Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:640;Page:10488] 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 17 July on the Appropriation (2007/08 Estimates) Bill. 
Vote Justice ( 
continued 
) 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 I have had to wait for close to 18 hours to respond to those sad characters opposite. I think we heard from Mr Power and from the member from Wanganui—no it was Mr Worth. They all look very similar actually. What a sad place the National Party caucus must be! Those members are all so miserable. Every word that came from those two members was a litany of misery. I have to say that if we ever want a study in breathtaking irony we need only look to Mr Worth. 
We listened to what Mr Worth had to say and to his criticism of of all things the legal aid system and this Government’s performance with it. I have to say that the criticism was in essence that access to justice for all is absolutely critical and we stood criticised by Mr Worth because we have not yet reported on a process in which the legal profession is directly involved of reviewing the remuneration for legal practitioners because the work is still being done. We were criticised because a thorough process which that the Law Society is intimately involved in and is part of is not complete and we have not reported on it. 
We have committed tens of millions of dollars as a first priority to increase the eligibility of low and modest income New Zealanders because that was this Government’s first priority and for that I make no apology. It may be that the order of priority is different for those Tories on the Opposition benches but for this Government the first priority was to address those low and modest income New Zealanders who for more than 20 years had seen no increase in the rate of eligibility. Dr Worth suggests that the National Party is in some way concerned about access to justice for all but for 9 years in the 1990s it did nothing to lift the eligibility levels for low and modest income New Zealanders. It did not a thing. Further I ask Mr Finlayson what the National Party did for lawyers in those 9 years. What did it do to address the remuneration rates for lawyers? Did it adjust the rates during those 9 long years? Well to be fair yes it did—once. Once during 9 years the National Party adjusted the rates. Do members know what it did? It put the rates down. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Tell us what you have done. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: This Government has lifted the eligibility for 450000 low and modest income New Zealanders. That member for once should stop shouting and just occasionally listen. [ 
Interruption 
] The member seems not to understand. The legal aid system is first and foremost about those who need legal aid. More than 400000 additional New Zealanders have eligibility. The work is being done with the legal profession. I have to say— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. Can I just say to the member that constant barracking is not acceptable. The member is really going over the top. I ask him to desist. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: I put this question to members of the House and to any New Zealanders listening. If the first— 
Christopher Finlayson 
: It’s the Committee. 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: The Committee of the whole House is in the House I say to Mr Finlayson. This is still the House. I am sorry; I know that the member is new and I guess we can forgive him. 
I simply ask anyone who is listening and certainly any member in the Chamber whether the first priority should be a low-income New Zealander who is on $9 an hour or a lawyer who is on $150 to $500 an hour. That is the question that any responsible Government was confronted with. I make no apology for putting low and modest income New Zealanders as this Government’s first priority. 
The other extraordinary contribution was from Mr Power who for some reason has a problem with the idea that the Law Commission is busy getting about business and is doing work and with the fact that this Government then gets on and does some work and deals with the reports that the commission gives to this House. I know it was the habit during 9 long years of National to pretty much ignore such reports. This Government is getting on and doing the work. 
Mr Power then went on to say that the Ministry of Justice is doing nothing. What absolute nonsense! I can assume only that that member simply does not do his paperwork and does not attend to the business that he should as a diligent Opposition MP. I suggest to him that he pay a little more attention to what is going on. The list of work is extraordinarily long. The Ministry of Justice has never been busier. It is working on a wide range of projects. I suggest to Mr Power that he spend a little more time doing the work and a little less time simply sitting on his backside and not doing the job that he is paid to do. 
LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to stand and speak after the hard-working Minister of Justice and I would like to put it on the record that this Government is indeed investing heavily into justice. How do I know this? I know this because of the amount of work that comes before the very hard-working Justice and Electoral Committee. 
This Government is putting its money where its mouth is. It is investing heavily into justice in this country because we know that investing into justice and into the programmes in the justice sector gets the results. If we look at the appropriation which is what this debate is about then we see that the over $200 million that has already been spent on justice has been increased by another $30 million in this appropriation. That is very much a worthwhile investment. I know that much of that investment will be going into ensuring the effectiveness of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill. 
I was disappointed as was the previous speaker the Minister of Justice to hear criticism about the legislation from members on the other side of the Committee last night. We believe this legislation will be a major initiative for this country and certainly we were very disappointed to see the National Party opposing the establishment of the Sentencing Council. We know that it will produce real consistency and fairness throughout the country and will be a council that all New Zealanders will have confidence in. 
I also acknowledge as I have in earlier speeches the Law Commission because I know that this bill and many of the bills that have come before our committee have resulted from the very good work the Law Commission does. I will also talk about legal aid because I heard Dr Worth banging on as he always does about legal aid. It is really interesting because when the Minister came to the committee he reminded us that remuneration rates for legal aid are under review currently. Well under the previous National Government legal aid rates were reviewed and they were actually cut. They were cut. Those rates were cut under a National Government so it is a little bit rich for those members now to be banging on about how badly reimbursed and remunerated legal services providers are. We look forward to that review and I am sure along with everyone in the Committee we will be looking at that one with interest. 
I also heard Dr Worth criticising the Government’s position on electoral reform. Dr Worth was not at the committee but the Minister assured us that electoral legislation would be coming before the committee in the near future. We are very confident with our hard-working committee that that legislation will be in place for the next election. In fact the Justice and Electoral Committee secured a select committee trip to Australia on the basis that we would be looking at electoral issues over there. I will not ponder too much on that; the legislation will come before the committee and the legislation will be in place for the next election. It is as simple as that. 
The sexual violence task force is another big investment for this Government. The task force was formally established on 1 July—this month—so that is fantastic. I know that nine Government agencies will be working together on that as will many agencies from the non-government sector and we know that that move is good. Also in the area of restorative justice we are working on continuing to increase access to restorative justice. Again we believe that is very much a good investment for this Government. A centre will be opened at the Auckland University of Technology to further academic research into restorative justice. We know that this is a good investment being made by this Government. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Local Government 
JOHN CARTER (National—Northland) 
: 
 I want to speak to page 797 of the Estimates regarding local government. I would first of all just draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that this Minister in the chair Mark Burton goes around talking about all the wonderful things the Labour Government has done for local government. Well there are a couple of things that we do have to acknowledge. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What were they? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Let me give members just one. This year the Government has increased the rates rebate from $50 million to $70 million which is very helpful for people on low incomes and fixed incomes. What the Minister never ever acknowledges however is the reason we need rates rebates to help people on low and fixed incomes. It is that this Government is actually increasing rates. It is causing rates increases across the country because it keeps shovelling legislation on to local government with no accompanying funding. So the Government is causing cost increases across this country for rates and ratepayers and then it goes along and says that it is wonderful because it is shovelling this bucket of money back at ratepayers. It is money that the Government has already taken out of taxes and rates. But I will acknowledge that because the Minister will stand up and tell members about that. 
He will also tell members about the subsidies the Government is giving for sewerage and for the new water standards. It has put in $150 million for water standards—that is over the next 10 years; $15 million a year—but local government authorities tell us that they will have to spend $800 million just to try to reach the standards put in by this Government. What interests me is that no one has yet told me how many people have died from drinking the water at Owaka for example. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How many have? 
JOHN CARTER 
: Well there are not any actually but we got these new fancy standards that will cost lots of money and lots of rates. But this Minister will go around saying that the Government is putting in the money for the water subsidy and for sewerage. It is never enough and it is causing huge costs for local government. 
What is really interesting is that local government has issues around infrastructure. It is estimated we will spend $60 billion on infrastructure in this country over the next 10 years and $30 billion of that will be from local government. Half will be from central government and half from local government. Do members know that local government authorities have told this Minister that they can put in probably $9 billion so there is a $21 billion shortfall? 
The Minister went to the local government conference on Monday and Tuesday and do members know what he spoke about? Dog control! He was worried there were a few issues around dog control. He never mentioned the issue of infrastructure. He talked a bit about water supply but he said that the problem was a couple of issues around dog control. It was the main focus of the Minister’s address. Why did he not talk about the infrastructural problems? Why did he not talk about the compliance costs that local government authorities are having? Why did he not talk about the impost that this Government is putting on local government in resource management for example? Why did he not talk about the impost that the out-of-control Department of Building and Housing is putting on which is causing so much cost to be put on to local government through its building regulations that the whole building industry is becoming dysfunctional? Why did he not talk about those things? I am starting to wonder whether it is because the Minister does not know. 
Let me tell the Committee this about the building industry. The compliance costs and bureaucracy are increasing in local government because it has to match what central government does. The bureaucrats in the department in 1999 numbered about 30 and now they number over 300. The number of bureaucrats in local government has risen from 1999 when there were 30000 and it has now gone up to over 40000. The figure has grown by 25 percent and the reason is that this Government keeps putting more and more compliance costs and regulations on to local government and local government has to match. It puts up big departments like the Department of Building and Housing. I tell the Committee that quite honestly someone needs to build something and put this department in it because seriously the whole industry is becoming dysfunctional. This department has now got to the stage I tell Mr Minister where the building industry is starting to become more and more dysfunctional. 
Do members know that if they are ordinary citizens and they want to go and apply for building permits they cannot do it now? The normal layperson is not capable of filling out a building application. He or she has to go and get a consultant to fill out the building permit because it is so complicated. This department is meant to be making sure there are no more leaky homes. Would members not think that we would have the materials that go into homes certified? Not under this Government! 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Treaty Negotiations 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) 
: 
 I want to speak to Vote Treaty Negotiations at page 1261 of the estimates. When this vote was being discussed in the Maori Affairs Committee I really looked forward to having some important questions answered and to gaining a greater appreciation of what the Minister is doing to secure the just speedy and durable settlement of Treaty grievances. Well more fool me because I should have known better than to have any expectations of this Minister even low ones. The select committee process raised more questions than it answered. Trying to get this Minister to answer questions is like trying to pin jelly to a wall. 
I can recall questioning the Minister about “large natural groupings” because the Office of Treaty Settlements tells potential claimants that the Crown looks to negotiate with such groupings. But certainly one cannot tell what a large natural grouping is by following what the Office of Treaty Settlements does. For example the Office of Treaty Settlements refused to engage with six claimant groups in Tamaki partly on the basis that they did not comprise a single large natural grouping yet it happily negotiated with one of the four NgatiWhatuawhanui subtribes. It is that kind of behaviour that generates such uncertainty among claimant groups and creates such hurt and disillusion. 
As of today 19 final settlements have been reached. Fourteen settlements have required legislation and five smaller but no less important settlements have not. Of the 19 settlements 10 were taken from negotiation to final settlement under National in the 1990s and negotiations on another eight were initiated by National. But since late 1999 under this useless Government negotiations have been started and taken through to final settlement in—how many I wonder? 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How many? 
CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In just one I tell Mr Auchinvole. The Minister told the House less than 4 weeks ago that 21 settlements have been completed but the Minister has counted two settlements that have yet to have their legislation passed as being completely finished and requiring no further effort by this Government. I will leave other members to draw their own conclusions about the Minister’s arithmetical skills. 
But perhaps the Minister’s careful attention to detail explains why the legislative process in this area has lurched forward with all the momentum of a beached whale. Under National settlement legislation took an average of 9 months to be passed from the date when a deed of settlement was signed but under Labour it now takes almost 21 months. Let us face it: the record of this Minister is very poor. It is even worse than that of his predecessor whose main achievement was to put all negotiations on hold until she was ready for them. She will go down in history as the “Minister in Charge of Stopping Treaty Negotiations”. 
When Mr Burton appeared before the select committee on 13 June he assured us there were no problems with regard to the Crown’s negotiating process with NgatiWhatua yet 2 days later the Waitangi Tribunal delivered what was probably its most damning indictment of the Crown ever. The tribunal condemned the Crown’s behaviour as “cavalier” “unfair” “generally uncooperative” “providing only partial answers to questions” and “being less than open” in its dealings with the tribunal. The tribunal referred to the Crown’s behaviour as leaving other tangata whenua groups feeling degraded and insulted. Yet we had the spectacle of this Minister telling the select committee that the Crown’s behaviour was acceptable. The question that really does need to be asked is whether the Minister is even aware of what is happening in his own portfolio. 
What is clearly needed in the Treaty settlements area is political leadership and some real enthusiasm for the job. We had political leadership under National with Jim Bolger and Doug Graham; we have not had it in the 9 dreary years of this Clark-led Labour Government. Just a few minutes ago we had the Minister going on in his pre-prepared speech about the so-called awful 1990s. Labour members love talking about the 1990s. Well one thing they do not talk about from the 1990s is the record of the National Government in the Treaty settlements area. They know that under Doug Graham and Jim Bolger that record was outstanding and they also know that under this Government the performance is quite simply lamentable. This Minister is a failure and his predecessor was a failure. I am sure that all Maori look forward to the day when National can take the Treasury benches and finish the job. 
Hon MARK BURTON (Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 There we have heard from the member who came to this House pompously telling members that they should play the issue not the man. But ever since he has been incapable of getting to his feet without giving personal abuse. In every single speech the member has had the gall to stand up and read that vitriolic drivel then accuse others of giving pre-prepared speeches. I say to Mr Finlayson that in the last speech he delivered in this House on a matter of a particular bill he commented on the further delay for the delivery—[ 
Interruption 
] Well if that member would be quiet for once he would hear that I am talking quite specifically about the Treaty settlement process. 
