the third-highest growth in health spending for 2009-10—an increase of 3.1 percent in real terms compared with the OECD average growth rate of zero. This investment in health has led to better services and less bureaucracy. Also there are a record number of patients now getting elective surgery as the honourable member Paul Hutchison has just said. There are 27000 patients a year who are getting operations such as hip and knee replacements. These people who would otherwise be living their lives in discomfort are now looking forward to a brighter future thanks to National. 
We are offering better care for cancer patients. They have access to faster treatment with radiation starting within 4 weeks for those who need it. National has expanded this target to include chemotherapy. Since National came to power in 2008 no patient has had to travel to Australia for radiation treatment. Under Labour some patients either had a 15-week wait for radiation treatment or had to be shipped to Australia because the health service was failing under Labour. Under the leadership of National New Zealanders can be assured that they will be getting the best medical assistance should they need the services of the public health system. 
Other significant improvements under National have seen record successes of emergency departments treating patients faster. Ninety-two percent of emergency department patients are admitted discharged or transferred within 6 hours. Record numbers of children are being immunised—92 percent of 2-year-olds compared with 73 percent under Labour—and record numbers of smokers are quitting. And we are not stopping there. We want to see more improvements so that New Zealanders have access to better sooner health care. That is why 93 percent of under-sixes can now see their general practitioner for free during the day compared with 70 percent in 2008. This year National has extended this to include free after-hours doctors’ visits and 90 percent of children under 6 benefit from this. This has been possible because National has invested $65 million in the zero fees scheme over the past 3 years. 
We are committed to eradicating rheumatic fever with a doubling of our spending to $24 million in this year’s Budget to fight the disease over 5 years. This includes school-based sore throat swabbing services involving 100 schools and 35000 children to help with the early detection of throat infections which could lead to disease. Just the other week our Minister of Health announced that Auckland District Health Board will receive an extra $2.5 million over the next 3 years to improve productivity and provide more care for patients. That is good news. 
The National-led Government is committed to building a brighter future for New Zealand. We are on track to achieve this. Thank you. 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Nothing is more important to New Zealanders than their health. That is why this Government works every day with a huge number of very smart people in the New Zealand public health service to deliver better services for New Zealanders in these resource-constrained times. All around the world health services are retrenching. They are cutting the services they offer their people they are cutting the numbers of staff and they are cutting the offering they have to the public. But here in New Zealand under the leadership of both a Prime Minister and a finance Minister strongly committed to the New Zealand public health service we continue to invest strongly. We continue to invest in priority interventions that will not only improve the health of individuals but also move to improve the health of the population within a framework of a need to get greater value. 
I want to thank particularly the chairman of the Health Committee Dr Paul Hutchison who before he came to Parliament was one of New Zealand’s leading obstetricians and gynaecologists for the work he does as chairman of the Health Committee. I thank him for the very strong interest he has particularly in maternity and child health policy here in New Zealand. I think Dr Hutchison’s very strong focus on the importance of immunisation has to be recognised but also I thank him for the very strong advice he has given to Parliament over a number of years about the need to invest in maternal and newborn health. I thank him for working with the Government on the significant announcements that will be made in the next few months about another very significant investment coming in the area of maternal and newborn health and I thank him for the contribution he makes there. 
The Government is very focused on improving child health in New Zealand. We worked hard to lift the immunisation rate which has gone from 70 percent when we started to 93 percent today. In fact the richest families and the poorest families have the best immunisation rates of 94 percent of their 2-year-olds at the moment. We have also invested very heavily in rheumatic fever. As Dr Hutchison said it is a Third World disease that has an incredible impact on Maori and Pacific families in particular. It has actually been a national health strategy since 2001 when Annette King announced that it would be one of the Government’s health strategies. Basically that Government did nothing so we put in $12 million last year and another $12 million this year—huge. Tens of thousands of kids will be regularly throat-swabbed in order to try to really stamp out this rheumatic fever over a period of time. 
This Government has also created a turning point in the fight against tobacco. We have created a turning point in the fight against tobacco. Information in the next couple of months when it is released will show that this Government in a 4-year period has delivered the most sustained reduction in smoking rates of any country in such a period. That information will indicate what happens when you have a focus on not only these sorts of punitive measures which we might have seen elsewhere but also the need to encourage people to change their lifestyle and their addiction to tobacco. That is the huge effort the Government has made to roll out brief intervention conversations between smokers and health professionals not only in our hospitals but also in general practice. One of the most effective interventions to reduce smoking is to have those sorts of conversations but of course the most effective as Professor Blakely from the University of Otago said in the room opposite last night is increasing tobacco excise tax. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister but the time honourable members has come for me to report progress. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.