Volume 690 Week 44 - Tuesday 4 June 2013Text is incorporated into the Bound VolumeVolume 690 Week 44 - Tuesday 4 June 2013[Sitting date: 04 June 2013. Volume:690;Page:10625. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.]Tuesday 4 June 2013Mr Speaker took the Chair at 2 p.m.Prayers.ObituariesHon Dame Margaret Kerslake ShieldsMr SPEAKER: Honourable members I regret to inform the House of the death on 29 May 2013 of the Hon Dame Margaret Kerslake Shields DNZM QSO who represented the Kapiti electorate from 1981 to 1990. From 1984 to 1990 she held a number of portfolios including Minister of Customs Minister of Consumer Affairs Minister of Statistics and Minister of Women’s Affairs. I desire on behalf of this House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the late former member. I now ask members to stand with me and observe a period of silence as a mark of respect for her memory.Honourable members stood as a mark of respect.Questions to MinistersPrime Minister—Decision Making and Constitutional Safeguards1.Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements regarding Government policy?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement that the Auditor-General’s report into the Skycity deal vindicates his Government given that the Auditor-General’s response to his claim was not to agree with him but rather to state: “we have established deficiencies on the part of both officials and Ministers.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely and the reason for that as the member will be aware is that the Auditor-General’s report was divided into three parts. The first part of it was focused on my involvement and I was totally and utterly cleared and vindicated in that. That was my only involvement.Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a legal opinion by constitutional lawyer Stephen Franks principal at Franks and Ogilvie outlining serious legal deficiencies in the Government’s Skycity deal. The opinion is dated 16 May 2013.Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that legal opinion. Is there any objection? There appears to be none. It can be tabled.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Mr Franks’ view that the agreement with Skycity is “arguably unlawful” and “skirts important constitutional safeguards”; if he does not understand this constitutional principle will he read the central case on the issue the case ofFitzgerald v Muldoon?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No but I am sure what Mr Franks would find unlawful is someone coming in and telling the New Zealand public that they have 100000 signatures—Mr SPEAKER: Order!Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Mr Franks’ view that “The ability to ‘purchase’ a dispensation from regulation sits uncomfortably with the rule of law.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No and no more than Labour would agree with that given it did exactly the same deal back in 2001.Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Mr Franks that “Case law discourages anything … to fetter Parliament’s … power to legislate on future matters”; if so will he reconsider the aspects of the Skycity deal that do exactly this such as the 35-year clause?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Dr Russel Norman: Is this backroom deal with Skycity—along with the cancelling of democracy in Canterbury taking away the rights of carers to have their day in court giving Bathurst Resources the keys to our conservation estate stopping free speech at sea granting the Government Communications Security Bureau the power to spy on us and failing to act in good faith to reform MMP—not indicative of a Government that will not let our democracy stand in the way of special favours for its friends and donors?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the Government was doing that I might be inclined to agree with him but it is actually not correct. If one looks at for instance the changes to people’s ability to protest at sea the ability is very much there. There is a safety area that actually makes sense to all parties. When it comes to the Government Communications Security Bureau the member sits on the Intelligence and Security Committee and is well and truly aware that in fact the Government Communications Security Bureau has been carrying out activities under an agency relationship for a long period of time. In fact all we are doing is clarifying the law so there is no change in position there. There is no backroom deal with Skycity; it has been totally transparent. And even though the member does not like to hear it my role in that was totally cleared by the Auditor-General.Dr Russel Norman: Yeah right!Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member just ask his supplementary question.Dr Russel Norman: Will he listen to Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis Canterbury University law professor Philip Joseph former Prime Minister and Law Commission head Sir Geoffrey Palmer current New Zealander of the Year Anne Salmond—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am having trouble hearing the question. Would the member please start the question again.Dr Russel Norman: Will he listen to Otago University law professor Andrew Geddis Canterbury University law professor Philip Joseph former Prime Minister and Law Commission head Sir Geoffrey Palmer current New Zealander of the Year Anne Salmond and many many other New Zealanders who have raised concerns about the Government riding roughshod over New Zealanders’ democratic rights and over our constitution?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would not agree with the point that they are making. I would have to look at all the different contexts. They may not be in exactly the same place. But the bottom line is that the Government was elected under a mandate it took to the people. It has absolutely stuck to that mandate. When it comes to these issues the Government has presented them to the people of New Zealand. The people who are riding roughshod over the rest of New Zealand are the Greens who have played economic sabotage with the country and do not seem to care about that.Dr Russel Norman: Given that answer can the Prime Minister point to exactly where in his election platform he promised that he would remove from family carers of disabled people the right to go to court to challenge the lawfulness of Government actions?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I would have to go back and look at all of the particular details but from memory the Government made it clear we would look at the matter. Let us understand exactly what the Government did in that legislation which is that it said rightfully so that it would address the issues raised in theAtkinson case. It also gave the right to pay family caregivers when they were looking after an adult disabled child. But the Government also said that there has been a very longstanding position—a very longstanding position—where there was arguably a line drawn about where the State’s responsibilities start and finish and where family responsibilities start and finish. This Government is actually moving the country to a place that only two other countries in the world are in and we happen to be doing something that Labour never did in office.Income Gap Parity with Australia—Minimum Wage2.DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to thePrime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that his Government has a “100 percent record” on the minimum wage; if so how does he explain the now $6-plus an hour gap between Australia and New Zealand after Australia raised its minimum wage to NZ$19.80 an hour?