One of the reasons the settlement process requires time is that increasingly in this House there are those who will sacrifice principle for cheap political point-scoring. Let me give members an example. Two reasons were given by the National Opposition recently for its opposition to the progress of Te Roroa Claims Settlement Bill— 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Is this not a Treaty settlement? 
Hon MARK BURTON 
: Yes it is a Treaty settlement sir! The member should listen. The first reason was the failure to return koiwi. I have to say that the member has been informed repeatedly that they have been returned. They were returned years ago yet the member cited that as one reason. He did that on public radio—I have the transcripts. It was one of two reasons he gave for National’s opposing both the settlement and the will of the people who were the mandated representatives. 
The second reason for National’s opposition to the bill was the failure to return the taonga of the burial chests which were moved from the caves in 1902. Again that matter has been resolved with the people from Te Roroa. In their view because the matters of the taonga are disputed in terms of the various tribal interests they should be left where they are for the time being until tangata whenua can sort it out among themselves in a manner appropriate to them. I accept that others in the House perhaps do not support the settlement for their particular reasons—fair enough. We may agree or disagree. But for the National Opposition to give two reasons that are factually incorrect and for one of its members to get up and make fatuous speeches in this Chamber simply beggars belief. 
This process I tell Mr Finlayson requires honesty and integrity of engagement. That member sits stands up and makes silly speeches that are absolutely factually incorrect. I ask the member to consider carefully the fact that he has brought his party an entire party into opposition against the will of a group of mandated negotiators for two reasons that have no basis in fact. Therein lies the problem with the Treaty negotiation process: it is the easiest of areas in which to score cheap political points. 
I will acknowledge that Doug Graham did some good work in this area. But I also say to the member—as Doug Graham would himself—that it was not all done well. It was not all done correctly. Mistakes were made and we learn from those experiences. Certain settlements were in disarray at the time of the change of Government; they fell apart within weeks actually. Two settlements that people attempted to rush through fell apart within weeks. The point is I tell Mr Finlayson that to make progress with the settlement process requires honest engagement and integrity—something that clearly is lacking in the sort of presentation we have seen from that member. And that will not do. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Assistant Speaker. Kia ora tatou e teneipo. Six months ago not far from here down at Pipitea Marae there was a gathering of some 45 lawyers a number that by all accounts appears to be unprecedented in the history of the Waitangi Tribunal. They were brought together by the call from Judge Carrie Wainwright to attend a judicial conference in response to the complaints from more than 50 Maori groups concerning unfair and prejudicial treatment by the Crown’s Treaty settlement process. 
The report of the Maori Affairs Committee on Vote Treaty Negotiations gives little hope that there has been any change to this dire situation. The report describes the Minister assuring the committee “that officials acted in good faith but that the document discovery process was inadequate at the time” that an “exercise of judgement is required” and that further advice on the process is required “to ensure that such oversights in the supply of evidence to claimant groups will not be repeated.” The key words are: “inadequate” “exercise of judgment” and “oversights”. What the Minister could have said comes straight from the report of the tribunal into the Tamaki-makau-rau settlement process—namely: “The Crown’s policy and practice have been unfair both as to process and outcome.” In reviewing the 2007-08 appropriations we cannot ignore the conclusions of claimants and the tribunal that fair and equitable settlements are being thwarted by inequities in the terms of settlement the fact that proposed redress has been set aside and a process too flawed to achieve progress. 
Indeed so desperate is the situation that the Waitangi Tribunal report on the Tamaki-makau-rau settlement process urged that Crown negotiations with NgatiWhatua o Orakei must be halted immediately. This crisis seems to have fallen on deaf ears although the select committee cuts to the chase. In relation to concerns that the Crown had not consulted with other tangata whenua throughout Tamaki-makau-rau the Minister assured the committee that “… NgatiWhatua o Orakei has engaged extensively with other claimants”. Who will take responsibility for the Crown’s failure to interact with cross-claimants as it promised and failure to provide accurate information about their status in negotiations evidence the tribunal described as being provided “late reluctantly and piecemeal”. This is not just a one-off isolated crisis. Less than a week after the Tamaki-makau-rau report was issued the tribunal released another damning report this time stating that during the Crown’s process in Te Arawa: “OTS failed to act as an honest broker in the negotiation process … failed to discharge its Treaty and fiduciary duties to all Maori … OTS did not act honourably and with the utmost good faith.” 
Under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 section 8I “Annual report on implementation of recommendations” the Minister of Maori Affairs apparently is required to report on progress each year. Well the Minister has not tabled a report at all since 1995 but apparently will do so in the next couple of weeks in order to catch up for 12 years. Well he may as well not do it now because the Waitangi Tribunal has done the job. Twelve years of no monitoring by the Minister is not good enough and our people expect more. 
There are longstanding concerns of claimants. The select committee report makes it quite clear that despite the unanimous and ferocious opposition to the 1992 fiscal cap the Government is working to a fiscal cap—a cap that has continued to be applied to the Treaty settlement process since day one. The report spells it out as a general assumption of three $19 million settlements per year. We believe that it is essential that claimant funding needs to be reviewed and increased so that all parties are on a level playing field. As part of this the fiscal cap on Treaty settlements must go. The Maori Party will not minimise the actions of the Office of Treaty Settlements as being mere oversights—oversights that the tribunal views as “cavalier unfair and generally uncooperative”. Something needs to change today. 
The tribunal has concluded that in many cases the process of settling is damaging more relationships than it is improving. It is in light of this that we in the Maori Party are calling for an independent settlements authority to achieve greater resolution to settlements so that settlements can be settled earlier fairly and with a broad consensus for the process. The Maori Party will not ignore the urgency of an underfunded and oversubscribed tribunal. We know that the tribunal needs to be resourced sufficiently so that it can deal with claims more speedily. 
In closing I want to return to the Minister’s words in response to the 2007-08 estimates in Vote Treaty Negotiations: “inadequate” “exercise of judgment” and “oversights”. What we in this House and indeed others outside want to hear is a commitment to ensure impartiality fairness greater transparency faster processing and better access to mediation. The time for oversights is well and truly over. What we in this House want to hear is a commitment to justice—Treaty justice. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take a 5-minute call in what we consider to be an important debate. I congratulate the current Minister and the previous Minister in their role as Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations on the incredible work they have achieved over the last 9 years. Certainly it is a track record that no one in this Chamber can criticise when he or she considers the difficulties that any Minister or any Government faces in dealing with historical claims. It is interesting that in the Committee today we have heard more about the recent findings of the Waitangi Tribunal in relation to the processes of two particular claims than about the position in which those tribes those iwi who have settled over more than 9 years are now in in terms of building a future for the generations that come after them. That without a doubt is the biggest issue we need to talk about. 
We talk a lot about the acceleration of Maori economic development and the opportunities that have emerged for Maori entrepreneurs. Those opportunities have been capitalised on and the settlements that specific iwi have received have grown as a result of the support from this Government and the entrepreneurial skills of iwi. It is easy to criticise but it is very very difficult for anyone in this Chamber—although I have heard it here today and on many previous occasions—to get up and congratulate those who are responsible for accelerating Maori development particularly where Treaty settlements are concerned. 
I heard the previous speaker from the National Party Chris Finlayson boast about the record of the National Party when in Government. Certainly he cannot take any credit for that. Those in the National Government in the early 1990s who pioneered what we call the historical claims have all left this House. They have all left. There are no longer any of those types of people in this House. So if that member thinks he is going to fill the big shoes of Doug Graham Doug Kidd and all those who supported the Treaty settlements in the 1990s he is kidding himself. I heard his contributions the other day at the Maori Affairs Committee. They were not progressive or productive; they were actually driven from a negative base and I think that that is what we will see from that member during the rest of his time in this House short as it may be. 
I want to go back to the issue regarding Maori development. The Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations the Minister of Maori Affairs and myself last week attended a hui in Turakina to sign off the deed of settlement for the NgatiApa claim and to acknowledge the important work that has been done by the local member Tariana Turia to encourage her people to the negotiating table. Her son and her nephews and nieces also contributed to bringing this settlement to this stage. We spoke to her people and heard the excitement the positive attitude the determination and the korero that came from them on that particular day when they looked to the future and said: “We are going to do something. We are going to build a future for our mokopuna.” That is something that no one in this Chamber has a right to trample over and that can be said about many of the claims that have been settled today. 
In respect of the Kaihautu Executive Council for Te Arawa in terms of Te Pumau-tanga o Te Arawa and their settlement although the tribunal has made some scathing remarks about the process towards the settlement of that claim it did not say that the claim should not proceed. I am sure that most members on this side of the Chamber are determined that we will proceed with settling this outstanding claim. There are 27000 Te Arawa people who are looking forward to an opportunity to put the grievances of the past behind them and build a future for themselves. Come what may at least their future their self-determination is in their own hands. Who in this Chamber would deny them that? 
There are issues around the process. We encountered a number of flaws in the process when we came into Government in 1999 and we have worked diligently to overcome those flaws. Of course there is an attitude that one size fits all in terms of claimant groups. Well that is not the case. Different issues and new issues arise every time we deal with a different group. I can say on behalf of those of us on this side of the Chamber to compliment the Minister and previous Ministers that those issues are taken on board and dealt with at the time. Kia ora Madam Chair. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Minister of Customs) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on this particular debate in the first instance to rebut some of the issues that were raised by Mr Finlayson. The Treaty settlement process in and of itself is a very difficult process. In fact it would take a very brave person across this Chamber to take on this portfolio because by its very nature the whole process of reconciling historical grievances—and we know how disparate our past has been throughout this country—is a very difficult process. So any suggestion that this Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations is not interested in trying to get a genuine outcome is flawed should not be tolerated and is not accepted by this Government. In the second instance in respect of the nature of how the Treaty settlement process began far be it from me who knows probably on both sides of the table how difficult it is to get an outcome to stand here defending in and of itself the Office of Treaty Settlements. However the office plays an important role in order to achieve an outcome. 
Let us look at where Treaty settlements started with National. By definition of the process that National started by and large the whole assumption was that a large natural grouping would be the basis upon which it would enter into negotiations. Both Tainui and NgaiTahu are evidence of that in itself. At not one point through this process has National ever said that it would ever go to Treaty settlements on a hapu by hapu basis. National has never said that and it should come clean because it is clearly raising expectations that it does not intend to deliver on and that it is criticising the Government for. However National started a process and we are really trying to work forward and learn over time from a range of Treaty settlements that have been resolved. 
The other issue that I want to address very briefly is the issue of quantum. Everybody could say hand on heart that a certain dollar figure should be ascribed to various Treaty settlements and I am sure that Maori members would be the first to try to get the best opportunities for their region but we have to ensure that the genuine ability to ensure an outcome that is not just about quantum but that is about returning resources and taonga to iwi is a genuine part of this Treaty settlement process. This is where I think the Government has made some advance to the benefit of iwi—not merely on a dollar-value quantum but also on cultural redress. We have seen here the ability to include in quite innovative ways aspects of cultural redress that restore confidence that this is an attempt to try to get an outcome that meets the needs of local iwi in trying to get a settlement. The other issue—and this is one that I think people look at all too scantly—is the role of the Waitangi Tribunal. If it was the role of the Waitangi Tribunal to give out binding recommendations you bet your bottom dollar that the tribunal would be considering very carefully exactly what it said because of the implications. 
But let us not stop there. By and large iwi should have the right to go towards direct negotiations. Some may not choose to go to the tribunal; that is their choice. I will not sit here in judgment and say which is the right way or the wrong way. However should iwi across the land decide to go into a direct negotiation process with the Crown boots and all and accepting warts and all that this is a head-to-head opportunity to get the best outcome with people talking to people then we should preserve that ability. It takes courage it takes leadership and it is a difficult choice to make. But none of us in this House can make it. We have to leave the ability for direct negotiation from iwi to occur unfettered by everybody’s opinions. So I think that really is an important point that is always overlooked in terms of the voice of the tribunal and the types of recommendations it makes. We need to take into account that iwi continue to want to preserve their ability to have direct negotiations with the Crown. 
Whether an independent panel will actually achieve the type of outcome that was being proposed by the previous speaker for the Maori Party I think remains to be seen. I think at the end of the day that any genuine attempt to get an outcome that is durable in the eyes of those negotiating the outcome must be upheld by this House of Parliament. It is woeful that National has adopted the tactic of not supporting various Treaty settlements that have gone through this House since the time we have been in Government. It is woeful because it signals that there is no confidence at all to go down a path of reconciliation. We just cannot as members of Parliament be sending that kind of message to New Zealanders who really want to move on. They want everybody to try to resolve these grievances and move on. Thank you. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote ACC 
PANSY WONG (National) 
: 
 The estimate of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) took place during the time that the position of corporation chair stood vacant for 11 months. This was very interesting. We learnt recently that Mr Hausmann’s appointment to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board was fast tracked by the former Minister of Health the Hon Annette King. Yet the ACC chair position was held open for 11 months for another Labour favourite Ross Wilson to finish his term as the president of the Council of Trade Unions. It just shows that the Labour Government can be extremely flexible when it comes to appointing its people to the various posts. 
