Volume 682 Week 19 - Tuesday 14 August 2012 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Volume 682 Week 19 - Tuesday 14 August 2012 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4289. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Tuesday 14 August 2012 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Motions 
New Zealand Defence Force—Deaths of Lance Corporals Pralli Durrer and Rory Malone in Afghanistan 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice on the incident on Saturday 4 August 2012 in the Bamian Province of Afghanistan that tragically claimed the lives of two New Zealand soldiers and injured six more. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I move  
That this House express its deep sympathy and condolences to the family friends and military colleagues of the New Zealand Army soldiers killed in Afghanistan on 4 August and also express its sympathy to their six injured colleagues and its best wishes for their recovery. 
 On Saturday 4 August at around 8 a.m. local time members of the New Zealand Defence Force’s provincial reconstruction team responded to a request for assistance from an Afghan quick reaction force platoon which had come under insurgent attack in north-east Bamian. A New Zealand Defence Force patrol was immediately mobilised and assisted in engaging the insurgents until a second New Zealand Defence Force patrol arrived. It too came under attack during which some of our personnel were wounded. Two further New Zealand patrols arrived and during the ensuing fire fight the New Zealand Defence Force sustained more casualties including Lance Corporal Rory Malone who was killed at the scene. Seven wounded were evacuated and the most seriously injured soldier Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer died en route to hospital. 
 This incident has served as a tragic reminder of the risks that our men and women in the services face every day in unstable conflict zones. Rory Malone and Pralli Durrer are the sixth and seventh Kiwis to die while working selflessly on behalf of New Zealand and the international community in trying to stabilise Afghanistan. These Kiwis are willing to risk their lives defending not their homeland but strangers in another country. We could not ask more of them. We could not expect more of them. 
The Government has received messages from many other Governments and leaders who understand the terrible sacrifices that are being made in Afghanistan as we collectively do our best to create a functioning stable society there. We have always known that the task is both vital and dangerous. I know that for the Defence Force and their families accepting that there are risks in the job is part of daily life. However I also know that that knowledge does not make it any easier when the knock at the door that they hope will never come does come. The weekend before last it came for the Durrers and the Malones and also for their friends and colleagues inside and outside the Defence Force and for the Government and the people of New Zealand. On Saturday I attended the memorial service for Pralli Durrer and Rory Malone and the more I learn about them the more heavily their loss weighs. 
We are mindful today also of the injured. I am advised that three of the six returned to their families in New Zealand late yesterday. Three more remain in hospital in Germany all in a stable condition. One of them is Major Craig Wilson who was the commanding officer of the team involved in the attack. He has strongly praised the courage and the performance of Lance Corporals Durrer and Malone in the combat engagement that claimed their lives. It is hard to find any redeeming feature in this tragedy but at least in today’s conflicts we are usually able to repatriate our fallen and the Government thanks the United States Government for its assistance in evacuating the wounded and returning Rory Malone and Pralli Durrer to their families. 
Bamian is a better place because of the dedication effort and commitment of these men and their colleagues. Their sacrifice has been a dreadful price to pay but a reminder too of why we are there. Violence lawlessness and a brutal and wilful disregard of the rights of others should never be allowed to become a way of life. These two young brave men were fighting for a more secure Afghanistan and a more secure world. We are proud of them and their colleagues who right now as I speak are facing the same risks to uphold the same noble objectives. The Malone and Durrer families’ loss is New Zealand’s loss. We grieve for them and with them. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On Saturday I attended the memorial service for the two brave young New Zealand soldiers who tragically lost their lives on 4 August while serving in Afghanistan. It was a moving experience to hear the families of Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer and Lance Corporal Rory Malone talk about the contribution these men made to their communities to the Defence Force and to our country. Both of their commanders spoke also of their enthusiasm in the army and the respect they earned from their mates who served alongside them. Their families are proud of them and so are we as a nation. 
Rory Malone is remembered as a quiet student with a wicked sense of humour who just got on with things. His steady determination continued when he entered the army in 2002. His great-great-grandfather Lieutenant Colonel William Malone was the commanding officer of the Wellington Infantry Battalion at Gallipoli who died at Chunuk Bair. He led his troops with much bravery. Rory showed the same family courage under fire. He reportedly dragged his company commander to safety before sadly losing his life helping another fallen comrade caught up in the battle. 
Pralli Durrer was a Southern Man born in Invercargill growing up in Christchurch. He is still remembered at his primary school as being a shining star. He survived the initial attacks supporting his comrades under fire. Sadly he was wounded and passed away en route to the base at Bagram. 
These soldiers made the ultimate sacrifice. They lost their lives doing what they believed in and we will always remember them for that. They are our heroes. Six other New Zealand soldiers were also injured in the attack. We wish them a speedy recovery. We also thank the Dutch German and American air forces which came to their aid in the aftermath of the attack. 
The deaths of these two young men come almost exactly 2 years to the day since New Zealand’s first fatality in Afghanistan when Lieutenant Tim O’Donnell was killed in the same area during an attack on his patrol. It is fitting that we remember him today along with all those New Zealanders who have died in Afghanistan and in other conflict zones around the world serving our country. They gave their lives trying to make the world a better place. 
Often these soldiers make an impact that is largely unseen. We look at the Bamian Province. How many kids are alive today simply because their work allowed vaccinations to happen? How many women survived childbirth because stability in the province brought about by their efforts ensured those women could get to hospital? Or the numbers of children—especially girls—who have attended school and now have possibilities for a much better life more than they had before. 
We thank our soldiers for doing us proud for contributing to peace and for contributing to making a better world. We respect and honour the sacrifice they have made we mourn their loss and we will never forget them. Our prayers and sympathies today are with their families. Rest in peace. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party stands to acknowledge the sacrifice that Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer and Lance Corporal Rory Patrick Malone made as members of the provincial reconstruction team in Afghanistan. Both men have been taken from us far too young at 26 years of age. This loss the greatest loss of life and injury in active New Zealand service since Viet Nam is felt throughout the country. We also acknowledge those who were injured in the same action. We wish them a rapid recovery and know that everything possible will be done to assist them in their physical and psychological recovery. 
It takes courage to put one’s life on the line in the service of New Zealand and of humanity. We acknowledge the dedication the skill and the bravery of both men. Both had served overseas before assisting with the stabilisation force during times of trouble in Timor-Leste. Our thoughts are with the men’s families and their larger whanau at this sad time. I was privy to their powerful and moving statements of love and loss at Burnham on Saturday and to the invincible haka and the haunting bagpipes that sent Pralli and Rory on their final journey. May those grieving today be comforted in the knowledge that the pride in which they held their loved ones is shared by the rest of this nation. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 On behalf of New Zealand First I wish to express our condolences and utmost sympathy to the families and friends of Lance Corporal Rory Malone and Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer. The questionable issue of the continued positioning of our soldiers in Afghanistan should wait for another day. Today it is appropriate that we all join in this country and in this House to pay our respects to these men and their families and friends. They have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of this country. We also wish a quick recovery to those comrades-in-arms who were injured alongside both Lance Corporals Malone and Durrer. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Maori Party) 
: 
 Mr Speaker tena koe. Tu ana au ki te tautoko i nga mihi kua mihia nga poroporoaki o tatau o te Whare nei ki a raua a Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer a Lance Corporal Rory Malone i hinga mai raua i te pakanga i Afghanistan. I a raua e hoia ana e mahi ana kua puta mai te karanga i tera ropu hoia o Aotearoa kia haere ake ki te awhina ki te tautoko i tetahi ropu pirihimana o Afghanistan e raruraru ana i te pakanga. Haere ake te ropu o Aotearoa ki te pakanga. I taua pakanga i Do Abe ka hinga mai a Pralli ka hinga mai a Rory. Ka whara kino hoki etahi o o raua hoa kei te hohipera ratau i tenei wa. Na reira kua whakahokia mai nga tupapaku ki Aotearoa nei ki Burnham. I tu mai te tangihanga i te Rahoroi kua pahure ake. 
I tae atu etahi o matau nga mema o te Paremata nei ki taua tangihanga i kite matau i te whanaungatanga i waenga i nga hoia o Tumatauenga i tera ra. I rongo matau i nga korero a nga apiha o Tumatauenga e korero ana mo nga mahi toa kua oti e enei tokorua. I kite hoki matau i nga apiha me nga whanau e tu ana ki te korero ki a ratau. Ko Pralli no Ngati Kahungunu na reira i hui tahi matau me nga whanau i reira. Ki mai ratau e harikoa ana ratau ki te kite i etahi mema Paremata i tae atu ki tera tangihanga ki te tautoko i a ratau. Na reira ko taku korero ki a raua kia haere ake me nga korero i te mohio kua oti pai ta ratau mahi mo to tatau whenua o Aotearoa nei. Ka mau tonu a ratau korero a ratau mahi kei roto i te hitori o tenei whenua o Aotearoa. 
Na reira korua tahi haere. Haere kohikohingia nga tini mate o nga marae maha o te motu kia tae pai koutou ki mua i te aroaro o te Kaihanga. Na reira ko koutou era ko matau enei e tangi atu nei. Kai te tokorua haere haere haere atu ra. 
[ 
Greetings to you Mr Speaker. I rise to endorse our acknowledgments and the farewell tributes of this House to those two Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer and Lance Corporal Rory Malone who lost their lives in a battle in Afghanistan. While they were serving and performing their duties a call went out to the New Zealand Defence Force to provide assistance and support for the Afghanistan police force in difficulties in a battle. In that attack in Do Abe Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer and Lance Corporal Rory Malone were killed and some of their colleagues were badly wounded and are currently in hospital. The bodies were brought back to Burnham Military Camp and the funeral took place last Saturday.  
Some of us members of Parliament attended that funeral where we witnessed that sense of family connection among the army soldiers that day. We heard the speeches by army officers about the acts of bravery displayed and achieved by these two. We also observed officers and families standing and talking with each other. Because Pralli Durrer was from Ngati Kahungunu we and the family met there. They said to us how pleased they were to see some members of Parliament at that funeral to support them. I said to them to come up with their stories knowing full well that the two soldiers had served this country of ours Aotearoa well.  
And so to you two depart. Go forth and gather up the many deaths from the vast number of courtyards of the nation to ensure that you as a collective arrive before the Creator. So you are they and we are these ones here who mourn you. Therefore to you two in particular I bid you farewell farewell and go forth. 
] 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I rise today on behalf of the ACT Party to pay our respects to Lance Corporals Pralli Durrer and Rory Malone both 26 who died serving our country in an inhospitable and dangerous place on Saturday 2 weeks past. We offer our heartfelt condolences to their families and friends at this very difficult time. A mum’s boy a father’s son—no words can ever take away the pain of their loss. But we hope they can find some solace in the country’s recognition of their sons’ heroic contribution. 
The young men and women who choose to join the army do so knowing the high risks and inherent dangers of the job but they choose to do so willingly. On the gates of Burnham Military Camp in Christchurch the following words are written: “Remember that prosperity can only be for the free and that freedom is the sure possession of those alone who have the courage to defend it.” Lance Corporal Durrer and Lance Corporal Malone ordinary men who demonstrated extraordinary courage died doing exactly that. 
Hearing their colleagues speak about them was to know they were both men of much humour much fun and much wit. Their bravery came from their families. The shared values of loyalty commitment and patriotism were inherent in their background and indeed their sense of duty and sacrifice came from their great-great-grandfathers. Some of the greatest battles in history have defined this nation’s character from Cassino to Guadalcanal to Afghanistan—across the world a century of sacrifice and tragedy. This country stands apart for our role in the global destiny of freedom and peace and the common thread is young soldiers prepared and ready to go to defend our fragile democracy. 
At this time we are also thinking of Major Craig Wilson the commander of the New Zealand troops caught in the ambush at Bamian Province and their five comrades who were seriously wounded. We acknowledge and salute their bravery on this fateful day 4 August 2012. We wish them well. 
For the fallen Lance Corporal Durrer and Lance Corporal Malone: 
They went with songs to the battle they were young  
Straight of limb true of eye steady and aglow.  
They were staunch to the end against odds uncounted  
They fell with their faces to the foe.  
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 Yet again we take time out from this House to pay tribute to the memory of brave talented and able young New Zealanders who have lost their lives in a field of conflict as horrific as barren and as desperate as Afghanistan. Today we pay rightful tribute to Lance Corporals Rory Malone and Pralli Durrer and we acknowledge the sense of loss that their comrades their friends and their families will be feeling at the circumstances of their deaths. 
I think it is time to recall also the memories we have every Anzac Day when we think about those brave soldiers a century ago who against incredible odds made the remarkable sacrifices that they did. We marvel about their bravery we marvel about their maturity and we marvel about their sense of duty and accomplishment. These two young men epitomise that spirit. We need marvel no longer. We have seen it demonstrated in our soldiers in the work they have done in Afghanistan and sadly in the sacrifices they have made. It is a historical coincidence that in the case of Lance Corporal Malone there is a linkage back to that great conflict at Gallipoli. But in every sense Lance Corporals Durrer and Malone are the modern embodiment of that Anzac spirit. 
Although our words give due solemnity to the occasion and although our words speak for the nation in the sense of paying its tribute to those men they will be only a form of comfort to the families who have to live now constantly with the loss. But maybe there is some consolation in memory. Maybe there is some consolation in the high regard that these young men were obviously held in and the gratitude that this country feels for their service and for their contribution. May they rest in peace. 
Motion agreed to. 
2012 Olympic Games—Success of New Zealand Team 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister for Sport and Recreation) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating the members of the 2012 New Zealand Olympic Team. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I move  
That this House congratulate the members of the 2012 New Zealand Olympic team on their outstanding performance achieving six gold medals two silver and five bronze and finishing ranked 15th in the world 
. I believe that by any standards the 2012 New Zealand Olympic campaign can be judged to have been a substantial success. I want to on behalf of the Government acknowledge all of the athletes who were members of that team and congratulate them collectively on their achievement. In particular I want to congratulate the 13 athletes or teams that won medals. 
I was present in London for 3 or 4 days and the overwhelming impression that you got was one of the level of difficulty the sheer pressure to perform in such a challenging environment. For our people to have succeeded on such a scale against very difficult odds is a very significant achievement indeed. Six gold medals—one of which came along a little later than the others—two silver and five bronze are an outstanding achievement by any standards. It places New Zealand 15th overall on the tally of Olympic medals achieved in 2012 and on a per capita basis—and I think it is worth doing this piece of arithmetic from time to time—I understand that we finished fourth by comparison with all other countries. 
I want to recognise that this effort was something that was shared by more than just those who performed on the field. I want to recognise the coaches the support staff and the families who played such an important part in our Olympic performance. Although it is always difficult to single out any individual achievement I do want to note the achievement of the rowing head coach Dick Tonks whose previous successes on the international stage are well known but whose success at the 2012 Olympics was simply remarkable. 
I think it is fitting that we should recognise that many members of the team achieved personal milestones—some personal bests—and it is worth noting that by the end of the games New Zealand participants had achieved 35 top eight finishes and 72 in the top 16. All of this leaves New Zealand well placed for Rio in 2016. I think it is reasonably well known that we are part-way through a major expansion of high performance facilities and services towards enhancing targeted sports selected by High Performance Sport New Zealand. The notable feature of these games was the outstanding success of the rowers who have had the benefit of world-class high performance facilities for most of the build-up period and outstanding coaching and support services. If we are able to achieve on the strength of the enhanced facilities and services now embarked upon anything like the return that we have seen from rowing at these games that augurs extremely well for the future. Again I offer on behalf of the Government our congratulations to all of the members of the 2012 Olympic team. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 It has been an outstanding Olympics and I want to join with Mr McCully in congratulating our team on its fantastic effort. We have been richly rewarded for those efforts with 13 medals. Six of those are gold and I was—along with everybody else in this House—thrilled to see Valerie Adams trade her silver in for a gold first thing this morning. It was justice after all of the effort that she has gone through over the past weeks. 
Our rowers have done us particularly proud and I too want to acknowledge Dick Tonks and his efforts for the rowing team. I single out Mahe Drysdale because I remember 4 years ago his being sick but getting across the line for a bronze medal and in this Olympics he was rewarded with a gold. Their success on the water is richly deserved. Rowing is a well-organised sport that has worked hard to attract and nurture young and talented students. 
Our sailors have performed outstandingly along with Lisa Carrington in the canoeing and watching Sarah Walker was an inspiration as she overcame her fears to take the silver medal in that mad dash on her BMX. Our equestrian team always does us proud and once again represented New Zealand with distinction. Our cyclists blew away their opponents with an exciting performance that saw them take home bronze medals as well. 
We are proud of all the New Zealanders who represented us at the London games. It has been a real triumph and has lifted the spirits of an entire country. Many of us have been so caught up with this that we have come rather bleary-eyed to work. I have to say that I have turned up late to a few meetings but explained that I had been watching the Olympics and they said: “Oh that’s OK then.” We have lost that excuse unfortunately. 
We managed to win only one gold 12 years ago at the 2000 Olympics and it has been a complete turn-round since that time. It is a result of a commitment to develop invest in and grow our high performance sports. This has taken some time and a long-term commitment to sport. It involves growing interest at a grassroots level identifying and investing in young talent exposing our sportspeople to international competition and using the best training methods to allow them to achieve at this highest level. 
I also want to pay tribute to the work of New Zealander David Holman. Many of you may not know who he is but he is the director of the World Anti-Doping Agency or WADA. The World Anti-Doping Agency plays a key role in making sure our sports are clean and our athletes can compete fairly in a doping-free sporting environment. We thank David Hoffman for this work and— 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: Howman. 
DAVID SHEARER 
: —Howard sorry—for establishing New Zealand as a world leader in anti-doping. 
We are proud of our athletes and the spirit in which they compete. We thank them for their tremendous effort in London but we also thank all those who stand beside them: their families their coaches and the organisations that support them. In fact it is important to take a moment to thank all those New Zealanders who are involved in sports at every level. They give up their time their weekends with family and their energy because they love their sport. Their commitment allows us to develop athletes who are amongst the best in the world and we have seen the outcome of that commitment on the podiums in London over the past few weeks. Thank you to the entire Olympic team and all those who supported it for making these Olympics such a great one. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 On behalf of the Green Party I want to join other parties—and I am sure New Zealand First as well shortly—in welcoming home our Olympians and congratulating them on a fantastic effort. It has been a great Olympics. I think Britain did a superb job of hosting the games starting with Danny Boyle’s “camp-tastic” opening ceremony and right through until the close of the games this week and all of our athletes have done us proud. This is arguably our best ever Olympic Games because I think most of us would put an asterisk next to the Los Angeles Olympic Games with all of the countries that stayed away. I think the effort this year has eclipsed that one. 
 My personal favourite moments from the games were Nathan Cohen and Joseph Sullivan pulling it out in that last 500 metres to take out the double sculls and Jack Bauer’s effort in the men’s road race—fantastic. But as the Minister for Sport and Recreation said it is invidious to select individuals and those are just my personal choices. 
Although winning medals of course feels good I was most impressed with the gracious modest and heartfelt comments made by all of our Olympians either in winning or in defeat. I believe that that is the mark of true champions and all of our team did us proud in that regard. 
I am looking forward to the Paralympian team’s efforts which are coming up and hopefully we will also as a nation share in the joy and the triumph of that team. 
I want to close with the words of our silver medal - winning BMX racer Sarah Walker. She said that being from a small town does not matter; it is possible to dream big and achieve those dreams. It is our job here in this House to enable all of our kids to be able to dream big and to empower them to achieve their dreams. Thank you. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
: 
 Every 4 years we take time out to marvel at the amazing feats that can be achieved by the disciplined human athletic body. New Zealand can take great pride in every one of our Olympic athletes representing our country amongst the best in the world whether they won or were placed somewhere way down the list. The success of each individual elite athlete in making the Olympic team represents years of gruelling physical training mental determination resilience and above all sacrifice by them and their families. 
There was disappointment mixed in with glory but this time we did perform above our weight. According to the 
 Guardian 
 which can be relied upon because it is an English newspaper per capita of population we came in fourth. Our congratulations to all our medal-winners and members of our Olympic team and best wishes to the Paralympians from New Zealand soon to be performing at that theatre in London. 
I just want to say something special about Valerie Adams and her coach whose face told us volumes during and after the event. But even though they suspected something was seriously wrong they acted with dignity said nothing and took it like we would expect a New Zealander to take what looked to be an ungracious circumstance where they were going to be defeated. Then of course we found out the truth and she is for the second time an Olympic gold medal - winner. I congratulate her on that and on the way that she and her coach in particular handled themselves—and indeed all our New Zealanders. But to Valerie Adams the words of the great Bard are true: “All’s well that ends well.” 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
:  
Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. I te tuatahi ka mihi ra ki te Minita nana i tuku tetahi putea ki te tautoko i wa tatau tangata kia haere ki tawahi ana kua kite mai ai tatau i nga hua i roto o nga Taumahekeheke o te Ao. Ina tata nei i rongo au i nga Maori e toru he tane tenei tokotoru ko ta ratau ki kua whiwhi i a Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki he metara koura. Koi na te korero. E ai ki ta ratau nga tane e toru kua whiwhi i Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki tetahi metara koura. He aha te take o tera korero? I te whakanui ratau i te mahi a Lisa Carrington i tawahi. No reira ae ko ta ratau kotiro tera kua whiwhi hoki i a ratau he metara. Kai pohehe etahi ae he panga ano ra o roto o Ngati Porou o roto o Tainui o roto o Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki engari ka ki au ki tenei Whare Paremata no Waiariki te kotiro nei no roto o Ohope no Whakatane no Waiariki. 
Kua korerohia ko te ahuatanga ki a Sarah Walker. No hea tera? No Kawerau no Waiariki. A tera tera. Kare ano kia korerohia te tangata nei o Rotorua a Carl O’Donnell. He whakapapa ona ki roto o Tuhoe o Ngati Awa i roto i te mahi kauhoe no hea tera? No Waiariki. 
Kua korerohia ko te ahuatanga o te poikiri ko te Kristy Hill o roto o Ngati Whatua o Ngapuhi whakapapa ae engari no Te Arawa tonu. Na ara no wetahi kai wareware i a au ko Karen Hanlen o Ngati Awa o Te Whakatohea. No reira me waiho era korero ki reira kei ki mai wetahi kai te whakahihi au i roto i nga mahi nui o roto o Waiariki. Kei wareware nga Chiefs me te Waikato Bay of Plenty Magic. 
Ko te tino putake o taku korero he ki atu ki te Whare tera pea kua whiua katoatia te putea e te Minita ki Te Waiariki tona kotahi! Ko taku e ki nei kao mo te motu tera putea. Nana tonu i tuku ki te katoa kia taea e tatau te eke panuku. 
Ko tenei mea te whakapapa he mea nui ki Te Ao Maori. Ka rongo i te ahuatanga o te whakapapa ka ki atu a naku tera. Ka rongo i te ahuatanga o te korero a tetahi a ngai taua naku tera era ahuatanga katoa he whakataetae he momo whakakatakata he mea whakangahau tangata engari i tenei ra me pera rawa ahau i te mea ko te mea o te whakapapa ka taea te ki i te kite i te whakahihi i roto i te tangata tuatahi. 
Tuarua kua eke ki te wa kia titiro me ki nga taiohi o roto i Te Ao Maori i nga Maori ka eke ki enei taumata. Koi na te tino putake o taku korero. Ko enei tangata katoa e korerohia ana e te nuinga kua eke ki tera taumata i te ao. No reira me titiro nga tamariki nga mokopuna ki a ratau me te ki atu ae ka eke au ki tera taumata. He Maori tera he mea ra a ko Ngati Porou tera—ka taea e au te eke ki era taumata. Koi nei au e whakanui nei i enei korero katoa a me te mihi ano ra ki nga whanau i tiaki nei i te ahuatanga o te wa kainga i a ratau tangata i wahi ke. I kite au i nga mea i te pouaka whakaata me te korero a etahi o nga mea hoe waka kaore ia i noho i te taha o tana hoa rangatira mo nga wiki e hia ke nei e aroha atu ana ki a ratau. No reira me mihi ki nga whanau hai whaiwhai haere i te ahuatanga o nga korero a wetahi. 
Me mihi ki te hunga i tiaki nei i nga momo hakinakina i Aotearoa nei kia taea e tenei hunga te haere ki tawahi; ko te hunga i kohi moni nei hai painga mo nga mea ka haere ki tawahi ka mutu ki nga kaiwhakawa nga kaitiaki wa nga kaitiaki putea otira nga kaitiaki o te tangata. 
Ka mutu ko tetahi korero kei roto i te waiata o Aotearoa e penei ana te korero: “Kia hua ko te pai kia tau to atawhai manaakitia mai Aotearoa.” Koi nei te rarangi korero o roto i te waiata Aotearoa. Ko taku e ki nei kua hua te pai na te atawhai o te tangata i a tatau katoa ka mutu na te whakahihi ki nga mahi nui kua oti nei i a ratau i runga i te atamira o te ao me mihi ra ka tika. Kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Thank you Mr Speaker. Greetings to us all. In the first instance I commend the Minister for financially supporting our athletes to enable them to compete overseas. As a consequence we have seen the benefits from the Olympic Games. Just recently I overheard three Maori a trio of men saying that Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki had won a gold medal. That is what was stated. According to them the three males Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki had got a gold medal. What was behind that statement? They were celebrating what Lisa Carrington had done overseas. And so yes because their girl had won they had won a medal as well. Some might well consider yes there is a Ngati Porou a Tainui a Te Aitanga-a-Mahaki connection. My assertion to this House of Parliament is emphatic: this lass is from the electorate of Waiariki from Ohope and Whakatane.  
The circumstances relating to Sarah Walker have been well and truly documented. Where is she from? Kawerau and Waiariki. That is that. This person here Carl O’Donnell of Rotorua has hardly had a mention at all. He has genealogical links to Tuhoe and Ngati Awa and is a swimmer. Where is that person from? Waiariki.  
The situation relating to soccer and Kristy Hill from within the Ngati Whatua and Ngapuhi family tree is correct but she is really from Te Arawa. There are many others that I must not forget: Karen Hanlen of Ngati Awa and Te Whakatohea. However I must leave those stories there lest I be accused by some of hubris through highlighting outstanding achievements that occur solely in Waiariki. I must not forget what the Chiefs and Waikato Bay of Plenty Magic have achieved as well.  
The real thrust of my address is to say to the House that it seems that the Minister’s entire fund went solely to Te Waiariki! My response to that is an absolute no as that fund was for the entire country. He distributed it to everyone so that we would all succeed.  
Genealogy is an important thing in Maoridom. As soon as genealogy comes up and a connection is made a call goes out—that one is a relation of mine. Regardless of whom it might be people take pride in one of their own succeeding. It is friendly rivalry and competition a cause for good banter amusement and entertainment. I must be like that today because people take pride in one of their own succeeding. It is friendly competition and that is first and foremost.  
Secondly the time has come shall we say for young ones in Maoridom to look up at Maori athletes making it to the top at these levels. That in a nutshell is the real thrust of my address. All these athletes referred to by the majority have reached that level globally. So our children and grandchildren should look up at them. We should say to them yes they have reached those levels. That is a Maori achieving that is so-and-so that one is from Ngati Porou—I can make it to that level. This is why I am magnifying all these tributes and at the same time acknowledging families who took care of things back home while their athletes were away at the games. I saw people and some rowers on television saying that they had not seen their partners for weeks. I sympathise with them. And so I acknowledge the families as others have.  
I also salute those in New Zealand here who take charge of all sorts of sports which enables these athletes to go offshore. I acknowledge the fund-raisers that these athletes going overseas benefit from and finally the judges the timekeepers and those who look after the finance and competitors’ needs.  
In closing there is a sentence in the Maori version of the national anthem that goes like this: “Kia hua ko te pai kia tau to atawhai manaakitia mai Aotearoa.” which translates as “May goodness flourish and your generosity flow defend New Zealand.” This is the sentence in the national anthem. This is what I am on about the goodness that has flourished because one person allowed generosity to flow upon everyone. Further to that the pride to perform at the highest level enabled them the athletes to achieve on the world stage. It is fitting indeed that they be congratulated. My thanks to everyone. 
] 
HONE HARAWIRA (Leader—Mana) 
: 
 I have just received a text from Dr Sharples to say that because of the translation service breaking down he would like me to translate what Mr Flavell has just said. Mr Flavell has just told the country that most of those Maori who got medals over at the Olympic Games were descendants of the  
Mataatua 
 canoe in the first instance. The  
Mataatua 
 canoe as Te Ururoa and the rest of Maoridom know is buried up in Tai Tokerau. So he would like to thank Ngapuhi for graciously giving all of their descendants for the glory of this country! Tena koutou kia ora tatou katoa. 
Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On the occasion of John Walker’s 40th birthday I had the privilege of meeting arguably the greatest athlete in the history of the world. On that occasion I said to Sir Roger Bannister: “Why is it that you have come all this way to New Zealand to celebrate this birthday? You’re leaving tomorrow morning back to London.” He said: “I’ve come around the world to give thanks and praise to one of the greatest athletes of all time and one of your great Olympians.” So today we give thanks and praise to our great Olympians: the young people who have made us proud these last 2 weeks. 
 Our success is a remarkable achievement for a small nation. It has promoted our country centre stage to the rest of the world with six gold two silver and five bronze—13 medals in all. These medals represent tens of thousands of hours of commitment and determination and much sacrifice. To those who came home victorious we stand here today and salute you. In rowing kayaking sailing and shot-put we showed the rest of the world that we were truly the best and in other sports we showed that we are a force to be reckoned with. 
The can-do can-win attitude of the New Zealand athlete is as time-honoured as that first 4-minute mile run by Sir Roger Bannister and the success in London in these past 2 weeks brings much credit to our small country. In one of my previous roles as Minister of sport I attended two Olympic Games—at Atlanta and at Barcelona. There is nothing like being able to experience the excitement privilege and responsibility of all the athletes their coaches their supporters and their families firsthand. I am sure Sir Roger Bannister would be glad that this Parliament is giving thanks and praise to our athletes who have done so well. 