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. The Government has been raising the minimum wage within the bounds of what we think is possible to ensure that we preserve people’s work. If we look at the minimum wage in New Zealand it is $13.75. That is half the average adult working wage. That puts us at the highest average in the OECD. We also have the significant payments which we have maintained throughout the difficult times of Working for Families. As I pointed out in the House last week if somebody earns $40000—Dr David Clark: The widest gap between rich and poor ever.Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well you may not want to hear it but if you want to let me give the answer I am more than happy to do so. OK so if you go and have a look at someone who earned the minimum wage of $13.75 an hour for 40 hours per week and who was bringing up three children that person would earn just a touch under $29000 a year. They would pay $4500 in tax and by the time they got their Working for Families payments and accommodation supplements they would receive over another $20000-odd in the hand. That makes New Zealand in the relative scheme of things reasonably generous for at-risk and low-income New Zealanders.David Shearer: Why does he think a minimum wage worker deserves $3 in Australia for every $2 they would earn in New Zealand for doing exactly the same work?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly there are different issues in each country. There are different costs—the inflation rates being significantly higher in Australia. For a period of time they have had higher levels of interest rates. But one of the most important points is that there is a balancing act here between making sure that people get pay rises and making sure that people do not lose their jobs. If the member believes there is no correlation between the two he is not only demonstrating that he does not understand economics but he is equally free to go and tell New Zealanders on the campaign trail that he wants to put them in the dole queue because that is the simple message you will be sending them.David Shearer: Is he aware that Australia’s unemployment rate is lower than New Zealand’s despite a higher minimum wage; if so does not that confirm the Departmentof Labour’s finding in 2004 of “positive employment responses” to minimum wage increases under the last Government?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I am surprised that the member is spending so much time wanting to quote Australia because if one looks at a few things that have happened in Australia recently—let us just look at those. Firstly its unemployment rate is on the way up. Our unemployment rate has been on a track lower. This Government is going to get New Zealand back into surplus by 2014-15; the Australian Government is likely to get back into surplus by only 2016-17. The BNZ believes that this country will grow faster than Australia in the next few years. And I notice that the member does not get on his feet any more and ask about people leaving for Australia and the reason is that they are not leaving in droves any more; they are responding to New Zealand. In fact maybe the member should—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a sufficiently long answer.David Shearer: Given that he said in 2008 of New Zealanders leaving for Australia that it was a vote of no confidence in Helen Clark’s Government what does he say to people now given that the number is 43 percent higher today?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well yes some people have left for Australia—a lot more—Hon Members: Oh!Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I am glad they are cheering because a lot more of them left under a Labour Government numerically. [Interruption] Yes they did—yes they did. By the way if it is such a bad place to live—[Interruption] Well if it is such a—Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is a very unsatisfactory interjection coming from over on that side.David Shearer: Supplementary question.Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary—Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I have not finished—no I have not finished. And if it is such a bad place to live under such a bad Government then maybe someone with Australian citizenship will want to go back to Australia rather than live under this Government in New Zealand.David Shearer: Is he aware that McDonald’s KFC Starbucks Pizza Hut The Warehouse Farmers Kmart Bunnings and Countdown are not implementing his youth minimum wage rates; if so does that mean that major corporates actually care more about New Zealanders’ cost of living than the Government does?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes I am aware of that. I think the important point to note here is that this is the minimum wage. You are not actually required to pay that wage and the vast bulk of New Zealand workers are paid well and truly above the minimum wage. But here is a very simple point: if you are 16 or 17 under this Government the message is that an employer may give you a chance to get a job. You see these people on the other side of the House they do not want to give employers any incentives—David Shearer: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister answered the question in the first sentence. [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member is happy with the answer then we will proceed to further supplementary questions.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We have got into the habit of having long speeches from Ministers in answers and it always requires a point of order from us to bring the answer to an end—Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] Order! That is not right and if the member wants to have another look at the recording earlier he will see that I brought the Prime Minister to heel only about two questions ago when I felt the answer was quite long enough.Government Financial Position—Return to Surplus Reduction in Debt and Superannuation3.PAUL GOLDSMITH (National) to theMinister of Finance: What progress is the Government making in reaching its fiscal targets of returning to surplus in 2014/15 and reducing net government debt to 20 percent of GDP by 2020?