I want to test the water with some of the senior members on this side of the Chamber. When the Hon Ruth Dyson explained to the media why it took her so long to appoint Ross Wilson she is quoted as saying that there was no one else on the board that she was happy to have as chair in the long term. Now I have to consult with a senior diligent member on this side Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith. I ask Dr Smith whether when he was the Minister and appointed members of the board he ever said that he could not see anybody on the whole board competent enough to be appointed to the chair and held the position open for 11 months. That is a public vote of no confidence in the whole of the ACC board. I find it staggering that Labour actually went out and said that it had no confidence in the whole board of ACC. If Labour had no confidence in the board members it should have sacked them. 
That might explain why the Hon Ruth Dyson took on the job of apologist for ACC for 11 long months. Not that long ago Ruth Dyson stood in the House and claimed that she was 100 percent behind the $5 million spent by ACC on branding and spin advertising that told New Zealanders that they were covered. The advertisements attracted only complaints and the Advertising Standards Authority duly ruled that they were misleading. In fact not everyone was covered. There was fine print. The Minister was blissfully unaware even during the consultation phase of that advertising campaign that said some of the staff in ACC that was not smart and it would promise overmuch. That branding exercise actually drew more problems for ACC because a lot of the long-term claimants then came forward and disclosed to the public. It is really quite frightening to hear the tactics with which the corporation in conjunction with private investigators tried to prove whether a claim was valid. 
Well once again the Minister showed that she knew nothing of what was happening in the corporation because a contract between ACC and private investigators clearly established a key performance indicator where the private investigators have to prove they are successful by making sure that 80 percent of the referral cases should result in prosecution termination of claims suspension of entitlement civil action positive change to claimant capacity status complaint to the appropriate medical board etc. But when we queried the Minister during the estimates she told us that that was not the case. A significant number of referrals required no further action because the legitimacy of the claimants’ cases were validated. Well obviously she has no idea of what is happening in ACC. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Child Youth and Family Services 
TARIANA TURIA (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
Tena koe Madam Chairperson. Tenatatou katoa. The protection of children is the greatest goal of society. The interests of the child the youth and the family existed long before there was a department of the same name and will remain long after the department’s latest reform into another tier of the Ministry of Social Development. The protection of children outdates any Budget cycle and must remain our greatest priority as a society. For ultimately it is the whanau hapu and iwi; it is ainga; and it is family that hold the key to the successful outcomes set out in the 2007-08 estimates. 
The State has a critical role in investing in communities to help them to ensure the health and well-being of their own. Nowhere has this concept been more apparent than in the rhetoric of the last fortnight as we have seen all Aboriginal people in Aboriginal communities demonised for the child welfare crisis that they have themselves been speaking about for decades. Dr Chris Sarra the 2003 Australian of the Year and Director of the Institute for Indigenous Leadership in Education and Development based at Cherbourg has been one of those speaking out and reminding the world that politically speaking there are no votes in ameliorating concerns in Aboriginal communities—hence it is a case of calling in the army—but there is every reason to do so in terms of what is right. He said: “I challenge the Prime Minister to approach an Aboriginal child on his next visit to a remote community and hold that child close so that he feels their heart beating close to his then look into their brown eyes and say ‘You and your family are my family … I can see you need help … and we are going to help your family and your community to fix things here and make it right for you.’ ” 
I took the time to share that story today because I think it illustrates a principle so central to how we should approach Vote Child Youth and Family Services; how we approach the issues associated with placements for children and young people; how we approach respite care; and how we approach social work care and protection. When I read the report of the Social Services Committee—with its concerns about the number of times children placed in Child Youth and Family’s care are moved repeatedly and frequently; the question of inappropriate or undesirable placements; and whether the differential response model will be effective in reducing the recurrence of abuse and neglect—I wonder what we are doing for our families and our communities to fix things here and make it right for them. The cost of creating more harm is of course substantial. 
I remind the Committee of the context for comments we made last week urging that the political focus abroad and at home should not be a case of “Ask what we can do to you.” but rather “Listen and learn and support what you can do for each other.” The context of the  
Little Children Are Sacred 
 report was one of gross endemic child sexual abuse. It is a context that communities seldom have the courage and the commitment to name and to talk about aloud. We even have an estimated financial cost for such a crime. It costs the victim the offender and the Government on average $84175 to respond to each case of child sexual abuse occurring here in Aotearoa. Included in this breakdown are the general practitioner visits; mental health care; loss of income for victim and offender; police prison and court costs; accident compensation counselling; and the victim’s pain suffering and loss of enjoyment of life. 
Excluded from that figure however are the economic costs that spring from the ripple effects of child abuse and child sexual abuse. How do we account for the costs imposed on other people as a result of a lifetime scarred by sexual abuse? How do we measure the impact on alienated families on families torn apart by such crimes and on children forced to flea to escape the hurt of allegations that are not believed? 
Child victims of sexual abuse are more likely to underachieve educationally. Between 31 and 51 percent of inpatients and outpatients of mental health services have been found to be sexual abuse survivors. Drug and alcohol abuse patterns are more prevalent amongst survivors and there are higher rates of substance abuse. Primary health centres have found higher rates of health problems amongst women who have been sexually abused and each of us will know from our constituents that the most common pathways to crime are based on survival of abuse and poverty. 
So why is it invisible? Why do we shift children from pillar to post transfer Child Youth and Family to yet another department and dream up another differential response model? The answer surely lies in the problem and how and who responds to it. In the Otago women’s health study of 3000 women it was found that the vast majority of the abusers were young men who were known to the victims yet only 7.5 percent of all abuse was ever reported to the statutory agencies. If the notifications are not happening and the abuse clearly is what will we do to ensure our little children are indeed sacred? Although the bean counters may rejoice that this year’s appropriations for Vote Child Youth and Family Services have plummeted by a mere $9 million I have to ask whether saving money will save lives? 
As a society and as a Parliament we seem to be obsessed with punishing the manifestation of the impact of child sexual abuse. What if we were instead to have as a vision the challenge of closing down prisons reducing the demand for psychiatric services and taking dramatic action to address our dramatic suicide rates? Twenty years ago Jane von Dadelszen released a ground-breaking study that examined the histories of sexual abuse among girls in the care of the Department of Social Welfare. In the report 136 15 and 16-year-old girls were interviewed. Over two-thirds had experienced sexual abuse. Half the abuse was perpetrated by family members. Just under one-tenth of the abusers fitted the profile of “stranger danger”. The average age of the girls when they were first abused was 10 years old and the average age of the abuser was 28. There were no ethnic differences in the incidence of abuse but Maori girls were more likely to show anger in response to the abuse and Pakeha girls were more likely to report fear and confusion. It would be fascinating now to interview that same group of 136 35 and 36-year-old women and to understand the true lifetime cost of sexual abuse. The nature of sexual abuse has kept this hidden and has prevented victims from having a platform to bring it out into the open. 
Aboriginal communities have demonstrated that some exceptional leadership capacity exists in their communities and they have brought the prevalence and the impact of childhood sexual abuse in their communities out into the public arena. Are we brave enough in New Zealand to take a serious look at the social and economic harm and at the devastation upon individuals and families associated with sexual abuse? 
I was pleased to see in the estimates report that Child Youth and Family talked about its vision of supporting families consulting with families and wherever possible ensuring that children and young people remained within their own family. I absolutely endorse this approach. I also understand the concerns of the Social Services Committee that we must ensure that children’s welfare must not be compromised. But the solution to situations of risk or danger within families does not rest in punishing the child and extracting such children from all that they know and in pulling them out from the shelter of their family home—quite the contrary. If the problem lies in the whanau we should let the hapu or iwi be the solution. It is about using the right process for reconciliation to occur. The key is that we do not make one wrong right by creating a fresh wrong. The Government’s history and reputation in implementing a flawed Treaty settlement process is a classic example of this. The solution lies in working with families to restore their natural responsibilities and obligations to care for and protect their own. The costs of any other approach will lead this nation into ongoing moral and social bankruptcy. Tena koutou. 
JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) 
: 
 At the time that the Social Services Committee considered the estimates for Child Youth and Family the Audit Office was unable to supply us with a report. The committee took advantage of the kind offer of the Minister Ruth Dyson to return after an audit report was provided. Even at that second visit internal budgets for the 2007-08 year were yet to be set. However we did ascertain that extra money was being budgeted for foster care and United Future supports that. 
But of course such an allocation begs the question: what about grandparents raising grandchildren and other kinship caregivers raising children considering that it is often Child Youth and Family that calls on grandparents to step up to the plate? Once it is clear that kin caregivers are going to be the permanent caregivers for a child then the costs seriously kick in for those people. They have a new mortgage on the bigger house they have to buy having previously downsized for their retirement. They have ongoing legal bills counselling costs for the traumatised children in their care plus all the other expenses that are covered by additional allowances for foster parents but those allowances are not available for grandparents. 
So we see grandparents failing to fill their own prescriptions leaving employment to focus on the children and ploughing through retirement savings at a great rate of knots. When will the Government face up to the fact that the failure to invest that little bit more in these families will not ultimately save it a cent? These children typify the category identified by countless research papers as at risk but are responsive to early intervention. 
One of the other concerns of Child Youth and Family is the unacceptable number of times that children in the department’s care are moved around. Although the select committee was told that respite care accounted for some of the movement the department admitted that it was unable to distinguish in its records and statistics between moves between carers respite care and time back with the child’s family. The select committee in its report suggested that differentiating between care options may help identify undesirable and temporary placements that need to be addressed. 
This highlights for me one of the most serious holes in this department’s service at present. Currently there is no independent advocacy for children or their families. There are no independent mediation services and no independent complaints service. If people are reliant on the goodwill of their case manager to honour decisions made in a family group conference reliant on their goodwill to determine how often they get to see their children and in what circumstances then without independent advocacy the imbalance of power is extreme. Constituents whom I have dealt with are too scared to question or complain fearing that a further downgrading of their contact arrangements will occur. They are rarely equipped with the calm and coherent verbal skills to negotiate or appeal decisions made and if they do complain often it is noted evidentially on a file where it can be used against them. 
Nobody resents the statutory powers that Child Youth and Family has but even the police have a complaints authority. The Minister has told us again that the differential response model having been piloted extremely successfully in New Plymouth and Royal Oak will be rolled out across the country. In the opinion of United Future that cannot happen soon enough. The previous speaker was concerned about a lack of consultation with not just community organisations but also iwi. I believe that such consultation would be strengthened with the differential response model as it would allow community groups and iwi to be involved in the decisions made around children. 
To have a department that is drowning in ever-increasing notifications most of which are medium to low-level neglect notifications and at the same time to have competent social service providers and iwi providers who are well able to execute professional interventions where no statutory powers are required sitting around waiting for the Government to trust them enough to pass on the work to them is completely criminal. It is criminal when we consider that a large percentage of the high-criticality notifications are second and third notification cases that deteriorated while waiting for proper social work to be done. Having said that I point out that I do not blame Child Youth and Family staff but I do blame Child Youth and Family policy for this problem. 
The multimillion-dollar questions are these: why is there such a culture of mistrust in the profession of social work and does the department contribute to this mistrust? For instance do teachers lawyers and accountants mistrust the professional standards of those who do not work in the same building as them but are of the same profession? No they do not. I say to the Minister that there is a huge amount of scepticism right now in the non-governmental organisation sector as to whether the department really will roll out the differential response model. In some regions those organisations do not believe that there is the will and intention to repair the relationships that exist between themselves and Child Youth and Family to the state whereby low-level risk work can be passed on to them in order to free Child Youth and Family staff to do the high-risk work we want them to be doing. 
There is a huge difference from region to region as to the quality of the relationship that exists between Child Youth and Family and local non-governmental organisation providers. In some regions there is a culture of active antagonism. I have had reports from the chief executive officers of some non-governmental organisations who have said that they believe that at a local level their Child Youth and Family branch will not cooperate with any ministerial directive for it to pass on work. The staff will pay lip service they will sit in the meetings and nod their heads but they have absolutely no intention of moving towards a place where they can pass on this low-level work to these highly competent providers. I think it is a crying shame that this issue is not being addressed very very seriously. 
If the Minister is serious about engaging in a much more relevant way with the non-governmental organisation sector to have it help provide the work that needs to happen she needs to show equal sincerity in following up on branches that seem to be making slow progress in this regard to find out what the real problem is. The feedback I am getting is that in some places there is huge resistance. I understand that in some sense social work is a young profession. We have created a Social Workers Registration Board and have given social workers 6 years to comply. The ministry itself is working at a reasonably good speed to make sure that all of its social workers are registered and so is the non-governmental organisation sector. 
What I cannot figure out—as somebody from the teaching profession who has enjoyed amazing collegial support and interaction all her teaching career—is why in the profession of social work it depends on the provider one is working for as to what one’s attitude is towards others. I find that really concerning and I believe that the Minister and her department could do a lot towards rectifying the situation. 
 I believe that the differential response model is a step in the right direction. I believe that the evidence is extremely clear that in the places where it has been piloted it has worked extremely well. I am concerned that even in the pilot schemes Child Youth and Family has been very selective and limited in terms of the non-governmental organisations it is prepared to work with. However even putting that aside I think there is the opportunity to reduce the department’s workload which is ever-increasing. Notifications currently go up at a rate of around 15 percent a year. After incidents like that of Coral Burrows the rate jumps 30 percent as people respond with concern to the situations they see around them. We expect the current staffing ratios to cope with this work. 