On behalf of the ACT Party and all New Zealanders I extend to them all our warmest congratulations—to those who represented our country at these 2012 games in London. I also extend from the South-west Pacific my congratulations to Lord Coe. I was with Lord Coe on the day he was first appointed to the job of managing the 2012 Olympics. Britain has done us proud as the New Zealanders have also done us proud. 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 I want to join with others in paying huge tribute to the New Zealand Olympic team for its phenomenal achievements over the last fortnight. The team not only did our country proud; it upheld all of the Olympic traditions and it gave a real sense of uplift to this country in the middle of a very bleak winter. 
We acknowledge and we celebrate our six gold medallists. It is not true as the Australians like to gibe that we do very well in sports where we sit down and go backwards! Actually our rowers our yachties our canoeists and Valerie Adams all did extraordinarily well and surpassed most people’s reasonable expectations as did all our other medallists and we hung on their every achievement. They deserve our richest and fullest congratulations. But there were other members of the team who did equally well. I saw a statistic at the weekend that in the events New Zealand competed in at the games something like three-quarters of our competitors ended up in the top 16 in their event and over half of those were in the top eight. So when we make comparisons—and I think comparisons are probably invidious—about where we stand in the international rankings I doubt that many countries would have had that level of achievement with a significant number of their athletes and their performers ending up within the top eight in the world in their particular events and winning per capita the number of medals that we did. 
I thank our athletes our administrators and everyone associated with the Olympic performance for the uplift they have given our country in recent weeks and for the inspiration that the individual performances have given our young people who now all see themselves as a Valerie Adams a Sarah Walker a Mahe Drysdale or whomever because they have ambition and they have people to look up to. The real achievement of the Olympic ideal is not just the winning and taking part not just the being there not just the camaraderie but the inspiration of future generations and in that our team has done us exceptionally proud. I thank you all for what you have done for the sacrifice you have made for the dedication and the commitment you have shown and for your discipline for your performance and for your achievement. 
Motion agreed to. 
Questions to Ministers 
Prime Minister—Statements on Charter Schools Class Sizes and Dotcom Case 
1. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his statement that people should not be hung up on the fact that teachers without qualifications will be able to teach New Zealand children at charter schools? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he also stand by his statement: “It’s not the class sizes that matter; it’s the quality of teaching that we’re getting in our schools.” and how can he guarantee quality of teachers when teachers will not actually need to be qualified? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows the issue of whether teachers are qualified is being discussed in the context of charter schools which will offer an element of choice although a very small element of choice in the general school system. All other schools will continue to run with registered teachers. 
David Shearer 
: When he said after his U-turn on class sizes: “We have to find another way to go to lift those teacher quality outcomes. And we’ll go away and do that.” was having teachers without qualifications what he had in mind? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In respect of the State-run schools no. In respect of the charter schools it is an aspect of providing choices for young New Zealanders that are not currently available to them. 
David Shearer 
: Did he read the advice from the Ministry of Education on charter schools which said that “There is the challenge of ensuring that students are not put at risk by mentors who are not necessarily subject to professional licensing.”; if so why is he putting students at risk? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Young New Zealanders are in those terms often working with adults who are not their parents but who are not subject to professional registration in the school system all the time. They go to music classes they go to sports—well in fact they go on sports trips. They spend a significant a material part of their day with people who are not registered teachers but who in my experience do a very fine job of inspiring and motivating our young people. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Standing by his statements why is the Prime Minister maintaining that the first he knew of Kim Dotcom’s name was the day before the police raid on Mr Dotcom’s mansion although that mansion and Mr Dotcom were in his own electorate and Mr Dotcom’s staff had long ago visited the Prime Minister’s electorate clinic—making the Prime Minister possibly the only person in that electorate who had not heard of Mr Dotcom? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not know which statement the member is referring to. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect this was a question about the Prime Minister standing by his statements. If the Deputy Prime Minister does not know the Prime Minister has made statements about Kim Dotcom then I am absolutely astonished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That may well be the case but the Minister answered the question. He said he was not aware of those statements and that is an answer to the question—[ 
Interruption 
] I am still on my feet. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I was caught by your dipping yet again. The point that I would like to make is that the Deputy Prime Minister was answering on behalf of the Prime Minister and if he is saying that the Prime Minister does not remember making the statement then that would be appropriate but as the Acting Prime Minister he should I think probably differentiate himself from the Prime Minister when he is answering in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member’s point of order is well made—that a Minister answering on behalf of another Minister including the Prime Minister is answering on their behalf and the answer does indicate what the Minister to whom the question was put in this case the Prime Minister would have said unless the Minister answering indicates they are not in a position to know that information. The Minister answering the question may wish to clarify whether he as the Deputy Prime Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister was not aware of such statements or whether answering on behalf of the Prime Minister the Prime Minister was not aware of such statements. The Minister may wish to clarify that. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: On behalf of the Prime Minister I do not know what statements the member is referring to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. The Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I have called the Rt Hon Winston Peters. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can the Prime Minister stand by that statement given the revelation in court that the FBI had been monitoring Mr Dotcom for 2 years prior to the raid on his mansion—in the Prime Minister’s electorate—and given that the Prime Minister is the Minister in charge of the New Zealand Security Intelligence Service? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do stand by the statement. 
Cost of Living—Wage Growth and Inflation 
2. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the cost of living? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Inflation for the year to June came in at 1 percent—the lowest rate since 1999. Food prices fell 1.8 percent in the year to the end of July. Fruit and vegetable prices fell 6.6 percent. In that year the price of grocery food was down 1.7 percent and the price of meat and poultry was down 1.6 percent. It is good to see that inflation is relatively low. However many families still have difficulty meeting their weekly obligations. That is why we are focused on building a faster-growing economy that supports more jobs and higher incomes. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How do the latest consumer price figures compare with wage movements in the past year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Although inflation has been falling the economy has been growing moderately and this has been reflected in moderate average wage increases. Annual inflation is running at about 1 percent. The average wage increased by 3 percent in the past year or 2 percent more than inflation. In addition floating mortgage rates at around 5.75 percent are at their lowest level in almost 50 years. This is giving New Zealand households a small amount of freeboard which they appear to be using to reduce their debts and increase their savings. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: How does the current level of inflation compare with that in 2008? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Inflation is considerably lower now probably because of the after-effects of the global financial crisis and a generally more competitive economy. Annual inflation in November 2008 was running at 5.1 percent. That was made up of 9 years of electricity price increases which added up to 72 percent; floating home mortgage rates of almost 11 percent; and of course the economy having been in a recession for almost a year. By contrast the lower inflation we are now experiencing combined with steady increases in average after-tax wages means that the real spending power of the average wage earner is increasing slightly. 
Hon David Parker 
: Over the past 2 years have ordinary-time wages as measured by the Labour Cost Index grown by 4.24 percent while prices as measured by the Consumers Price Index have grown by 6.28 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot vouch for exactly those figures. What I can tell the member is that the relationship between the average ordinary-time wage and inflation has meant that superannuitants have had a New Zealand superannuation increase in each of the last 2 years in order to maintain the value of New Zealand superannuation. 
Job Creation and Unemployment—Numbers and Government Policy 
3. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: How many New Zealanders are unemployed and by how many has that number increased since the quarter immediately before National came to power in 2008? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 The household labour force survey released last Thursday estimates that there are 156400 unemployed. That is a difference of 62500 from the third quarter of 2008. It is important of course to note that one or two things have actually occurred since then: the small matter of the global financial crisis the fact that we inherited an economy already in recession before the rest of the world was and the large earthquakes in Christchurch. I add those things because I would not want the member to end up on “Planet Labour” by mistake. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that before National came to power New Zealand had the eighth-lowest unemployment in the OECD and it has now slipped to 14th why does the Government claim that New Zealand is doing relatively well compared with other developed countries when in fact we are actually declining relative to other developed countries? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Again unfortunately it appears that the member has taken a wrong turn and ended up on “Planet Labour” because the member neglects to note that the Canterbury earthquakes have had a significant impact on the New Zealand economy and that is to be expected. We have also had the global financial crisis and a number of other challenges in fact including the Psa crisis. Despite that the economy has added 77000 net new jobs since 2009 and has been steadily growing despite the earthquakes and the global financial crisis. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the Key-Banks Government spending 75 percent of its transport infrastructure investment on new motorways when studies show that public transport generates twice as many jobs per dollar spent compared with motorway building and has much better economic and environmental returns? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The obvious reason would be that people use roads and they have to be paid to use public transport. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the Key-Banks Government fixated on risky deep-sea drilling as a jobs creation scheme when mining is a very poor job sector—it employs only 6000 people—while the Government is neglecting the jobs-rich manufacturing sector which employs 247000 New Zealanders and has shed 25000 jobs under the Government’s watch? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member really does need to grow up a little bit. The reality is— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The question did ask why and therefore it is seeking the Minister’s view but that is not an acceptable way to commence an answer. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I was just pointing out that the member says that the mining sector is bad for the New Zealand economy except that if you look at the unemployment rates by region around New Zealand you find that the lowest unemployment rate is in a region known as Taranaki which currently has a 3.8 percent unemployment rate. And if you want to look across the Tasman the lowest unemployment rate is in a state called Western Australia which happens to be very focused on mining and resources. So if the member wants to say that he is concerned about jobs for New Zealanders he needs to turn round and go to some of these regions where the Greens have been protesting against opportunities for New Zealanders to have jobs and renege on what he said previously. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Should not a Government that really wants to increase jobs be fixing the broken monetary policy to give our exporters and domestic manufacturers a level playing field against their international competition and focus its efforts on industries that create jobs for New Zealanders rather than profits for foreign investors? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The member seems to be advocating as his economic policy New Zealand taking a one-way bet against world currencies. Well that generally ends in tears. If the member is actually concerned about jobs—actually concerned about jobs—he should visit places like Northland which has the highest unemployment rate hold a public meeting and demand they support mining and exploration in Northland. He should go to Gisborne and tell them to support oil and gas and mineral exploration. He should support the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill in the House today. He should support the Government building transport infrastructure he should support our changes to the emissions trading scheme and he should support our efforts to attract— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The answer is not an opportunity for a speech. 
Su’a William Sio 
: Does the Minister accept that he is responsible for New Zealand’s continued high unemployment rate despite thousands of Kiwis heading to Australia and a reported rise in job vacancies because of his failure to provide skills training opportunities for New Zealanders? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I was saying to the other member if the member is concerned about job opportunities for New Zealanders in this country rather than Australia he should join the Government in promoting the opportunities for growth in this country instead of as Labour and the Greens are doing opposing the opportunities for growth opposing a convention centre in Auckland opposing oil and gas exploration and opposing the intensification of agriculture. Those are the things that create jobs. 
Su’a William Sio 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am able to repeat the question again and you will find that I do not believe that the Minister took the time to consider what I have asked for. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The honourable Leader of the House knows he should not be interjecting when a point of order is being considered. I think the question was seeking a Minister’s view on a certain matter asking why certain things were happening. The Minister in his answer indicated that in his view one of the reasons was a lack of support for some things that he believed were creating jobs. Whether or not that is the answer the member was looking for—it may not be the answer the member was looking for—it is an answer to the question. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does this Government feel that it has any expertise or authority to lecture anyone on job creation when under its watch 65000 New Zealanders have been thrown into unemployment New Zealand has declined from the eighth-lowest unemployment in the OECD to the fourteenth-lowest unemployment it promised to deliver 36000 jobs last year and delivered half of that and we now have the highest number of unemployed since 1994? On what basis does he have the right to lecture anyone? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am assuming I will get a little bit of time for the answer Mr Speaker. The only person doing the lecturing in this Chamber is the Green co-leader Russel Norman who sits there and says that the only way to create jobs is to take taxpayers’ money and subsidise things that are not happening anyway and in the meantime stop every economic opportunity that would help New Zealanders have jobs in this country. He would prefer to see their jobs exported to Australia and then whinge about it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 4 the honourable—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The House has let off a bit of steam but I want it to come back to order. 
Manufacturing Sector—Job Retention and Effect of Exchange Rate 
4. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: How many people were employed in the manufacturing sector when he took office in 2008 and how many people are employed in the manufacturing sector now according to the most recent data produced by Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 There were 272000 people employed in the manufacturing sector in the September 2008 quarter out of a total New Zealand employment of 2194000. The most recent data shows 247000 people employed in manufacturing out of a total employment of 2227000. It is interesting though that it was in decline in 2008 and was growing in 2010 and 2011. The unique aspect of 2008 of course is that we had already been in a recession that had been domestically generated in 2008 by the previous Government and the manufacturing sector grew in 2010 and 2011. 
Hon David Parker 
: Are job losses in manufacturing contributed to by the high New Zealand dollar—[ 
Interruption 
] Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Parker 
: Are the job losses in manufacturing contributed to by the high New Zealand dollar; if so what is his Government going to do about it? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Job losses in manufacturing are caused by a range of things. It is important to note that while jobs have been declining in the manufacturing sector they have been increasing in sectors such as transport primary industries education and health care over the same period. It is also important to note that they declined as I said for some significant period in the latter half of the time of the previous Government. I think the challenge is how to grow the high-value manufacturing sector and this Government is very focused on a range of initiatives in doing that— 
Andrew Little 
: So what are you doing about it? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —including the Advanced Technology Institute. I am happy to give you some information about that Mr Little. The Advanced Technology Institute has been announced by the Government. It will be assisting firms by providing opportunities to research and increase their innovation and help grow the value of their goods and products and help them export. 
Hon David Parker 
: Was Steve Rowntree the head of products at Flotech right when he said that a significant reason that his company was closing with the loss of 61 jobs was the strength of the New Zealand dollar? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I cannot make any particular comment about Mr Rowntree’s comments. Obviously he is in a better position to judge his business than anybody else is. But it is important to note that there have been very significant opportunities for growth in New Zealand over the same period. In fact as late as last week I noticed that IBM and Unitech have announced plans for 400 new jobs at Unitech in terms of the information and communications technology sector on the Unitech campus. I would also note that as late as yesterday the stronger Canterbury rebuild alliance announced that it will need a thousand more— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very direct question about a specific— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member makes a reasonable point that it was quite a direct question and in all the answer given actually the Minister did not mention anything to do with the dollar at all. But the answer I think had gone on quite long enough. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that current monetary policy is “working well” given that under the current policy the high dollar is causing exporters to shut up shop and lay off workers or was Ian Hunter the co-owner of Canterbury Leather International wrong when he said that the high currency meant his business was not competitive any more prompting a loss of 55 jobs or was Damian Camp the Chief Executive of Pacific Aerospace wrong when he said that the high kiwi dollar had caused the laying off of 27 of his highly skilled staff? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: In answer to the first part of the member’s question I think monetary policy is challenging for some employers at the moment and particularly for people who sell in US dollars. But if they sell in Australian dollars—and of course many of our manufacturers and employers do—it is actually at one of the most competitive rates it has been for many a year. There is no doubt about it: the world economies have been changing dramatically. What I am saying is that there are opportunities for some and difficulties for others. If you look at some of the opportunities—[ 
Interruption 
] Well I will give you some of the examples that are there. Methanex of course has just created about 500 jobs—weirdly enough in Taranaki as it upgrades its operations there. We also have Tait Communications in Christchurch which has just won some contracts in the US. It has increased its staff to the extent that it now has 900 employees. 
Child Poverty Abuse and Neglect—Submissions on Green Paper for Vulnerable Children  
5. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: What reports has she received on the public submissions on the  
Green Paper for Vulnerable Children 
 about how to better protect our most vulnerable children from abuse and neglect? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Today we released a summary of submissions on the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children and over 600 full submissions from various organisations. There has been a huge level of public debate on this. The number of submissions has been impressive to say the least. At the 17 green paper meetings that I fronted around the country I was just hugely impressed with people’s willingness to come forward and actually give their opinions. This process has resulted in almost 10000 submissions made by non-governmental organisations community groups and members of the public including over 2000 from children and young people. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Why release the submissions summary and the submissions? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Because of transparency. This was a very open and public consultation process so I felt it was important to release as much of this information as possible. Ideally I would release all of the submissions but many people provided very personal information as they wanted to relate their own horror stories so that future children would have better outcomes and I am going to respect them and this process. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What was the methodology for analysing the submissions and how has it helped drafting the white paper? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: All submissions were given unique identifying numbers. Various ideas from the submissions were grouped into common categories and the frequency with which each idea came up was recorded. This process allowed the team of analysts to describe the submissions’ common ideas and opinions and indicated how often submitters raised a particular idea. These submissions are playing a significant role in the writing of the white paper. 
Child Poverty—Minister’s Priorities 
6. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development 
: Does she stand by her statement “I want to make sure the Ministry of Social Development is focused on its core responsibilities in the years ahead in particular those families stuck in long-term poverty. I don’t underestimate the challenges associated with this but I intend to make it a priority.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 I stand by the full quote in its context and that is: “The fact that a substantial group of deprived New Zealanders has continued throughout a decade of relative prosperity”—and I was saying this under the previous Labour Government; this was in 2008—“underlines the challenges we face in stopping that group from growing much larger with harder times looming. I want to make sure the Ministry of Social Development”—and so on as the member put forth. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: How many children in New Zealand are currently living in poverty? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is in New Zealand no actual poverty line so as such that is a very open question. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: If poverty is her priority has the Ministerial Committee on Poverty set any goals for poverty reduction during the four meetings it has held; if so what are they? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: If the member has specific questions about that committee she should address them to the chair of that committee who as she knows is Minister English. However I can say that there is a lot of work going on amongst that across a whole wide range. Whether it is from housing to education it is getting things done and that is the reality of it instead of just worrying about measurements. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: If poverty is her priority why is it not one of her key platforms in her Green Paper for Vulnerable Children? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I did see a press release from the member today saying that poverty is not in the green paper. That actually is factually incorrect. It is in the green paper and it is certainly being addressed. It has come through in submissions and I am sure the member can wait to see the white paper to see it in there. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: If poverty is one of her priorities why has she not done any work to establish a poverty line as Unicef and other OECD nations have to measure how many children are living in poverty in New Zealand? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That member’s party had 9 years to do that and did not. I do not see that as a priority— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Well I do not see the measurement as a priority and I will stand here quite willingly. What we have done is we have protected benefits for those who need them most. We have locked in CPI increases we have insulated homes for those who need it most and we have got under-sixes actually now getting free 24/7 medical care. We have protected those incomes for those who need them most more than the previous Government did and we shall continue to do so. 
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Time Frames for Maintenance Requests 
7. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What are Housing New Zealand’s time frames for responding to maintenance requests and in what percentage of cases are those timeframes met? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I am advised that response times are determined by the urgency of work. This is categorised in three ways: urgent health and safety which needs to be responded to within 4 hours and recent results are 93 percent of jobs completed within that time frame; urgent responsive maintenance which does not meet the health and safety criteria but is of an urgent nature which should be completed within 2 working days and recent results are 93 percent of those jobs completed within the time frame; and general responsive maintenance which is work that includes general repairs and must be responded to within 10 working days and 91 percent of those jobs have been completed within the time frame recently. Where work will take longer to complete I am advised that the corporation ensures there is no health and safety risk at the property and when necessary supplies tenants with interim measures until the work can be completed. 
Holly Walker 
: Does Housing New Zealand Corporation keep records of how many maintenance requests are outstanding at any given time; if so how many are currently outstanding? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Housing New Zealand Corporation records all maintenance requests and clearly makes a judgment whether those are sensible requests and maintenance does need to be done. Clearly it measures how many are responded to—in most cases it is well over 90 percent—so I would imagine it would have a record of what requests that have credibility have yet to be responded to. But I must say that not every request for maintenance is necessarily one that is credible because sometimes people would like a couple of garages some carports or whatever which may not fit within maintenance criteria. 
Holly Walker 
: Can he confirm that the urgent health and safety maintenance that should be responded to within 4 hours can include correcting faults with toilets and drains; if so why was a tenant in Invercargill who discovered her toilet leaking in January left to wait until August for it to be repaired while black mould caused by the leaks spread from the bathroom to the hall and into a child’s bedroom making her family sick? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: With 69000 houses there is a possibility that for some reason a request has not been attended to. I would not necessarily know about every request. What might be of interest to the member is that if it is a health and safety issue the corporation will respond. But reasons for not responding can include being unable to contact the tenant to arrange a time the tenant refusing contractors access or a specific product or material being required that needs to be ordered. I am not saying that was the case in this instance; I am unfamiliar with this instance and this instance at this stage to me is just an allegation. I would be happy to pass it on to the corporation should the member pass me more detail. 
Holly Walker 
: I seek leave to table a time line from that tenant outlining her communications with Housing New Zealand Corporation in the months from January to August. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The time line is prepared by that tenant? Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 









Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Holly Walker 
: Can he confirm that urgent health and safety maintenance that should be responded to within 4 hours can include fixing a broken exterior door or window; if so why was a tenant in Porirua who rang the 0800 number to request that a gap in her exterior window be fixed because it was making her house and her children cold told that it was Housing New Zealand Corporation’s safety policy to leave gaps in windows so that smoke could escape during a fire? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: As I say I am not across all 69000 State house requests but what I can say is that urgent responsive maintenance is work that does not meet the health and safety criteria but is of an urgent nature—for example the repair of a smoke detector when there are still other working smoke detectors in the home. This should be completed in 2 days. I welcome the member passing on those allegations; at this stage they remain just allegations. If it needs to be addressed I am sure the corporation will address it. 
Holly Walker 
: Given those examples will he require Housing New Zealand Corporation to publicly report the number of outstanding maintenance requests at any given time to ensure that Housing New Zealand Corporation is not routinely breaking the law under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: No. I am comfortable with the corporation reporting to shareholding Ministers and more particularly its board on its response times. Obviously response times are over 90 percent which is good. There is always room for improvement. If the member wants such urgent attention given to State houses why does she wait a couple of weeks until question time to raise it with me? Why does she not just contact my office or the corporation directly? 
Courts—New Online Applications and Potential Closures 
8. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What recent announcements has he made on the modernisation of our courts system? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 August has already seen two more worthwhile steps taken towards modernising our court system. From this month applications to challenge a fine can be made online and last week I announced changes to allow disputes tribunal applications to be made online. Last year there were almost 50000 of these two types of applications and they were all made in hard copy. Moving these two applications to the internet is long overdue and will save New Zealanders’ time and allow courts to offer a customer-friendly cost-effective service that Kiwis expect. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What other measures are already in place to make better use of new technology in the court system? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: These two are just the latest in a long line of improvements this Government has made to bring courts into the 21st century. For example we have introduced audiovisual links between courts and prisons for many criminal hearings saving money and improving public safety and we are just getting started with audiovisual links. We have moved to a national model for collecting fines which has already cut overdue fines from 48 percent to 44 percent. And we are well on the way to delivering the electronic operating model to courts which will remove 93000 hours per year of needless paperwork from our justice system and allow them to be reallocated to more proactive work. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Can the Minister confirm that in his coming announcement on permanent courthouse closures officials have advised him to include the Opotiki Upper Hutt Feilding Rangiora and Balclutha courthouses in the list of courthouses to be permanently closed? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: No decisions have been made in respect of the review of court services around New Zealand. We are aware for instance that there have been courts closed obviously for seismic risk. We are grateful for the help and the way that those local communities have responded to those closures. We are expecting to make further announcements before the end of the year as to what shape the new courts model will be in. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I very carefully worded my question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can save some time. The member asked whether the Minister had received advice on the closure of certain courts and the Minister in his answer made no reference to advice. He said no decisions had been made but the question did not ask whether any decisions had been made. It asked whether the Minister had received advice in respect of those courts. 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I have received advice in respect of court services around New Zealand. That advice has related to a number of courts including the courts that were named by the member but no decisions have been made yet and I am not in a position to progress that further. 
Education National Standards—Data 
9. 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that National Standards data is currently “very ropey”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development) 
on behalf of the Minister of Education: I can confirm she agrees with the Prime Minister that as this is the first year of reporting national standards data it provides a baseline from which improvements can be made. That is why the Minister announced last week a plan to do so. She has herself described the data as variable. This is because of the way schools have reported it not because it is invalid. For example some schools have presented it as graphs some have sent in percentages or text some have presented year-level information and others have aggregated by school. The Government is implementing a plan to ensure that national standards data is more useful and meaningful for parents including the implementation of a consistent reporting format by school and by year level. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is she confident that by publicly releasing inaccurate data in September under her Public Achievement Information initiative parents will gain an accurate impression of how well their children’s learning is progressing how effective a school’s teaching practice is or how well a school is performing; if not is that ka pai? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: It is not correct to say the data is inaccurate. The data is variable in its presentation but it is still valid. It will show parents how their child’s school is achieving and progressing against the national standards in reading writing and maths. That will keep parents up to date on how their children are doing—which children are falling behind—and help the Government target resources to where they are needed the most. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Can the Minister explain to the House the difference between variable data and inaccurate data in relation to the way in which national standards are reported? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Well I thought that I did do that in the answer to the first question the primary question. It is because the variability is in the way the data is reported not because it is not valid in itself. For example some schools have presented it as graphs others have sent it in as percentages or text some have presented year-level information while others have aggregated by school level. That is the variability in the presentation of the data. 
Hon Nanaia Mahuta 
: Is she aware that a recent Education Review Office report found one-fifth of schools were not fully implementing national standards and how does she propose to standardise reporting by schools to ensure parents receive robust and accurate information about their children’s learning in a school and what investment will be made in the moderation and overall teacher judgment element of that process? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: A number of those things are ongoing. I think it is important to note that we have not said that the national standards performance would be perfect straight away. The National Certificate of Educational Achievement was in fact the same if members recall. It took 10 years to develop the high level of consistency and reporting that we now have. Similarly the development of the curriculum—the world-leading curriculum—took time to develop. For national standards we are implementing a plan over the next few years to improve the quality of the data along with a consistent reporting format and that will be in place over the next couple of years. 
State Housing Auckland—Minister’s Alleged Visit to Symonds Street Property 
10. 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What reports has he received on his alleged visit to 44 Symonds Street earlier this year? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I have received a number of reports on this matter. On 2 August 2012 the Hon Annette King gave me the credit for new lino at the entrance of 44 Symonds Street and I have to admit that I was delighted to imagine the residents enjoying their new clean sparkling flooring. However a search in my diary and checking by my staff and the Housing New Zealand Corporation suggest that I have not visited 44 Symonds Street this year. In fact as far we can determine I have not visited 44— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise to the Minister but I cannot hear a thing with that level of noise. [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet. We will have a reasonable level of interjection. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In fact I have not visited 44 Symonds Street as Minister and I would welcome the member proving her claims to the contrary. So although the Symonds Street ministerial lino makes for a fascinating story I am afraid I need to tell the House that it appears to be misinformed. 
Nikki Kaye 
: What reports has he received on maintenance at 44 Symonds Street? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Although I cannot take credit for the lino I am happy to inform the Hon Annette King that her assertion that this is the only maintenance of the flats in the last 4 years was also incorrect. In fact I am advised by the corporation that in the 3 years from 2009 to 2011 over $350000 has been spent on work on the flats. This is $150000 more than the previous Government spent in the 3 years from 2006 to 2008. So can I say to members on that side of the House that instead of coming in here with tales about visits or fictitious stories about flats with no maintenance maybe they could contribute to the solution and support us at every turn—instead of opposing us at every turn—to make State housing better places in New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: When—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear this question. 
Hon Annette King 
: When he said recently that he knew he was a very effective Minister because new lino had been put down at the foyer of 44 Symonds Street when he visited the flats is he now saying that he is not a very effective Minister at all because they got the lino without his help; and did the tenants meet a Phil Heatley imposter or was it a linocut of him? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Ha ha ha ha ha ha! No amount of joking—no amount of joking—is going to get past— 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! Now the House will come to order. A point of order has been called. 
Hon Annette King 
: That is a very very unusual way of answering a question— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I accept it was unusual but I did not hear anything out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could dig deep back into your history of understanding internal animal noises to identify the animal. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We have had enough we have—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! The House will come to—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! We have had sufficient. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: No amount of joking about this gets past the fact that the member incorrectly said that I visited the place and tabled documents in the House—or at least attempted to—and incorrectly said there was no maintenance. They may tell jokes and make jokes but my point is this: media need to check very carefully when Annette King— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is sufficient. We are not going to have members attacking questioners in that manner. The Minister had made his point perfectly clearly without that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I had assumed that the Minister was going to correct his previous answer at this point. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister had answered the question asked and— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: No no from the previous— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a point of order. The member knows that. 
KiwiRail—Safety and Network Maintenance 
11. 
BRENDAN HORAN (NZ First) 
 to the  
Associate Minister of Transport 
: Is he satisfied that everything is being done to maintain KiwiRail safety? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Associate Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Yes and can I take this opportunity in Rail Safety Week to commend the great work that KiwiRail and the Chris Cairns Foundation are doing right now to raise awareness about the dangers around rail tracks and crossings for pedestrians. 
Brendan Horan 
: How can he claim that rail safety is being maintained when rotten sleepers remain in place at critical locations on the rail network? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: I think it is worth taking this in context. There are some 7000 hardwood sleepers that are showing signs of premature decay. That is 0.12 percent of the 6 million - odd sleepers in the network. KiwiRail is taking this very seriously. It has taken action to test inspect and replace the sleepers and has assured me and the public that it would not run services if it considered that there was any risk to public safety. 
Brendan Horan 
: How can he claim that rail safety is being maintained when almost 200 KiwiRail maintenance staff are being made redundant despite the backlog of maintenance including thousands of rotten railway sleepers not yet replaced? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: Well because the Turnaround Plan that KiwiRail is instituting is about business sustainability and putting precious funds to their best possible uses but in no way shape or form is this compromising safety. 
Brendan Horan 
: Given the extent of rotten sleepers at critical level crossings will he take responsibility for any accidents that occur through a failure of those sleepers? 
Hon SIMON BRIDGES 
: I am not aware of any safety issues where sleepers are leading to safety issues. Of the two cases where sleepers that were decaying could possibly have caused derailments they were not as I understand it near level crossings. 
