Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Sitting date: 14 August 2012. Volume:682;Page:4334. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
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.