I also have a concern that Child Youth and Family seems to still be very output orientated. It says that yes its unallocated case rates are down but what I am hearing is that yes its unallocated case rates are down but the quality of the actual social work being done is very very limited. The social workers have made the phone call they have knocked on the door and they can tick the box—the case is no longer an unallocated case—but is there quality social work going on is there quality intervention are family and community groups that already have active roles with these families being included in the decisions that are being made? That is another matter and I have serious doubts. 
I encourage this ministry to use Vote Child Youth and Family Services to start to progress those very vital community relationships. If we want every community in New Zealand to have a true safety net around every child who lives in that community the last thing we can afford to do is to have holes in that safety net created by the fact that agencies that should be working together cannot even get on the phone to talk to each other and work collaboratively around case management. I do not think it matters which agency is the lead agency. 
I compliment the Government on its Vulnerable Families project. I love what I have seen and heard about the project and I believe that it is the way forward. But I also think there is room in that regard for non-governmental organisations to be included in that project. 
ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) 
: 
 I want to raise a number of issues with the Child Youth and Family estimate too and I echo my colleague Judy Turner. I felt that the Government and the Ministry of Social Development perverted the process of this estimate around Child Youth and Family. First of all the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment (CYF) appeared before the Social Services Committee before we had an audit report. So we were unable to have any prior briefing from the Audit Office on the performance of Child Youth and Family—and in fact the office later raised some quite significant issues. The Associate Minister did come back a second time to the select committee but even the answers to the questions that we had asked of the Associate Minister and her officials were not available to us by the time the Associate Minister appeared before the select committee on the second occasion. 
That really is a perversion of the process. That is not how it is supposed to work. Even to date we have not received the internal budgets from Child Youth and Family so we have no idea—even as we are discussing the estimates here today—what its internal budgets are. Now that hardly gives us confidence that this ministry which handles the most vulnerable people in our community is doing an adequate job or that it is a good manager because it cannot even manage this very simple process which is supposed to be transparent. 
The other issue that I raised with the Associate Minister was Child Youth and Family’s permanency policy. There are lots of fine words in the statement of intent and the ministry itself and the Associate Minister say that they understand how important it is to a child’s life that he or she has stability and a secure environment and that they understand the damage that can be done to a child by being constantly moved from pillar to post. Yet the figures that the Associate Minister released to me for last year show that over 1000 children in Child Youth and Family care last year were moved more than three times. In the life of a child who is in a vulnerable state that can have catastrophic effects on the future of that child. 
The Associate Minister said to me that social workers are doing their best and I believe they are. Most of those front-line social workers are doing the very best that they can within a system that is not supporting them. But the figures show quite clearly that a 6-year-old Manawatu boy was moved 11 times last year a 5-year-old girl from Hastings—my colleague Craig Foss’ electorate—was moved nine times in one year and a 2-year-old girl in Whenuapai was moved seven times. What does that do to the life of that child? The worst case that Child Youth and Family has is a boy now 14 years old who while he has been in Child Youth and Family care has been moved 43 times. How can that child ever hope for a normal happy fulfilled life when he has had no opportunity to have a secure home environment? This is destroying lives. 
I heard Tariana Turia talking before about making the children pay for the fault of their family and punishing the children twice—once because their family is dysfunctional and the second time because the State has stepped in and is supposedly making things better for them. Well the State is not making things better if it has not got that permanency sorted out. It is actually destroying the lives of these children and condemning them to a life that will probably be related to drug and alcohol dependency and that could well be a life of crime. 
The Associate Minister fobbed me off a bit because she said that these figures include respite care and that respite care does children no harm. I disagree. Any movement of a child from one environment to another causes problems for children; any parent knows that. Even a child that has a warm loving secure home environment will suffer when moved into a strange environment. It can be very upsetting for some children. These children do not come from that environment in the first place and the Associate Minister could show no research that has been done to show that respite care does no harm. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Labour 
KATE WILKINSON (National) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on the estimates portion of Vote Labour. I want to raise three main issues at this stage but to my mind they are very serious matters and they were raised in the questioning of the Minister during the estimates process in the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. 
I am not quite sure whether the Minister is aware that in the Employment Relations Act there is a very important section. It is not a very big section but it is a pretty important one and it basically states that the Act binds the Crown. Unfortunately that small but crucial section seems to have been ignored or disregarded by the Government. Under the employment relations law nobody not even the Crown is above the law so I would like the Minister in the chair Nanaia Mahuta to comment on a matter that I will now elaborate on a bit more. 
Under our employment relations legislation there is a clear unambiguous provision that a contract or an agreement between persons must not confer on a person a preference because that person is or is not a member of a union. So no preference can be conferred on a person in relation to the terms and conditions of employment because that person is or is not a member of a union. It is quite simple. Members can imagine our surprise at the response when we asked for an explanation of the preference payment of $500 which is taxpayer money that is paid by this Labour Government specifically and only to union members: to members of the Public Service Association. They get a preference payment of $500. The response from the department was quite amazing and actually worrying. Department officials said: “It’s not a preference payment. It’s a payment that’s negotiated by the collective agreement as part of the settlement of that collective agreement.” 
 So we inquired a bit further and asked: “Is this not giving some staff an extra $500 over other staff?”. We were then told: “Well it might not be. It might not be additional.” Then we were told—and it gets worse—that the union members get an extra $500 “not because they are a member of a union; it’s because they’re part of the collective agreement.” We all know that that is absolutely totally and completely absurd because under our labour laws a person cannot be a party to a collective agreement without being a member of a union. So it is a preference payment. It is a preference payment that is prohibited under the Employment Relations Act. That Act does in fact bind the Crown. It does in fact bind the Labour Government and it should be abided by. 
Workers should not have their pay docked merely because they do not belong to a union. In the aged-care sector this Government is using taxpayer money—taxpayer money—to actively recruit New Zealanders to join the unions that provide it with support. The matter is worse than that. People will have read the recent media releases about the dispute between people at district health boards and Spotless Services. I do not intend to get involved in the merits or otherwise of that dispute. It is actually the form of it that is concerning because that dispute reveals that 5 percent of the funding—this is taxpayer funding—will be paid to the union as a bargaining fee. That could be anywhere between $800000 and $1 million and do members know to whom it will be paid? It will be paid to the Service and Food Workers Union. Are we surprised at that when this is the very same union that we are told received some $300000—$350000; $380000—and paid it to the Labour Party no doubt to get the future Minister of Finance Darien Fenton her place in this Parliament? I am concerned about this matter and I really do think the Minister needs to take a stance on it because it is a lot of money it is taxpayer money and we have a duty to ensure that taxpayer money is spent properly and not contrary to the provisions of the law. 
In this department we also have another admission that the department is again flouting other rules this time by handing out $8 million worth of contracts—as my colleague Paula Bennett revealed—without going through the process of tendering. 
Craig Foss 
: Sounds familiar. 
KATE WILKINSON 
: Exactly. Both those instances involve taxpayer money. The rules are there to safeguard that money and those rules should be abided by—they should not be flouted. 
When we have the spending of all of that money we need to ask whether we are getting value for money. In the select committee we asked how productivity is measured; if we are spending all of that money on the public service how do we know we are getting productivity across the public service? Do members know what the answer was? It was: “I don’t think we are in a position to say too much about that at this point.” Frankly I think that is not good enough. We have an issue with regard to productivity and it has been raised in the Minister’s briefing paper. We are not highly up there in the productivity stakes the issue needs to be addressed and an answer that says: “I don’t think we are in a position to say too much about that at this point.” is I think negligent. 
That is not good enough and I would like the Minister in the chair to take a call and be accountable please for the deliberate flouting of the law by the department. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 What we had there from that National Party member Kate Wilkinson was a rave—an anti-union rave. Let union members negotiate the deals for union members and let people who are on individual contracts who refuse to join unions negotiate their own deals. Let them do that. But I ask the member not to come here and give an anti-union speech across this Chamber as though she somehow has gold in her hands. That is just absolute nonsense. 
The fact of the matter is that the National side of the House is anti-union and that member used that speech to attack some very good unions that are working hard for their members. The leader of the National Party and other National Party members bounce from cloud to cloud trying very hard to find something to give themselves a little bit of substance and another member of the National Party by the name of Mr Bill English claims to be the one grinding away at the real work. The real work is actually being done by Labour Ministers in a range of portfolio areas. That is the real work while those members bounce around on clouds with very little style looking for a bit of substance and not finding it. Substance is something they know nothing about as has just been illustrated by that last member’s speech. 
I want to talk briefly about the real work in Vote Labour led by that excellent member my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson. I tell the members of the Committee who did not really concentrate on the vote at all that this vote is about providing services to promote and support fair and productive employment relationships safe and healthy people in workplaces and issues—if members across the Chamber can recognise them—like safe management of hazardous substances. This vote is actually about creating innovative and productive workplaces and that means becoming a high-wage high-skilled and high-value economy. From that last speech I really wonder whether the members on that side of the Chamber know what a high-wage high-skilled high-value economy might mean. 
To do that we need to focus on things like raising skill levels and we are doing that work in this vote. We need to focus on producing more globally competitive firms and we do. We need to concentrate on increasing business investment in equipment and technology and there are many fine examples of that. We need to concentrate on increasing the value of work through raising workplace productivity and that means changes in work culture and practices. That sort of work is actually happening which may come as a surprise to members on the Opposition side. 
We need to concentrate on working with business networks and that is very well done by the Hon Ruth Dyson and by other members like the Hon Lianne Dalziel. We need to concentrate on that particularly in the small and medium enterprise sector. There is some very good work going on there productive work that it would appear members on the Opposition side know little about. We need to concentrate on things like providing online tools such as Holidays Online and the Employment Agreement Builder. I really wonder whether the members on the other side have even looked at some of the online tools of the Department of Labour. Perhaps they should look at the “ask a question” feature. It might do them some good. They might get some sensible answers that would help them when they go back to the real world outside Parliament after the 2008 election and actually have to know about things like business progress. 
The Labour-led Government has a strong focus on proactive approaches and those approaches are working. These are approaches that concentrate on higher-value work higher-quality working lives social dialogue and the awareness of fundamental rights for workers like the right to negotiate collectively which the last speaker might like to do a little bit more research on. All of that is bearing fruit. We now have every employee entitled to 4 weeks’ annual leave. Paid parental leave is available for the self-employed as well and remember that it is this Government that has increased paid parental leave to 14 weeks. The pay and employment equity 5-year plan of action is under way and that is something that members on this side are very proud of. National members might remember a certain Employment Equity Act that they repealed in 1990 as soon as they became the Government. Other things like quality flexible work are on the agenda. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Senior Citizens agreed to.  
Vote Conservation agreed to.  
Vote Housing 
BOB CLARKSON (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 I would like to ask the Minister of Housing about the State housing sector but I will not do that because I know that I would be wasting my time and I know that all I would get from the Minister would be half-baked answers and deviations from the truth. Therefore I will tell the Committee what I think. I have never in all my business life seen such a badly run business as the State housing sector. [ 
Interruption 
] I suggest the member opposite keeps quiet and learns. 
Although I believe we should help less-fortunate people it should be done in an affordable way. It totally amazes me that the Department of Building and Housing subsidises the State housing sector by $465 million per year. That is a massive amount. This subsidy increased by $100 million in the past year alone and equates to approximately $140 per house per week. I ask members to listen carefully. That is $140 per house per week. That is a stunning subsidy and that is after the rent has been paid by the tenant and collected by the department. 
If we add interest on to the cost of the value of the house we get a total subsidy of $480 per week per house. This is more than the average person pays in weekly payments for a mortgage to buy a house. It might be sensible for the Government to give State house tenants the house they occupy and close the State housing department. On my calculations the Government would save millions over the years. I am not recommending this but it just proves that the Minister has made a total mess of handling the State housing sector. 
The Minister bleats on about buying houses to put into the State housing pool. What a waste of money! I know of many cases where the department has paid $370000 to $420000 for houses in Tauranga that have three bedrooms and two-car garages. One of those houses was let for $60 a week to an elderly lady who lives on her own and has no car. 
This is a typical example of the failure of this Government’s Minister to be logical. Does anybody in this Government work out the financial cost in owning these houses? It would be a lot cheaper for the Government to pay the full rent for that elderly lady to move into the private sector and the Government—or taxpayers actually—would be better off by about $300 or $400 a week. We need a National Government in power to sort this problem out. 
The Minister of Housing is now thinking of moving into shared equity schemes. I warn him that that scheme is full of problems. I have studied it myself overseas. Who pays for and who benefits from an extension or any other upgrading of the house—for example a small room added on to the back? On second thoughts this Government will have no problem—it will just start up another Government department to deal with the problems caused by this Government department. It will cost millions to set up but this Government does not care. It is only taxpayers’ money! 
This housing Minister needs to wake up talk to the right people do some ground-breaking research and come up with an overall plan for State housing and affordable homes. The Minister is running around and achieving very little. For example this Labour Government’s home equity scheme was promised in 2004 2005 2006 and 2007 and it might with any luck start in 2008. The Minister is very consistent with his promises but he just keeps failing to deliver. We are lucky he will not be here in 2009; he will not be in Government. 