KiwiRail—Financial Targets in Turnaround Plan 
12. 
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatu) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: What advice has he received on the likelihood of KiwiRail finding $3.85 billion from its own balance sheet as required by the Turnaround Plan? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 I am advised there is little likelihood that KiwiRail will find the $3.85 billion projected in the original 10-year Turnaround Plan launched in early 2010. KiwiRail’s business has been affected significantly since that time by the Christchurch earthquakes the Pike River mine disaster and of course the economic downturn. KiwiRail expects to have a smaller amount of free cash-flow available for reinvestment in the business and risks continue. However it is clear that KiwiRail has a much greater understanding of its business drivers and the company believes it remains on track to meet the original Turnaround Plan objective of viability. 
Phil Twyford 
: Is he concerned that KiwiRail is laying off 181 workers and deferring network maintenance in order to meet the Turnaround Plan’s financial targets when improving the state of the network is the very thing that will allow KiwiRail to reduce journey times and be more competitive with long-haul trucking? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The board of KiwiRail is determined to achieve the objective of the Turnaround Plan it is determined to maintain safety and it is determined to run this business efficiently. Part of that is making sure that its investments are returning against those objectives and that is why it has made the decisions it has in respect of those infrastructure and engineering staff numbers. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he support in the light of the major faults identified in the Chinese designed and built locomotives the decision by KiwiRail’s board to not undertake a competitive tender on such a major capital acquisition; if so why? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Those decisions were managed by the board of KiwiRail and its executive. I have confidence in those people that they can turn round what can be described only as a financial basket case which this Government inherited. We are having to put $750 million of very hard-earned taxpayers’ money into this organisation. We expect to get a return for the taxpayers. We simply cannot carry on with an organisation that cannot balance its books and that is what the Turnaround Plan is about. 
Moana Mackey 
: Will he guarantee that the future of the Gisborne to Napier rail line will not be adversely affected by any requirement for KiwiRail to meet financial targets under the Turnaround Plan? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The requirement is that there is freight on the line and in sufficient numbers to make the line viable into the future. That is what we are expecting. The Government is very well aware of the views of the Gisborne-Wairoa-Napier community in respect of that. At the same time we must make sure that KiwiRail does get on a track to viability because we simply cannot have taxpayers having to put hard-earned money into this business year after year after year. That may be the sort of strange economics of the party opposite but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! No need for that. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he think that the Government’s Turnaround Plan for rail is working or not given his earlier answer that KiwiRail will not meet the Turnaround Plan’s financial targets given KiwiRail’s plans to sell the Hillside workshops sell Tranz Rail close the Gisborne-Napier line and cut the Capital Connection and given the series of procurement disasters involving the rolling stock and 7000 rotting Peruvian rail sleepers? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think every Minister in this responsibility over the last 4 years would have told you that it has always been a very challenging task for the board of KiwiRail its executive and staff to meet the Turnaround Plan and it continues to be a challenge. It is not without risks but what I can tell the member is that at a time where there are significant demands on the Crown’s capital for schools roads and hospitals we have put $750 million into this project and frankly I think the spendaholics opposite would not be in a position to do anything else. 
Questions to Members 
Transport Napier-Gisborne—Submissions Received on Rail Petition 
1. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee 
: How many submissions have been received on the petition of Meng Foon “that the House of Representatives note that 10240 people have signed a petition calling on KiwiRail and the Government to repair the Gisborne to Napier railway line and that the House support this demand”? 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) 
: 
 The committee received one submission. 
Moana Mackey 
: Is the reason that the petitioners have not been asked to provide a submission because Government members voted to block— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! That is not a supplementary question that is in order. That is a matter for the committee not for the chair and—[ 
Interruption 
] No the question is out of order and the member will not interject when the Speaker is ruling. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Education National Standards—Decision to Release Data 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Nanaia Mahuta seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s decision to publicly release school national standards data this September. The decision is a case of recent occurrence that involves ministerial responsibility. However not every ministerial decision will warrant an urgent debate. There must be an element of urgency for the matter to take precedence over other business. The authentication for the member’s application reveals that this is the first time the national standards data will be published on the website but that the Minister has developed a 5-year plan to improve year-on-year quality and the use of national standards data. The issue is a developing one. In these circumstances I am not persuaded that the setting aside of the House’s business for an urgent debate today can be justified. The application is therefore declined. 
Urgent Debates 
Overseas Investment Rules—Sale of Crafar Farms 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have also received a letter from the Hon David Parker seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the Government’s decision to approve the sale of Crafar farms to a foreign purchaser Milk New Zealand Holdings Ltd. This is a decision that involves ministerial responsibility. Although the decision was actually made on 20 April it was the subject of an appeal. The Court of Appeal has now found that the Ministers acted reasonably in granting consent for the sale under the Overseas Investment Act 2005 and dismissed the appeal. The judgment was given on 8 August 2012. This is the first time that the matter could have come before the House and it is therefore one of recent occurrence. Given the significance of the matter I consider it important enough to warrant the immediate attention of the House by way of an urgent debate. I therefore call on the Hon David Parker to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance 
. The finding of the Court of Appeal was that the decision was not unreasonable from a  
Wednesbury 
 unreasonableness point of view not that it was a reasonable decision. It was that it was a legal decision not the right decision. The court found that the Minister for Land Information acted within his powers to approve the sale of the Crafar farms to the Shanghai Pengxin syndicate but not that he acted reasonably because that is not its mandate. 
I want to talk about what is wrong with this decision. I also want to talk about what is wrong with the underlying problems in our economy that drive the sale of so many of New Zealand’s assets to overseas people. I also want to put on record some of the inconsistent statements that we have had from the Prime Minister and others around these issues. The Minister approved this sale the largest ever sale of dairy farmland on 20 April after his earlier decision granting similar approval had been overturned by the High Court because of misapplication of the legal test. The largest ever sale of dairy land to overseas interests is of interest to New Zealanders and I think it is appropriate that the Speaker—I could not think it inappropriate but I agree that it is a matter of importance that requires the attention of this House. 
Why do I say that and what do I say in support of that? Well I would look at our history in terms of what has happened to our forestry industry. New Zealand lost large swathes of its forestry to overseas ownership in a very short period of time— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Approved by you. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Some of them were approved by Labour. Some of them were approved by Labour. What has happened to the forestry industry since then has been analysed by people like Brian Gaynor. Brian Gaynor has found that the loss of control of those assets from New Zealand has led to a smaller portion of the value chain accruing to New Zealand because the forest owner who does not have an interest in New Zealand is less likely to want to process it in New Zealand and less likely to want to invest in the jobs that add value to New Zealand and will be more interested in their own profitability in terms of maximising the log price. We in this House should learn the lessons of history. If we do not learn the lessons of history we are doomed to repeat them. 
Other lessons in history go back a bit further. New Zealand lost a lot of control of the value from the farming sector in the 19th century when there were high levels— 
Hon Member 
: The early 19th century. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: —in the early 19th century when there were high levels of foreign ownership of New Zealand pastoral land. As a consequence Governments in New Zealand tightened up on those rules for the benefit of New Zealand farming and that is why we have now got Fonterra because we have vertically integrated enterprises that have as their foundation New Zealand ownership of our land. 
Another reason we should be concerned is that the Prime Minister told us we should be concerned. The Prime Minister in the last term of Government when there was public disquiet about the amount of farmland starting to be sold into overseas hands said he thought that the concerns that New Zealanders had were legitimate. He said that National would tighten the rules in response to that. Well what did they do? They passed this minor change to regulations and pretended it was going to tighten the rules. The reality is that the discretion of the Minister to approve or decline land sales to foreigners is already very wide. The Minister had ample discretion to decline this application if the Minister wanted to but he did not want to. He wanted to approve it and that is why he did—because it is ministerial discretion. So when I hear the Minister claim he had no choice because it was a departmental recommendation that is nonsense. Indeed if he took the decision on the basis that it was a departmental recommendation that would itself be illegal. So when he postures in that way in the media he knows he is treading a fine line because it is ministerial discretion. 
This Minister has a record of exercising that discretion in favour of applications. In fact since he has been Minister he has turned down only one application and that was where the officials found that the applicants were corrupt— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: No. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: More than one is it? How many? 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: About seven. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: About seven now. But it is always on the basis that the people who are applying are corrupt individuals rather than the economics of the underlying transactions. 
The second-largest sale ever approved to foreign buyers of dairy land in New Zealand was also approved by the current Minister and that was the sale of a very large dairy farm on the Maniototo in my home province of Otago. Labour disapproved of it. Labour opposed that. We made public our disapproval of that at the time and we were not accused of racism for opposing the sale of big dairy farms in the Maniototo to American interests—in that case the Harvard University investment fund. 
Prior the largest ever in land area and value of dairy land sold to overseas interests was a Southland group of farms sold to European investors. Again the Labour Party opposed that. Again in that case the Labour Party was not accused of racism for opposing that particular sale of land to overseas buyers. But when we opposed the sale to Shanghai Pengxin the Minister accused us and accused other people of being motivated by the fact that the purchaser was Chinese rather than that the purchaser was of another nationality. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Give us one quote. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: You were on record for that. I am sorry but the record shows that the Minister asserted that people were opposed to Shanghai Pengxin purchasing these farms rather than others on the basis of their nationality and on the basis of their ethnicity. That accusation was not made in respect of our opposition to the US purchase in the second-biggest sale or opposition to the European purchase in Southland earlier. 
The opposition of the Labour Party is not based on where people come from. It is based on what we think is in the long-term economic interests of our country. More than ever it should be apparent to the National Party that there are huge trade imbalances in the world—enormous trade imbalances in the world. China is running the largest trade surplus we have ever seen of any country ever in the history of the world. Germany has had a trade balance that it has maintained on the back of a euro that is suppressed because of problems in the Mediterranean border States which have acted to pull down the euro and keep up the exports of Germany because they have had a trade advantage because of their exchange rate. 
We have had other countries manipulating their exchange rates. We have these massive trade imbalances in the world meaning that countries that are in trade deficits are funding those deficits through borrowing more money from overseas and through selling our assets which were New Zealand - owned to foreign buyers. Those are the only two ways you can pay for a current account deficit. Yet we have this Government ignoring those realities and saying: “Look we should just let all of our assets be available to be purchased by the highest bidder.” That is just wrong. There is no economic upside to New Zealand selling these land-based assets. We are already the most efficient farmers in the world. We are not going to increase the farm output of these farms. Indeed that was one of the reasons why the High Court upheld the appeal in the original decision which was turned over— 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Wrong. You’ve got it wrong. 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: It was. One of the reasons was that the High Court was not convinced that the additional investment that was going to be made in these farms and would increase productivity would not have been made by a New Zealand purchaser. We know that New Zealand purchasers of farms increase productivity. That is how we have increased our dairy output. That is how Fonterra has thrived. We do not need foreign purchasers of those assets to increase the output of those farms. Indeed it is clear that the output of these farms would have gone up whoever purchased them and New Zealand’s output as a country will not go up as a consequence of these farm purchases. 
Even trade access into China is not vastly advantaged through this. We already have a free-trade agreement with China which gives us access to that market. So that is not a huge advantage from these transactions. 
The downside is that the future value from our farming sector if we sell it overseas goes to the foreign purchaser. That is a drain on our resources. Over time we see the hollowing out of the New Zealand economy. We see this in a rising current account deficit. A substantial part of our current account deficit is now profit flows dividends interest being paid to overseas lenders and profits being repatriated to foreign owners. We will not get out of this loop with these sorts of policies because this sort of sale makes it worse. 
There are non-economic reasons why we should not be selling these assets. I want to live in a country where successful New Zealanders who work hard and save hard can buy our assets. I do not want all of our assets priced on an international market. Some assets should be priced internationally; some should not. I do not want New Zealand to be a country where a sharemilker who works hard for decades and saves cannot afford to buy a farm. I do not want the only people who can buy farms in New Zealand to be people who either inherit large amounts of wealth or bring wealth from overseas. 
We are seeing the globalisation of trade. We are seeing the equalisation of prices for a lot of commodities and we are seeing the averaging down of a lot of labour costs for labour-intensive goods but we are not seeing asset equality. In fact we are seeing asset and wealth inequality grow around the world. If New Zealand opens itself up to those forces without protecting our asset base we do New Zealanders a disservice. Nowhere is this clearer than land. You know we have got countries overseas that for centuries have had far less egalitarian settings than New Zealand’s. They have had lower rates of tax. They have had higher rates of division. Yet the beneficiaries of those settings in those countries are hugely wealthy compared with New Zealanders. Added to that we have got the State-based control of enormous surpluses in some countries and China is the obvious example of that. Those two factors combined mean that we are unlike any moment in our history at risk of overseas people being able to outbid New Zealanders for our assets and that is not the sort of country that I want to live in. I do not think it makes much difference to the economic output of New Zealand. I do think it increases our current account deficit over time. But it is almost as important to me that I live in a country where people can afford to own our own country. 
This Government should be concentrating on what fixes that problem. It is the changes that we need to our investment signal through a capital gains tax. It is deeper savings so that there is more capital to invest in our manufacturing in our processing of our forest products in our fisheries and in the high-value manufacturing sector. We need more money in that sector through higher savings and we need the money directed there instead of into speculation. The means to direct it there is a capital gains tax to remove the tax bias that currently puts investment in the wrong place. We need a research and development tax credit. What we do not need is to sell ourselves off to overseas countries for no good reason—no good reason at all. 
China does not let us buy its land. Yet we are saying we should have to sell our land to it. This is wrong. It is not about China; my same logic applies to other countries that do let us buy their land. I personally do not think we should sell our rural land to overseas countries. Neither do I think we should sell our infrastructure with monopoly characteristics. It is really important for the functioning of the— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Why have you changed your view? 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: What is that? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Why have you changed your view because you sold off all the— 
Hon DAVID PARKER 
: Actually I turned down the sale of Auckland Airport to Canadian interests so I will stand on my record. And actually I also turned down a dairy farm at the end of my tenure. The world is changing and if people cannot change as the world changes how moribund would democracy be? We may as well not have it. 
I am firmly of the view that it is not in our interests to sell our rural land nor our monopoly infrastructure. It is a symptom of a malaise in New Zealand which is that we do not export enough to cover the cost of our imports and interest. Those are the problems that should be solved. Those are the problems that if solved will raise incomes will give job opportunities and will stop those thousands of New Zealanders leaving to Australia. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) 
: 
 Having the Labour Party calling for a snap debate on the sale of land to foreigners is really like a turkey calling for an early Christmas. It is just like mother’s milk for the National Party because frankly we on this side of the House should be ashamed of our performance relative to Labour’s. During its time in office when David Parker who has just spoken was the Minister for Land Information over 9 long years that party approved the sale of 665000 hectares of land to foreigners—665000 hectares of land to foreigners. Yet somehow the National Government which has been in power for 3¾ years and has approved just on 100000 hectares—that is one-sixth; actually it is more like about a seventh of what Labour did when it was in office—is all wrong evil disgraceful and just outrageous. 
How many New Zealanders remember Shania Twain buying the South Island high country estate? Right. How many people remember the then Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark walking the track of the land with Shania Twain and welcoming the purchase? Right. Let us get some things into perspective here. The total Crafar farmland area was 7000 hectares. If anyone wants to get that into perspective it is about the size of a playing card on Eden Park as a percentage of total New Zealand land. So when you sit up in your stand in Eden Park watching the All Blacks play and you see a little white dot somewhere down on the field and you zoom right in on to it and you find it is the Queen of Hearts that is the equivalent piece of Crafar farmland relative to total land mass. Shania’s Twain’s land was 53000 hectares—53000 hectares was sold to Shania Twain. Was she a foreigner? Oh well she is from Canada. She now lives in Switzerland I think. She split the farm up with her ex-husband and he now takes control of it or whatever. But Helen Clark walked the track was absolutely proud of the Labour Government having sold this off to Shania Twain and there were so many other sales of land that occurred under that party’s administration. 
Now it comes time to look at the process. The process was put in place not by the National Government but by the Labour Government. As the Minister for Land Information I have to work under an Act called the Overseas Investment Act which was passed in 2005 by the Labour Government. I am bound to act under that Act. I know that David Parker wants Ministers to break the law but I have got some news for him. The advice is that if you do not act accordingly under the Act and the instructions that the Act and the regulations give you you are subject to judicial review and a buyer could easily say: “Well I think the Minister has breached the intents of the Act and the regulations.” take us to judicial review and the courts could easily find that Ministers have acted outside of it. 
 David Parker is wrong on a number of counts. First of all he said that we only rubber stamp the advice we get. Well let me give the member a good example. Officials recommended that the Government say yes to Kim Dotcom’s buying of the Coatesville mansion. That is the official advice that Ministers received but we declined it. In a number of cases when we did not think they were valid buyers of that land such as Natural Dairy when it was wanting to buy it—that is the consortium headed up by May Wang—we declined it. We said no. But when my officials brought to me the advice about the Shanghai Pengxin bid it is just impossible to go down the list of the criteria and not be impressed. First of all what an incredibly successful company and companies Shanghai Pengxin is and has run. What a number of various industries including retail construction and agribusinesses that company has run. When I hear people like Winston Peters saying: “Oh well Shanghai Pengxin doesn’t have any experience of dairy farming.” well let us have a look at it. Allan Crafar did and how did he go running the place? OK. He knew how to milk a cow. Was it a successful operation? I am not so sure. I agree that the principal owner of Shanghai Pengxin may not have put on the cups—washed down the udders and put on the cups. I agree with that. But he has proven that he has a very successful track record in agribusiness along with a number of others. 
Then there was the good-character test. In many cases it is quite easy: you have someone who has a bit of a dodgy background or who has convictions or whatever. This was a clean slate—a clean slate for a good-character test. So you could not do it on that. Then we get to the economic acumen. In the past and I want members to really focus on this Ministers since the Act was put in place have always used the “before and after” test—that is what would be the value of this asset before the investment was made and what will be the value of this asset after? That is the test that David Parker used over and over again because I have checked with the officials who were the same officials who worked under Labour. We always use the “before and after” test. But somehow a High Court judge told us we were wrong. Justice Forrest Miller said: “No. Ministers have misdirected themselves and should not use a ‘before and after’ test. They should use a ‘with and without’ test.” They should ask what is the value of the asset with this investment and what would be the value of this asset without the investment being made?”. It is quite difficult to do because the “without” is billions of combinatorics. Who knows what would happen to the asset without the investment? Who knows? It could be the best dairy farmer the world has ever seen who buys it and it might be the most flourishing set of farms ever or it might be another Allan Crafar who buys it or anything in between. But we took the advice of the High Court. We went back and we applied the “with and without” test. After being challenged again in the Court of Appeal I am delighted to say the Court of Appeal found in favour that Ministers had acted properly and had approved the sale under the Act. 
Let us get it quite clear. This Act was put in place by Labour so you cannot start blaming the National Government for the Act and indeed you cannot even blame the National Government for the regulations in place because National added some more. We did not delete any; we left all the regulations that are under the Overseas Investment Act in place and added two new ones after we did a review. One was an economic interest test—factors allowing Ministers to consider whether New Zealand’s economic interests are adequately safeguarded and promoted. That was the first extra test we added. A second one was a new mitigating factor that enables the Minister to consider whether an overseas investment provides opportunities for New Zealand oversight or involvement. Well this one does. This is going to be a joint partnership with Landcorp. Landcorp is going to have a lot of its expertise involved in that. 
Now I get to the point that I find really laughable. We are supposedly now selling off all our country. You listen to Russel Norman from the Greens who himself has come here only recently from Australia so I find it a bit rich that he is saying we do not want foreigners to take over our land. But you listen to Russel Norman and you would think that the vast bulk of this country now lies in the hands of foreigners. I can do nothing but thank the  
Sunday Star-Times  
because it did a fantastic big exposé of this a couple of weeks ago in July in which it showed a huge piece of the pie. It asked how much land foreigners are gobbling up. Most people say that it is most of our country. We are becoming tenants in our own land. It is all going. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: That was the Prime Minister who said that. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No the Prime Minister said he did not want to be a tenant in his own land so let us get the facts right. All that the Terralink International database got used for was to show that of the total farmland the total rural land in this country 1.5 percent is owned by foreigners. By the way what is really interesting if you follow this is that in many cases what was a foreigner turns into being a New Zealander because a lot of people who buy the land as foreigners then take out citizenship. I have got a number of examples who are now New Zealand citizens as I presume Russel Norman is because he is able to stand for Parliament. Therefore he could have bought something as an Australian but now he has become a New Zealand citizen. I have seen that as well. So I would really like to know what the definition of a foreigner is. It may be someone who came from overseas but now holds citizenship. But I repeat for anybody who wants to look at that article—it is a very good article showing both the North Island and the South Island graphically—that 1.5 percent of all rural farmland in this country is owned by foreigners. 
Let us go back and get a recap because again I cannot believe Labour called for a snap debate on this. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I think you’ve made your point. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Well no I have not made the point enough. I want to make it more times than once—I really do. I know that Labour thinks I made the point. There were 665000 hectares of land sold under Labour. Remember Crafar’s was 6000 hectares so it is about 1/100th of what Labour approved for sale. There you go. There is a good number. The total 16 Crafar farms added together come to 1/100th of the land area that Labour approved for sale to foreigners. Boy does that put it in perspective. I think that really puts it in perspective. It is no wonder that Labour does not want us to carry on. I think we should move an extension of time in this debate because we are loving it. We are loving having a debate on the sale of land to foreigners. 
I know what Labour members are going to do—I know exactly what they are going to do. They are going to do what they did with the sale of assets. They are going to say: “Oh we got that wrong. We got that wrong. You know we sold Telecom and we sold a whole lot of assets but we were wrong.” Now I hear today about Housing New Zealand Corporation: “You haven’t done any maintenance on this and you haven’t done any on that.” Then Phil Heatley the Minister of Housing got up and said: “This is how much maintenance we’ve actually done and compared with you it’s huge.” Then Labour members go: “Oh we got that wrong as well.” You start wondering how many times can Labour actually run the line that it got it wrong until New Zealanders say: “What did you ever get right—what did you ever get right?” because again on foreign ownership Labour says it got it wrong. It should not have sold all that land. It should not have sold that land to Shania Twain. I notice Labour members never said a mutter not a murmur not a whisper when James Cameron came in to buy some land in the Wairarapa recently. Oh he is a good guy actually this James Cameron. He is a Canadian. He is not a foreigner. He is a Canadian. Not a mutter not a murmur not a whisper about James Cameron—oh no. The Swiss the German the British the French and even the Australian buyers have come in here without a mutter not a murmur not a whisper. I say to my colleague Raymond Huo who I think is the shadow for me in this portfolio that he needs to speak up. He needs to speak up a little bit about how poor this decision— 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: I didn’t think he was still in Parliament. 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No he is. He is still in Parliament. That is him over there. He is my opponent I believe in the land portfolio. He is the land information spokesman. I think I might have got this wrong. I think I might have got this one wrong. But I did not hear a mutter or a murmur or a whisper from him about his own ethnic community because we need foreign investment in this country. New Zealand cannot function without foreign investment. 
There was a very very good article in the  
New Zealand Herald  
of about 2 years ago that was written by Gareth Morgan and I think it should be compulsory reading for all New Zealanders because it said that while we continue to spend more money overseas than we earn and foreigners are left with a surplus of that transaction in their hands there are only two things they can do with that surplus. They can dump that money on the junk bond market and send our dollar to 1c or they can do what just about anybody in this room would do. They would buy an asset with it. As Gareth Morgan said those people in this House today—and I think all those people in the country—who are opposed to foreign investment should tell us how on earth you have got a plan for New Zealand to stop spending more than it earns because I do not envisage that happening in my lifetime. I do not envisage it happening in a fairly long time. I wish it would. I wish we were a more prosperous nation and that New Zealanders’ spending appetite was not so voracious but I am sorry Gareth Morgan is right. Foreign investment is actually going to help this nation. Some of the investment made by Shanghai Pengxin will bear fruits as we get better penetration into the Chinese retail market by partnering with companies like that. I just repeat again—I am almost having to go and get a bit of a reality check here—I could understand why say the Communist Party of New Zealand would be opposed to this although I do not know what its policy is— 
Todd McClay 
: The Greens? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No the Greens have not been quite that consistent either—there have not been a lot of words about some of it—but others have. But when a party that was in Government for 9 long years sold six-and-a-half cum seven times as much as the National Government did all I can say is that my gast is really flabbered. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I rise to speak in this urgent debate around the Crafar land sales. I think this debate does raise some critical issues about economic policy for New Zealand. One of the critical issues is what to do about land. It is certainly true that the previous Labour Government approved the sale of a large amount of land into overseas ownership—the figure of 660000 hectares. It is certainly true that this current Government has approved the sale of about 230000 hectares since it has come into office. Since then I am pleased to say Labour has had a change of heart about this issue. I think there is nothing wrong with that. It is very strange that the Minister for Land Information should suggest that a party could change its mind and that that is a bad thing; actually it is a good thing. 
What has fundamentally changed in the global environment around land is that food security is becoming a critical issue globally. If you do not understand that fundamental reality of green economics then you will not understand this debate. The fundamental reality is that all around the world there is enormous pressure on food security and there is enormous pressure on food prices. We have seen big spikes in food prices. That has led many countries Governments and corporations to focus on buying up land so globally we have seen the big land-grab as it is called. We think—and the numbers are a little bit hard to get—that probably in the last decade we have seen that about 2 million square kilometres of land has been grabbed. That land has been grabbed by Governments like the South Korean Government and it has been grabbed by corporations. A lot of the Gulf States are very focused on food security so they have been buying up very large amounts of land. All of those Governments and corporations are very focused on buying land in order to maintain food security. It is a global phenomenon. You can read about it in  
New Scientist 
 although I cannot imagine that Maurice Williamson would ever read a science magazine. You can read about it. You can read about it there. Fred Pearce wrote an article about it. You can read about the global land-grab that is under way at the moment. 
That is happening because of resource constraints. Resource constraint is one of the fundamental ideas within green economics; it is one of the key drivers of what is happening to land prices and food globally. The other one of course is climate change. As the effect of climate change starts to happen what we are seeing is pressure on food-producing systems and access to water. Of course as global populations grow and get more wealthy land that can produce food is becoming more and more valuable. This is a global phenomenon. New Zealand land tends to be more expensive than land in other countries so our land has not been at the top of the list for the land-grabbing but there has been a significant amount of land that has been purchased in New Zealand and of course the Crafar farms deal is just a part of that. 
We need to actually take into account that global reality when we are setting our policy around foreign investment in land. Do we think that it is the right strategy to allow our land to fall into overseas investment? I would argue that it is a very poor strategy. Effectively this land is the goose that lays the golden egg. Our economic strategy—I think a smart Green economic strategy—is to sell the golden eggs rather than sell the goose. However the Government for short-term economic reasons wants to sell the goose. It is asking how it will fund the current account deficit. There are only two ways to fund a current account deficit: either you borrow more or you sell assets to overseas owners. What the National Government wants to do is sell more assets to overseas owners in order to fund the current account deficit and it wants to borrow more. We have seen that Government borrowing has gone through the roof. This Government has borrowed a huge amount. It is one of the biggest-borrowing Governments we have had in generations actually. So in order to fund the current account deficit what the Government proposes to do is sell off the remaining assets. We have sold off large amounts of capital assets when you think of the foreign dominance of the New Zealand Exchange. One of the last great assets that we can sell in order to pay for the current account deficit is the land. So what this Government is doing is saying: “Yes open door—you can buy the land. That is how we are going to fund the current account deficit.” 
I would argue that that is a very very short-term strategy. It is a much more sensible strategy to hold on to the land and use that as the base for our economy—that is sell the produce from the land. Sell the golden eggs rather than the goose. But this Government is intent it would appear on going down the track of selling more and more land into overseas ownership. 
That is part of a global trend so it is not surprising. All around the world Governments are grappling with exactly this problem. There are Governments like ours which have large amounts of land in Africa and elsewhere and large foreign corporations—in this case it is a Chinese Government - backed corporation Shanghai Pengxin—that want to buy food-producing land in order to send food back to their domestic market. That has produced enormous tension in legislatures like this one all around the planet. 
That is why the Greens have introduced a bill in my name to actually restrict the purchase of land into overseas ownership. We would amend the Overseas Investment Act so that in respect of sensitive land which is defined within the Act as 5 hectares or more of rural land you cannot allow that land to go into overseas ownership. It is a simple amendment to the Overseas Investment Act and the purpose is very simple—that is to keep the land in New Zealand ownership because that is a fundamental aspect. 
During this debate of course the Government has used personal attacks to attack anyone who disagrees with it. We have just had Maurice Williamson the Minister attacking people on the basis that they are migrants to New Zealand. The Minister attacked me because I am a migrant to New Zealand and he said that somehow that means I am not allowed to speak in this debate and that I do not have a valid position. Well I would say to the Minister that I am proud to be a migrant in New Zealand and I would say to all other migrants that they should be proud. Do not listen to the National Party— 
David Bennett 
: Ah you’re rubbish. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN 
: —when the National Party attacks people for being migrants in New Zealand and when David Bennett attacks people for being migrants in New Zealand. Do not listen to them. You are welcome here. We welcome migrants to New Zealand. We are very pleased to have a society where migrants are welcome. And we believe that land should be kept affordable so that every person who lives here—a permanent resident or a citizen—can afford to buy land here. 
What will happen if we have an open-door approach to foreign ownership of our land is that the price of land will get to a point where most New Zealanders cannot afford to buy it. The family farmer will become a figment of history an aspect of history because family farmers will not be able to afford land. If you look at the most recent case which we are debating today—the Shanghai Pengxin case around the Crafar farms—Shanghai Pengxin had such deep pockets that it could outbid Michael Fay. Michael Fay is an extremely wealthy New Zealander and he was outbid by this Chinese Government - backed corporation. 