The Minister also intends to mix State housing with expensive houses in Hobsonville. This will top off the Minister’s foul-ups. This idea will offend both the top end and bottom end of the housing market. In answer to a written question the Minister would not tell me how much the sections in Hobsonville will cost. I want only an estimate of the price of the sections so that I can warn him how big a mess he will be in and what it will cost the taxpayers to get out of this mess and for this stuff-up. 
The Minister has been given two ears and one mouth so that he can listen twice as much as he talks. He has failed in that area. I finish off by saying that I look forward to a National Government being in power. Thank you. 
Vote agreed to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Before we go on to the next one I just say to members that we are debating the appropriations the estimates for 2007-08. All contributions should be geared towards that time frame. Members may deal with the past only if they are making comparisons or giving examples to illustrate what they are talking about in relation to 2007-08. 
Vote Courts agreed to.  
Vote Emergency Management agreed to.  
Vote Internal Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Defence) agreed to.  
Vote Veterans’ Affairs (Social Development) agreed to.  
Vote Employment agreed to.  
Vote Environment agreed to.  
Vote Social Development 
JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) 
: 
 It is very unusual in an estimates report from a select committee to have to say that the Minister had not answered the questions that we on the select committee had submitted in time for the estimates review. It is simply an indication of the fact that this ministry and this Minister simply cannot get their act together and do not wish to answer the questions that the select committee legitimately poses at the right time so that the answers can be elicited before the Minister and the ministry turn up in the select committee. 
For a ministry that has grown in size massively under this Government one would think that somewhere in there someone could be found to answer the questions. That was one of the comments that was made in the select committee—and it was a cross-party view—that people felt very strongly that an effort should have been made by the Minister and the ministry not to appear arrogant and to actually take the questions on board and to answer them. At the end of the day it is by that select committee process that we hold to account the ministry and the Minister for the taxpayers’ money. In fact it is not OK just to ignore it and say: “Too bad. We won. You lost.” which is what Michael Cullen said when the Labour Government came to power. 
One of the issues that we raised with the Minister and the ministry was that of sickness beneficiaries and the way in which sickness beneficiary numbers have massively increased under this Government. One of the concerns we have is the level of low-quality but high-cost programmes that have been operated. One of the concerns we have had is the fact that for instance the designated doctor scheme which this Government runs in relation to sickness benefit numbers means that there is a doctor who has issued 325 medical certificates for sickness benefit entitlements within one quarter—that is 3 months—or 5.1 every working day. The cost rose from $67 to $119 for each person. That is $600 a day just for signing off sickness benefit applicants. Then there are all the other times of the day in which to make even more profit. 
We have said to this Minister that we should be asking questions. We should be asking why it is that suddenly we are a country with a massive epidemic of sickness. After all we now spend so much more on the public health system that one would have to wonder why it is that we cannot keep people well. We have never had a proper answer other than that apparently people are getting older. When they get past 65 they are on New Zealand superannuation and would not be on the working-age benefit so most people have not quite worked out what the Minister means by that. 
One of the things we would really like to talk about is the single core benefit and the amount of taxpayers’ money that has been thrown into it. In 1989 Michael Cullen was Minister of Social Welfare. That is a long time ago. Except it is not so long ago because that was when he first started talking up a single core benefit. We were going to have every working-age beneficiary on one benefit. That scheme emerged again in 2000 and again in 2002. Lo and behold it became Labour Party policy again in 2005. 
I remember during that election campaign attending a meeting with Steve Maharey who was then the Minister of Social Development—because the portfolio turned from social welfare to social development for some reason. He gave this very long presentation at Victoria University with lots of PowerPoint things flashing across the screen about the single core benefit and how tying in—I think it was—seven benefits into one and adding multiple add-ons about another nine or 10 add-ons was somehow going to sort out benefit issues and make everything easier. 
We have found out from getting our work done and looking at what Treasury said and at the Official Information Act requests because clearly the Minister is not very good at fronting up with answers that the single core benefit has died a very very quiet death. It died in August last year. But it was never announced. It was one of those silent things—the sort of thing that happened when we used to be secretive about our SAS if anything secret happened. But in fact it was swept under the carpet and it has now reappeared only because we have decided to say: “By the way whatever did happen to the major welfare plank of the Labour Party in 2005 or by the way in 2002?”. It has gone just the same way as the taxpayer dollars that paid for it have gone. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Commerce agreed to.  
Vote Women's Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Corrections 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I guess there has not been a worse year than this year for the Department of Corrections. Every time someone gets up and holds the Minister to account for the performance of the department he keeps going back to the point that the number of escapes has dropped by 73 percent. He then goes on to talk about three escapes instead of four or something along those lines. But if we have a close look at the Department of Corrections and where it has been over the past 12 months or so there has been one little mess after another. 
Let us have a look at the Graeme Burton debacle for instance which quickly followed the Liam Ashley one. Graeme Burton killed Karl Kuchenbecker and wounded three others. Who was in charge of Graeme Burton at that time? The answer is that it was the Department of Corrections. Burton was on parole and it was the department’s job to watch over him to ensure that his movements were compliant with his parole conditions. We know that he was released into the community on 10 July on parole and his exact location was withheld. He set about attending a course. Later on the police had information from good informants that he was wandering all over the place and was hitting up lower-order drug dealers using stand-over tactics—beating them up before robbing them. On one occasion Burton is said to have threatened to shoot all six witnesses to one of these robbings and beatings. We know that that took place on 30 November. He carried on like that. 
On 5 December Burton breached his parole and the Department of Corrections sent him a letter. No one went to look for him. No one told the police. No one followed up. His parole officer went on holiday. More things happened—the sorts of things we would expect him to be pulled up for. The police were worried sick. They were getting information on a frequent basis as to what he was doing—home invasion standing over other drug dealers making threats and gathering arms—but nothing was done. Eventually as we know he killed Karl Kuchenbecker on 7 January. What happened then? There was a storm in the media. The Department of Corrections was supposedly held to account and we had the further debacle of the CEO of the department appearing on television holding out his hands and saying: “There’s no blood on my hands.” 
Last night we had a vein-popping tirade from the Hon Phil Goff. He went on and on about National’s record in corrections. He was the one who made accusations around a project called INCIS which we all know is a part of history as a failed project. What he did not point out was that this Government appointed “Mr INCIS” as the CEO of the Department of Corrections. 
This year the Labour Government through the Department of Corrections will spend $311000 on chartered flights to move prisoners around the country. We have to wonder how it can spend so much money on doing that. The department spent $31 million on consultants in the past 4 years. I know that running up to the 1999 election there was an article in our local paper written by the Labour Party candidate who caned the National Government for having spent $5 million on consultants in the previous year. The Department of Corrections spent $3 million in the first 3 months of this year on consultants. Who would argue that they are any better than they were then? An amount of $2.6 million was wasted on removing the contract for the remand centre in Auckland and putting it back under the Government sector because there was a clash of philosophical extremes on the part of the Labour Party. 
The Labour Party through the Department of Corrections spends $190 a night on people staying in police cells. Last year 57000 prisoners—Department of Corrections inmates—stayed in police cells at a cost of $10.8 million. We have to wonder just where it is going. Jails can have flat-screen TVs and underfloor heating but when we ask the Department of Corrections about that it says: “Well you can’t build old. We’re building these new prisons and you can’t build old.” Well actually the department can build something that is not luxurious. It can tone it down a bit. We have to wonder just how much rope this Government wants when it can double the amount quoted—from $500 million to $890 million—to build four new prisons get 500 extra beds and spend $1 million per bed. If the Government cannot get a prison bed for less than $1 million it is doing it wrong. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 It is hard to know whether that speech justifies any reaction but on behalf of the over 5000 people who work in the Department of Corrections I will stand up and explain what we do because those people end up being the whipping boy too often for too many people in this country. They end up being a mere target for the National Party—a party that has not one policy in the area of corrections. I am sorry; it has two policies. One is to privatise the prison system and the other is to do away with parole. Both those policies are quite frankly ridiculous. 
The Department of Corrections does a very good job by any international measure and it does so in a very difficult area. Over the last 7 years we have increased the prison capacity by 2100 beds. It has cost over a billion dollars. We do not like spending money on prisons in this country but we came into Government facing a system that had been left to languish and had been run down under the likes of Nick Smith and other Ministers. We grasped the mantle and we built over 2100 new cells in this country to address the sad but realistic situation that New Zealand locks up people at the second-highest rate in the Western World. That is something we are not proud of. No one in this country should be proud of that. 
Every year the corrections system deals with over 68000 sentences in the community. Currently over 8100 people are in prisons around this country. We are determined as a Government to do more than just invest in prisons as we have had to do—and yes we do have underfloor heating because it is the most efficient and safest way to ensure we have minimum standards of heating in our prisons. I make no apologies for that. I make no apologies for building prisons that are of an international standard and will be there for 100 years conducting what is a necessary but sad part of Government responsibility. [ 
Interruption 
] Oh yes Nick Smith is there desperate to try to justify his management of the corrections system in the past. The only thing the previous National Government did was to attempt to start the privatisation of prisons. Those members initially signed a contract with Chubb. They initially built Auckland Central Remand Prison which we took back into the public prison system. 
Correction is a very difficult area of Government responsibility. We will maintain that responsibility under the wing of the Government. We will not attempt to disengage ourselves from that responsibility as the National members have said they would do by privatising prisons. All I would say to those people who think doing that might be better is that they should look offshore. They should look to Australia the US and other areas around the world that have attempted to privatise the prison system. It has failed. 
What we are doing is moving to improve the system we have within prisons in order to ensure that we have better programmes of rehabilitation and we have revamped them. We have invested huge amounts in reintegration so that at sentence end those prisoners will be better able to move back into the community and participate in a worthwhile way. Internationally the sad statistics are that far too many prisoners do reoffend. We are at the forefront of rehabilitation programmes and of initiatives to try to reduce that rate of reoffending. 
I stand up for each and every one of those people who work in the corrections system. Some have broken the rules and some have taken short cuts. We have put in place a new intelligence system whereby skilled people within the corrections system gather intelligence and information. They can identify any prison officer or any person employed by the Department of Corrections who is breaking the law or not abiding by the code of conduct and the policies we have laid down. When we identify one of these individuals and that person is stood down or the matter is taken to the police members of the Opposition stand up and say it is an indication of failure. Well I have to say that we will be identifying more individuals and there are only a few who may have been breaking the law or breaking the code of conduct or our policies. We will identify them because we have better systems of intelligence-gathering within the prison system now and we will be dismissing and prosecuting those people. 
Corrections is a difficult environment. Wherever one has 8000 criminals in any one system there will no doubt be some problems. We are not running kindergartens here—it is a very difficult area. Every measure against the corrections system—assaults on prisoners themselves assaults on staff and escape rates—in international terms has declined dramatically under this Government and will continue to do so. We have invested a huge amount in better security systems drug-dog teams single points of entry 17 kilometres of perimeter fencing and on and on it goes because we are committed to running a properly resourced effective and efficient corrections system in this country and we will continue to do that. 
The only alternative we have heard from the National Party from the bleating of Simon Power and Chester Borrows is that National would privatise the prison system and all parts of it and that it would do away with parole. Well that begs the question—if anyone were to ask anyone intelligent—of how we attempt to reintegrate people back into society when they reach the end of their sentence. Parole is accepted as a key component of any system of corrections incarceration rehabilitation or reintegration—call it what we like. Parole will continue to be part of the system. It must be well managed. We have moved to make changes in that area as we have whenever we have identified a problem within the corrections system or the justice system. 
I look forward to the passage of the Criminal Justice Reform Bill and to the new community sentences that will be brought into place. They will assist us to reduce over time the number of people who have to be sent to prison and ultimately they will reduce the rate of incarceration in this country which is quite frankly a disgrace. This Government will invest in front-end policies like early childhood education Working for Families and social support because we know that ultimately that is the best way to reduce the rate of crime and the rate of incarceration in this country. I applaud the efforts of the people working in the corrections system. I think that they do an outstanding job in the face of very difficult and trying circumstances. 
Chester Borrows 
: Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Not on this vote Mr Borrows. You have two calls on Vote Corrections. [ 
Interruption 
] No the member had two calls albeit he did not use too much of the second one. 
NATHAN GUY (Junior Whip—National) 
: 
 I seek leave for Chester Borrows to have a call on Vote Corrections. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 The Minister asked the question: “Well how do you deal with people who are being released back into the community if they’re not on parole?”. The answer to that is: “You deal with them while they are in prison.” 
Every person who goes to prison has to come out of it in better nick than when he or she went in. We know that at the moment 8000 prisoners are inside our prisons. The Minister said that himself and he confirmed it. There are 44 drug and alcohol beds and 199 people are waiting for treatment in those beds. But no one is addressing the problem. We know that 83 percent of the 8000 people in our prisons have drug and alcohol problems. Funnily enough 83 percent of those people have literacy and numeracy problems as well. But you know people serving a sentence of less than 2 years under this lot over there cannot get any help with those problems—none whatsoever—and that keeps people on a cycle that has them going back to jail back to jail back to jail. 