The reason is that the Chinese Government has more than US$2 trillion which it is trying to turn into assets because sitting on US dollars when the US Government has the ability to print unlimited amounts of dollars is a very poor strategy. So the Chinese Government and other Governments very wisely are trying to turn those cash assets into real assets and buying up land is a critical part of that strategy. That is why they are able to outbid people like Michael Fay and they will certainly be able to outbid family farmers. So if there are family farmers who have aspirations to buy their own farm they will be outbid by foreign corporations because as land becomes more and more valuable those corporations will focus on buying up food-producing land particularly food-producing land with access to water. That is the fundamental reality and that is because we live within a resource-constrained world where food-producing land will only become more and more and more valuable. Large corporations and foreign Governments will target food-producing land because they are concerned about the price of food and food security. 
That is why we think it is essential that we protect that land. It is a fundamental economic strategy but it is also a fundamental social justice strategy. People should be able to afford to buy the land in the country they live in. If the price of land is driven so high that even Michael Fay one of the wealthiest New Zealanders cannot afford to purchase the land and is outbid by Shanghai Pengxin an overseas corporation backed by a foreign Government it means that ordinary family farmers will not be able to afford to purchase land. That is what National is proposing. What National is proposing with its strategy of an open door is that ordinary family farmers will not be able to buy land in New Zealand. 
Our view is that ordinary family farmers should be allowed to buy land in this country. We can achieve that only if we restrict overseas ownership of land because the overseas ownership of land will drive the price out of the reach of ordinary New Zealanders and it will be only the large conglomerates large international corporations or large Government-backed organisations—and the Gulf States are very active in this space—that will be going around the planet purchasing land. I have no idea whether National is aware of this or not but this is a global phenomenon being driven by resource constraints. 
The smart Green economic strategy is to hang on to these assets to hang on to the land because food-producing land over time will only become more valuable. It is intimately connected to New Zealand’s economic advantage overseas which is clean green and safe. Clean green and safe is fundamental to the New Zealand brand; it is why we are selling large amounts of dairy into China at the moment. So maintaining land—maintaining it in New Zealand ownership—is fundamental to New Zealand’s long-term economic future. That is why I have my bill before the House and that is why I urge all members to vote for it. 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First has consistently always opposed the sale of farmland to foreigners. We are very glad to see that the Labour Party now also adopts that policy. I want to give a number of reasons for this. Firstly it causes an inexorable rise in farm prices in New Zealand. Foreigners of course are not— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have constant interjections down this end from David Bennett over here. The interjections include such things as accusing my colleague of being a liar and various other things. Interjections should not be constant yelling and pointless yelling across the Chamber. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: Well— 
David Bennett 
: Mr Speaker that’s simply not true. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance. This has been quite a spirited debate and I know that when the Hon Maurice Williamson was speaking that created quite a bit of interjection and comment as well. It has been a spirited debate. I wish that all members would show some courtesy in this House and I would caution members that it is an opportunity for debate and for listening to each other and interjections should be rare and reasonable. 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: I actually did not hear any interjections anyway. But I will repeat what I said at the beginning. First of all New Zealand First has consistently always opposed the sale of farmland to foreigners and we are glad to see that Labour has now followed that policy as well. I was beginning to say that there are a number of very good reasons for this. Firstly farm prices cause an inexorable rise of prices for farms especially for the best farmland in New Zealand. Foreigners of course are not financially constrained in the way that many New Zealanders are. So that of course leads to a significant disadvantage to people in New Zealand who want to embark upon a farming career. This is driven by a shortage of quality farmland overseas and we do not want to impose and import that problem into this country. Foreign buyers are for those reasons hungry for fertile well-watered land in the temperate zone such as particularly in this country. 
New Zealand First would impose strict restrictions on foreign ownership of farmland and we would impose the same sort of restrictions on foreigners that Kiwis face if they want to buy farmland in other countries. In relation to this as I have already indicated is the asset that this country has in abundance: fresh water. Water claims and water resources of course are closely related to the value of farming and are closely related to why so many overseas buyers want to buy farms in New Zealand. New Zealand First strongly opposes the sale of all strategic assets especially farmland and especially related water resources. We are opposed to any particular group gaining exclusive rights to what is essentially a public resource. Issues affecting the country’s fresh water as well as farmland should be considered from a national perspective. 
Another reason for opposing the sale of farmland overseas is that it does mean that New Zealand farmers are deprived of the opportunity to buy farmland at reasonable prices. It effectively does do that because it drives farm prices up and inflates farm prices. We must not see a bidding war for farms in this country driven by overseas purchasers. Included is an opportunity to develop further the New Zealand farming culture—a farming culture of great success and a farming culture of innovation. There is every possibility that that will be damaged by overseas farmers who are not part of that culture and do not have the best interests of New Zealand farming at heart. 
Furthermore another reason is a loss of New Zealand’s economic sovereignty. The sales of farms—the sales of such a strategic asset—do if they go unchecked over time mean that we become tenants in our own land and we lose sovereignty over our destiny in the long term. Economically it is very difficult to see what the benefit is of allowing the sale of farmland overseas. Overseas investors in New Zealand can still invest in other ways. They can finance New Zealanders into farms with loans and with other economic instruments. 
Another reason is that the economic reasons given by the Government for allowing this are utterly and completely inadequate. I note for example that the Prime Minister when justifying the sale of farmlands overseas said on one occasion: “Overall we’ve believed … that yes the bid by the Chinese company can add value and allow us to have good distribution into China.” That of course is an utterly inadequate reason why we should allow the sale of New Zealand farmland overseas because access to the Chinese market is simply not dependent upon Chinese farm ownership in this country. 
 The competence of overseas owners is another issue. We do not know if this goes on unchecked into the future what sort of competence overseas owners of farms in this country will have. It is all very well for the Court of Appeal and others to say that as at today this overseas purchaser looks like a competent farmer but when they sell to other overseas people or when they go ahead and farm these properties over time how can we be sure that they will be as competent as we know New Zealand farmers are? It is not necessarily a situation that will endure. 
The last reason I want to give as to why we should be so opposed to the sale of New Zealand farmland overseas is simply this: there is no guarantee that large overseas corporations will not through successive purchases of farmlands aggregate farmland one farm after the other and become so dominant that they effectively control a significant part of New Zealand’s economic resources. 
In conclusion I say that the loss of these particular properties is a black day for New Zealand. These farms will be gone for ever. What assurances have been received? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Where are they taking them? 
DENIS O’ROURKE 
: You can hear some of the caterwauling from the other side of the House which like those assurances are empty words with absolutely no real value in them whatsoever. I might say that the vast majority of New Zealanders do not see any value in those assurances. They know in their hearts and from what they have heard that the sale of these assets of New Zealand farmland overseas cannot ever be in the interests of this country. And I say further that after all the controversy this Government still refuses to act to protect the national interest—with a small “n” of course. It may be a National interest with a large “N”—I am not sure of that—but it is certainly not a national interest with a small “n”. 
 New Zealanders have a special connection to their land and that land is being alienated. Who will defend that land in the future? It is certainly not this Government. This Government is leading this country down the road ultimately to impoverishment by selling farms to overseas farmers whose performance in the long term we cannot be sure of and whose agenda we ought to have the greatest possible suspicion of. 
The New Zealand Overseas Investment Office is itself a joke. In fact it is worse than a joke; it is a fraud. It simply rubber-stamps the transfer of assets into foreign hands. I have had personal experience of this in my work in the past as a lawyer. I have acted for purchasers of farmland and have acted for them in terms of applications to the Overseas Investment Office. I can tell you that its process is utterly inadequate and it is in fact virtually a rubber stamp. You cannot put important assets of this kind into the hands of an organisation like that. The New Zealand First position is clear: stop the sale of strategic assets especially farms and stop compromising New Zealand’s economic sovereignty in this way. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is good to be back. I have just got back in—[ 
Interruption 
] It is good to be back. I have just got back in this weekend from a few weeks overseas. There is nothing like seeing New Zealand from 10000 miles away to understand with a bit more perspective the problems that we have. 
Why are we debating the issue of the Crafar farms? Because it is an emblem of a much deeper problem. It is a problem that ordinary New Zealanders out there understand. What they think is wrong is that a New Zealand Government - owned entity called Landcorp instead of running New Zealand farms is going to become a tenant for a subsidiary of the Chinese Government which is going to own a whopping great chunk of New Zealand prime farmland and that this National Government is selling New Zealand pound by pound hectare by hectare and there will be nothing left. 
Underneath this there is a real choice. From a long distance it is really obvious. New Zealand either has to pay its way in the world by increasing the value of what we sell or we follow the kind of road that members opposite are advocating which is just to ship a greater volume of raw materials and when that does not work actually sell the land it came from. What a terrible admission of failure. 
Everybody knows when you go overseas that New Zealand is a great farm. It is great at making protein fibre and some of the best food products in the world. We can be really proud of that just like we are of our soldiers who fought to retain this land and just like we are of our Olympians who have done us proud. But if we are so great at the things that farms produce why would we not want to add value to that production and retain that farmland rather than as Dr Russel Norman said sell the goose that lays the golden eggs and sell out the underlying land itself? 
I see that that Minister Mr Williamson has been carping away. Let us just get a few things straight. His first contention was that Labour is anti-Chinese. That is absolute rubbish. Labour’s policy is blind to country of origin. It applies across the board evenly to any investor from any overseas jurisdiction and in no way is it anti-Chinese. Indeed it was Labour who signed the historic free-trade agreement with the People’s Republic of China and we are pleased to see investment and trade increasing under that framework but not at the expense of selling out our birthright. 
The Minister has said that Labour is anti foreign direct investment. That is absolute rubbish. I agree with the Minister that New Zealand is not paying its way in the world. The question is how we get there. The answer is that we want the investment that allows us to do better and we do not want the investment that simply takes away our future potential by selling the land that it comes from. 
The Minister’s next argument was that Labour members cannot talk about this because some land was sold under them in previous years. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Some land? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: There is the Minister like a little jack-in-the-box popping up again. Here are some numbers that the public out there can get their heads around. In 2008 the year that the Minister came to office and a black year for New Zealand admittedly there were 828 hectares of farmland sold overseas—828. The Crafar farms deal alone is 7892 hectares. That one deal—7892 hectares—is roughly 10 times everything that was sold in the year that that Minister came to office. 
Labour wants New Zealand to prosper. We want New Zealanders to get good jobs. While I have been away the unemployment rate has gone up again. So National something is not working. Whatever you think is your plan it is time to think again because just milking more cows digging up more of Southland and selling off the land and selling out the whenua is clearly not getting people back to work. What happens if you sell your house to pay a mortgage and then end up renting for more than you were paying? You get poorer right? You get poorer. That is what we are doing. We are selling the farm and renting it back and over time we will be poorer because we will have paid more. In the jargon the current account deficit will go up. That is why our foreign debt is going up and that is why we are getting poorer year by year. 
The Crafar farms decision was a poor one. Labour has a member’s bill in David Shearer’s name aimed at a better framework for foreign investment. 
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER 
: By agreement of the parties the next two 5-minute calls have been merged to a 10-minute call. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Defence) 
: 
 It is great to be able to take a call in this debate. What a revelation this has been this afternoon. It has been really quite fascinating to hear the views across the Parliament on foreign ownership of farmland in New Zealand. I mean we have had the unreconstructed Marxists from the Green Party telling us about the ways that we are going to turn round New Zealand. They say it is sell assets or borrow more but they never actually talk about selling more overseas. The focus is very myopic from the Green Party. I just had this vision there of Russel Norman standing there with a pitchfork in medieval garb taking us back in a very Luddite fashion to the days of peasant farming. 
Then of course we had New Zealand First. Boy did we have some crackers from Mr O’Rourke—a few “O’Rourke-isms”. He told us that farm prices cause an inexorable rise in farm prices. He then went on to say that we are in danger of losing sovereignty over our destiny. He told us that the land is being alienated and he finished up—we wanted just one more “O’Rourke-ism”—by saying that you can put the hands of assets into the hands of foreigners. I do not know what that means but what I can say is that Mr O’Rourke does not seem to be in favour of a big vision for growing New Zealand for looking outwards for engaging in the world and for actually earning our income by raising export levels. That is what this Government is about. It is looking out to the rest of the world. It is saying that hey our future is out there. Our future is selling things to Asia. It is about partnerships. It is actually about producing more. It is about looking strategically. It is not about having that myopic “little New Zealander” vision that we have heard expressed by the Greens and by New Zealand First. 
I can tell you that the real doozy and it is great to have him back is having David Cunliffe here. I think it is just fantastic that he is here to add to this melting pot of Parliament once again. He is clean-shaven ready for the leadership challenge. He has just delivered that leadership-challenging speech and you can tell by the look on the faces of his colleagues over there that they are very unhappy to see that man back. What it means is trouble. It means trouble for David Shearer. It means trouble for their caucus. It means more self-hatred and more tearing each other apart. It means more distraction and more talking about issues that mean nothing to New Zealanders. It means bad news for the Labour Party. But of course that is great news for the Government. So Mr Cunliffe welcome back. But what was really interesting about his speech was that he has been a convert to that “little New Zealander” view expressed by the Greens and New Zealand First. I do not know what has happened in the last few years but David Cunliffe has completely turned his view round. He was part of a Cabinet that over 9 years approved 665000— 
Scott Simpson 
: How much? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I cannot believe it—665000 hectares of land to be sold into foreign hands. Now he is saying that is a bad idea. It is a bad idea according to David Cunliffe. Well there is a word for that. We know that word. I do not know how he can get up and say that with a straight face because we know David Cunliffe does not believe that stuff. [ 
Interruption 
] Yes. His heart is not in it. But what he does believe in is causing trouble in the Labour Party caucus. We know already that he has got no mates there. In the Labour Party you can choose your friends but you cannot choose your colleagues and they are stuck with David Cunliffe. 
But what was even more interesting was having to listen to David Parker. He was the Minister for Land Information for most of those 9 terrible years of the Labour Government—yes David Cunliffe has given me the wink. He knows that we are right on the button. He is happy because his name is up in lights. But back to David Parker who was the Minister who approved the sale of hundreds of thousands of hectares of land to foreign interests. 
Hon Maurice Williamson 
: Did he? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well Maurice Williamson said “Look it’s only 1.5 percent of all arable land in New Zealand.” David Parker today came out so strongly I just could not believe it. When I looked at his record— 
Mark Mitchell 
: What did he say? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well he was saying that it is a very bad idea you know and that we are never going to get ahead by selling foreign land. And he was very critical about the 7000 hectares—7000 hectares—of land that Maurice Williamson and I approved the sale of. So I thought I had better go and have a look at his record. It was absolutely incredible because David Parker had been talking about how the forestry industry was being gutted by sales of land to foreigners. I thought that this was pretty interesting. I looked at this and would you believe it David Parker was the Minister who approved the sale of 240000 hectares of freehold forestry land to Hancock Natural Resource Group. 
Scott Simpson 
: How much? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It was 240000 hectares. I think that must be 240000 hectares in one transaction. The purchase price was more than $1.5 billion. Now Andrew—the guy from Taranaki—is having a smile there because of course he is not a big fan of David Parker. So they will be able to get back and do some more backbiting and bitching in the caucus room about this. That was amazing but that was just one transaction. That was on 18 October 2006. That was not all. We then go on to the second one—and this is frankly only five transactions we are going through out of dozens and dozens that David Parker approved. Ernslaw One Ltd a Malaysian company on 31 March 2008 purchased 13955 hectares of land for $117 million. It is incredible. David Parker signed that one off as well. But it gets worse. [ 
Interruption 
] No look it just keeps on getting worse. He then went and approved the sale of 78000 hectares of freehold forestry land. As he told us— 
Scott Simpson 
: How much? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: —78000—he is very very opposed to the gutting of the forestry industry through the sale of land to foreign interests yet that was sold for $130 million on 29 June 2006 to AMP in Australia. Anyway he did not stop there—he did not stop there—because he was just warming up. Otamatapaio Station which was a 5568 hectares freehold sheep and beef station—well that is actually a small transaction by David Parker standards but he flogged that off. It was actually purchased for a price of just $1. For $1—would you believe it—it was purchased from the Crown and signed off by David Parker. So when Labour is talking about getting value for money well I think he had better come down and maybe take that final Labour call. 
Then there is another one here. Well this is not so bad but you know it is just in keeping with the rest. Dairy Farms Partnership was sold to Americans with 589 hectares of freehold sheep and beef farm for $5.3 million. Really when you look at it I would say that Labour’s approach on this stuff is about as coherent as a David Shearer statement. If you want to know what I mean— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh that’s deep! 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well yes it is actually because this is what David Shearer said today after caucus. David Shearer was asked today whether he is connecting with the electorate. He said: “I do not believe I am not not connecting.” That is a “Shearerism”. He said: “I do not believe I am not not connecting.” That is what David Shearer had to say today. If you look at it these guys have got big problems because when it comes to this issue Labour members have no credibility. Clayton Cosgrove knows this. He is absolutely appalled because basically someone like Clayton Cosgrove—a good centre-right sensible person who joined the wrong party—knows that his people are on the wrong track with this. All they can do now is laugh because they know that fundamentally they have lost the debate. 
We were absolutely astonished that these people would want to seek an urgent debate on the Crafar Farms here today because when you look at their record they clearly did one thing while in Government and then when they were in Opposition when they could not get anything to grasp hold of they tried to grasp the greasy slippery pole of farmland sales and overseas investment. They miscalculated. They thought they could get some traction with this. Well I can tell you that this is yesterday’s issue. But that is what goes with these Opposition members. They are so far behind the play that it is quite clear David Shearer—look if he was in charge of that caucus he would have sat down today and said: “Look we’re not doing this debate. No one cares about this. You know let us do something the public are fired up on.” The public has forgotten this. We have won the debate. Those guys opposite used to be on the winning side of the debate. They lost the election and now they have consciously chosen the losing side of the debate and in the end New Zealand is going to say: “Why would you want to be run by a bunch of losers who always get on the wrong side of every argument?”. Labour will be teamed up with the Green Luddites who will have us back with pitchforks old straw hats and an oxen plough taking us back to medieval times. Quite frankly I reckon it would be great if we could move an extension of time and have this debate every Tuesday afternoon. Kia ora. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
: 
 That was an outstanding contribution from Mr Coleman. Who is Minister Coleman? 
Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman 
: Dr Coleman buddy to you. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Oh Dr Coleman sorry. A witch doctor perhaps; we are not sure. He was part of that great duo—you know sort of Laurel and Hardy—Maurice Williamson and Dr Coleman who were such geniuses in their National Government that they could not make a basic process decision that was not reviewable by a court. It took a court in this land to come down on them like a ton of the proverbial and require them to readdress this decision and to use a proper process. But if you look at Dr Coleman’s contribution round here and his political track record they do not call him “The Maestro” for nothing—both inside and outside this place. I say to the prospective next Speaker of the House the next knight of the realm Sir Maurice Williamson that he could have picked a better partner in crime I think as it were to deal with this decision. 
But let me say this: one of the things Dr Coleman said as he concluded his speech was “this is yesterday’s issue.” That is what he said. He also said: “No one cares about this.” Well I say this to Dr Coleman. I do not know what planet he is on I do not know what stratosphere he is orbiting and I do not know whether he reads the newspaper every day but when it comes to assets being sold whether they be land-based or whether they be State-owned assets I have to tell him something. I am sure Maurice Williamson who I think is still Minister of Statistics—he will correct me if I am wrong—and who can count using all his fingers and toes will tell Dr Coleman that if he reads a poll for 80 percent of New Zealanders these issues of asset sales are paramount in their minds and paramount to their lives. Eighty percent for instance are opposed to the Government’s fire sale of State-owned assets. That proves how out of touch “The Maestro” is. According to the great “Maestro” no one cares about these issues—no one cares about them—and they are yesterday’s issues. 
Scott Simpson 
: What are the polls telling you? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: What do the polls say? Well I just said to the member that 80 percent of New Zealanders consistently—I say to that member whose name I cannot recall but somebody will help me out. Mr McClay will— 
Andrew Little 
: Simpson. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Mr Simpson. Eighty percent of New Zealanders consistently across the board—[ 
Interruption 
] You see if you are going to ask the question Mr Simpson—you are a new member—you have got to have the facts up the old sleeve. Eighty percent of New Zealanders consistently in the polls Mr Simpson have said they are opposed to the sale of State-owned assets which they already own. When you ask New Zealanders about whether they wish to sell out land holus-bolus then I suspect a similar number would line up in a similar queue. 
The National members have made a case and they have read out all sorts of figures about what we did. It is the usual sort of time trap that Governments get into nearly 4 years in when they do not want to address their own mistakes their own myopic behaviour and their own stuff-ups. It is “What did the other side do?” because they do not want to talk about their own conduct. But let us say this: yes—and Maurice Williamson I think addressed it in his speech—there is something called policy evolution called learning. Governments do things—of all shades—with the best of intention normally. Sometimes they get it right; sometimes they believe it is right until they actually look back in history and say that perhaps there was a different or a better way. And yes the Government of which I was a part did sell land but I say to this Government that we have learnt. There is a member’s bill in David Shearer’s name which does not prevent— 
Louise Upston 
: How much did you sell? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: You see there they go again. 
Louise Upston 
: How much did you sell? 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: There they go again. A party that does not evolve does not listen to the communities and does not learn from history is doomed. It is doomed and these people are doomed. The bill that is in David Shearer’s name— 
David Bennett 
: Shearer can’t be evolution—you’ve gone backwards. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: —as they sort of squawk; “Cue Ball” down in the corner there—is actually enlightened. At its very essence what it says is it does not prevent foreign investment. It is not anti foreign investment. It is not anti the purchase of in a limited way certain land stocks. But what it says is if you are going to do a Crafar farms deal and you are a foreign investor then you have to come to the table with something called value-add. 
Andrew Little 
: Do it for the good of New Zealand. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: You have to have something that you offer New Zealand—my colleague is right; it is for the good of New Zealand—not just have a grandiose auction and flog it off just for the sake of it. At its very core the National Party has a fundamental belief and a fundamental God-given right it believes to flog everything off normally to foreign investors as we saw with Contact Energy. That is National’s absolute fundamental bedrock belief. That is what it thinks—sell it off. 
What we are finding now as we unpack the so-called Mighty River Power sale for instance is that this I believe will go down in history as one of the biggest wealth transfers. Those who cannot scrape up the $1000 or $2000 to get in on the deal will pay for all those who can of course. And they will pay in the bonus shares—the loyalty bonus—that the National Government said we would not need because New Zealand would own these shares into the future infinitum. But we now know that is rubbish—that is bunkum—because it wants to have a loyalty share scheme. So this is about wealth transfer and this is about the National Party not evolving the National Party not learning from its own history— 
Andrew Little 
: The salamanders. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The salamanders as my colleague says. He has some degree of expertise—looking across to the other side—on reptiles. Mr Little has given me a brief. They are a pack of salamanders these people. I say this: they would do well to have a look at that member’s bill because what it basically requires is foreign investment to deliver benefits that would be over and above what a New Zealand investor could produce. So you look at your Kiwis and you say that if it is going to go then the foreign investor has to come in and say they can provide something that our domestic arrangements and domestic investors cannot provide. That may be for instance international and overseas trade linkages; that may be expertise that we do not have. It may be for instance that they will offer to transfer technology or expertise into the New Zealand market place. What it means at its very essence is that this has got to be about something bigger and better for our country. It could be for instance real job creation not just picking off a few people around the edges to make it look like you have created a few jobs. It could be doing something innovative that perhaps is not possible in New Zealand. But all those things are about adding value and substantial value like increasing exports job creation and other important factors. It is about adding value to this country. 
But the National Party’s view is to flog if off at whatever cost. The evidence of that if you go back to State-owned enterprises is you have Mighty River Power with a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry hanging over the sale with likely and potential court action possibly delaying the sale and the National Government simply in the worst economic conditions of our time to sell an asset hell-bent on just going for it—putting pressure on the Waitangi Tribunal and saying it just wants to flog this thing off. This for National is about a flag in the ground on its political philosophy. It is not about New Zealand; it is about the Prime Minister’s pride now. The Prime Minister and National have wrapped their arms around and have pop-riveted themselves and welded themselves to this policy in the face of massive opposition up and down the country and in the face of economists and experts criticising the legislation the Government put through. So now it is simply about John Key’s old-fashioned pride that he wants to get this through because he refuses to see sense and back down. 
It is also about National’s ideology—you know flogging revenue-generating assets that create millions and millions and millions of dollars for our communities millions of dollars over and above the debt-servicing costs of National’s $300 million-a-week borrowings for a reckless tax cut. Who in their right mind looking at that proposition where we know you are going to lose $100 million in dividends a year—a loss for the taxpayer—would agree to that? This is about the old-fashioned pride—and prejudice to some extent—of John Key and the National Government. The Lord above could come down and say: “This is not a good deal. I can see into the future. We are going to lose. The taxpayers are going to lose.” And John Key and National would say: “No we don’t care. We are going to do it.” And they will if they are not stopped in their tracks. 
How do we know that this sort of behaviour does not work? It is because those geniuses tried it last time in the Bolger Government and are we any better off? No. And this is part of it. If you are going to sell something and flog it off overseas the deal is that there has to be a value-add for New Zealand. It is not about fixing John Key’s political predicament and his pride. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
: 
 The court found that the Minister for Land Information acted within the powers of the law. The Labour Opposition may wish that he acted against the law it may wish that he broke the law but the fact of the matter is that he did not. This is nothing more than muck-racking by the Labour Opposition and scaremongering by that Labour Opposition and we have had a lot of that over the last 4 years. 
Here is the challenge that we had because the Labour Party position is political hypocrisy of the worst type. First it tells us it is against selling land to foreigners but what happened in its 9 years of Government? It sold 666000 hectares to foreign interests—666000 hectares sold to foreign interests. Its No. 1 cheerleader its spokesman who got up on this issue David Parker when he was Minister for a short period of time on this issue sold 240000 hectares of land to foreigners all by himself. Now under this Government in a 3-year period one-sixth of what Labour did has been allowed to be sold to foreigners. That is just over 100000 hectares. David Parker sold 240000 hectares all by himself. I know what he will do when he leaves this place and it will be to do with real estate sales in the rural sector. 
Labour has since changed its position. It is no longer against foreign investment and the sale of land to foreigners—just some foreigners. You see it says no to the Chinese but yes to other nationalities. We have heard those members say in this debate that that is not the case at all but the Chinese know that for some Canadian film-maker who wants to buy some land some dairy farm in the Wairarapa that is OK. When David Shearer was asked about this he said Chinese: no but he did not have very much to say when a Canadian film-maker from the Wairarapa wanted to buy a couple of farms. This man James Cameron made a wonderful film that almost everyone in this House would have seen. Do you know what the Labour Party has in common with that film  
Titanic 
? It is in disarray and it is sinking without trace. That was the message that came from that film. 
Ten thousand hectares of land were sold under the stewardship of David Parker when he was Minister to John Shrimpton a UK businessman a moneyman with high-country farm stations in Canterbury. Who was it who sold that? Who signed off on it? It was David Parker again. So here we are—Chinese no; some Wairarapa film-maker from Canada yes. Chinese no; a businessman from the UK down in Canterbury yes. And even worse than that do you know what happened in that farm deal of the tens of thousands of hectares of land in Canterbury? The rights of everyday New Zealanders who used to go to that highland in the summer to camp and recreate were taken away when that Minister at the time David Parker signed that agreement into law. The rights of New Zealanders were taken away and that concerns me greatly. 
David Parker also mentioned forestry. He admitted in the House that he allowed forest to be sold to foreign enterprises. Now he bleats that Labour has learnt its lesson. It is too little too late. It is a Labour Party sideshow. Labour has no interest in growing the economy. It has no interest in foreign investment. It has no interest in mining. What do we find? The only interest it has is in restricting nationals of some countries: the Chinese—not the Canadians not from the US and certainly not from the UK. This was a private sale of private interests. This was private land in New Zealand and it was a private sale. What the Labour Opposition is telling New Zealanders is that it wants to start telling them who they can sell their houses and their farms to who they cannot sell them to and for what price. The Government has no right to be involved in New Zealanders’ business and their interests in that respect. 
Mr Parker said that he wants to live in a country where sharemilkers can buy their own farms and I say hear hear to that. But in the 9 years of the Labour Government it did not do a single thing to back farmers in this country. It screwed them with the emissions trading scheme. It screwed them with compliance. It tried to turn New Zealanders against farmers. Michael Cullen—remember him saying that the reason interest rates were so high and exchange rates were so high is those greedy farmers were making far too much money overseas? Remember the last election? Just before the last election Labour said to farmers and rural New Zealanders that farmers do not pay any tax that they are not bearing their weight and that they are not doing enough for the country. What happened at that election? It held one seat in rural areas in provincial New Zealand—one seat down on the West Coast of the South Island when they are actually still probably against mining on the other side of the House. 
Then we see that Mr Shearer and co. have been doing a farmland tour of provincial New Zealand getting out and acquainting themselves with these parts of New Zealand where they have no representation. Can I tell you their tour over the last week or two around provincial New Zealand has nothing to do with provincial New Zealand. It is the development of a tourism policy because they have not been there enough they do not know much about it and they were having a good look around when they were there. That is what that was about. 
What I finally want to say on this issue is do you remember David Shearer a few days after he became leader of the Labour Party and Leader of the Opposition standing by himself in front of a farm on the edge of the Taupo electorate—a Crafar farm—and saying he would bring a bill to this Parliament that would fix this issue? Well can I say that the only thing more invisible than “The Invisible Man” is any benefits from the invisible bill that he wants to be here because when he was questioned at the time about what it would do where would the boundaries be and what would the scope of it be he said “We haven’t worked out the detail yet.” So that is what we know about the Leader of the Opposition—“The Invisible Man” with invisible detail with an invisible bill that will deliver absolutely nothing for this country. May Wang was the lady who wanted to buy some farms that the Minister legally turned down. Go and do a poll in New Zealand and I bet you her name recognition is higher than “The Invisible Man”—the Leader of the Opposition David Shearer. I absolutely guarantee it. 