In Wanganui a shoe factory was operating out of Kaitoke prison. It was put there funnily enough under the National Government which according to Mr O’Connor cocked up corrections well and truly in spite of the fact of course that Labour has been in Government for 14 of the last 22 years. Apparently anything that has ever gone wrong in corrections is National’s fault. Anyway a shoe factory was operating within the Kaitoke prison. The prison took 100 inmates a year the vast majority of whom had never worked. In 2003 that factory was closed down by Labour because it did not make a profit but what it did do was to save the taxpayers of New Zealand $5 million a year in unreturned prisoners. Anecdotally every one of those wardens at the Kaitoke prison who were involved in watching over the shoe factory said that none of the prisoners came back—none of them ever came back. 
This Government has spent $11 million on landscaping prisons. That is the big plus it can point to when it talks about what it has done around prisons. But members should look at the situation around the Liam Ashley debacle. Look at what happened there. The parents of this young man through a tough love arrangement said that yes they would allow him to go into prison overnight believing he would actually be safe within the care of the Department of Corrections under this Government. But where did he go? He went to the Auckland remand centre which had been privatised under National and which this Government accepted had a better record than any other State-run remand centres. He was put there at that centre run by the Department of Corrections and he died because he was locked up in a cage in a prison van with a guy who had murdered. He was chained to him and what do you know that guy beat the hell out of him. What do we ever hear from corrections about that? 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Damien didn’t even say sorry. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: We did not hear that. We were told that the parents were apologised to but the parents say: “Oh funny—we don’t remember that; we don’t remember that at all.” 
Then within a few months we had the debacle around Graeme Burton which we mentioned earlier on. The fact is that this Government does not know how to “do” corrections. It stuffed up the budget. The sum of $500 million was set aside for four new prisons and that figure blew out to $890 million for only another 500 beds—a million bucks a bed. What did we find last year? Well we found that we gave $1.9 million in bonuses to the administrators of the Department of Corrections. And just this year so far over $1 million dollars has already been paid out to administrators within the department. The Minister himself has to accept that the department has never been run so badly because he cannot point to a single year under a National administration when there was stuff-up after stuff-up in corrections. 
Hon Damien O'Connor 
: Of course you can. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: Well I ask the Minister to give us a year. The Minister can give us a year if he wants to but he can never point to a single year in corrections under our administration when corrections ever performed so badly—not one. I say to him: “The microphone is yours Minister. Take a call.” 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I could sit down here and for the next 10 minutes read off a list of incidents that have happened in corrections under a National Government. I do not think that anyone would pretend that incidents are not part and parcel of corrections life but we hope to keep them to the minimum and not to have any tragic consequences as a result of any of them. I acknowledge—and have done so to the families of these victims—that in the case of Liam Ashley and the Kuchenbeckers through the Burton situation we have had tragic outcomes from mistakes that were made in the justice system. 
I say though to go back to a couple of points raised by the previous speaker that when we came into Government there were two drug and alcohol units but yes they were delivering very few places in the corrections system for people with drug and alcohol problems. At the end of next year we will have six drug and alcohol units operating in this country and there will be places for 500 inmates. I have opened two new drug and alcohol units myself and there are two more to be opened. We have committed a huge amount into this area after years and years of neglect. 
The member referred to literacy and numeracy issues but never has there been more money poured into education in the corrections system than is currently happening. We now have prisoners leaving prison with New Zealand Qualifications Authority (NZQA) credits—for many of them it is the first time they have ever achieved anything. I have been very proud to go to those celebrations where prisoners have broken down in a couple of instances because they have received acknowledgment of their talents. Each and every one of them has talents but we cannot turn their lives around overnight. The member says that we should fix up these prisoners while they are in prison. Well all we can do is offer them opportunities to address their drug and alcohol and literacy problems and we are doing so. 
In terms of employment less than 40 percent of the prison population were usefully employed when Labour took over. We have set the target under the Prisoner Employment Strategy of 60 percent of the prison population being employed or in training. I today visited Tongariro/Rangipo Prison to see the growth in opportunities that we are creating there for prisoners to get NZQA credits and to try to make something useful of the time they spend in prison so that when they leave they will be able to move into useful jobs and hopefully not return. 
Mr Borrows said—and I would like to check this out because I think I would certainly issue instructions to start a shoe factory again if what he said were true—that none of those prisoners ever returned to prison. Well I do not think there would be one programme in the world of which that could be said—unfortunately. It is not that we should not strive for such an outcome but that member said that no one ever returned. I think that that might be stretching the truth a little bit I tell Mr Borrows. 
We do our best to provide useful employment and training within the prison system. We have moved to get accreditation for that skills training so that people can leave with credits and I am very proud—as are most of the people in the corrections system—of the progress we have made in these areas of drug and alcohol rehabilitation of better health services and of improved opportunities for employment. Once again I say thank you to the people who work in the corrections system for their commitment and their work in the face of very trying times. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Well the taxpayer isn’t thanking the Minister for the incredible waste of public money. 
Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR 
: But National members like that member there just want to harp on and criticise each and every one of them time and time again for no good reason. 
LESLEY SOPER (Labour) 
: 
 I stand to take a short call on corrections. We have just heard not a lot of time ago from a National speaker who basically managed to say nothing at all that was positive about our corrections system. All he could manage to do as a speaker—and as part of the National Party once again bouncing from cloud to cloud looking for substance—was to bash our corrections system. 
In fact the Department of Corrections is doing a very good job under a very good Minister. The people who work in corrections are doing a very good job. Let us not forget all those people; one of them is my relative in Invercargill. I pay tribute to those staff members in the prison in Invercargill in my electorate who are doing a fantastic job in a difficult area. They do not deserve to be knocked by those members opposite. They do not deserve to be knocked at all by those members opposite for nothing but a bit of cheap publicity. They are dedicated staff each and every one of them; they do a good job. They treat prisoners like people which seems to be something that is missing from the spirit of Mr Borrow’s speech—people who might actually have a future when they leave prison. 
It might be something new for Mr Borrows to reflect on that many of the prisoners he talked about in the speech he just gave are people who will leave prison and who deserve the ability and the guidance to rehabilitate themselves back into society and lead useful lives. That is what this very good Minister is helping to lead in our corrections system. He is helping to put in place the actual rehabilitation programmes that give some of those people a chance when they leave prison. 
It might come as news to the National Party that we do not help put people in prison then throw away the key and feed them on bread and water. Many of those people will come out of prison and we want them to come out and lead good lives. The fact is that most prisoners will come back into society. If those members opposite have not worked that out yet then it will be a very sad thing if they ever get their hands on the corrections system again. Those innovative programmes that the current Minister has helped put in place are making a difference and are giving prospects for the future. 
And what is the only thing that National has to offer as a solution for corrections? It is privatisation. Well National tried that when in office and it failed. If ever it got its hands on the corrections system and tried to privatise it again then it would fail again because the policy is without substance. It is another one of the ghostly raft of non-policies which are all that National is capable of delivering. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Tourism agreed to.  
Vote Communications agreed to.  
Vote Immigration agreed to.  
Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 Today the latest energy data for New Zealand was released and what we have discovered is that all the talk about carbon neutrality from the Prime Minister in the 8 years Labour has been in Government is an absolute farce. I want to challenge the Government about its record in this vital area of public policy. Firstly I ask the Associate Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven how the goal of carbon neutrality matches the figures put out today. In the last year there was a 9.7 percent increase in the burning of coal. That is an extra 15 petajoules of coal going into the system. Does anybody believe that the fastest-growing area of energy is coal? And we are meant to believe that this Government is about carbon neutrality! 
Colin King 
: No! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I agree with the member. We are expected to believe in Father Christmas the tooth fairy and now the Prime Minister on carbon neutrality. 
Then when we look at the electricity sector specifically we see that in the period of this Labour Government the amount of electricity produced from burning coal has trebled. I remind Ms Soper that that is right. Since Labour has been in office we have seen a lower proportion of electricity produced from renewables than at any time in New Zealand’s history. We are now down to a level of just 59 percent. I ask the Associate Minister in the chair why it is that Labour came into office saying it was going to reduce emissions when in the sector that is dominantly owned by the State the electricity sector we have seen the proportion of renewables drop and the proportion of electricity produced from coal treble. 
Let me bring this back to the attention of the Associate Minister. How does he justify that the Prime Minister does a photo opportunity every time a wind farm is opened when the increase in the amount of electricity produced from coal is seven times the amount of that produced from wind? For every megawatt that is being produced from wind farms under this Government 7 megawatts are produced from coal. Does the Associate Minister in the chair deny those statistics from his own ministry? No he does not because they are the facts. How can we possibly be running this line about carbon neutrality and about all the talk internationally of this Government taking climate change seriously when the amount of power produced from coal is increasing at seven times the rate that it is from wind farms? 
Then I have to ask this question: why is it that we have the Government objecting to every new hydro scheme that is proposed? Just last week we saw the Environment Court give a tick to the Wairau hydro scheme in my part of the world. This is the biggest hydro scheme that has been proposed since the Clyde Dam. The part I cannot work out is that the Prime Minister talks carbon neutrality and the Department of Conservation appeals the Wairau hydro scheme. I would love the Associate Minister to explain that. 
Then in the adjournment we had the Prime Minister talking about the opening up of the Great South Basin to new petroleum. I said to myself: “Well I’ve still got a bit of a difficulty here Harry. How can opening up new hydrocarbon resources in the Great South Basin match with carbon neutrality?”. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Easily. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well I am not a petroleum expert but I would expect that if oil is taken out of the ground it is probably going to be burnt and that does not sound too much like carbon neutrality. I say to the Associate Minister that if he wants to be honest with the public of New Zealand then he should tell them that carbon neutrality is just a big fraud. It is just a con job. The Prime Minister does not believe it. None of the Ministers believe it. The Government is desperate. It has been in office for 8 years and has failed so badly on climate change that it would invent anything—anything at all—to try to justify its position. 
I have a very simple question for the Associate Minister— 
Lesley Soper 
: The member has no credibility on climate matters. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Maybe Lesley Soper will answer this for me. When will this Government meet carbon neutrality? 
Lesley Soper 
: You have no credibility on climate matters. You haven’t got a brain in your head. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Ms Soper who has the cheek to interject and say there is no credibility on climate change that she is dead right. This Government has absolutely no credibility on climate change. I ask her or the Associate Minister again. When will Labour achieve its goal of carbon neutrality? Oh she is quiet now. It is a simple question. When? 
Lesley Soper 
: How many wind farms did you open? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: What I can tell the member is that a National Government will reform the Resource Management Act so that wind farms like Project West Wind do not get tied up in bureaucratic red tape for 4 years as has occurred in this very city of Wellington. 
I can also say to the member opposite that a National Government will reform the Resource Management Act so that we can build hydro stations rather than trebling— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: You passed it in 1991! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Lianne Dalziel is piping in. Would she like to explain— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Who was in Government in 1991? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The National Party was in Government. Let me read the figures for her. I think that this Parliament would want to see an increasing proportion of our power being produced from renewable energy and through the 1990s we saw the commissioning of the Clyde Dam and an increase in the amount of renewable energy. The Associate Minister in the chair looks sceptical. I ask him why it is that in every year that Labour has been in office there has been a reduction in the proportion of our power produced from renewables. How can we have the Prime Minister open Parliament at the beginning of this year and say the word “sustainability” not once not twice not three times but 39 times? Yet we have the least sustainable Government in the history of New Zealand in respect of electricity in that we have the lowest proportion ever of electricity that is produced from renewable resources. 
 I ask the Government when we will have a policy on climate change. It has been in Government— 
Lesley Soper 
: You don’t have a policy. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Let me tell the member what our policy is. National has a policy of a 50 percent reduction in emissions by 2050. National has a policy of a comprehensive emissions trading system to deliver that outcome. National has a policy of reforming the Resource Management Act so that we can have wind farms and hydro stations. National has a policy of smart investing in energy efficiency. I could go on and on but now we are to debate what Labour’s policy is. 
I ask Lesley Soper why it is that 8 years after Labour came to office the independent Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says that the climate change policies in New Zealand are a disgrace and a vacuum and that we are going nowhere. Does Lesley Soper disagree with the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment? 
Lesley Soper 
: You have no credibility. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well let us talk about what the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says. She says that there is a vacuum in climate change policy 8 years into a Government that promised to reduce emissions by 20 percent by 2005. In fact emissions went up by 12 percent. And Government members want to talk about credibility! The Government has no credibility on this issue. 
I want Harry Duynhoven to answer a few simple questions. When will we have an emissions trading system? When will we have some idea as to how the Government will meet its Kyoto Protocol requirements? Will we have to send a cheque for hundreds of millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ money to foreign Governments for the botch-up that this Government has made in this critical area of climate change? I also want to know from the Minister when we will actually see a change in the trend around renewable energy. I want to know from the Minister when we will achieve this bizarre goal—which nobody believes—of carbon neutrality. I want to know from the Minister his response to the statistics out today showing that this New Zealand Labour Government has the worst record of any country in terms of climate change with three times the growth in emissions of Australia and four times the growth in emissions of the United States. I say to the Minister that it is disgraceful. When will we finally see some policy? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 Well it is a pleasure to follow the former deputy leader of the National Party a member who very briefly held that role. Can I just say a few things to the member and correct a few of the myths he has been portraying here for us tonight. 