We have Russel Norman who said that he is against the sale of these farms. Actually to be fair to Mr Norman he is against most things that most reasonable people say they want to do. But I think the real reason that Mr Norman is against it is that he is under some misconception that a few years ago the Chinese tried to steal his flag. You remember that? He was waving it around saying “Give my flag back give my flag back.” This is about investment in New Zealand—something that that party is against. This is about backing New Zealanders to help us get on and grow the economy—something that that party is against. 
I want to say to this House that this was a legal act. The Minister acted within the bounds of the law. Those farms are still here and they will still be here. The Opposition may not like that; it may not want it. It may not want the Chinese to be buying farms in this country but it is OK for other nationalities. But the Minister has acted within the best interests of this country and within the law because this is a lawful Government. Thank you. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to take just a little bit of a different tack from what we have heard in this debate so far and just go through some basics of what farming actually involves. Farming is a capital business. You know people spend their whole life building up enough equity so that they can buy their own farm. They work hard in sharemilking. They do the long hours. They put that hard work in. And it is one of the most competitive businesses in New Zealand if not the most. It is probably the most competitive farming business in the world. New Zealand farmers pride themselves on their ability to farm efficiently and without Government subsidy to the highest levels in the world—the highest standards of the product produced and the highest levels of economic efficiency. They are the best and they are the best because they compete on an open market. They do not have a market that is dictated by the Government. The prices received for agricultural products are the prices in the world market. The prices that they pay for the inputs for the products that they produce are world market prices. You cannot distort that market in any way or you will lose the efficiency of the New Zealand agricultural system. 
This Parliament this country or the world cannot go out there and distort market prices. Nobody has that power. And yet the Opposition asks us to distort the market prices of land assuming for one moment that its theory of land acquisition would have any effect on market prices. That is not the case. You do not see the Chinese coming and offering extortionate amounts of money for that land. If it was a land grab and they have got $2 trillion like the Green Party says they would be offering a lot more money. That is not the case. If you make those limitations this Parliament will effectively hamstring New Zealand’s biggest industry because it will create a different economic advantage or disadvantage for them because the industry will not be operating in the manner that it is accustomed to and that has made it so strong. 
The other thing I want to talk about today is that when we look at the agricultural industry and especially the dairy industry we need to look at it in the context of the supply chain and it is not just about land. There is also the manufacturing side which is the level above land. I guess the great fear—and I think the only thing the Green Party could ever say that would have any relevance—is that if New Zealand product actually went into those Asian markets and had the New Zealand name on it the New Zealand brand but was not actually New Zealand milk or if it was a hybrid of New Zealand milk and other countries’ milk put together then you would be worried because our brand is so important. The possibility of losing that brand control through selling our manufacturing sites is probably the bigger risk for New Zealand than the sale of the land. 
 That land will produce milk. That milk will be manufactured into products in New Zealand. The Chinese are not talking about piping that milk to a boat at Tauranga Harbour and sending that over to China to process. They want to process it here just like any New Zealand farmer would do. The real danger for New Zealand farmers and the New Zealand brand is if we do not control that link from when we get a produced product in New Zealand to when it is sold on the shelves of Shanghai. That is the real danger and that is something that this Parliament should properly address in the future. 
That is contrary though to what the Labour Party has said. The Labour Party has said: “It’s OK to sell that part but we just do not want to sell the land part.” We have to properly address how we have that brand recognition and maintain control of that brand. We have heard from many speakers about how Labour has sold a lot of land in its time and that is true. Those members say that they have learnt from that but I think we need to be very careful about the real issues here. The real issue is that we have the best agricultural industry in the world and we should not distort that by making rules in this House that will not be effective in the first instance and secondly will distort that market. The second thing we need to be very careful about is making sure that we actually look at the real issues. The real issue is not who owns that piece of land; the real issue is the product and the branding of that which represents New Zealand when it goes into market because that is a real risk. So I think we need to take into account some real issues not some rhetoric. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 1 August on the Appropriation (2012/13) Estimates Bill. 
Vote Health ( 
continued 
)  
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Education 
Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call in this part of the debate and say that National’s Budget for 2012 was a woeful attempt for a second-term Government. It had zero growth zero plans and zero ideas in education. It should be ashamed to present that kind of Budget to this House because hard-working Kiwi families are no better off under National. Vulnerable families are worse off under National and times are really tough. We hear it throughout the country as we visit communities as we visit schools as we visit social service organisations and as we visit health organisations. People are really struggling and they got nothing under this Budget. 
But whose interests are treated like a political football under National? The interests of our children—our kids. There are 270000 children living in poverty and 87000 young people are not engaged in any employment or training. There is intergenerational unemployment predominantly amongst Maori and Pacific families and what is this Government doing about it? Nothing. Not only does it not care but also it does not recognise that inequality and poverty exist in New Zealand. It is shameful in a society like ours which prides itself as being a caring and socially responsible society. But what are people hearing from National? A lack of direction. It does not portray a fair and just society which certainly we in Labour believe that we should be working towards where all boats can rise through education. 
In fact National is chasing its tail on education in a way. People cannot make sense of where it is going. They cannot make sense of the message that they are hearing from this Government. They cannot make sense of the blind ideology that National is pushing through in an agenda that people suspect will eventually see the privatisation of our quality public education system which will do irreparable damage to the great majority of Kiwi kids who go to our public schools and for their parents who want the best for their kids in those public schools. Blunder after blunder after blunder has occurred. 
National treats education like a cost centre where trade-offs need to be made and where inevitably it is the kids learning who are put at risk. This is how it sees one of the most important issues and portfolios that it is custodian for in our society. Well we in Labour say no that is not what the future is about in education. We need to invest in education and in training our people and in upskilling and reskilling those who are in the labour market that exists now. Why? Because their future requires it. If we want all boats to rise and every child in every family—not excluding anybody—to get ahead then it is what we do in education training and upskilling and in our tertiary centre connections that will be the proof of the pudding. Sadly National by its own standard will get a great big Not Achieved—Not Achieved in vision Not Achieved in policy and Not Achieved in delivery. The proof of the pudding is in our communities where people can tell very real stories. 
Let us look at the track record. Larger class sizes is what we heard in National’s Budget in 2012. This was promoted right up there alongside the pickpocket tax—the paper boy tax. What we heard from National was the view that larger class sizes would not make an iota of difference to the learning outcome of children because it was about the teacher. Well in fact the parents heard that message. They shook their heads and thought: “What is National on? What planet is it on?”. 
The Government did not listen to the advice that was coming from its local schools and principals who said: “This is not about one or two teachers. This is about in our community up to four or six teachers being lost because we have the technology centre hub for our school community.” Did National listen? No it was obstinate. For 10-odd days it was obstinate about its larger class sizes policy. Well after 10 days it had to reverse this policy not because the Minister believed it was the right thing to do based on evidence or based on practical experience from the community but because the parental pressure was so great. Well I say that it is a victory for parents but it is a great victory for kids based on evidence that shows that larger class sizes would have done irreparable damage to vulnerable learners and disadvantaged learners. And all the while the Minister did not listen to that advice—information reports evidence tabled in this House and questions to the Minister directly. She did not listen to the evidence but she still had to retract the policy. What has happened? It has left a $114 million budget hole in her portfolio. 
Then quickly on the back of this we got the promotion of unregistered teachers in charter schools. On the one hand in the public school system we place higher obligations on the quality of teachers in our public school system but in charter schools you can recruit anybody. There is a mixed message coming there and people are really sceptical that charter schools are set up to compete with our public school sector and will do irreparable damage to the quality of learning that our children should be expecting under the public education system. It is a crock. 
National standards—well to some extent people know that they will have to implement national standards even though it makes not one iota of difference to children’s learning outcomes. Quickly on the back of that the Minister is promoting a standardised model of reporting through her Public Achievement Information initiative or PAI and those measures are ropey. They are unreliable; they are variable. In fact we know that there is greater variability amongst teachers within schools and across schools to ensure that those standards are reliable so that parents can make good assessments about how effective a school is and what the quality of learning progression is for their child. There is no way that national standards can be used as the comparative. Again people are really really concerned about the potential of league tables coming on the back of national standards. The Minister will not stand up in this House and refute any idea that she is going to implement league tables. We think she will implement them. 
National does treat education like a cost centre. It is not good enough. It is an investment. Our children deserve it. They are the future that we must build hope for and with. They deserve the type of learning in our public education system that will give them a better start no matter what walk of life they come from. This Minister needs to wake up smell the coffee look at the evidence and ensure that she is listening to the sector in ways that will deliver positive outcomes for our children because they deserve it. She is going about it the wrong way. It is not making a difference. She is sending mixed signals to the sector. She is not working with it. 
This is not about quality; this is about blatant ideology under National—blatant ideology in one of the most important portfolios there is on that side of the Treasury benches—and it needs to get it right because all our children deserve it. If it does not what ends up happening is we get winners and losers. We get those children who are most disadvantaged and vulnerable never being able to get ahead. We get the ladder being pulled up by National which will not believe that opportunity belongs to everybody. 
Well Labour does. Labour believes that education is the kind of portfolio where every child from every walk of life and from every community can get ahead but we need to invest in our public education system. We do not need greater competition through public-private partnerships through charter schools through making teachers compete through creating a low-trust environment and through taking away the pillars of what makes our effective teaching practice great which is greater collaboration. National is doing irreparable harm to our public education system. It should be ashamed because far too many people rely on the public education system to get ahead. It is simply not good enough. 
Finally can I say this. There is a $114 million hole in National’s Budget because of the larger class size turn-round. Where will that money come from? What will go next? We are looking carefully at this because we do not believe the Minister will stop and not try to look for greater savings. What will go next? Is it going to be a greater emphasis on amalgamation? Is it going to be capping the number of teachers? We can say all types of things but we can suppose only that the Minster is beavering away looking for savings of $114 million in her portfolio because education is not an investment to National; it is a cost centre. 
Cut cut cut—that is what we expect in the 2013 Budget. It will not look good for education under National. It will not look good for the many many children who need education to get ahead and climb the ladder of opportunity that Labour believes is theirs—every one of them. Thank you. 
Hon CRAIG FOSS (Associate Minister of Education) 
: 
 An amount of $9.6 billion the greatest and largest amount ever spent on Vote Education in our history is a credit to Minister Parata and what she is achieving and the focus of this Government on what is so important to our country and our future. If we continue to do everything as we are doing right now as happened under the previous administration we will probably continue to get around 20 percent to 30 percent of our children failing in education. If we continue to do the same thing no doubt it is a fair bet we will continue to get the same outcome. 
We have put in $9.6 billion and the public may be interested to know that the Labour Party and other Opposition parties voted against the $9.6 billion - plus additional spending for such things as early childhood education and the 21st Century School Building Programme in the Budget. Even though those members have the rhetoric—and it is nice rhetoric—there is actually no hard and fast plan. 
This Government is committed. We have put some lines in the sand in respect of better public services. We are holding ourselves to account. We cannot change things overnight—we know that—but we are holding ourselves to account and we are focusing additional resources on those in greatest need in education. Maori and Pasifika sadly perform not very well under many educational metrics. It is a fact. We have a limited budget to allocate down to try to pull up those who are not performing as well as they could for whatever reason in our education system. I must take my hat off and Minister Parata would join me in thanking and congratulating so many in the sector who do so well to achieve a world-class education system in New Zealand which we have for most participants in it—for most of the participants in it. 
But for the tail it is not a good look at all. It was not a good look in the past it is not a good look now and it is not a good look for our future. We have a better public services target for example having 98 percent of children participate in early childhood education by 2016. We have not heard an alternative to that from Labour. Maybe Labour members are more ambitious than that. Maybe they think it should be 2015. 
If we remember last year we had protests. We heard that the world was ending if a National Government was re-elected if parents were given and trusted with the information about their children’s educational progress and outcome and if staff were trusted to share information about their children’s educational outcome so they could focus resources where needed for particular children. Remember that there were protests led by the Opposition Labour Party against such measures—against parents knowing so much more about their children’s progress at school and against the changes to early childhood education. 
In fact recently I was at an early childhood education centre that was quite active in the protests last year. It is now expanding out of sight and in hindsight said what a good job the changes were. I think the centre now has about 25 or 30 more children at its site simply because of the changes last year. 
One thing that has been mentioned is poverty. The word “poverty” has come up today and we heard it in question time. I challenge the Opposition because it is the Opposition’s poverty of expectations of so many New Zealanders that I frankly find disgusting. I know that many of them think better than that and I know that many of them are actually quite supportive of what Minister Parata is putting in place. 
I stand beside our Prime Minister and our Minister of Education Minister Parata and say that our expectations of our education system and of all New Zealanders is to ask them to do a fair bit better with the tail in particular than is being achieved right now. 
If we do not change the model if we do not change some of the measures if we do not even try to change we can almost guarantee to get the same outcomes of a large tail of good New Zealanders from whatever families they are from failing in or being failed by our education system. I thank again those who are being aspirational and ambitious in this sector who are identifying and confronting some of the issues and who are trying to put through some of the changes for a better educational outcome for the $9.6 billion of taxpayer spend. Thank you. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I am delighted to take a call on this issue because the estimates debate on education is very important and the last year of spending on education reflects some of the most contradictory policy and priority setting that I have seen since I have been a parliamentarian. It starts right at the top when the Prime Minister for example came out and said that he would not be too worried if his children were taught by unqualified teachers. That is right from the very top—a message that is completely at odds with what the Minister of Education has been saying about the importance of professionalism and qualifications and in fact reviewing the Teachers Council registration policy. So what is it that the Government is saying? Sure at King’s College where the Prime Minister’s son has been it is a snowball in hell scenario that they are going to hire unregistered or untrained teachers. It is simply not going to happen. They are going to have small classes and highly qualified staff. Meanwhile we have the Minister constantly arguing for teachers to improve their qualifications and professionalism. So which one is it: untrained and unaccountable and publicly funded for-profit charter schools or professionalism? There are national standards for students aged 6 years old but no standards for teachers in selected experimental for-profit situations. 
Let us talk about charter schools for just a minute because they are addressed in the estimates. The Government put aside $230000 for the charter school working party headed by Catherine Isaac—clearly not exactly a neutral figure in the eyes of anyone who has anything to do with education or politics. And what that working party has said is that it will develop options for schools where there will be public money put in but groups like Destiny Church can apply. All kinds of people can apply they can be as fundamentalist as ideologically driven as they like and they will not necessarily have to meet the same standards that are expected in public schools which when you think it is public money is pretty appalling. 
The Green Party is not arguing that there should not be choice in education. If people want their children to be taught by fundamentalists of any stripe or encouraged to believe that homosexuality is a sin or that climate change is a myth or that evolution is anti-Christian for example then do that but pay for the privilege. Do not ask us to pay as a country for that privilege. That is what the private school education system offers. We are talking about public money going into a weird experiment that has failed all over the world. So we are very concerned that this Budget reinforces that idea. We are also appalled by the contradictions between statements the Prime Minister has made and the statements the Minister has made on this issue. 
Let us then move to the other disaster areas in education. The class size one as my colleague Nanaia Mahuta has touched on was a back-down that reflected a long-planned but badly planned vision that nobody except Treasury could give any credence to. It just shows you what happens when people do not have a vision in education: it is not about anything except money. Treasury wrote the book and said: “Let’s have a plan to actually make this affordable. Let’s cut back on education. Let’s pretend it’s an investment.” But Treasury could not convince the rest of the country. It had the Government on its side but nobody else—nobody else. So we saw fantastic unity across a sector that is not always unified and does not always speak with one voice and the Government was forced to do a back-down. Well that is an indication not that it had learnt and not that it believed that the parents were right but that it had realised it could not sell the policy. This was a cynical and depressing scenario because we asked the Minister whether she had changed her view after hearing from parents and she said she had not. She still thought it was a great idea and it is very very sad for the parents and children of New Zealand that that was the agenda. 
Some information on national standards was put on the website last week and again it is a real mess. It is a real cut and paste job. You cannot understand what you are reading you do not know what it is that you are going to get—sorry not you Mr Chair—what the parents will get and it does not make any sense. The moderation tool that is being developed at great expense—about $5 million has been spent so far on developing the work around national standards but it is not finished—will not be ready until 2014. So what are people going to make of that? The Government put up a policy that had no tool for creating any kind of moderation and although it will not be on offer until 2014 somehow the parents are going to get the benefit of reading the data which are completely different from school to school. That is somehow supposed to be softening the parents up for the standards. Even if you believed that was a good idea it is a bad way to have gone about it. 
The Green Party does not think that league tables are a good idea. We think that league tables are for sports teams. League tables are great in the Olympics but they are not for children. Labels are useful on jam jars but not on children. Our fundamental problem with national standards is not the way that they are being delivered but the idea that a narrow mechanism that reduces the New Zealand curriculum—which is upheld around the world as a valuable and broad curriculum—to a narrow set of literacy and numeracy standards is narrowing teachers’ requirements to teach to the test. No matter what the Government says there is huge anxiety out there. 
It would be interesting if people listened to the evidence of people like Professor Martin Thrupp who went to England and looked at the model over there. Some countries have gone around the track and they have followed the track of increasingly narrowing and teaching to the test—Britain is one of them. Others—for example Finland and some of the Asian countries—have gone the opposite way and have invested in a broad curriculum. The results are very clear. Britain and the United States are failing the children who are already struggling because of poverty and social context. Initiatives like national standards only create anxiety and they are driving teachers out of the profession because people become teachers from the sense of moral mission to have an input into children’s lives. Children need the best people in this country but the best people will be driven out if we narrow what has been established as being an excellent curriculum and turn it into a bunch of mechanisms. 
It is lovely to read numbers; they make life really simple. But guess what! Numbers do not reflect the reality of what the complex matter of each child’s individual learning is actually about. I wonder whether the Government actually looked at what learning means instead of what numbers mean when it set up these standards because the standards are absolutely incapable of delivering rich and contextual—which is what the Minister calls it—information for parents. It is a sad sight when you see this being justified on a daily basis in this House. It is not what people voted for at all. They voted for the idea of our kids all doing well. What they got was this mechanistic failed system which is incoherent and has not even been properly moderated. Quite frankly that along with class sizes and charter schools is an unmitigated disaster. 
What is also a disaster is the lack of coherence in the Government’s way of relating to the sector. You cannot improve children’s learning unless you have good relationships not only with child and teacher but also with teachers and politicians. I am not saying the teachers always get it right but what I am saying is that declaring war on the education sector the academics and the professionals is not the way in which you make change happen. We all agree that there are kids who need more support in school. And some of us know that that is because the goal of the school system should be equity. The Finns are at the top of the Programme for International Student Assessment table because the goal of their education system is not achievement; it is equity. Equity comes first then participation and then achievement. 
But why listen to the experts? After all the Finns have many good models that we would do better to look at than looking at Britain and the United States where we have these bizarre failures. Look at Florida. Hurricane Katrina has turned into an educational disaster. What happened is that public schooling collapsed. Because of the disaster they have brought in these experimental charter schools—these for-profits—and as a result you have children falling through the cracks in greater numbers than ever before. That is a tragedy. 
We must make sure that we do not let what has been a good education system become a game for Treasury an experiment for the Government and a sacrifice of the good things under the fake mythology that what we need is running schools like a business. What we need is to run education like it is for liberation for life and for lifelong learning. It is not a mechanistic business. It is a mission. We should take on the Finns’ ideal which is that not everybody can be a teacher. They invest a huge amount in teacher training. They say that if you want to lift the quality of the education system you must lift the quality of the people who are allowed to be teachers. So instead of saying the most fabulous job you can have is to be a corporate financial speculator or some kind of merchant banker or that being a lawyer or even an MP is the best job in the world the best job in the world needs to be a teacher. Then we will get the quality of teaching— 
NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) 
: 
 I am very pleased to speak on the Appropriations (2012/13 Estimates) Bill. I want to acknowledge the Minister of Education Hekia Parata because I think she has a plan for education in this country unlike the Opposition. 
I want to start by talking about the increased investment in education. Under our Government this is the fourth successive Budget whereby we have increased education funding. We are now spending $9.6 billion in this country; $500 million more in the last Budget. Can I also say that I think a very clear ideological point has been made by the Opposition today. Today the Opposition has said that basically parents have no role in students’ learning but every single night when parents read to their children when they get home they are involved in the learning pathway. When you look at this Budget and when you look at the initiatives that we have put forward—whether it is national standards and providing greater data to parents whether it is greater accountability and choice within our education system—you will see that we believe on this side of the House that it is not OK that one in five children leave our education system not being able to read and write properly. What we are focused on is accepting that there are some amazing teachers and principals in this country but the literacy rate is not an acceptable standard for this country. That is why you have seen in this Budget firstly a massive increase in what we are spending and secondly some targeted initiatives which are focused on those children and I want to talk about a couple of those. 
The first thing is that when it comes to early childhood education we are seeing a massive funding increase—a 34 percent increase since 2008. That is huge and it is particularly focused on Maori and Pasifika kids. We have seen $47 million in targeted initiatives to ensure that Maori and Pasifika kids are not on the back foot when they start out in our education system. We have also put forward the initiative of partnership schools. What that is about is saying that for some students a different model may work. We have seen huge interest from iwi and from Pasifika organisations and I want to give people an example of that. At my select committee the Education and Science Committee we currently have an inquiry into Pacific languages. I want members opposite to think about this for a moment. There are many Pasifika students who have barriers to our education system in the area of language. I want members opposite to think about certain schools having a system where some of those teachers or some of the other people who come into those schools have a speciality in language and whether that would actually help a number of Pasifika students. So from my perspective this is about greater choice and about providing for some of those most disadvantaged students another option. 
The other big aspect of our education plan is lifting achievement. What we are saying on this side of the House is that the status quo is not acceptable. That is why we have implemented national standards because again we believe that parents have a right to certain data about how their children are doing so that they can be involved in a student’s pathway in terms of their learning. So there is a philosophical and an ideological difference between members on the opposite side and our members. We do value the role of teachers and principals in this country but we also believe that parents have a key role to play in learning. That is why when we have put forward national standards we have actually said: “Look we’re not interested in league tables but we are interested in providing good data to parents about how their students are doing.” We also believe that the other aspect of our education plan is a 21st century education system. That is why we have put $1.5 billion into ultra-fast broadband. That is why as part of the mixed-ownership model that has been opposed by members opposite we are putting a billion dollars into modernising schools. 
So what you can see here on this side of the Chamber is a very clear education plan that has increased investment in education—$500 million in this Budget—that has greater transparency and accountability through national standards and that has targeted initiatives to particularly vulnerable students whether it is the $47 million in terms of early childhood education whether it is partnership schools whether it is ensuring that we actually have decent data about where these kids—some of these kids who are failing—are or whether it is the Youth Guarantee places that we have put forward. We have been very focused on saying that although Pakeha kids second in the world for Maori and Pasifika kids I think it is 33rd and 44th respectively and we cannot have a situation where the status quo remains. Members opposite have demonstrated they are living in a 1950s world where they believe that on an ideological basis teachers are the only people who can be involved in learning. We do not believe that and that is reflected in an increased budget targeted initiatives for some of our most vulnerable and increased transparency— 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Kia ora tatou katoa. Last week there was the International Day of the World’s Indigenous Peoples which probably passed most of us by so I want to reflect in my contribution to this debate on a statement out of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. I am talking about article 14 which states that “Indigenous peoples have the right to establish and control their educational systems and institutions providing education in their own languages in a manner appropriate to their cultural methods of teaching and learning.” and that we “have the right to all levels and forms of education … without discrimination.” 
So you would understand that against that background and with Pita Sharples as Associate Minister of Education we are relatively comfortable and actually quite happy with the amount of money we are able to secure in respect of advancing Maori education. What I am talking about is a couple of areas in Budget 2012. Firstly there is $76 million specifically targeted at Maori education. There is a particular focus on early childhood education with an emphasis on Te Reo Maori and tikanga Maori—$35 million all up. In another area it is targeting resources $8.5 million to support learners to achieve National Certificate of Educational Achievement—in particular in Maori-medium education. Finally the other procurement we got was a massive $33 million for teaching leadership and curriculum focus to accelerate the achievement of Maori learners. 
That is all pretty fantastic from our point of view—in particular from a Maori Party perspective and being in an agreement with the National Government—because these gains are for our whanau through education. But I do want to sound one particular warning and it is specifically focused on the 95 percent of young Maori students who are in a general-stream school. Education of our tamariki in those mainstream schools we believe is very much a priority that we should pretty much focus on. Of course the Minister of Education Hekia Parata has been upfront I suggest about demanding excellence and requiring accountability and in some forums has actually copped a lot of flak for her particular stand. From my perspective her intentions I think are honourable. But we need to see the difference. We need to see the difference that it is going to make in terms of young Maori learners. 
One of the things that the Maori Party did try to advance is a kaupapa called Tataiako which is all about cultural competency and setting some standards for teachers to achieve that they need to develop in order to engage Maori learners to achieve at the very highest level. It has not been rolled all the way out as yet but we are hoping that it will achieve that. The key point about Tataiako is that it was developed to help all educators think about what it takes to successfully teach Maori learners. It is not a responsibility that any educator we believe should shirk or refer on to the Maori teachers to deliver. We expect that action and accountability must come from all of our educators. We must see action because for far too long we have been talking about a lot of initiatives without too much movement in respect of achievement levels. Too many staff in schools I believe have got Ka Hikitia in their right hands but have wrapped it up in cellophane and it has never been opened. Although we might have the strategy we actually have not moved towards implementing it in a strong way to address the kaupapa of Ka Hikitia at its very heart. 
If the Education Review Office is charged with holding schools to account then we would expect to see it have much more transparency around the schools that deliver and the schools that are clearly failing to make a difference. We must do that. Although there is a mechanism within the Education Review Office an accountability mechanism it sort of stops there because nothing is taken on. The  
Promoting Success for Maori Students: Schools’ Progress 
 study which was recently published surveyed 287 schools from full primary to secondary school level and the data showed clearly that sustained Maori underachievement was basically a part of our education system. The report found that a substantial number of schools did not review their own performance in relation to Maori achievement did not make effective use of the data to improve programmes and did not conduct research about students’ learning. Is it that they do not really care or is it that they just do not know what to do? Well whatever it is it is not good enough and from our perspective from the Maori Party perspective we need to do it far better. I suppose that is why— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Just before I call the next member the Maori Party has used its allocation. If the member wishes to take other calls they will have to talk to one of the other parties. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 In this debate about the budget for education the National Government contribution is that it would have you believe that what it is concerned about is children who are not achieving. That is what those members have said the problem definition is. How come John Key’s solution was to increase class sizes? How on earth could increased class sizes actually help children to achieve better in terms of their education? It is just a ridiculous proposition. The New Zealand public smelt it from a mile away. They did not need official advice. They did not need the spin-doctoring. They understood and New Zealand parents especially got this straight away. It was an absolute nonsense for that Government to try to pretend that increasing class sizes was somehow going to improve education and somehow going to have those children who are not achieving in education now suddenly achieving. Well it was a complete nonsense and everyone knows it. Everyone now knows that that Government does not know what it is doing with regard to education. 
They also know that it is not a priority for this Government. The Government cannot put that genie back in the bottle because even though it backed down because of the pressure that came on from parents every parent in New Zealand now knows that that Government believes that increasing class sizes is the thing to do to improve our children’s education. Well the Government got it badly wrong and it got it so badly wrong that New Zealand families now know that this Government is out of touch with their aims and aspirations. The sorts of aspirations that New Zealand families have are for better quality education. 
I want to focus on early childhood education because that is where it started with this Government. This Government cut the funding back in 2010 to qualified staff in the early childhood education sector. 
Louise Upston 
: Remember your maths! 
SUE MORONEY 
: That is exactly where it started from. Louise Upston is pretending that it did not but the Budget documents show $400 million worth of money cut from early childhood education from qualified staff. It was the funding bands for qualified staff that actually were the first victim of this Government. It happened in early childhood education but it is not going to stop there because that was just the beginning of that Government saying that it does not believe in having qualified teachers in education. It fundamentally does not believe that. The Government got away with it in early childhood education and now it is putting that into our compulsory education sector via the Trojan Horse of charter schools—but it did start in early childhood education. 
It has got even worse for early childhood education in this current Budget that we are debating here today. The Government has not inflation-adjusted the fees for early childhood education. What is that going to mean? It is going to mean that fees are going to increase for families. Parents are going to pay all over again because of that Government’s folly and because the Government cannot see how important quality early childhood education is to New Zealand families. The Government was warned about this; it was given official advice about this. It was told by the ministry that—and I am going to quote now from Budget documents that have been released recently by the ministry—“Not providing a universal cost adjustment may lead to providers taking a further opportunity to increase fees. These fee increases decrease the affordability of ECE for families with the largest impact on priority groups.” By “priority groups” what it meant was Maori Pacific Island and low-income families. The official advice was that this year’s Budget would actually adversely impact on that very group. So I do not want to hear any more from that side of the Chamber from the Government getting up and pretending that that is where it is putting its energy and its efforts because the official advice actually shows it up for what it is. The official advice is that not inflation-proofing fees for early childhood education will impact on those very groups. 
But that is after those groups have already had an 11 percent increase in their costs for early childhood education in just 2011 alone. This is a cumulative effect for families. They have already had a cost increase by the Government—not by the recession not by any other mechanism than a decision of that National Government. The fees for early childhood education increased by an average of 11 percent. Now the Government is going to increase them by more with this year’s Budget. An average of 11 percent by the way means that some families are paying 25 percent more and some families are not. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Education Review Office agreed to.  
Vote Pacific Island Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Arts Culture and Heritage agreed to.  
Vote Attorney-General agreed to.  
Vote Parliamentary Counsel agreed to.  
Vote Treaty Negotiations agreed to.  
Vote Social Development 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to take a call on the estimates for Vote Social Development. There is no doubt about it that this is a big year for social development. If you look across what we are doing as far as the progression and the work in this portfolio you cannot go further than I think three main areas of work and probably counting from there. The main areas would certainly be in welfare reform. We have already seen welfare reform phase one go through. They would certainly be around the white paper and the changes within Child Youth and Family and the developments there and also investing in services for outcomes which relates to changes in how we are contracting with NGOs in particular but also I think wider than that in the work that we are doing in communities. 
Added to that of course is the work that we are doing with youth which has been a huge focus for us and along with the Associate Ministers in this portfolio we have made a substantial difference. I know that Minister Borrows with his Associate Minister hat on would take the opportunity to talk a lot about youth offending and the progress that we have seen there in the changes to not just sentencing I think but more the preventive work that is being done in community organisations and with the police as well. That investment which we made years ago is certainly paying off but I will leave that to him. 
I thought it was opportune because we have certainly had questions around it today. Today we released the summary of the green paper and the submissions that were made on that in the writing of the white paper. So it is an opportune time to sort of look at where we are at and what we are doing when it comes to Child Youth and Family and the notifications there. On average at the moment we are getting around 150000 to 155000 notifications of which around 55000 are deemed to need follow-up. And from there we have about 22000 substantiated cases of abuse or neglect. When you look at the figures in the areas of physical abuse and sexual abuse they are not actually increasing. They have been fairly stable if you like over a long period of time in this country. Where you see a huge increase is in emotional abuse and how that is categorised. So in one respect you can sort of say that it is horrific that any level of abuse is going up but I think if you looked at it from a different angle you would say that at least we are identifying it now as what it is and in many cases taking it a bit more seriously. That was under Labour quite frankly so I am not standing here to say that that has particularly changed there. What we have seen is most certainly an increase and then changes in how we approach it. 
Differential response within Child Youth and Family is making a big difference. You see that in the estimates as to where we put that kind of funding. That is where we have community organisations dealing with the lower levels of abuse and neglect of these children and that makes a difference. Community organisations are at times able to get into people’s homes differently from quite frankly how social workers or police can. They can work with them in a different way and at times get different results from perhaps that social worker who is seen as being statutory. That does not mean of course that social workers are not stepping in and unfortunately doing far too much of their share of this work—hence why we have put 96 more social workers in: 16 supervisors with 80 more. Fifty-seven have now been appointed which I am absolutely thrilled about. They are in positions training up and getting to know the system. 
What we also need to do is look carefully at whom Child Youth and Family is working with. I know that the Opposition has expressed interest in this and I think it really is an area that we are constantly looking at—whether there is any filtering done by police for example who make up something like from memory 76 percent of the notifications that are coming through. At the moment if there is a child in the house—they do not even need to witness violence or anything else—the police pass that notification directly on to Child Youth and Family. We need to actually have that discussion and that debate as to whether or not there should be a little more filtering done at the police end because at the end of the day you have social workers then spreading themselves across the board and perhaps working on cases that they do not need to and as a consequence you get a number of false positives. 
Certainly what you see coming out of submissions is the debate around targeting. You have universal services that cross across health education and of course social development but equally you then need to look at whom you are targeting. So if there is anything in that work that you are doing within Child Youth and Family to prevent some of these children from being abused and neglected it is looking at who they are and where they are and then working it out and making sure we have got the absolute right service delivery from the right professionals around them. 
This is a substantial portfolio—you could say with a substantial Minister I suppose if you had a sense of humour—so what it needs is that concerted vision and approach to it from all directions— 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I appreciate the Minister for Social Development outlining for us some of the reasons behind the dramatic increase in child protection notifications that we have seen in recent times—and they are dramatic. I know she acknowledges that and the different reasons for that but I still have grave concerns over the workload that our Child Youth and Family and our front-line social workers currently have and whether or not in essence 50 new social workers is enough to deal with the massive demand that we have. 
It is timely that we are here in this Chamber discussing the state of children given that the summary of submissions on vulnerable children was released today. I look forward to responding to that in further detail—it looks like you are about to interrupt me Mr Chair for the dinner break—when we come back— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has in fact come for me to leave the Chair. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Kia ora tatou no reira tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. Honourable members the House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2012/2013 Estimates) Bill and it is resumed. Before the dinner break the honourable member Jacinda Ardern was speaking and addressing the Committee. She was debating Vote Social Development and she has 4 minutes remaining if she wishes to seek the call. 
JACINDA ARDERN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I was indeed addressing the Committee before the dinner break and I do want to come back to the issue I was touching on which was introduced by the Minister in the chair the Hon Paula Bennett and that was the issue of vulnerable children and the release today of the summary of submissions on the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. There has been an overwhelming response I think it is fair to say to the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children. Thousands of people have responded to the call on what it is that the Government should do in response to the issue of children’s well-being in New Zealand. 
I applaud all those who took the time to be a part of that discussion. Contained in those submissions are themes that I want to touch on. One was the issue of universalism. It was the Minister herself who asked whether we should start targeting services in a more concentrated fashion towards those children whom we the State consider to be at risk. An overwhelming message from submitters was that we need to exercise caution in doing so because in fact even the notion of vulnerability is very fraught. All children by default almost are vulnerable by their very nature. So narrowing the targeting of services is a fraught business and we need to exercise caution there. 
Submitters also raised the issue of bipartisanship. They want parties to work together. The primary reason for that I think was to see enduring solutions around child poverty and children’s well-being generally. That is something on which I as Labour’s spokesperson on social development again extend the offer that Labour extended when Annette King was our spokesperson—that we are happy to work with this Government on issues relating to children’s well-being. But I do so with the one disclaimer: we think the bar needs to be raised. 
The green paper highlighted the issues that the National Government wants to focus on when it comes to what it perceives to be vulnerable children: information sharing mandatory reporting and the way the agencies are engaging with families. Our contention has been that we need to take a much broader approach when it comes to the well-being of children. We need to look at issues like income adequacy poverty housing health and education. These are all things that we know have an impact on children’s well-being or otherwise and to ignore those and simply hone in in the way that this Government has is at our peril and to the detriment of our children. In fact we pay for it down the track. 
If I were to pick out one issue in particular that the Labour Party as part of its core fundamental values on fairness and social justice is concerned about it is the issue of child poverty. I asked the Minister in question time today a very simple question: “How many children in New Zealand are currently living in poverty?”. The answer was that we do not have an official measure in New Zealand. If Unicef is able to produce a scorecard by which it measures every OECD nation on what it considers to be a fair and reasonable measure of child poverty surely this Government—if it claims that poverty is a priority issue—would have at least an interest in knowing how many children in this country are living in poverty. But the message that we got back from the Minister today was that knowing how many children are in poverty is not a priority. 
If she does not want to know how many children are living in poverty how is she possibly concerned with even getting them out of that situation? Forgive my cynicism but if this Government is unwilling to at least put a figure on this issue or even try we are never going to at least see a target around the 270000 children living in poverty. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 Malo soifua. I want to first congratulate the Minister in the chair the Minister for Social Development on the great work that she and the Social Services Committee have done to bring the first welfare reforms to this House and we certainly look forward to our second phase of welfare reforms to be coming up in the next couple of months. 
I also want to thank the previous speaker Jacinda Ardern too. I found her contributions thoughtful and consistent and only a little misguided. In referring to Child Youth and Family’s performance over the last few years before the dinner break she mentioned the number of unallocated cases and how unacceptable that was. Well what Miss Ardern did not mention was that the number of unallocated cases was reduced by 93 percent between 2006 and 2011. Mr Cunliffe might smile having been on holiday in the northern hemisphere but that means that 1089 cases in 2006 went down to 71 cases in 2011. As at March 2012 there were 41 unallocated cases including one critical. A safety assessment is completed within 24 hours by the duty social worker for all critical unallocated cases. Child Youth and Family have met or exceeded 96 percent of their targets including notification response-time targets in 2010-11—that is right 96 percent of targets. And guess what? In 2009-10 Mr Cunliffe it exceeded 100 percent—100 percent. That is compared with 55 percent under Mr Cunliffe’s Government. 
The final point I would like to raise to Miss Ardern’s assertions before the dinner break is to make it quite clear in public that that member along with her then high-performing Minister Ms Dyson along with the deputy leader Grant Robertson and along with the chief whip who sits here today Mr Hipkins were all working on the ninth floor at that time and they were directly responsible for some of those figures being so poor in 2006. Miss Ardern says that the bar needs to be lifted. Well I say that it has been lifted by 93 percent. Read the figures go to Statistics New Zealand and you will see where the problem is. 
So what is the problem? Well we all know what the problems are but the Labour Opposition may not know: 13 percent of our working-aged population is on a benefit and 200000 Kiwi kids are growing up in benefit-dependent homes. That is a life of limited choices and outcomes. I could talk about the other problems that we have—how David Shearer bashes beneficiary fraudsters unlike Miss Ardern of course. But that would be remiss of me because it does not need a backbench National MP to show what a shambles that Opposition is in. 
 So what are we doing? What are we doing? The reason our Government has the trust of the New Zealand public is that we are focused on the issues that actually matter to New Zealanders—the economy jobs and opportunities as well as education and health. That is right. In Budget 2012 we are providing an upfront investment of over $287 million over the next 4 years in the first phase of these welfare reforms. We have always said that welfare reform would cost more up front because in order to spend more up front and save more in the long term that translates to more support to help people off welfare and into work. 
Sue Moroney 
: Not very convincing Sam. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: The Labour Party does not like that. Sue Moroney does not like that at all—the fact that we are helping the vulnerable out of poverty and off benefits and into work. Phase one of that funding includes $81.5 million of additional money over and above what has been sent in the last financial year. The second phase of the reforms of course will be funded in Budget 2013. 
Sue Moroney 
: Who will that deal to? 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: The entire welfare package is expected to cost at least $520 million Ms Moroney and it is expected to save in the long term $1 billion. That is a net saving of $480 million and Labour does not like it. 
Dr Rajen Prasad 
: Nobody believes it. 
Peseta SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: Unlike you we believe in investing in our youth. We believe in investing in our early childhood education system. We believe in investing in mentoring parenting and budgeting courses. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in this debate on Vote Social Development. I think my contribution will mesh nicely with that of the Minister for Social Development and of Ms Ardern; I am not so sure that it will mesh all that nicely with Sam Lotu-Iiga’s contribution. The Minister referred to the publication today of the summary of submissions on the green paper. I want to take that as my starting point because while we have had this consultation with the public around the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children we have also had the Maori Affairs Committee considering what needs to be done for Maori children and I sit on the Health Committee which is engaged in an inquiry into practical steps for improving child health outcomes and reducing child abuse. Many of the submitters to those three processes have been expressing some degree of bewilderment and sometimes frustration about the fact that there are three processes. I think what this amounts to is that actually for people in the community their lives are being lived in an entirely unsiloed way whereas our response as a Parliament and the State’s response to people’s needs is instead fragmented and broken into silos. I guess those three inquiries are emblematic of exactly that issue. 
What we have is a situation where the challenges that people face are not well met by that fragmented response by the State. What we need to do is to find ways of working across silos—working in a cross-sectoral way—to address the needs that people have. It is no surprise at all to anyone working in any of those three areas including the area that we are looking at now of social development that the families and the communities who have the greatest needs in the social development area are the very same ones who have the greatest needs in health or indeed in housing or in education. We need to find a way of addressing problems that will address those heart problems because those communities are typically Maori communities Pasifika communities poor communities or communities marginalised in some other way. So those issues are the ones that we need to address. 
In the area that I know best in health that problem which we are facing in social development and in those other sectors is an increasing problem. The gaps the inequalities in outcomes and the way in which inequalities drive worse outcomes—in both the causes and the effects—those problems are becoming worse. We are seeing worse health outcomes for the poorest and the most marginalised and the same is the case in those other sectors. It is an increasing problem and one that we need to deal with. 
In years gone by I worked across sectors trying to get cross-sectoral collaboration. Although there was generally agreement that this was a good thing to do it was typically a very hard thing to have happen because nobody had the resources to make it happen. If I can now just give some praise to the last Labour Government—in its very last term of Government it actually changed that. The Ministry of Social Development had for the first time the mandate to facilitate and fund cross-sectoral collaboration. I believe that if there is an opportunity that arises from having these parallel inquiries and these parallel processes going on it must be this: to again find a way of making cross-sectoral collaboration actually happen on the ground. 
I acknowledge the Minister’s recognition of the value of cross-party collaboration. I recognise Jacinda Ardern’s call for that same thing. I suggest to the Government that here is a great opportunity to make something of these inquiries and to call on other parties to collaborate. 
MELISSA LEE (National) 
: 
Ahn nyung ha se yo. It is a great pleasure to rise to take a call in this estimates debate. I would like to echo my chairperson of the Social Services Committee Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga and his acknowledgment of the Minister for Social Development because I have seen the passion in her eyes when she talks about welfare. She would be unrivalled in her passion and her hard work. I would like to thank her to start off with.  
Is it not interesting to hear Mr Hague talking about the imbalance in society? The members opposite have actually opposed every single growth initiative we have proposed just as they have opposed every single restraint that we have made to get back into surplus just as they have said no to making welfare work in this country yet they still talk about inequality. New Zealand is only one-quarter of 1 percent of the world’s economy so we are in fact negatively affected by what goes on in the rest of the world. But if we continue to do things right as this John Key - led Government is doing it will conversely have a positive effect on New Zealand like stimulating new jobs and delivering those better services for families that we talk about while staying on track for surplus in 2014-15. 
Budget 2012 sees this National Government investing in welfare reforms—an upfront investment of $287 million over the next 4 years in the first phase of the reforms. The second phase of the reforms will be funded by Budget 2013. Yes it will cost more up front to save over the long term. We have always said that. But this translates to more support to help people off welfare and into work. The entire welfare package is expected to cost at least $520 million and is expected to save $1 billion over 4 years and to me that is good budgeting.  
We will keep protecting vulnerable New Zealanders through Working for Families New Zealand superannuation and welfare benefits. However we believe that those who can actually work should work. We have said that over and over again. People who can work should work. That is why as part of the first phase of the welfare reforms we are investing $287.5 million in education and training. These reforms are designed to provide better support for beneficiaries to help encourage them back to the workforce.  
This Government cares about our young New Zealanders. Funding for youth services will provide budgeting and parenting courses milestone payments to providers and wraparound support as well as financial assistance to young people. Youth providers will work with unemployed or disengaged young people and teen parents too to get them into education get their National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 or get into training. Even financial assistance for contraception is included in Budget 2012. We know that some on welfare find cost is a barrier to accessing long-acting reversible contraception so we are removing that barrier.  
Wider welfare changes include a new work-focused benefit called jobseeker support a part-time work expectation for sole parents with children over 5 a full-time work expectation for sole parents with children aged over 14 a new sole parent support benefit to replace the DPB and a new supported living payment to replace the invalids benefit and the DPB care of sick and infirm benefit. It is an investment approach to the welfare system and I think it is something that the Minister is leading in this area around the world.  
National’s Social Security (Youth Support and Work Focus) Amendment Bill has passed into law and starts our investment approach to welfare in this country. We need to get the best results based on an individual’s likelihood of falling into the welfare trap. We cannot see more young people falling into this trap of being dependent on welfare. Too many people have been on benefits for far too long. We know that young people who come on to a benefit early stay on a benefit longer and we know how destructive long-term welfare dependency can be. Getting them off welfare and into work means a better life better opportunities and a brighter future for them and their dependants their children and their families. That is why we are overhauling and modernising the welfare system. We started with Future Focus changes which introduced greater expectations and the next step will be the second phase of major welfare reforms which introduce new benefit categories and a greater focus on work. This is a great Minister and a great Government working hard for New Zealanders. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Primary Industries 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 It is a privilege to take a short call on Vote Primary Industries and in particular to reflect the word from the agricultural community which is that National seems to have something against farmers at the moment. The sad evidence of that fact is in the cuts to front-line biosecurity services—front-line services vital to protecting our billion-dollar agricultural trade and our export industry which is worth thousands and thousands of jobs. From these job cuts $2.8 million was saved compared with the billion-dollar cost of a foot-and-mouth outbreak in New Zealand or the 146 times greater cost of the Psa outbreak in our kiwifruit industry. The latest independent report on the Psa disease shows that it will cost our economy $410 million. That is 146 times the cost of the cuts to the staff. 
John Key promised not to cut front-line services but in 2009 his Government slashed 54 front-line biosecurity positions. More redundancies have followed since and the latest figures show that there are now 91 fewer biosecurity staff than previously. Even Wellington Airport in this fair city where we are standing has not had a sniffer dog working in it since October last year. That is gross negligence of duty by a Government that is exposing our primary industries to undue risk. In fact the number of detector dogs nationwide I am advised has dropped under National and last year only one new dog— 
John Hayes 
: Woof woof! 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: —was trained compared with 15 in 2008. Members opposite might snigger but the reality is that those dogs are our last line of defence when not every package can be opened on the biosecurity front. 
Mr Carter the Minister for Primary Industries said that staff cuts were a result of a drop in imports but that just does not stack up because for example since December 2009 the number of international passengers arriving in New Zealand has increased by 140000 a year and in December 2009 the value of imported cargo including the cost of insurance increased by $6.9 million. So we have more people more imports fewer biosecurity staff fewer detector dogs and weaker protection. Maybe it is a coincidence that we have had a tragic outbreak in our kiwifruit industry but frankly that is not a risk that New Zealanders should be taking. 
I think this shows a broader point. This National Government is priding itself on trying to balance the books but it is falling into a very old well-known problem. It knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Penny-pinching a few bucks out of biosecurity and prejudicing a billion-dollar industry is not smart. 
The other word on the street is that this new Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries conglomerate is being dumbed down—dumbed down. It has forestry people working on agriculture and fisheries people working on forestry. The whole thing is a mess. It is like the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment the great white whale that blended the Ministry of Economic Development and the science ministries which has saved nothing given Mr Joyce an empire but contributed nothing back to industry. 
The Government does not have a substantive plan—not a real strategy—so it is moving the deckchairs around amongst the Public Service to give the impression of movement. The thing is that farmers are pretty smart people. They know the difference between real work and make-work and they are not fooled by a bureaucratic shuffle. What they want is answers and they want protection for biosecurity and that is why the Labour Party is standing up and saying that we disagree with those cuts to front-line biosecurity services. 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: The Labour Party hates you. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: The Labour Party Attorney-General the Labour Party—exactly. Agriculture is New Zealand’s mainstay. It is our primary export sector. We depend upon the protein fine food products wines and other products from our primary sector that we export. The Labour Party is committed to partnering with this industry to help it to grow to get more people in work to increase the value of our exports and to bring higher technology better jobs and higher incomes to this sector. We are willing and able to listen to the industry about what it needs and to partner with it towards a future that is going to be more prosperous and more sustainable. Thank you. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
: 
 If there was ever an example of why a bursary should be given back to a university and an apology should be sent with it for ever accepting it the member who just resumed his seat David Cunliffe is probably a good example. He is a Harvard graduate now returned from overseas as the new agriculture spokesman for Labour from the seat I think of New Lynn in west Auckland—a wonderful combination. The last time the member spoke to a farmer was probably before he went off overseas to further his education. 
Why do we not look at some of the things that have happened? The member mentioned that there have been no new detector dogs trained. Well I am pleased to announce to the member that there are now five new dogs that have just been trained and made available in Wellington Airport alone I understand for the very purpose that he spoke of. 
But let us talk about some of the bigger issues: over half a billion dollars of Government and industry investment in the Primary Growth Partnership. If we look at how we can lift the standard of living in New Zealand overwhelmingly it is going to be by growing the areas that we are best at which are our primary industries—our agricultural exports the exports from this country. So how do you innovate how do you develop products and how do you meet market expectations? Well by investing in research and development. Developing the Primary Growth Partnership and investing now close to half a billion dollars in that is I guess the single biggest contribution that the State can make towards growing exports. 
As for tackling greenhouse gas emissions I do not think there is anybody in the Chamber who suggests that we should not do everything we can as an export nation as an agricultural nation to look at how we can make a sensible contribution—not the Labour-type contribution of just taxing and hoping that something comes right but a sensible contribution. Putting $50 million into the Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre is much more likely to return a dividend on that investment. Our involvement in and the investments made in the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases mean that New Zealand is now being described all over the world as a leader in this field. Just imagine that: under Labour we were described as dragging our feet not having an environmental policy and not looking in this area but looking backwards; we are now seen as leaders in the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases. That is a very very positive response from this Government. 
There will be $80 million in savings over 4 years from the combination of the industries that the member just spoke of and he suggested that somehow this was negative and somehow this was dumbing down our primary sector. I would suggest to you that just the opposite of what the member suggested is happening and it is very good to see that. 
So what have we done here in Parliament in terms of the legislative programme that is going to be useful and part of this greater growth in the primary sector? Well the passing of the Dairy Industry Restructuring Amendment Bill. There will be no greater investment in New Zealand’s growth than the work that was done to enhance the country’s biggest export earner which is our dairy industry—26 percent of our exports come from that sector. I note that someone from the Green side of the Chamber or someone over here chimed in on that. Let us just have a look at what our opponents are talking about in regard to an alternative view of what we should be doing. The first thing they are talking about is a capital gains tax. I would like to know how that will grow our export earnings and grow our primary sector. I have been interested to listen to the comments— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Haven’t you been listening? 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well I have been. I have not heard anything sensible: higher income taxes no support for irrigation and an agricultural emissions tax. Well you know how does that reduce greenhouse gases—a drop in farm values through the increase of taxes? I have heard about no more 90-day trials for new employees and rural New Zealand stuck in the dial-up age because Labour opposes the broadband roll-out that this Government is involved in. Less road construction— 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Oh because there are so many roads being built in the regions! 
SHANE ARDERN 
: Well look I have listened to the arguments about how we could have better development by enhancing public transport. 
IAN McKELVIE (National—Rangitikei) 
: 
 I will eventually take up the roads of national significance but first of all I want to congratulate the Minister for Primary Industries and his Associate Minister. In fact I want to congratulate also the Primary Production Committee which drives this sector. We have listened tonight to the debate on Vote Social Development and the investment that the Ministry of Social Development needs to make in this country. Well I can assure you the investment is going to be driven by the Ministry for Primary Industries. 
I want to touch briefly on the roads of national significance. I also want to touch on the railways because both of those are critical to the success of the primary production sector in New Zealand. In fact the roads of national significance are how we get our exports to the port. The fact that there are very few roads of national significance in Mr Ardern’s electorate has got nothing to do with it because in fact once he gets them on to those roads of national significance they get to the port much more efficiently. 
I also want to talk briefly about the railways and the significance of the railways to New Zealand. For anyone who observes the railways running through Palmerston North you will see that on a daily basis there are a significant number of milk trains fertiliser trains and indeed other trains carting products logs and whatever else from the agricultural sector of New Zealand to the ports. So the railways too are critical to our future. 
I want to talk also about the investment the Government has made in science and technology. I want to go back in history a little bit in doing so because for a while the agricultural sector has struggled to keep its share of investment in the development of science and technology—in fact in the development of its future. It has become extremely critical to agriculture that we continue to invest heavily in science. I want to speak briefly about the Riddet Institute which is a part of Massey University and of course based in my electorate. This institute is led by Professors Paul Moughan and Harjinder Singh. They come up with all sorts of new strategies and new innovative ideas for boosting the production and use of our agricultural products. I think it is very exciting. It is a very exciting institute and it is the future of New Zealand’s export industries. I think this type of development is certainly the future of this type of new product and new development that is going to take place in the food and agricultural production sectors. 
A lot of attention has been paid over recent weeks to the declining rural population in New Zealand. This Government takes this issue very seriously. The demise of services suffered in the first 10 years of the 2000s and before that around education health and other factors—and indeed of investment in our roading infrastructure in those years—has caused issues in rural New Zealand that have certainly incited the lowering of population in some of the towns and villages in rural New Zealand. It is a problem that we need to reverse the trend of and this Government will reverse that trend by continuing strong investment in education the health sectors and maintaining a strong hand in our economy in times of significant difficulty around the world. 
So I am very impressed with the investment this Government is putting into the primary production sector. I am very impressed with the leadership the primary production sector has from this Government and I think we are in very good hands. Thank you. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 The Minister of Foreign Affairs has signalled that he is going. He is going to New York to be ambassador there and believe me it cannot come too soon. This Minister was so keen to appear before the estimates committee that he turned up at 1 o’clock on the Thursday afternoon 1 hour before the House sat on the very last day of estimates! He could not have left it any longer. We had given him 6 weeks in which to appear and he chose the very last minute—and no wonder. This Minister has to go because he has made an absolute botch of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and its reorganisation—and John Hayes is wanting to nod there but he cannot quite bring himself to do it because the boss might be watching. 
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that I remember was committed it was competent it was absolutely efficient it was professional and he took that ministry and turned it into a disillusioned and dispirited organisation in the space of 3 years. You know the ministry does a survey of how engaged its employees are. And what did that survey find? It found that 14 percent or one in nine were positive about their job at foreign affairs—14 percent. Fifty-seven percent were ambivalent—they did not know whether they still wanted to work in that organisation—and 28 percent were negative. This was a professional foreign service one of the best ministries in this country and one of the best small ministries in the world and that is Mr McCully’s legacy. And why—why? It was all to save how much? Twelve million dollars. 
Mr McCully destroyed a professional organisation to save $12 million. It is absolutely unprecedented: 49 heads of mission—we have about 53 of them—the most able and experienced civil servants we have in the foreign service wrote a letter saying that the steps Mr McCully had initiated would damage for years our ability to pursue our economic and trade interests. That was the conclusion of our top civil servants in foreign affairs. And what did he pay to do this reorganisation? Well he spent $10 million on consultants—$10 million on consultants—and seconded staff and $6 million in redundancy all to produce a crock that he had to disavow halfway through the process. He blames John Allen. Who is John Allen? John Allen is the chief executive officer of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He is a civil servant now. He cannot answer back and it is lacking in courage for any Minister to treat their chief executive officer like that. 
But what did we find in the examination in the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee? We found that long before Murray McCully owned up to knowing about it he knew that 300 people were on the line to lose their jobs he knew that 600 staff would have to reapply for their jobs he knew that the local staff in our agencies around the world were going to be sacked he knew that the allowances paid to civil servants who took their family overseas to a posting were going to be savaged and he knew that there was a plan to close down multiple European posts. That was the plan. Murray McCully knew about it from the start. He blamed John Allen but the truth of the matter is this: that plan would have gone ahead but for a full-scale rebellion on the part of our most professional civil servants and the anger and dismay of the stakeholders who knew that New Zealand’s interests in trade and security internationally depended on foreign affairs who said “This has got to stop” and they pulled the reins in on Murray McCully. 
I want to say that one other thing came out of the select committee and it was the cult of secrecy. This Minister Murray McCully was a Minister who censored two-thirds of the briefing to him as the incoming Minister of Foreign Affairs and at the select committee could not justify cutting that information out. This is the only Minister in the House who has withheld and who continues to withhold Treasury’s briefing on the portfolio responsibility. 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 One of the issues that we have in the foreign affairs portfolio is I thought an understanding that party politics stop at the border and I feel deeply disappointed because offshore we need to be there as “New Zealand Inc.” all working together for a common cause. So I take some exception to the member Phil Goff’s attack on my colleague Murray McCully who I think has done an absolutely superb job in picking up the pieces left by that last speaker and moving them and New Zealand and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on to a new plane. 
Let me just set out some of the Minister of Foreign Affairs’ achievements. First New Zealand’s exports to China have increased by 150 percent between 2008 and 2012. India and New Zealand signed several agreements during the Prime Minister’s visit in 2011 in for example education and films. Progress has been made on the free-trade agreement with Russia because that market has increased its food imports by 500 percent to 2000. Russia is one of the world’s largest markets for the importation of butter and cheese and New Zealand’s exports to Russia in 2011 were worth $120 million. New Zealand signed a new accord with our third-largest trading group ASEAN that is already worth $4.6 billion to our export market. And after 90 years—and a 10-year effort by Mr Goff that got us nowhere—we have got our apples back into Australia. Yes Murray McCully achieved that not Phil Goff. Our Australian and New Zealand CER investment protocol was signed by the Prime Minister on 16 February last year and we have got ongoing negotiations with Korea. 
Under the Minister’s leadership there is always more to do. That is why he is so busy travelling the world because he is putting stuff in place for us. We have to develop a comprehensive programme of Government-led trade delegations to China India and ASEAN. We have got 28 trade missions to be led by Ministers over the next 3 years. Our drive and focus on New Zealand agencies and interaction and the release of a series of New Zealand country strategies goes on. 
Let us come back and reflect on the comments made by the last speaker. We are in a situation where this country is in recession and no stone is going to be left unturned by this Government to get our economy back into surplus by 2014. Part of that requires the foreign affairs ministry—a directive from Cabinet—to save $24 million a year in each of the next 3 years. That is why John Allen as chief manager of the foreign affairs ministry made the interventions that he did and those interventions despite the efforts of that last speaker are progressing well. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yeah right! What’s the attrition rate? How many have left? They’re leaving in droves. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Well I can promise you it was not the 300 that you just spoke about. In fact— 
The CHAIRPERSON (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Order! 
JOHN HAYES 
: Mr Chair I can promise you that that speaker was absolutely wrong to be asserting that 300 people are going to leave. That is not the case and was never the original plan. 
I want also to congratulate the foreign affairs Minister on the wonderful work that he has done on Fiji and on getting Fiji and the region engaged. I think back to 2000 when the then Prime Minister Helen Clark and her foreign affairs Minister one Phil Goff were driven in their response by the community of Fijian Indians who came into the South Auckland electorates and drove them. They said: “Let us put up barriers to that Government. Let us refuse to speak to them.” and we refused to speak to them for 9 years. For 9 long years that member refused to speak to the Fijians. Well I am very grateful for the leadership shown personally by Murray McCully who has worked his backside off this year as leader of the forum group of foreign Ministers who have been engaged with Fiji and they have made significant progress. They have made significant progress in getting Fiji back into the flock and that Minister Mr McCully has committed significant money to enable the registration of Fijians in the electoral process. I have no doubt that an election will take place in 2014. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 In our Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee’s report we noted that the new appropriations show a 20 percent increase over the previous year. One might think half a billion dollars is not excessive for foreign affairs and trade for a country that is high on the GDP and the United Nations Human Development Index rankings. Of course our overseas development assistance is down showing the world how miserly we can be even in times of austerity. Tough times are when the poor around the world are in the greatest need. Our response is to pull up the drawbridge export more food to increase income evince an illusory complacency in our ecological surplus and cut our aid. Congratulations to the Minister of Foreign Affairs on being his existential self. 