First of all the member must remember that New Zealand has the third-highest level of renewables in the world and we are going to build on that. The country with the highest level of renewable energy in the world is Norway with 110 percent. Why 110 percent? Because it exports electricity from its hydro systems. The country with the second-highest level of renewable energy is Iceland. Why Iceland? Because it has a huge geothermal resource it widely uses. And we—I say to Dr Smith for his information—are third in the world. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: And we’re going down! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No no. The member of course counts all sorts of interesting things in his calculation. He very conveniently forgets that the vast majority of the coal mined in New Zealand is exported and that other countries use it. Is mining and exporting coal a good activity? Well if one is a steel maker in Korea one might get— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The figures I have quoted are of New Zealand’s use of coal and not of exported coal so I seek leave to table today’s energy statistics that list New Zealand’s burning of coal and not that which is exported. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: We will take that tabling but you should not interrupt the speaker for that purpose. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: The Minister was making claims that were quite false. The Minister was making a claim that the figures I had quoted included coal that was exported. That is incorrect. The New Zealand energy figures today refer to consumption and they are the figures I seek leave to table. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich) 
: Leave has been sought for that course to be followed. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: The level of coal use in New Zealand—just for the benefit of the member—is actually down. The level of coal use in New Zealand to generate electricity is down. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: No it’s not! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Well that is what the officials tell me. Dr Smith can seek leave to table what he likes. Can I suggest that as I did not interrupt Dr Smith from close range during his speech he does me the same courtesy . I say to the member that carbon neutrality has always been a long-term goal. I find it very interesting that he keeps asking when Labour will tell everyone the time we will reach carbon neutrality. 
Well I have a question for the member and for every National member here. Would National if elected pull out of the Kyoto Protocol agreement? That is the critical question because National makes lots of noise about the protocol. Members should remember that the Hon Simon Upton a former very distinguished National Minister signed the Kyoto Protocol agreement on behalf of New Zealand. But Dr Smith talks about how energy use is going up and how New Zealand is being less efficient in terms of the percentage of renewables etc. 
There is a very good reason for that and more than any other member I am aware of it because I come from the energy province of New Zealand Taranaki. In Taranaki we know that in the entire period of the National Government extremely little exploration—it is going down every year—was done in the oil and gas industry. Why is that important? That is important because the massive Maui gasfield we all knew had a finite life. We have actually extended its life a little in my time as the responsible Minister. But leaving that to one side I tell members that the problem is that if we run out of gas we have to keep our electricity system going. We are using gas at Huntly the largest thermal power station in New Zealand—the only coal-fired power station in New Zealand. So why has coal use gone up in the term of this Government? It has gone up because there was insufficient gas to continue running the Huntly power station on gas and therefore that station has reverted to using coal. Thank God there was the ability for it to be dual-fuelled. 
What else have we done? The Government-owned company Genesis has built E3P on the site of the Huntly gas-fired power station—which is now largely coal-fired—and that particular project has increased the efficiency of the Huntly power station and reduced the need for the burning of gas coal and other fossil fuels. Why has electricity consumption gone up in the period of this Government? The answer is very simple. We have a massive increase in the economy a massive increase in productivity and a massive increase in the use of energy. So I want to tell Dr Smith that if he cannot answer the question of whether National will stay in the Kyoto Protocol— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Yes. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: National will stay in the Kyoto Protocol? That is the first time we have heard that. I will tell members what Mr Key the current leader of the National Party has said about the Kyoto Protocol. First of all in regard to climate change he said: “This is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so.” I am quoting John Key. He asked next what would happen down the track on emissions. He then said that the Kyoto Protocol was not a good idea for the people of New Zealand. Those are all quotes from Mr John Key the current leader of the National Party. 
Dr Smith has made a lot of noise about the Resource Management Act. I tell the member that Project Aqua which he claims was scuttled because of the Resource Management Act actually had nothing to do with that Act. Project Aqua that proposed hydro project was actually scrapped— 
Colin King 
: I think it did have something to do with it Minister. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No I am sorry. It was actually scrapped for a very good financial reason. The cost of building it grew greatly because of the fact that it was suddenly discovered that miles and miles of concrete culverts had to be built and the loss of water that would have escaped from the project when diversion canals were built and then used to make the project work would have been so high that the loss was unacceptable. It was discovered that all the channels of those canals actually had to be concreted. I am reasonably familiar with this sort of engineering; I have a Dutch background and I know just how expensive that engineering is. 
I also say that there are only so many places in which one can build major hydro dams. If the Government is using its thermal resources in New Zealand to generate electricity it makes real sense to try to establish as much alternative production of energy as we can. That is why in the time of this Government I have personally opened one wind farm in the Tararuas. As well three more projects are under way—three large wind projects are in train—Makara Mahinerangi and Project Hayes. They are all on the way and are all going to produce energy for this country. 
We have repeatedly said that New Zealand like every other country that has a fossil fuel base for its energy will be reliant on fossil fuels for some time yet. Those who import our fossil fuel resources—our oil our gas if they are importing gas; they are not yet but maybe in the future they will be and that is one of the purposes of the Great South Basin—are responsible for the thermal resource. But if people are burning New Zealand coal in Korea is that a good thing or a bad thing? It is a good thing if the other coal they might use is vastly less good for the production of steel because our coal is the best steel-making coal in the world. How good is our coal? The largest coal-exporting port in our part of the world— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Is it carbon neutral? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: If the little member would be quiet for a while he might learn something. 
The largest coal-exporting port in our part of the world is Newcastle in Australia. Our coal our high-quality thermal steel-making coal is so good that we export coal from the West Coast of New Zealand to—where? It goes to Newcastle in Australia the largest steel-producing area in our part of the world and the largest coal-exporting port in our part of the world. Why would Australians import New Zealand coal if they have the largest coal-exporting port in our part of the world? They import it because it is such good coal for the basic steel-making process that it reduces the need to burn inferior-quality coal. 
I tell Dr Smith that that is why it is important that we keep these things in perspective. Dr Smith is an engineer a professional engineer and I would expect logic from a professional engineer. I would expect a professional engineer such as Dr Smith who is professionally trained to use his brain for the good of this country and not to slag the things that have to be done. 
I do not like the fact that we have to burn more coal in Huntly and that we do not have the gas to do it. I would have liked the National Government to be a bit more responsible and get some oil and gas exploration under way so that we could have discovered some more gas resource in order that we did not have to burn coal in the Huntly power station. But I tell Dr Smith that we have done that. We have been doing the things that make sense in terms of climate change. 
We have been doing those things anyway. We have been putting in place insulation in houses. We have been putting in place solar water heating. The National Party members are baying at me because they know the truth. They know they did nothing. They know they sat on their hands not only in the time of the last National Government but even worse in the Muldoon era and there are probably still a few refugees such as Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith from that era. 
We want our children to have a world that is in as good a state as or in a better state than the one we inherited. I have small children. I want them to inherit a better world than we have now. But National members argue that we should scrap the Resource Management Act. What will that do for the environment? The National Government—which passed the Resource Management Act by the way in 1991—had 9 years in Government and did not change the Act at all but its members ever since have bayed that the Resource Management Act is a problem. 
We have a whole bunch of initiatives going on right now. I could spend a lot of time reading them but I want to say that we have a responsibility to keep New Zealand functioning and to be aspirational and lead to the future in terms of going to a carbon-neutral future sometime in the future. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: When? 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I tell Dr Smith that no one can tell because nobody knows how big the wind farms will be able to be how big our energy efficiency programmes can be and all those things. All I am telling Dr Smith is that it is really simple. If he stops heckling and stops being rude for a while we might get somewhere. 
I want to say to members that I take my responsibility—[ 
Interruption 
] I am sorry but Sandra Goudie is a very rude woman and she should be quiet. I tell members that I want to see a world for my children where they inherit things in better shape than the things we had. Part of that temporarily is that we are burning more fossil fuel. I tell Dr Smith that that is correct because we have no other hook to hang our hat on. But I tell members that as time goes on we will get more efficient we will get more energy efficiency in place— 
Sandra Goudie 
: But we aren’t—that’s the point. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: —I tell Sandra Goudie that we are I am sorry—and we will get more insulated homes in place. We are hearing a whole lot of noise from National members and it is like static on a short-wave radio. They are talking about scrapping the Resource Management Act. They keep throwing up these issues as red herrings. The very simple fact is that we have an economy that is producing and using more electricity. There was no forward planning. There was no oil and gas exploration for the longer term. We are now seeing a considerable advance on that. We are seeing oil and gas exploration producing resources for this country. It means we will need less coal to be burnt in electricity generation and the end goal is to have an economy that is viable and dynamic—as we have—but that uses less energy to be so. That is a huge challenge particularly when we have not done the background work—and National left us exactly in that spot. It mucked up the electricity system. It mucked up comprehensively in terms of oil and gas exploration. 
What we will see as time goes on is a country that gets more efficient as we put these solutions in place. We will see a country that takes its responsibilities seriously in relation to the Kyoto Protocol. We will not hear the double-talk from the Labour Party that we have heard from the National Party over these issues and we are still hearing it. The emperor has clothes according to the National Party; it has not learnt the lessons. 
We have to continue down a path that will see for New Zealand an energy-secure future a dynamic economy and jobs for our people. We have achieved on most of these things and as well we have to ensure that our responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol—which I remind members was signed up by a National Minister—are going forward to a day where we can make the best use of our resources and ensure that our children have a future that is more sound more environmentally sustainable and in better shape than that we unfortunately had to inherit. 
I want to be part of that. I want to ensure that this Government is doing the right things—and so far we have done pretty well when we consider the mess we inherited. I know that my time is almost up on this particular call. I will wait and see what National members have to say and I just might come back for another call. Thank you. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 Members can see why this Government’s climate change and energy conservation policy is in such trouble. The Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven packages up a whole pile of fairy tale fictional rubbish and presents it as if it were fact. He says that we are to be a sustainable nation because the Prime Minister says so. In the meantime we will burn more coal than anyone has ever seen before. We will burn it here we will burn it in Newcastle we will burn it in China and we will burn it anywhere. In the meantime we will go around tilting at every windmill we can see in the hope that it might make some difference to our children’s lives in the future because we want this country to be a nice clean green country etc. 
The Minister’s view is totally divorced from the reality of what his Government is doing. Here it is in black and white. The Government’s own agency is reporting not last year not last month not last week but today that coal production and the use of coal for energy in this country has seen a 10 percent rise in the last 12 months. 
Why will Helen Clark not accept the invitation to go up and open the E3P plant in Huntly? It is because of—in a word—embarrassment. The word “sustainability” was mentioned 39 times in her speech at the beginning of the year but my goodness at the very time when she was saying that we had a record use of coal for energy production in New Zealand last year and the only reason the lights are staying on this year is that a gas-fired plant a three-stage turbine is fired up at Huntly. 
The Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven is telling an absolute porky when he says there is not enough gas to fire up Huntly. Rubbish! There is plenty of gas and the Minister knows that. He knows that the predictions for the Maui gasfield have been extended and extended and extended. He knows that there is lots of gas in Pohokura. He knows that suddenly the Maui field which for years was considered to be a pretty low-level low-flow field is now in full-on production and is entirely backing E3P. What he does not tell us is that it is convenient to burn coal it is cheap to burn coal and it works to burn coal. If that coal was not being burnt and that 1000 megawatts was taken out then the lights in the country would go out. 
So here we have a Government saying that it will do something for the environment; that we are to have a sustainable New Zealand. It is not a target. At least the National Party has said that we will try to reduce emissions by 50 percent by 2050. But from this Government there has been absolute silence on any target. 
Everywhere anyone looks the picture is bleak. The Minister said: “We have a range of wind farms.” and I think he said they are about to come on to production. Every one of those projects is held up in the Environment Court. Every one of those projects will end up with a greatly compromised consent. Everyone knows that that is how it works because the deck is stacked against renewable projects. But it is interesting that E3P and Whirinaki never went near that process because those sorts of projects are easy to get consents for. 
National members ask a simple question. If the Prime Minister is out there saying that we want a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy then why does her Government not make the changes that are necessary? 
The Minister also said that Project Aqua was scrapped because water would have spilled all over the place. That is rubbish. Keith Turner the chief executive has told anybody who wants to listen that the prospect of going for more than 360 individual consents on that project made it economically unviable. There was far too much time and far too much capital tied up for far too long. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: Talk to the engineers. 
GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Well the interesting thing is that the irrigation projects that were a consequence of that are actually going ahead. There was no problem with those. It might surprise the Minister if he looked at where the water was coming from at where the water will now go and at what is missing in the middle which is the generating capacity from a renewable source like that. It is what this country so sorely needs. 
The Minister also challenged the National Party as to whether it would pull out of the Kyoto Protocol. In my view that is a somewhat stupid question. Clearly we will not pull out of the Kyoto Protocol and we have said that over and over. But the Kyoto Protocol will not survive beyond 2012. I think the question is what the Government will do when we get to 2012. There is silence. 
David Parker came to the Commerce Committee a couple of weeks ago and for a start he told us that the expected emissions first stated by the Ministry for the Environment which showed us in credit were wrong. But now the Minister also tells us that the figures showing we are in some sort of deficit are equally wrong and that rather than a $1.8 billion deficit he thinks it might be somewhere around $600 million. 
Does that mean that the Government will simply pay it and not do the things it should do to try to lessen the effects of carbon dioxide emissions in our own country? Does that mean that we listen to what Minister Duynhoven had to say today—that burning coal is not such a bad thing after all and because we have such good high-quality coal why should we not burn it here and simply pay our way out somewhere else in the world? A question arose as to where the payment goes to in 2012. Where does the Government write the cheque to? 
I would like the Minister in the chair Harry Duynhoven who is a different Minister to confirm this statement from Minister Parker because different Ministers have different views which is the only consistent thing with this Government in any portfolio. Minister Parker told the committee members that New Zealand emitters could either spend that money reducing emissions in this country or—and this is straight out of a transcript—they may choose to invest in carbon reduction programmes offshore and if they can gain a greater amount of credits then so be it. The question though that sits in behind all of this is whether it is now the Government’s intention simply to give up on the prospect of having a greater level of renewable energy to do away with some of the energy efficiency options we have in this country and to create some sort of domestic trading market that is largely predicated on purchasing our way out of the particular mess we are in. 
One of the things we can be certain of is that beyond 2012 the whole world will get into this—the recent G8 conference makes that extremely clear. Our opportunity is to get ahead of it but it is alarming to hear people like David Parker giving trite explanations such as those he gave to a select committee just a few weeks ago. I wish his officials who appear to be in the Chamber tonight had been at that select committee meeting because then they would know what he had said and this evening they would be giving accurate advice to the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven who as we have already discussed has very little idea of what these particular issues are all about. 
But we are talking about climate change in these estimates and I wonder whether the Minister might be prepared to tell us when we are likely to see some papers indicating the Government’s thinking on a trading market when we would expect that trading market to be up and running and just where the Government thinks it will get some of the credits it needs in order to start that particular market. These questions should not go unanswered; they are questions that the current Minister should get up and explain. 
I think it would also be nice if the Minister was prepared to apologise to the officials who sit behind him for denying the information they have put out today in the New Zealand  
Energy Data File 
 dated 18 July 2007 which makes it absolutely clear that electricity generation from renewable sources accounts for 66 percent inside a growing market. That means that a greater percentage of our electrical energy consumed now comes from thermal sources than was the case just a few short years ago. 
I further want to ask the Minister how many gasfields have come on in the last 8 years that were explored consented and developed entirely in the time of the Labour Government. The answer is very very few and at a very very low level. But let us think about the volume of them. The reality is that Pohokura was started and developed under a National Government and it was finally approved during this Minister’s term and that the extensions on Maui and on the small field Kupe have all come about as a result of work commissioned by the previous National Government. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 I just want to clear up a few of the myths that are being promoted around here but let me begin by asking Mr Brownlee a question. He talked about a need for the Government to get away from the use of fossil fuels. The only way I can think of travelling in this country without using fossil fuels is by either bicycle or horse. I ask Mr Brownlee to tell us when he last rode a bicycle or a horse. It has all gone quiet. I tell Mr Brownlee to sit down; he will get his chance to come back to me with an answer. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I rise to answer the question asked of me by the Minister and seek leave to do so. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member seeks leave to answer that question. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I will deal now with some of the myths that Mr Brownlee talked about. First of all in the December quarter of last year 74 percent of New Zealand’s electricity use was from renewables. On average it is around 70 percent. We are ranked third-highest country in the world in terms of electricity generation from renewables. 
Let us talk about targets for Kyoto. National’s target for climate change initiatives to get to a sustainable carbon-neutral point is 50 percent by 2050. That is 43 years away. That is a 43-year kick for touch. This is the promise one makes when one knows one is going to be dead before the promise has to be honoured. That is what National is doing. Labour is actually dealing with the issues here and now in New Zealand. 
The important thing about burning fossil fuels such as coal oil or gas is that one takes responsibility for its emissions as we do in New Zealand and as we expect other countries under the Kyoto agreement to do. When we export coal we expect countries that are buying it to do that. Coal use for generating electricity is down in New Zealand. As a result— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: No it’s not! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I say to Mr Brownlee that I have not interrupted him. He should do me the courtesy of being quiet and listening instead of being rude. Coal use is down in New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] I say to Dr Smith that he should be quiet and listen. Coal use— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Three times! 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No please be seated. The member knows that—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet members. There will be silence. [ 
Interruption 
] We will just have some order please. There is to be silence when I am ruling. The point is Dr Smith that you were just barracking too much and I would ask that you have reasonable interjections. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Coal use is actually down since the E3P project came on because it uses the energy of that power station much more efficiently and generates more electricity for the same amount of coal use. Coal use in New Zealand has actually gone down since E3P was commissioned. But according to Mr Brownlee E3P was a massive mistake because it uses more fossil fuels. I just do not understand where he is coming from at all. Genesis— 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I never said that. I think that E3P is a marvellous machine and we most certainly need it. The lights would be out right now if we did not have it. It is the only thing that is saving the Government from extreme embarrassment— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Please be seated. 
Gerry Brownlee 
:—and it is a great thing. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brownlee I give you a warning. You know very well that that is not a point of order and to interrupt a member’s speech like that is just not on. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: When there is little one can argue about I suppose that is the only tactic Opposition members have left. When they were in Government they did not take the initiatives or make the moves needed to ensure we had a secure energy future and now they oppose things like transmission line upgrades in order to ensure we can keep as Mr Brownlee says the lights on in our key cities. Genesis Energy says that the introduction of E3P—that massive three-stage gas turbine at Huntly—will actually reduce New Zealand’s carbon footprint in the energy sector by around 10 percent. That is substantial but it also ensures security of supply which is a major major objective. 
In 2012 this Government will be involved in whatever agreement the world is involved in at that time because climate change is a global issue. We cannot do it on our own but together with other countries that have a progressive and like mind we will make a difference and as is so often said New Zealand regularly punches above its weight in the world environment. Will the National Party still be following the lead of Kazakhstan by 2012 or—if it happens to be the Government at some stage in the future—will it be at the table negotiating in New Zealand’s interests? 
We were challenged a few minutes ago about climate change initiatives. I just wave a small document of 12 pages of Labour’s climate change initiatives. Now I could go through them one by one and tell the National Party and others in the Chamber precisely what the Government is doing. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: Table it! 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I am very happy to table it if the member would like me to. But what we have is a lot of crocodile tears and a lot of nonsense from the National Party which is actually jealous that it did not have the foresight when it was previously in Government to do much about security of supply for New Zealand or to do much about looking ahead for energy use. Mr Brownlee talked about—and he was I think energy spokesperson or deputy energy spokesperson for a while— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No that is an oxymoron Gerry and energy. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: Well he will maybe answer the question about when he was last on a bicycle or a horse. But he must know having been in this place a while that one cannot simply bandy figures about on things like Maui. The Maui project was a huge project and with the technology of the day it was estimated that it had a finite field life that would end in about 2007 2008 or 2009. It was estimated at about that. What we have done in the period since by renegotiation of the Maui gas contract is make it possible for the operators of the field to extend the life of the field. This is very common in the oil and gas industry. 
Another marvellous example is the Kapuni field which was originally scheduled to be long closed. I remember at the age of 4 years old as a little tacker being taken by my dad to see the first flare at the Kapuni gas production site. Kapuni has— 
Simon Power 
: In a horse and cart. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: No not quite in a horse and cart but it was close. It was a 1934 Morris Ten. 
 The issue is that Kapuni with massive changes in technology extensions and horizontal drilling of wells has had its life extended dramatically. It has produced vastly longer and vastly more than was ever proposed when it was discovered. That is what happens with oil and gas technology. One of the reasons the Great South Basin is now being developed—we have begun the exploration phase—is that we now know that it is possible if oil and gas is discovered there to bring that to market. 
That is what changed. The technology has changed dramatically. That is why Maui has been extended. As recently as 2 or 3 years ago there was no appreciation of quite how much longer we might get out of Maui. We think now it might be 2014. It may even be a little longer as extension technology and new techniques are developed. But that is what the oil and gas industry is all about. It is a highly technical industry with very competent marvellous people who are prepared to go out on a limb to test theories and they make a difference. 
As a country we have had to be responsible for our future. In terms of energy use we are a highly intensive energy-use country largely because of the fact that we are long and thin without too much in the way of but now greatly increasing public transport. Without a huge public transport network most of us depend on private cars for transport. As a result we are quite energy intensive. I have not heard anything yet from the National Party on what it proposes to do about oil and gas for those fleets of cars around the country for the trucks that our commerce depends upon for our railway system and for our agriculture. 
All of those things depend on diesel petrol and to some degree liquefied petroleum gas fuel. As a result we have been responsible and said that this country needs to find more oil and gas resources to keep our economy going. I am proud of that. I am proud of the climate change initiatives the Government has done. I am very happy at the end of my speech in about 30 or 40 seconds’ time to table all the initiatives. 
 I can say to National members that it is about time they thought about the interests of New Zealand and of our children and grandchildren. I am 52 years old I have children who are 15 13 and nearly 12 years of age and I want to see that they have a great future in a country that has a dynamic economy that has a sustainable future that looks ahead that is part of international agreements on climate change and that actually does something to ensure a sustainable viable future for this generation of people coming. National members can carp on all they like; they do not actually do the job. 
I seek leave to table a document dated 22 May of this year that is the Government’s initiative on climate change. It is 12 pages of tiny typed A4. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sorry I inadvertently misled the House. The document is 15 pages. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: There was objection. Please members there will be silence during points of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I seek leave given that the Minister has told the House that the dependence on coal has reduced to table today’s Ministry for Economic Development figures— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: —so the House knows what they are. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member has clearly said what it is. There is objection. Leave is not granted. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a document showing that when the wellhead price for gas was $1.80 Maui was empty but when it was at $6.50 it suddenly had another 10 years of life. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is. 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Chair— 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Ann Hartley) 
: Point of order? 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: New call Madam Chair. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: No the member has had his calls. The question is that Vote Climate Change— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: Madam Chair I seek leave for a further call on this important issue of climate change. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The member is seeking leave of the House for a further call. Members have two calls on this. He is seeking leave for a further call. Is there any objection? Yes there is. 
GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. Do I take it then that Ministers have unlimited calls on any particular vote? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: Mr Brownlee please be seated. This is the estimates debate and on each vote members can have two speeches of 5 minutes each; the Minister in charge can have multiple speeches of 5 minutes each. 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The Minister can have unlimited calls. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Climate Change and Energy Efficiency be agreed to. 
Ayes 60 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independent: Copeland. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Energy 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I have a simple challenge for the Minister in the chair the Hon Harry Duynhoven concerning his last speech. He told Parliament that there had been a reduction in the dependence on coal under his Government. He gave crocodile tears about the future of the country and the need for there to be progress on climate change. Well I ask him to deny these simple figures from the Ministry for Economic Development. The figures say that in 2000 1533 gigawatt hours of power were produced from coal. They say that for the latest year 5119 gigawatts were produced from coal. Well 1533 to 5119 does not sound like a decrease to me. It is actually a threefold increase. So how can the Minister in the chair credibly say to this Committee that the Government is focused on climate change and saving the future when there has been a threefold increase in the amount of electricity produced from coal? It sounds like a crock I say to the Minister. It sounds as if he is misleading the Committee. It sounds totally inconsistent. 
Hon Harry Duynhoven 
: I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I have every expectation this will be a robust debate but I am not going to sit here and take being told by that member that I have misled the Committee. That is not the case and I take exception to that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Ann Hartley) 
: The point of order is I think that it is part of the debate and we will leave it at that. The time has come for this debate to be concluded. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) 
: 
 I again seek leave to table the Government’s own electricity generation— 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Madam Chairperson. I am sitting only less than 6 feet from the member who sought leave to table that document. It was not possible for me to determine what that document was about when you put that leave to the Committee. I know the Speaker has made it clear that she does not want members to go into long details about documents but if the process of tabling documents is to have any meaning at all members must know what the document is about. There was no way we could have known what that document was about when you cut off the member’s description of it. 
DARREN HUGHES (Junior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 There was a very good way of knowing what it was about and that was to listen to his colleague. He stood up and said he was going to seek leave again—it is not technically possible but we have decided to agree—and he told us in his previous contribution what exactly it was that he was tabling. We agree with it and are very happy for it to be tabled. 
Hon HARRY DUYNHOVEN (Associate Minister of Energy) 
: 
 In the spirit of cooperation I seek leave again also to table the document I tried to table before—the 15 pages of Government initiatives with climate change benefits. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
The question was put that Vote Energy Vote Lands Vote Customs Vote Youth Development Vote Statistics Vote Consumer Affairs Vote National Archives Vote National Library Vote Community and Voluntary Sector Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade Vote Official Development Assistance Vote Racing Vote Revenue the preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That the votes the preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 be agreed to. 
Ayes 61 
New Zealand Labour 49; New Zealand First 7; United Future 2; Progressive 1; Independents: Copeland Field. 
Noes 50 
New Zealand National 48; ACT New Zealand 2. 
Abstentions 10 
Green Party 6; Maori Party 4. 
Votes preamble clauses 1 to 12 and schedules 1 to 7 agreed to. 
Bill to be reported with amendment presently.