The ministry is described as undergoing “the most profound structural cultural and technological reform …” in its history. That is one way of putting it. Whatever the change it is not for the better. Transmogrification for “New Zealand Inc.” would be more apt—change with an ideological warp with no stone left unturned with special ministerial eccentricity thrown in. The aim we were told was for the ministry to become more flexible more focused and less expensive. The outcome we can assume risks being more craven more neurotic and less worthy. It appears to be lost on this trader Government that governance is a matter of values. It is a matter of values and values come with a price. Yet values not least in foreign policy are what count and the challenge is to ensure that the price is worthwhile. The price tag appears to be all that this Minister values which makes for a nice ironic circular logic. 
And values have something in turn to do with our international reputation which has something to do with our bid for the United Nations Security Council seat. This is likely to come back to haunt us in coming years. In assessing whether a UN member State is ready for service on the council other countries tend to scrutinise your record. We believe we are among the most enlightened of UN member States. This is because we focus selectively on what we believe we are good at. Others have the temerity to look at the total picture. So curbing our overseas development assistance percentage from an already low ranking will cost against us. So will cutting our contribution to the UN demining project. So will withdrawing from United Nations Industrial Development Organisation whose mission is to assist the 5 billion poor switch to a green economy. So will failing to do our fair share in carbon mitigation. So will telling the Rio+20 Earth Summit in June that the switch to a green economy requires a pragmatic approach not a new paradigm. And above all so will insisting on wriggle room for the use of one’s armed forces. 
In a major public speech recently the Minister sternly warned an unsuspecting world that New Zealand would not lay down conditions for its candidacy. We would not attempt to buy a seat on the council either by spending taxpayer dollars or by changing policy. He need have no fear. Recording 0.26 percent of our official development assistance runs no risk whatsoever of the world suspecting we are buying our way on to the council. It would be more inclined to suspect that of our main rival—Spain spends 0.43 percent. We spend half a billion dollars; Spain spends $6 billion. And there is to be no change of policy. That of course begs the question of what the policy is. During that address extolling our candidacy the Minister refused to confine future national military action to Security Council authorisation. What an extraordinary situation! In advancing a candidacy for United Nations Security Council membership New Zealand will not be bound in its military operations by the United Nations Charter which it has signed up to. Let there be no misunderstanding here. The Green Party endorses a New Zealand seat on the council but this Government fails the required test—that of being a responsible global citizen. 
Recently I proposed to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee that it undertake a study on UN reform. It is not too late to adopt a cross-party dialogue about how we might work together iron out a few differences and enhance our candidacy together. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Official Development Assistance agreed to.  
Vote Sport and Recreation agreed to.  
Vote Corrections agreed to.  
Vote Police 
MIKE SABIN (National—Northland) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on this particular aspect of this estimates debate being a former police officer. Can I firstly start off by commending the work of the New Zealand Police led by a very constructive and front line - focused commander in Peter Marshall. It is my view that the New Zealand Police indeed set the standard—set the bar—for policing globally. This country can feel very well served by the men and women of the New Zealand Police out there on a daily basis often putting their lives on the line to make our communities a safer place. I just want to acknowledge the men and women of the New Zealand Police in that regard. 
It is fair to say that 2011 has been another successful year for the New Zealand Police with a 4.8 percent reduction in recorded crime. We now have recorded crime at a 15-year low. I can certainly recall as a police officer that I sometimes did wonder what sort of smoke and mirrors made up some of the statistics but I think it is very fair to say that what we are really looking for is a trend. The trend has been a consistent downward trending in recorded crime. That means there are fewer victims there is less harm in our communities there is less cost to our communities and most important we can go about our business in our communities feeling safer. That in some part will be a result of the some 600 more front-line police that the New Zealand public can now feel assured in having in their service but also I believe much of the credit must go to the Prevention First approach which has been adopted since this National-led Government came into office. 
Indeed some very positive changes have been made in the executive of the New Zealand Police and it has embraced the notion that preventing the problem is going to be a lot easier than coming along afterwards and trying to arrest your way out of it. I want to speak to that to some extent and I will come back to that but certainly addressing drivers of crime is fundamental in reducing overall crime. 
The investment that has been made by the New Zealand Police and this Government is certainly showing the right trending reflecting this approach. Of course this approach runs hand in hand with the reforms right across the justice and corrections sector. It is fair to say that the police themselves do not stand alone in ensuring that our communities are safer places. For example in justice—if I can just reflect for a moment—we have brought in maximum jail sentences with no parole for the worst offenders. There are tougher sentences for people who commit crimes against children which is something I know that right across this House we all share a great deal of concern about and it is fair to say that we are all committed to making a difference to those innocent young child victims. 
Introducing stronger bail laws is part of the programme in this space as is reversing the burden of proof for some of the most serious offences. As a former serving police officer I can honestly say that that will provide a position where those who often walk free from a court and go on to commit offences while on bail will be denied that opportunity. We do not have to look too far to see the very tragic examples of where that has happened. So I am very pleased to see that particular bill moving forward. Of course reducing the situations where defendants are bailable as of right does actually encapsulate a number of offences and offenders. When people commit crimes against society I think it is fair to say that the onus first and foremost should actually be on the law-abiding citizens—their safety and protections. So I think there will be some positive changes there also. 
Of course the police and justice sector also serves in the process of safer communities with the service within corrections. It is another area where there has been a significant investment by this Government in turning round what has been to some extent a holding pen for some of this country’s worst offenders who ultimately will be released into society. Our goal must be surely to ensure that they are not going back into the justice system so a lot of effort has been put into having more prisoner education and employment programmes. Drug and alcohol treatment has increased significantly and it will continue to do so. When you consider that certainly around some 85 to 90 percent of offenders will enter the justice and corrections system with a drug and/or alcohol problem this is an investment in preventing reoffending. Of course there are more search powers for our corrections officers and we have fewer positive drug tests and fewer prisoner escapes. 
What we are really talking about here is a pipeline and a set of agencies and professionals serving New Zealanders intrinsically linked and ensuring that our communities are safer. This Government is proud to say that we have put victims at the heart of the justice system and the New Zealand Police certainly is mindful of the prevention work in reducing the number of victims. Ultimately the best crime prevention that can happen is really when it is focused on having fewer victims. 
The $50 levy that this Government introduced has now serviced some 13 new services for victims which is an interesting concept. That money is being put to very good use. 
Victims now have a greater ability to have their say by way of their victim impact statements. I can again reflect on times when victims of crime had their one opportunity to stand up to face their offender and to express their real feelings about how they had been wronged as they went about their lives innocently. The ability for them to do that in an open and unencumbered manner is often the difference between them being able to move on or not so I applaud that. 
Of course the police now have extra powers to enforce on-the-spot protection orders. Some 6000 of those safety orders have been issued since their inception which ultimately means there are fewer victims. 
Our police are really at the sharp end of this pipeline that I have been describing. Their Prevention First approach is really fundamentally what I think has been the game-changer and has led to some of these very impressive statistics in terms of the downward trending. Of course one victim is one too many but we have to be realistic in that regard. The success I believe is a legacy of both Minister Collins and Minister Tolley who has picked up from the very good work being done there. 
I would have to say that Prevention First has not always been the case. I remember back as a police officer who joined in the mid-1990s. With the Doone era—and some interesting dilemmas there—and the introduction of the Clark Government the police very much moved to a commercial model where we were driven by statistics. Theft and burglary were on a significant increase and quite rightly police were aimed at targeting that. Of course a big part of the reason for that was the burgeoning methamphetamine problem which went from virtually nothing to the worst in the world between 1998 and 2003. When you have got a $1000-a-day methamphetamine habit you are going to commit a lot of volume crime. 
I believe that the leadership of the Prime Minister in this space with regard to the methamphetamine strategy and the way in which the New Zealand Police have embraced Prevention First are all very good arguments as to why New Zealand is a safer place today. With our hard-working Ministers an excellent executive within the police and dedicated serving police officers I think we should all be proud of our men in blue. Thank you. 
RICHARD PROSSER (NZ First) 
: 
 I am both happy and disillusioned to be making this call on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill on behalf of New Zealand First. I am disillusioned—more than a little disillusioned—when I look at the Vote Police allocation and more to the point the fact that in real terms it has not only not increased but has actually gone backwards. 
The police are the front line in the fight against crime. They are the first point of call for the public whenever danger threatens. They are the fabled thin blue line that stands between the law-abiding citizen and the evildoer—it is a somewhat clichéd term nowadays but a valid one nonetheless. We are not giving them enough money. New Zealand is not resourcing its police force well enough to enable them to do their jobs properly—the job of protecting all of us and of preventing and solving crime. They do a sterling job of their allotted task. That much is beyond question. Despite the lack of proper recognition and the lack of sufficient funding and resource allocation that this Government affords them the police keep on keeping on. They keep on keeping the villain at bay and they keep on putting themselves on the line and putting life and limb in the way of danger so the rest of us may enjoy a measure of relative safety. As the quote from George Orwell says: “We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” 
The police men and women of New Zealand the rough and the not so rough undeniably stand amongst that good number along with the men and the women of our equally beleaguered and under-resourced defence forces. Despite this reality we deny them the money they need in order to protect us. We skimp on the important things in this country. Too often we allocate resources in a manner that stands the priorities of logic on their head. The police need more money not less. This vote this appropriation this Budget has failed them. It fails us; it fails the people of New Zealand. The police are the ones who are called on to come out at night to deal with the drunks and the reprobates to be shot at and spat at and threatened and stabbed with knives and screwdrivers and syringes filled with God knows what. They clean up after bar brawls and street fights and car crashes. They tell grieving parents and family members that their children and their loved ones are not coming home and in return we give them a flat budget a negative budget and what is in reality a backwards budget. We should be paying them more but in reality we are paying them less. 
There will be no pay round for New Zealand’s police men and women this year. They will have to do ever more with ever less as this Government requires the police to find cuts and savings from what is already an insufficient allocation. Knives and screwdrivers and dirty syringes I say to the members opposite some of whom have had real life experience in the blue uniform—and I salute them for that. I salute my colleagues opposite who have served in the blue uniform who have been part of that thin blue line. Knives and screwdrivers and dirty syringes and no chance of a pay rise for the next year thank you very much. We are told we are in—or at least we have been—the middle of a recession a global financial meltdown a crisis of some kind or another. Because of this everyone has to tighten their belts. Well that comes back to priorities again and I wonder if perhaps the Government could have held off buying new limousines for a year or so longer and given the police a pay rise instead. I wonder about things like that. 
We are told that crime is reducing. Really? There is less reported crime? Hurrah. Or is there—is there really? Is there actually less crime or is the drop in some forms of reported crime really just a drop in reporting? In the year ending 31 December between 2010 and 2011 reported sex crimes sexual assault and related offences increased. So did unlawful entry with intent burglary and breaking and entering. Also on the increase were miscellaneous offences whatever they may encompass. At the same time fewer than half of all reported crimes over the same period were actually solved. The total resolution rate for the year ended 31 December 2011 was 47 percent. Maybe people just simply are not bothering to report crime because they know that our hopelessly underfunded police force does not have the time or manpower to do anything about it. Resolution of sexual offences was just 56 percent resolution of robbery and extortion cases was 43 percent and resolution of cases involving unlawful entry burglary and breaking and entering was just 15 percent—one in six. Theft cases solved came in at 23 percent and property damage was 30 percent. 
Against this backdrop we are telling the police they cannot have any more money they cannot have a pay rise and they are not getting any more tools and resources with which to do their job. In fact we are telling them they are going to have to have more paperwork to do because we are cutting back-office staff positions as well. Front-line cops will have more administrative tasks to do so that will take them away from their front-line duties. 
MARK MITCHELL (National—Rodney) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on Vote Police and I would just like to also acknowledge and congratulate Minister Tolley Police Commissioner Marshall Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Bush and Deputy Police Commissioner Viv Rickard. In a service like the police strong leadership does matter. You will get results and good morale through strong leadership and the police service at the moment is enjoying very strong leadership. 
I would like to talk a little bit about the two pillars that the police commissioner has announced and that Minister Tolley has announced as being the cornerstone of how policing is going to be rolled out and continue to move forward. For me it is quite an exciting change and it is really a fundamental change in the way the police are doing business and the way that they are serving our communities. It is actually a change not just within the police service. We have the Minister for Social Development here today as well and I have to say that her ministry is taking the same approach. Historically the police or Government agencies were often seen as fairly threatening or intimidating organisations to engage with for people to go in and seek help from and I think that with the first pillar which is Prevention First the police are going a long way towards actually breaking down those barriers getting rid of those historical barriers and getting out into the community more. 
Going back to when I served a lot of what we did really was reactionary. We would get in our police vehicles at the beginning of a shift and we would go out and we would react. We would attend to jobs and we would not really interact with the community a lot outside of that initial response. Our community constables were tasked with doing that and they were just a very very small number. 
We have had what are called the neighbourhood policing teams which are now being deployed around the country and I would just like to take the opportunity to commend the area commander in my own electorate Inspector Scott Webb and his team because we have actually been very successful. They have rolled out the Prevention First model in the electorate. It is working very well and it is getting fantastic feedback from the community. 
But in the last 2 or 3 months I have been able to get out and visit the Warkworth Police Station the Whangaparaoa Police Station Orewa Tauranga with Minister Bridges yesterday and Counties-Manukau. We were lucky as the Law and Order Committee to actually go up to Counties-Manukau and have a look and see what they are doing with their neighbourhood policing teams. I have to say that it is very very impressive how they are rolling that programme out and how they are really getting into the communities now. Not only were the police officers on these neighbourhood policing teams extremely enthusiastic about it—and it is a major shift in the way that they think and the way that they do business and you could see that they had taken real ownership of the communities and the areas that they were responsible for—but it is obvious that the communities are responding to it as well. And when you see these guys out there every day they will go out and they will put community meetings together. They have got a marquee that they will just take out to a local park. They will put it up and they will get everyone out of their houses and out into the park. They will actually interact with them find out what the real issues are in the communities and then start to be proactive in how they address them. This is a really big fundamental change in the way that policing is being done in New Zealand. I think that it is going to go from strength to strength and we will continue to see the great results that we are seeing. 
Coming back to social development this is the same model that is being rolled out as well in many ways—these barriers are being broken down and all of a sudden people are feeling confident interacting with Government departments which before they may not have felt very comfortable about. 
In relation to policing and seeing a higher presence of police out on the streets I remember in 2005 I drove from Auckland down to Taupo a trip that I made fairly regularly. Because I policed in that area I always took an interest in seeing how many police were actually out on the road. In 2005 I made a trip from Auckland to Taupo and did not see one police car or one patrol in that whole time on State Highway 1. This year I made the same trip and I saw nine patrols between Auckland and Taupo. 
When I visit these police stations and in particular Tauranga yesterday the thing that strikes me is that you will walk into a mess room into an area where normally the guys are working and there will be only two or three policemen in there. The rest of them are out on the street—the rest of them are out in the community. I think that this is a very very positive thing for our communities. They are seeing their police out there more. They are taking more of a Prevention First approach where they are actually getting in there and identifying what the issues are before they even become issues rather than reacting. So I just think that this is a very good model and I know we are going to continue to see fantastic results. Thank you. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.  
Vote Defence 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I begin my contribution this evening by acknowledging the service and sacrifice of Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer and Lance Corporal Rory Malone and also acknowledging their families who have lost a son a brother a nephew and a partner and who have given up their loved ones in the service of this nation. I think we should all be mindful of that as we carry through this debate this evening. 
The Government promised New Zealand that the Defence Force under National would be able to do more with less. But all that the Minister of Defence Jonathan Coleman has achieved is to drive down the morale within our armed forces to the lowest level it has ever been. There are more of our Defence Force personnel lining up to leave today than there have ever been before. Engagement is trending downwards day after day and it is not just getting worse; it is getting worse at a faster rate now that it has at any point before. So whilst this Government has presided over 2 years of mismanagement of the defence forces they have not even been able to tidy up their act; it is getting worse now than it has ever been getting before. 
There are a number of reasons for this but there are two that we can probably point to. One reason is the terribly mismanaged process of civilianisation which this Government foisted upon the defence forces and which they now accept was an absolute failure. In fact the second round of civilianisation will not go ahead because it has had such a detrimental impact on our defence forces. The second reason for such poor morale in our defence forces is the 4-year wage freeze that has occurred under this National Government. It is no wonder that personnel are lining up to leave. In fact they are leaving at such a rate that there are 1000 fewer personnel in the defence forces today than there were 2 years ago. That is not intentional. The Government did not intend for there to be 1000 fewer personnel in the defence forces than there were 2 years ago. This is a direct reflection of the absolute mismanagement of our defence forces by this Government. Skilled personnel are walking away from our Defence Force because the Minister Jonathan Coleman has made such a hash of his job. Those people are walking away and although we have new people coming on board the defence forces are losing those skills. 
It has got so bad that the attrition rate in the navy is 22.3 percent. Because of that we cannot put our inshore patrol vessels to sea. How ridiculous is it that we have new equipment tied up at Devonport unable to be put to sea because we do not have the crew to get them out doing their job patrolling our exclusive economic zone? Members of the SAS are lining up to leave—our most important ground forces our most specialised ground forces. We are losing those skills as well. And I tell you what those personnel are deeply unhappy with our Minister because he said: “Look they have just got to get over it.” He said: “But you’ve got to remember you’ve got guys in there who have been there 25 or 30 years. They’ve been used to a job-for-life culture. The reality is the NZDF has to come in line with the rest of the world.” It was that line—that the New Zealand Defence Force has a job-for-life culture—that went down like a cup of cold sick amongst Defence Force personnel and they have reacted against our Minister by lining up to leave. 
It is not a job for life. It is a calling. It is service. In the name of our nation we send our men and women overseas sometimes to die serving our nation and the Minister had the gall to call it a job-for-life attitude. One member of the Defence Force has put it to me like this. He said: “Look. We have no employment protections. We don’t fall under the Employment Relations Act. We’ve got no bargaining. We’ve got no unions. We serve our nation and we expect our nation to reciprocate that service to acknowledge that service.” 
JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) 
: 
 Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak in this part of the debate on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill and on the New Zealand Defence Force. I would like to begin by adding my condolences to the families of the two soldiers who lost their lives in Afghanistan and extending to the six wounded soldiers best wishes from this House for a very speedy recovery. Their sacrifice outlines why our Defence Force is so vital: to help protect New Zealand people and territory to conduct and lead missions with key allies particularly in the South Pacific and to enable New Zealand to become a stronger partner in regional and international security. 
I want to commend the Minister of Defence Jonathan Coleman because he has given the Defence Force a direction and a long-term strategy—something it desperately needed after 9 years without any Government leadership. The Government’s vision is for a joint amphibious task force capable of sustained independent deployment and also capable of functioning as a credible part of a wider coalition. All capability decisions are being made with this vision in mind. Decisions are being made with regard to how one capability or a piece of equipment works with another and how this fits within the vision for defence. In short National has a plan for defence and it is led by our Minister. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Yeah run it down into the ground. 
JOHN HAYES 
: In contrast the man interjecting across the House cut valuable equipment from the service without any plan on how to sell it and he gave 210 people the sack as Labour cut them. Labour bought expensive equipment without any plan on how to move or deploy it and also showed so little respect for defence that it made Mark Burton the Minister. I will not forget in 2005 when I first stood for Parliament the announcement by Mr Goff and Helen Clark a week before the election that they had sold the Skyhawks for an amount of $155 million. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No you’ve got that absolutely wrong. 
JOHN HAYES 
: Yes they did that the week before the election in 2005 and I got straight on the phone to Don Brash and said “Don these guys are telling porkies.” That $155 million sale turned into a $37 million cost because they were unsold and 210 people lost their jobs on the back of that incompetence Mr Goff. 
These are tight financial times and we have maintained Defence Force spending and we are looking to redistribute savings to fund the changes needed to make a 21st century effective Defence Force. The New Zealand Defence Force has achieved $143 million of annual reoccurring efficiencies in the last 12 months. These have been reinvested in military capability. The New Zealand Defence Force will deliver $350 million to $400 million of efficiencies back into the Defence Force by 2014-15. The New Zealand Defence Force has saved $9.7 million through tougher negotiations with contractors and consultants a further $12.2 million through consolidation of some training functions such as driver training and it has saved another $7.9 million from efficiencies in health services. The Government went looking for efficiencies and it has found them because we do not want to waste taxpayer money. We actually have to look—those of us who are electorate MPs—into constituents’ eyes and say “We’re doing the job well and we’re spending your money sensibly and wisely.” 
As a result of those savings we are bringing in new capabilities. We will be replacing the medium and heavy vehicle fleet to ensure that we can take our trucks overseas and drivers will be protected from improvised explosive devices. That is an improvement that Labour never got around to doing. We are bringing in a littoral warfare support group. Two new vessels are currently being built in Northland. These are vessels that can be deployed from a ship or a Hercules to protect our larger vehicles anywhere in the world. 
But whenever a saving is identified it is condemned by the Opposition. The $18.6 million in annual recurring savings in civilianisation has been condemned the $9.3 million in recurring savings from the Reserve Force reform has been condemned and even the $630000 in annual savings from the band reduction was condemned. So would the Opposition have borrowed that extra $142 million per annum? Would it increase that to $350 million or $400 million per annum or would it cut capability? Would it not replace the trucks? Would it not have a littoral warfare support force and not replace the Seasprites? Would it not have upgraded the artillery? 
The Opposition has identified one saving in this House. Mr Goff wants to cut the defensive weapon upgrade for the frigates—a one-off capital saving that he has called “skyrockets for the boys”. This is a cut that would mean deploying vessels to some of the most hostile environments in the world without the ability to defend themselves from anti-shipping missiles. That is what the Defence Force and the New Zealand public know is the Labour Party approach to defence—borrow and spend. Do not look at savings or long-term viability and instead pin the tail on the donkey with cutting capability. That is an Opposition that puts bands over military capabilities. This is a Government that recognises the need for reform develops a plan and leads to it. I congratulate the Minister on his excellence in this regard. Thank you. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Labour—Mt Roskill) 
: 
 I would like in sadness to acknowledge today the loss of Lance Corporal Pralli Durrer and Lance Corporal Rory Malone—two young men aged 26 who died supporting their mates in battle and whose lives were sacrificed on behalf of their country. I want to pass on my personal sympathy—and I think that of the House as a whole—to their families at their sad loss. 
I have got to say that Mr Hayes did no credit to himself in the speech that he has just delivered. He talked about cuts. I want to talk about cuts. I want to talk about the $25 million that they took out of the Budget last year that was designed to give our Defence Force personnel their first wage rise in 4 years. Not content with cutting out $25 million last year they have cut out another $25 million this year. These are people who put their lives at risk and who lose their lives and the least we could do is respect them by giving them a reasonable wage taking into account 4 years of inflation. All this Government has done is cut the wages of those people who are serving their country. 
You know you have got a weak Minister of Defence a Minister lacking in confidence when you get a Minister who comes to the Foreign Affairs Defence and Trade Committee and tries to filibuster his way through. You know he had a 22-page presentation—a 22-page presentation—and after half an hour we said to the chairman: “This has got to stop.” A select committee is about asking questions of the Minister and the Minister being accountable. 
I will tell you why that Minister did not want to answer questions. It is set out here in the presentation on the very last page. It is called the Ongoing Attitude Survey. Do you know what that shows? It shows that 40 percent of our New Zealand Defence Force are planning to leave—40 percent of the Defence Force are planning to leave. What else does it show? It shows that morale is at the lowest level ever under this Government since records began. It has dropped from 58 percent to 35 percent. That shows the lowest level of morale that the Defence Force has ever had. 
Mr Hayes talks about building up capability. I will tell you the capability he built up. The Minister was forced to admit to the select committee that in just 2 years he had slashed the Defence Force by 1000 personnel—1000 personnel. Were they spending their money wisely? No there was $9.5 million in redundancy compared with $250000 in the last year of the Labour Government. 
Who are the people that we are losing? I asked the people down at the Devonport naval base and they said it is the chief petty officers. It is the petty officers it is the warrant officers the people with trade skills the people whom we have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in training in giving them those skills. They have 7 or 8 years’ experience and are in the prime of their career and they are walking away because they know there is a Government that does not care that is not prepared to pay them a decent wage and that will not show them respect. I say that that simply is not good enough—the lowest level of engagement the highest level of attrition. 
Even in the SAS a group I know well and have worked with on many occasions 15 percent of the SAS badged members have left in the last year—15 percent. The best trained the most skilled the elite unit of the New Zealand Army and the members are drifting away because of the policies of this Government. 
That really is not good enough. You cannot leave people without a pay rise. You cannot leave people without what they need to carry out their job properly. That Minister turned up at the select committee and said: “Look at what we’ve done—the C130 programme the programme for the Orion upgrade.” When did they start? It was under a Labour Government. He talked about the NH90 helicopters and the AgustaWestland 108. Who ordered those and paid for them? It was a Labour Government. This Government has done nothing but run down our Defence Force. It is not good enough to slash the numbers by 1000. It is not good enough to not pay them enough. It is not good enough to cut their equipment when these people are out there serving their country dying for their country. Surely they deserve more respect than that. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Defence Force agreed to.  
Vote State Services agreed to.  
Vote Energy 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
: 
 I am very pleased to stand and speak in this estimates debate regarding energy and resources. The Government has set ambitious economic goals for New Zealand and that requires a significant improvement in our economic performance. Productivity improvements are incremental as we gain efficiency but the highest area of productivity gain that we see in this country happens through oil and gas exploration. Oil and gas production brings to this country a return of $525000 a year per fulltime-equivalent worker. That is a significant lift. In fact when you look at the top four export earners in this country—dairying meat timber and oil and gas—we note that when the Tui Area field which is just offshore from Taranaki came into production that one field lifted the industry to third place. So we see the significance that just one significant oil discovery can bring to the economic return to this country. 
Regarding the economic development of this country we have put together a business growth plan that will grow more and bigger businesses in New Zealand and provide the standard of living New Zealanders aspire to. This business growth plan touches on six key areas: capital markets; innovation and ideas; skilled and safe workplaces; infrastructure which includes electricity broadband and transport; export markets; and the utilisation of natural resources. Obviously the oil and gas sector relies heavily upon all six of these. Oil is our fourth-largest export earner with a value of around $2.2 billion a year. It contributes to the employment of approximately 7700 within our country 3730 of which are direct jobs from that sector and another 3900 of which are jobs in other parts of the economy. We know that gas is an important contributor to domestic industries and electricity generation. We found this out so very clearly last year when the Maui Gas pipeline north of New Plymouth was out of commission for a week with the effect that had on the economy of New Zealand particularly in the north. We also know that gas generated 18 percent of New Zealand’s electricity supply in 2008. 
All of that is to say that energy is a very important area in our economy and in the way of life for ordinary New Zealanders. Energy underpins economic growth. Global energy demand is forecast to increase by 40 percent between 2009 and 2035. So this is a very important area. It is also very important to understand that in order for this growth to happen it has to happen in a manner that is well managed and consistent with the wider values and the environmental values we hold as a nation. The Government is supporting the development of the oil and gas sector which is set out in our petroleum action plan. The aim of the plan is to make the most of New Zealand’s promising potential and maximise the gains from sector growth in the petroleum area. Work is well under way to streamline the management of the petroleum sector and to make it easier for exploration companies to establish operations in New Zealand whilst all the time having stringent cautionary behaviours and activities around such exploration and production. 
We are currently reviewing the Crown Minerals Act regime. The Act governs management of the Crown’s minerals estate which includes all oil and gas. The review aims to encourage development of our resources so they contribute to economic growth. We aim to streamline the current regime and make it better able to deal with future developments. We are reviewing health and safety regulations for petroleum operations and are advancing new environmental legislation governing our exclusive economic zone beyond the 12 nautical mile limit from our coast. All of these measures are put in place in order for us to maximise the advantages and the gains but by the same measure to fulfil the obligations that these opportunities give us. From this year the Government will be seeking a work programme for bids for 20 to 30 blocks annually. This is an important step forward in the way New Zealand is going to strategically manage exploration interests. The block offer strategically involves exclusively using an annual competitive tender process to allocate permits for oil and gas exploration and will no longer use “first in first served” permitting known as priority in time. This allows strategic management of the resource focusing on areas of greatest potential and this of course ensures that we have the very best of international practice regarding this particular area of development in our economy.  
I am very happy to speak in support of our energy and resources programme which we have put forward as a Government and believe that this is in the best interest of the economic growth and development of our nation as we alongside that ensure that we have stringent and very careful environmental practices to support those opportunities. Thank you. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 Kia ora Mr Chair. Nga mihi nui ki a koutou. Kia ora. It is good to take a call on the estimates debate when it comes to energy. When you follow that contribution from the member Jonathan Young you see everything this Government is doing to support the industry. In this sector the Government is quite happy to pick winners. It is quite happy to throw taxpayers’ money at specific sectors. But what I want to look at in my speech is the economics. I think it is foolhardy it is short-sighted and it is not even in our economic interest for us to be picking winners in this sector when there are so many other better sectors we could be doing it for. 
We heard today from the Minister of Energy and Resources and his sort of seal impersonation. Maybe more in my son’s comprehension he sounded like the count off  
Sesame Street 
 with his “Ah ah ah!”—the ghost of Muldoon. The Minister cannot even count because the numbers when it comes to the economics of oil just do not stack up. This Government is putting offshore oil companies first and the New Zealand environment and the New Zealand taxpayer second. But disappointingly for the Government its whole strategy is in tatters at the moment. We have had the Anadarko Petroleum Corporation pull out of the South Island and we have got New Zealand Oil and Gas pulling out. The Government’s strategy is in tatters. It has got no plan. It came to the country with the Budget and said: “Our plan is we’re going to drill it mine it frack it cut it and sell it.” It is trying to do the cut it and sell it plan but New Zealanders are standing up like they are on the assets and saying that there are better options and that to drill it mine it and frack it is not the only option. 
When you look at the economics it does not stack up. The Government is talking about wanting to grow the export industry. In the best year we are talking about just over $2 billion worth of exports. It is good to be earning foreign currency but what the Government does not point out is that oil is still one of our biggest if not the biggest imports. It is 16 percent of our imports—$8 billion. So if we are going to become an exporter of oil like the Minister’s briefing points out we have got to massively increase our production of oil. The only way we are going to do that is by drilling deep very deep down and that comes with huge risks. We saw in the Gulf of Mexico that the blowout there has cost $40 billion to date. It is in the exploratory stage which we may see Petrobras doing off the coast of the East Coast which is the most dangerous phase. It is not about just having a poke around; you are having a poke around in an environment where you do not know the conditions. You do not know whether there are gas bubbles. You do not know all the threats. That is its riskiest point. 
What we know is that the Government is quite prepared to risk our environment; our “clean green” brand which is worth over $20 billion; our aquaculture; our fisheries; and our tourism industry. We know that Kiwis are going to be facing 100 percent of the environmental risks but when you look at the income side of the ledger sheet it does not stack up. The Minister himself concedes that we have got the fourth-lowest royalty plus tax rate in the world selling ourselves as cheap as almost any other country on the planet. We know that the Government has made a sweetheart deal for the oil industry. It has put a dozen jobs on the skills shortages immigration list so we know that what jobs there will be will go to foreigners. We know that Taranaki which the Minister likes to put up on a pedestal has the lowest percentage of workers to GDP of any sector in the economy. So if jobs are your problem which they are in New Zealand with the unemployment rate being the highest it has been since 1994—at 6.8 percent—then this is the last sector you would look at to be providing jobs. It has the lowest percentage of workers to GDP and we know it is going to be foreign workers. What we also know is that the companies involved are predominantly offshore so the profits are going to flow offshore. 
What we know is that for 100 percent of the environmental risk we are going to see the fourth-lowest Government take in the world we are going to see numerous tax exemptions we are going to see the profits flow offshore and hardly any jobs for New Zealanders. It does not stack up. If you are going to pick winners pick the smart winners look to the future look to the smart economy. This is where the Government could be going with its energy plan. We did not have to scrap the biofuel subsidy. The Government did not have to scrap the solar hot-water grant scheme. In fact what we could be doing is providing a level playing field so renewables—clean energy—could actually compete. The Government is quite happy to throw tens of millions of dollars in subsidies through seismic surveys and free emissions trading scheme credits so the taxpayer picks up the bill to subsidise this sector. But if you are going to pick winners why would you pick this sector when all the economics do not stack up? The smart money internationally—in fact the vast bulk of international investment according to Bloomberg—is going into clean energy not fossil fuels. This is the 21st century economy not the 19th century economy. What we can do is invest in our assets and we can use them to export. What we know is that this Government is quite happy to pay for solar plants in Tokelau and wind turbines in Antarctica. We have all sorts of deals around the world—we have Meridian exporting—but none for New Zealand. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I would like to take the time tonight to talk about the renewables track record for electricity generation in New Zealand because I think it is something that all New Zealanders can be particularly proud of. But I would like to correct the last speaker Gareth Hughes who was complaining about Taranaki. He was laying out that the oil and gas industry in Taranaki is problematic because Taranaki has the lowest percentage of employment for any region producing X amount of GDP. In other words Taranaki produces a whole lot of GDP—gross domestic product measured in cash—for the lowest number of jobs. He was saying that what that means is that not many jobs are produced. What it actually means is that the people are paid really well. The reason why the GDP per capita is so high in Taranaki is that the average salary in Taranaki is upward of $75000 a year. 
In other words what you have here is the Green Party advocating that it would rather have more much-lower-paid jobs than have higher-paid jobs. In Taranaki where unemployment is at the same level as across the country where the average wage and salary is $75000-plus it can all be put down to the successful oil and gas industry in that region which has gone along happily for 50 years alongside dairy farming and tourism. Have we ever heard a peep of a problem out of Taranaki? No. But apparently according to the Greens now that National is supporting its strategy of dairy farming tourism and oil and gas exploration in Taranaki—something that has never been a problem for five or six decades but now National is promoting that as perhaps a strategy other regions could look at—the sky is going to fall on our heads. That is what is so ridiculous about that debate. Rather than talk about offshore let us look at our onshore experience. Taranaki has clearly done it successfully for many decades and there is no reason why it cannot be repeated sensibly elsewhere. 
Seventy-seven percent of our electricity generation in New Zealand is done through renewables. That is something I do not think most New Zealanders know. Fifty-eight percent of it is hydro about 13 percent is geothermal and 4.5 percent is wind generation. That is a stunning record. I think it is in the top two or three in the world although I stand to be corrected. Norway is way up there with something like 99 percent of electricity generation being renewable. Interestingly the economy of Norway which has renewable electricity generation—good for them very clean and green—is built off the back of a very successful oil and gas industry in a place called the North Sea. Norway—can you think of a cleaner greener country—actually has oil and gas exploration. Its economy is built off the back of it and it is a very successful society indeed. So yes you can have renewable electricity generation and all those good things and a successful oil and gas industry which by the way means you can drive along in a car catch an aeroplane jump on a number of trains that are powered in that way and do a whole bunch of other things like make plastics make fridges make sofas and everything else you do with oil or using the energy of oil and gas. 
We have a proud record in New Zealand. We want to reach 90 percent renewable electricity generation by 2025. At 77 percent in the last year I believe we are heading that way. It could dip a bit this year because the hydro levels have been low so we have had to burn a bit more gas but on the whole we are tracking in the right direction. 
Conservation of course is also part of that story. I will not spend the time talking too much about the extension of our insulation scheme. Over 4 years 188000 houses across New Zealand were to be insulated—that is 188000 private house owners able to access subsidies from this Government to insulate their houses. We have extended that to 240000 houses across New Zealand. This means it will run out a bit over 4 years and next year of course we are going to have to make a Budget decision about whether we extend that or not. But it is a successful story—the renewable electricity generation the conservation measures around the insulation of housing and of course insulating every State house in the country that can be insulated across New Zealand next year and our promotion of our oil and gas industry. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Housing 
DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First) 
: 
 New Zealand First wants a robust Government housing effort for three primary reasons. Firstly to meet the housing shortage. The Government is not doing nearly enough to see that housing needs throughout the country are met. Auckland and Christchurch are the problem areas as most people know. In Auckland of course there are the usual growth problems. Not enough is being done to ensure an adequate supply of land and not enough is being done to ensure adequate housing stock either. In Christchurch of course the Government really has underestimated the immediate housing need. Land is becoming available for the future but there is especially a short-term deficit in housing stock. That is a real shortage that is driving up rents and that is undeniable although Ministers in this House have tried to deny that during question time in recent weeks. The second purpose is to make rental housing affordable and accessible to people on the lowest incomes. The third we believe is that we must make sure in this country that we put a regime of legal minimum housing standards in place. That is also an urgent priority. 
But turning to the Government’s social housing programmes the Productivity Commission stated recently: “Although the formal objectives of the SHU”—the social housing unit—“are clear its structure as a semi-autonomous body leaves room for unclear priorities mixed purposes and misaligned accountabilities.” The Minister of Finance failed to answer why that is in a recent question I put to him in this House. Those questions—those issues—need an answer because there is a large amount of money to be spent by way of grants in this area. The Minister must explain what the priorities are what the purpose of the funding is how those purposes will be achieved and what the outcomes sought are to be. Most of all the Minister must show that the need for a robust regime of accountability is met and how that will be met. Instead we have had a deafening silence about all of those things and the Productivity Commission was correct to raise the matter. 
I have other further specific questions. What about the application processes when the Salvation Army is turned down for not meeting financial criteria but part of the $3 million Maori fund was allocated to the Whangarei Accessible Housing Trust which was running at a loss? That does not make sense. Another question is this: what about the competency of third sector housing providers applying to the Social Housing Unit for the $104 million allocated in the 2012 Budget? These grants are given for large amounts of money to organisations that will own the housing that is funded. How do we know that that is going to be well spent? There are no State assets in return. What happens if a recipient organisation fails? Where do the assets go? There are many unanswered questions like that. 
Another question is this: how transparent and accountable are the Social Housing Unit processes for allocating funding to community providers? The answer I think is that they are as clear as a mud house. That is not good enough for a programme of this size. Another question is what safeguards or risk management have been put in place for the $104 million allocated to non-profit NGOs and community social housing providers? We need to be sure that they are risk-averse in their programmes and that they are financially sound. We have been given no such information or assurances. Another question is this: will well-meaning community providers have enough experience in the housing market when private investors have lost millions of dollars in the building and property market? 
My conclusion from the current situation is this: the State would be better to provide State housing directly and not rely so much on the NGO sector. The Government is too focused on party political agendas and not enough on real social housing outcomes not enough on value for money and not enough on the interests of the taxpayer. Its processes priorities accountabilities and allocation processes are sloppy and inadequate. Housing will suffer and the taxpayer will be poorly served. 
HOLLY WALKER (Green) 
: 
 I am very pleased to rise to take a call in this estimates debate on Vote Housing. I think it would be fair to say that it has not been a banner year for housing. The appropriations outlined in Budget 2012 certainly do not engender much confidence that the next financial year will be any better. 
There can be little doubt that we are facing a multifaceted housing crisis in New Zealand. This is a crisis of affordability with rents rapidly increasing in most major centres. In fact in our largest city Auckland an estimation earlier this year that Statistics New Zealand prepared for the Auckland Council suggested that there were 85000 homes in which the tenants were paying unaffordable rents. The dream of homeownership is out of reach for many thousands of New Zealanders of my generation who find that the dream of owning their own home is something they can only aspire to. It is also a crisis of availability with thousands on Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting lists. Those waiting lists have themselves been magically reduced by simply removing two categories from the lists which makes it very easy to chop off large numbers at once. But those who are still on the lists are waiting and there are many of them. 
Those who have been chopped off the lists are now battling it out in the private rental market which is becoming increasingly difficult. Private rentals are oversubscribed with hundreds of people showing up for every open home or responding to listings and finding that landlords really are able to take their pick of their tenants. If you have pets or children or other challenging circumstances you can pretty much guarantee that you are going to go straight to the bottom of the list when it comes to looking for a private rental property. There are not enough homes to meet the needs of New Zealanders. Recently another estimate in Auckland suggested that there is a shortage of 70000 homes in Auckland alone. 
It is also a crisis of quality with hundreds of thousands of children living in cold damp homes that are making them sick and that is both in Housing New Zealand Corporation properties and in private rentals. The full effect I believe of the leaky homes crisis is also yet to be felt in terms of the quality of housing in New Zealand. Nowhere are these crises of affordability availability and quality more apparent than in our largest city Auckland and in our second-largest city Christchurch where they have been compounded by the devastating impact and aftermath of the earthquakes. 
So within that context of a housing crisis I want to address a specific issue which is how Housing New Zealand Corporation is coping with its “Smarter. Faster. Fairer.” reform programme particularly from the perspective of how it is delivering for tenants. I want to focus on quality and maintenance and question whether Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants who are by the Minister’s and the Government’s own reckoning only the most vulnerable families are being provided for and whether they are living in adequate warm safe conditions. 
We heard some time frames from the Minister in question time today in response to questions that I asked. He said that when Housing New Zealand Corporation receives an urgent request for health and safety maintenance that should be dealt with within 4 hours. When it receives a request for urgent maintenance that should be dealt with within 2 days. And when it receives a general maintenance request that has credibility as the Minister would say that should be dealt with within 10 days. 
Despite the fact that 2 weeks ago in a written question to the Minister he told me that he cannot “give an accurate indication of how much work is still to be completed at any one time.”—and if anyone would like to look up that answer they can look up question for written answer No. 4914—today he told the House that Housing New Zealand Corporation in fact meets these time frames 93 percent of the time. I wonder what has changed in the last 2 weeks between when the Minister was unable to provide us an estimate of how many maintenance requests were outstanding and today when apparently 93 percent of the time they are magically being met. 
But if we put that to one side and look at the experiences of the tenants you really would have to question whether this 93 percent is an accurate figure. I believe the Minister may be confusing two things. I think he is confusing the difference between response times in terms of lodging a request and actually having that lodged in the Housing New Zealand Corporation system and perhaps somebody making a phone call about it and job completion— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Green Party has used its allocation of speeches now. This is just a point because it is not only the Green Party but also New Zealand First. I note further down on the list that you are actually going to seek some calls but you have now used all your allocation just as New Zealand First has. That is the reason I pulled you up here. So if you want to take other calls then you will need to negotiate with the other parties. Unfortunately I cannot give you a call yet I note on the schedule here that you are wanting to take calls in other votes. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I understand that we have still got two calls. I understand that we have got one of Mana’s calls. It might be best to approach the Table to discuss it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Yes certainly Mana’s call has been allocated to the Greens but according to my schedule you are actually wanting more than that. If that is not the case you might like to come up here so we can discuss that further. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I appreciate the comments made by the member Holly Walker and her questions today of course. The invitation from question time still stands: if she would like me to look into those things she should get in contact with me directly and I can put those through to the Housing New Zealand Corporation and we might be able to get some answers for her. I am very happy to do that. 
Generally across the housing portfolio we have got social housing then the private rental markets first-home buyers in their first homes and then other housing where people have bought their second or third home their home for life or whatever it is. So there is sort of a housing continuum there. We are particularly interested as a Government as I know other parties are in the bottom end where people are struggling the most—they might need State housing or they might need housing by another community housing provider that provides other services such as mental health or district nursing services or parole help because they might be recently released from prison or whatever it is—right through to the first-home buyer market. 
 But in that section of State housing we have got a real challenge in the Government. The previous Government had it as well and any future Government of any hue will. That is the fact that many of the State houses were built in the 1940s and 1950s and many are in the wrong towns in this country—at least there are too many in some towns and not enough in others such as Auckland. We can name some other places as well and it will be no surprise to anyone. Also because the houses are so old they are in need of significant repair and also many are the wrong size. They are three-bedroom houses and actually these days people often live alone or they have very very large families so we need one or two-bedroom houses and four five or six-bedroom houses for large families. 
I have talked about this for some time and laid out to this Parliament that that is a big issue. Yes people might like it to be responded to overnight but we are talking about 70000 State houses here many of which are housing the most vulnerable. I would have to say that every time we go to shift someone out of a State house to repair it or to bowl it and rebuild a nicer one the Green Party or the Labour Party oppose that. On the one hand in Tamaki for example we have got almost 3000 State houses up there many on quarter-acre and half-acre sections many very very old and in a serious state of disrepair and many in places where families who are on the waiting list would love to live. But when we go in there to do a massive development like Tamaki and start removing the old houses to rebuild new State houses—houses for the community housing sector houses for first-home buyers and so forth—the Labour Party is upset about it. Well you cannot bowl and rebuild a house without moving a family out to an alternative State house. I must say that in most cases tenants are offered if at all possible an alternative State house where they would like it which is often close to where they are now and sometimes in a completely different neighbourhood. 
What I am laying out for the Committee is that if you want these housing upgrades which we do if you want to spend the money which we do and if you want to build new as much as possible which we do then there needs to be a degree of change. Change is difficult and we need to understand the fact that that is difficult for families and you cannot just do it overnight. But we are doing that in Tamaki we will be doing it in Christchurch and we are doing it in other areas of the country and we have just simply got to move forward. 
It is also important to understand that many of the State houses across the portfolio are not insulated. In fact through the previous Labour Government it did not seem to have a particular focus on insulating State houses. Those members are beating the drum in the Labour Party that we should force landlords and homeowners right across New Zealand now to insulate their houses yet they sat there with thousands of State houses uninsulated during their three 3-year terms—their 9 years. We are saying no: we will insulate every State house in New Zealand that can be insulated. Many you cannot insulate but all the ones that can be insulated we want to insulate. We believe that it is best to put the Government’s housing stock in order before we stand on some sort of moral platform and say that everyone else has to do it. So the Labour Party and the Green Party need to check themselves and ask themselves the question why they never insulated every State house in the country yet under a National Government we are doing it. And we should be finished by the end of next year. We will be insulating State houses we are proud of the fact that we are insulating them and we will be upgrading State houses. 
We support the community housing sector. In fact one of the things we do with the community housing sector is make sure that when it builds a house it is well insulated of course—because the laws say so—but also it is including other things like wide doorways and wide passageways wherever possible so that they are easily adjusted. So we are doing a lot of work in housing. It is taking a lot of work and we would appreciate everyone’s support. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Conservation 
EUGENIE SAGE (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chairperson. The summary of new policy initiatives in the performance information for Vote Conservation is the story of funding cuts and it is yet another example of the anti-environment stance and policies of this Government. In Vote Conservation we see $8.7 million axed from the purchase and development of new reserves to meet the Government’s cost-saving target. We see $1.5 million cut from natural heritage management. Those are the programmes to care for our public conservation lands for threatened species and for pest and weed control. That means there will be six fewer possum control operations done than in the previous financial year. We see a $1 million cut in the management of recreational opportunities so that means fewer kilometres of walking and tramping tracks are maintained and fewer pamphlets promoting the opportunities to go walking and mountain biking on conservation land. 
If the $1.67 million that the Ministry of Economic Development wasted surveying the unlikely mineral potential of Te Wahipounamu - South West New Zealand World Heritage Area had gone to the Department of Conservation it could have paid for more than 100000 hectares of aerial pest control to protect mistletoe rata and fuchsia from possum browse and to improve the prospects for threatened species such as the rowi or the Haast brown kiwi. The funding cuts that we see in this vote combined with the policy direction that we see in the Department of Conservation’s statement of intent are worrying. The department is signalling that conservation lands are open for business and that includes some quite destructive extractive businesses. 
The department’s statement of intent has a major section on business opportunities. One of the initiatives in that section is to “increase the number value and quality of commercial ‘sponsorship’ partners providing net benefit to conservation.” The Department of Conservation already has a business relationship with five major corporates: Mitre 10 Rio Tinto BNZ Solid Energy and Genesis. Those companies generated a mere $2.5 million in sponsorship revenue in the 2010-11 financial year. That is paltry given their size and given the major public relations benefits that companies such as BNZ have had from the kiwi recovery programme where departmental employees have had to wear BNZ-branded clothing when they are filmed or photographed working with kiwi. The Government’s cuts to conservation funding mean that the department is putting out its begging bowl to the corporate sector to help meet that funding shortfall. 
The statement of intent does not include any specific targets but this is a very worrying initiative particularly when we hear the reports that the department is considering accepting sponsorship from Fonterra. This is troubling because Fonterra’s shareholders are responsible for some of the most extensive serious and severe water pollution problems in New Zealand. That is from agricultural intensification particularly dairying expansion in the lowland areas and the impact that is having on our lowland streams. So the department needs to be very careful when it enters into sponsorship arrangements. 
Fonterra does not operate on conservation land and any sponsorship arrangement is potential “greenwash” for the company. If Fonterra sponsors the Department of Conservation this raises questions about what Fonterra would expect in return—what compromises the department would have to make to its statutory advocacy—because under this National Government the Department of Conservation has cut back its Resource Management Act advocacy for nature outside the conservation estate. 
Despite the Rakaia water conservation order recognising that that river has outstanding values as habitat for braided river birds such as the black-fronted tern and the wrybill plover—both threatened species—the department has not been involved in TrustPower’s application to amend the water conservation order and change the river’s flows. The department had a major role in the first generation of district and regional plans. Working with conservation groups it got rules controlling indigenous vegetation clearance wetland drainage and stock access to waterways. In Canterbury the Environment Canterbury commissioners have just notified the combined land and water regional plan for Canterbury. 
If Fonterra becomes a commercial sponsor of the Department of Conservation will this constrain the department’s already limited Resource Management Act advocacy? Will the department seek stronger policies in that plan and other plans to protect the habitats of native fish will it oppose irrigation takes or will it wind back its limited advocacy? 
NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to take a call on the estimates for Vote Conservation. Contrary to what the previous speaker Eugenie Sage has spoken about the actual expenditure for the Department of Conservation has increased over the last 6 years. The appropriation is $444.9 million for 2012-13 and that is slightly up on the actual expenditure of $437.8 million in 2011-12. Actually that expenditure has been trending up for the last 6 years and is now almost double what it was in 2001-02. 
Vote Conservation is appropriated to support the Department of Conservation which has a goal of encouraging all New Zealanders to enjoy the conservation estate to gain the benefits from a healthy functioning ecosystem to experience its recreational opportunities and to appreciate our historic heritage. The biggest expenses are the management of the natural environment and the Department of Conservation spends $156.3 million per year on that and the management of recreational opportunities with an expenditure of $145.7 million and a capital expenditure of $59 million. 
New Zealanders are totally committed to our country being clean and green and they really do enjoy getting into the great outdoors and being part of our conservation estate. The conservation estate that this appropriation covers is 8 million hectares of land. It includes 34 marine reserves and six marine mammal sanctuaries. Of course it is a huge job to manage to protect and to conserve this environment. There will never be enough money to do all the good work that we would like to do. So the department is really working hard and thinking smart about how to stretch its dollars. It is working at developing partnerships to increase that conservation dollar. 
Over $17 million of Crown revenue comes from a third-party income and that is generated from the permissions granted by the Department of Conservation for commercial activity on conservation land. This commercial activity often has a win-win. It is things like horse trekking whale watching glacier climbing cycle trails bus tours camping grounds—hundreds of recreational opportunities and tourism experiences. These concessions get people out on to the conservation estate. They get them interested in the environment. They allow them to enjoy and appreciate our great outdoors and provide income so we can look after it. 
I was very pleased to see that in the review the Minister of Conservation is looking at the returns on concessions to ensure that we get the best possible return from the commercial use of our conservation estate. It was interesting that Eugenie Sage talked about conservation partnerships. Partnerships with corporates are becoming increasingly popular. They seem to be particularly keen on supporting our iconic birds. The kiwi the kakapo the kokako and even the pukeko have their own projects. And then dollars invested by New Zealand businesses mean that the taxpayer’s conservation dollars can go even further. 
I think we have all been captured by Sirocco the kakapo. He is the face—or should I say the beak—of the Kakapo Recovery Programme. He can be seen advocating that recovery programme on Facebook and Twitter. He has a lot of public appearances around the country. The Kakapo Recovery Programme has been sponsored by Rio Tinto Alcan since 1990. When it took that programme out there were only 50 birds alive and there was a real feeling that they may face extinction. Rio Tinto Alcan has worked hard with the Department of Conservation and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society and there are now 129 adult birds. They have a goal to establish 150 adult breeding females and they are on their way towards that. Rio Tinto Alcan’s support is financial of course but it is also practical and strategic. The kakapo and all of us who value this special bird are the beneficiaries of that. Air New Zealand too has always been particularly supportive of conservation projects. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am delighted to join in this debate on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill for Vote Conservation. My colleague from the Green Party Eugenie Sage talked about the huge damage that is being done to our conservation estate as a result of the significant funding cuts. It is interesting now that the National Government is talking about the funding over 6 years—6 years. It has suddenly extended its time. It will make it look better unless people remember what year National was elected and do the real maths which I think most New Zealanders will do. 
 Eugenie Sage was referring to the funding cuts and to what a dramatic decrease will mean for areas like possum control where we will no longer be able to have the possum control that we need. Not long ago the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment talked about our forests becoming silent as a result of a lack of investment in possum control. This is the very future that we are facing as a result of the lack of attention lack of focus and lack of investment shown by the National Government. We know too in developing access to our recreational facilities our conservation estate and our public land that unless there is that investment they will just fall into disrepair. We have seen that with our huts we have seen that with tracks and we have seen that with information brochures. We know the impact that it has not just on our tourism industry but also on New Zealanders who still—and I support this—expect that access to our public lands is a right that New Zealanders can enjoy. It is good for us we love it and we should be able to continue it. 
The other part of this portfolio vote that I find very disappointing is the fact that when you look at all the portfolios conservation is really one of the leaders in terms of the challenges and the opportunities as well as the responsibility that it presents to the Minister and on all three of those takes the Minister of Conservation Kate Wilkinson has just really shrugged her shoulders and said it is all too hard. She has walked away from any responsibility she has as the leader of the protection and management of our conservation estate. The National Party has a constant mantra that conservation and the economy are a balance—that we have to balance our conservation values against our economic outcomes. It does the same on the environment. Well my view of that is that when it comes to conservation and the environment this Government—the National Government—knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. It says that there is this balance between the economy and conservation. Well it is a false dichotomy. There is no economy in New Zealand without our conservation estate. We know that National’s approach is narrow-minded and it is short term and it will mean that more New Zealanders will lose their jobs in the longer term. 
National’s view that the environment and the economy are in this locked battle to the death is a view from the last century. It is not a view for the current times or a vision for the future. And that last century is the same century that gave us the failed asset sales programme—exactly the same programme that this current Government is going through. That is not the view that Labour holds. We view conservation as a strength of our economy as a critical part of the overall health and well-being of New Zealanders. It is not an asset to be flogged off at the earliest convenience. 
As a result of Kate Wilkinson the Minister walking away from her responsibility we have now seen subspecies like the Maui’s dolphin with only 55 of that species left. That is not just in our waters and not just in Australasia but on the planet. You cannot get much closer to extinction than having only 55 animals left yet when the Minister along with her colleague the Minister for Primary Industries had an opportunity to do something positive about this critically endangered species they did as little as they possibly could. Not only does that put Maui’s dolphins at an immediate and distinct risk of extinction but also what has happened is that internationally countries are looking at us and saying: “How is New Zealand so backward that it doesn’t have sustainable fishing practices?” and now our fishing industry is at risk as well. 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I just want to pick up where my colleague the Hon Ruth Dyson our excellent conservation spokesperson left off. The Minister of Conservation has also christened herself I think the “Minister for Looking”— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Just looking. 
GRANT ROBERTSON 
: —just looking—because that is what Kate Wilkinson told a select committee when people raised concerns about whether it was a good idea for this Government to go on a search of World Heritage sites for mining opportunities. Kate Wilkinson said: “Nothing to do with me. I’m just the ‘Minister for Looking’. I’m not the Minister responsible for the drilling or the digging; I’m just the ‘Minister for Looking’.” 
What I would like the Minister of Conservation to be is the “Minister for Doing”. I would like the Minister of Conservation to actually get out there and do something to protect the conservation estate. I would like the Minister of Conservation to actually get out there and do something about threatened species but instead all we have seen from this Minister of Conservation and conservation under this Government is funding cuts—no sense of the value of the conservation estate to New Zealand no sense of its intrinsic value to New Zealand and New Zealanders and no sense of its real economic value. 
The numbers tell a story. In the 2009 Budget $54 million was taken out of the conservation budget and that has its impact year on year on year. But then we come to this year’s Budget with a further $11 million taken out of the conservation budget—a further $11 million that the Department of Conservation has to find has to cut from the services that are being provided to New Zealand and to our conservation estate. But there is good news coming for the Department of Conservation. Next year it gets only an $8.7 million cut. So there we go; the Government in its generosity says: “No next year it’ll just be $8.7 million more that the Department of Conservation has to cut.” 
We have been told time and again by this Government that these cuts are back-office cuts and nothing will be happening on the front line. Well let us look at where staffing cuts have come from in the Department of Conservation as part of the $54 million reduction in that first 2009 Budget: 21 staff cut in Nelson 18 staff cut in the Waikato 12 staff cut in Wanganui and around 12 to 15 staff cut in Southland. These are the people at the front line of conservation in New Zealand. These are the people losing their jobs under National. 
This is not some back-office cut. These are not some services that New Zealanders will not see. These are the people in our regions who are doing the work that New Zealanders know is important and that tourists see every day and say: “Isn’t it tremendous that you’ve got that Department of Conservation that is looking after what makes New Zealand beautiful.” They are the people in our regions. It is those jobs that are going. That is what this Budget has done. It has continued National’s cuts to a vital public service agency the Department of Conservation not in some back office in Wellington but out there in the regions of New Zealand. 
Part of those cuts were to scientists. There is not much more front line for the Department of Conservation than the science that it does. Hundreds of scientists wrote to this Government and said: “Recessions come and go; extinction is forever.”—extinction is forever. Only around 200 of the 2700 threatened species in this country are actually currently being monitored by the Department of Conservation and that goes down every year. Ruth Dyson has already mentioned what is happening with possum control. The Department of Conservation is now able to look at only 1.2 million of the 8.5 million hectares it covers for possum control. 
This Government is hamstringing the Department of Conservation from doing its core functions and it is hiding that under the rhetoric of saying: “We’re going to cut back on bureaucracy.” Nothing about that statement is true. All that we see in front of us is cuts to the services that the Department of Conservation provides and New Zealanders will be worse off as a result. We will be worse off in terms of the environment that we live in in terms of the biodiversity of this country and we will actually be worse off in terms of our tourism. 
Then it goes to the most ludicrous extent because now the so-called partnerships that the Department of Conservation is undertaking are being forced on it because it does not have the money to do its core business. It is privatising looking after the kiwi. What is more New Zealand than looking after the kiwi? Yet that is now being privatised. This Budget is letting down New Zealand when it comes to core conservation values and looking after our environment. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Food Safety agreed to.  
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported progress on the Appropriation (2012/13 Estimates) Bill and no progress on the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Bill. 
Report adopted. 
Personal Explanations 
Estimates Debate Vote Energy—Number of Houses to be Insulated 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to correct a figure that I gave about 15 minutes ago. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being taken? There is none. The Minister may proceed. 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In my speech about 10 or 15 minutes ago I said that the number of houses we are seeking to insulate is going from 188000 to 240000. The increase is actually about 40000. I should have said that the number is going from 188000 to 230000 not 240000. 
The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (H V Ross Robertson) 
: Thank you Minister. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.