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is on track to meeting both of those targets. Budget forecasts show a surplus of $75 million in 2014-15 and net debt peaking at 28.7 percent of GDP in the same year before falling to 17.6 percent of GDP in 2021. Taking on more debt over the past few years has been appropriate to support our future economic growth and to cushion New Zealanders and their families from the worst effects of recession. But at the same time as taking on the debt the Government has laid out a path back to surplus and furthermore a path back to reducing Government debt to levels that we believe are prudent.Paul Goldsmith: Why is it important that the Government gets back to surplus and starts repaying debt?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Although the level of Government debt is well below that of many other Governments that we compare ourselves with it is important that we keep Government debt low in order to offset very high household debt and to ensure that we can manage through another recession. Net Government debt is still rising today by around $130 million a week and will reach $70 billion in 2016-17 up from around $10 billion just 5 years ago. That is the equivalent of around $15000 for each and every New Zealander. We simply believe that it would be prudent to return Government debt to lower levels so that we are better able to reduce the pressure on interest rates rising sooner than they otherwise would and reduce pressure on an exchange rate that is already higher than is comfortable for us.Paul Goldsmith: What recent reports has the Minister received on Government finances?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury today issued the Government Financial Statements for the 10 months to 30 April. They show that a stronger economy and the tax reforms of 2010 are underpinning more tax revenue. Combined with the Government’s responsible control over expenditure this has restricted the deficit to less than $4 billion for the 10 months which is $600 million less than was forecast in the Budget just a few weeks ago. Tax revenue is around $3.1 billion higher than the corresponding period last year. This is one of a number of indicators that New Zealanders have some well-earned confidence and optimism about the future.Paul Goldsmith: What are some of the risks to the Government’s improving finances and the brighter outlook for the economy?Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are some risks in the global economy. Europe still has deep-seated and long-term debt problems and productivity problems. The US economy looks to be recovering but it is unclear just how robust that is. China faces risks of both lower growth and problems with excessive credit. In Australia there seems to be a sharper than expected downturn in mining investment which could lead to Australia having lower growth rates over the next couple of years than in New Zealand. So there are global risks and also domestic risks if the Government does not stay on track with this moderate consistent and long-term economic policy.Hon David Parker: Does he agree that his claims to fiscal responsibility are undermined by his refusal to address the superannuation entitlement age well in advance so that people have time to prepare given that costs of superannuation have increased by $3 billion from $7 billion to $10 billion per annum in the last 5 years and that in just 2 years’ time the cost of New Zealand superannuation to the taxpayer will be more than the entire cost of preschool primary intermediate and secondary education?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I do not agree. Of course no one is proposing changes in the age of eligibility in a way that would affect the costs of superannuation over the next 2 years. The Government has been so busy dealing with the large and rising costs of law and order and welfare which got out of control under the previous Government. Fortunately we are having some success in bringing those long-term costs under control.Hon David Parker: Well then if the Minister does not agree with the Labour Party does he agree with Gareth Kiernan of Infometrics who said: “If Key is genuinely interested in what’s good for the future of the country … [and his] decision-making is not dominated by his own ego he would recognise his mistake about the retirement age and stand down.”; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes I do disagree with him. The Government made some very clear undertakings. I know that it is not the style of the Opposition parties but we have said that we would not change the age and we will not. At the same time as I pointed out to the member before there are other long-term costs where the failures of the previous Government meant that they have got out of control particularly for welfare and law and order. The Government is implementing a range of innovative and in some cases world-leading policies to bring those costs under control. That of course will help our ability to meet superannuation obligations in the future.Ministers—Confidence and Security of Government Information4.Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to thePrime Minister: Has he recently had reason to have lost confidence in any of his Ministers; if so why?Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he or his office question the Minister of Revenue as to how aDominion Postjournalist received inside information leading that journalist to write on 5 February this year: “A ministry briefing leaked last night”—Hon Members: When?Rt Hon Winston Peters: —last night—“suggests Novopay needs a fundamental redesign.” and outlining that the Inland Revenue Department—[Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member please continue with his question. [Interruption] Order! Will the member please continue with his question.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Down here we can hardly hear a thing because of the noise.Mr SPEAKER: There were interjections I acknowledge that to the member but they were not that loud. They are often substantially louder than that. Would the member please start his question again.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he or his office question the Minister of Revenue as to how aDominion Postjournalist received inside information leading that journalist to write on 5 February this year: “A ministry briefing leaked last night suggests Novopay needs a fundamental redesign.” and outlining that the Inland Revenue Department had installed a senior manager and small teams of payroll experts at the Ministry of Education to sort out the Novopay mess?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well I certainly have not. I am not aware of my office doing such a thing. From what the member seems to be saying—I have not read the article; I presume I may have read it at the time but I do not have it in front of me—it does sound like it is quite possible that a journalist could have information on that simply because it was in the public domain anyway that Novopay was going to be substantially reworked.Rt Hon Winston Peters: As Prime Minister and Minister responsible for the GCSB did he or his office investigate the leaking of an internal survey on the GovernmentCommunications Security Bureau to aDominion Postjournalist outlining how low the morale at the bureau was as reported in theDominion Poston 16 October 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No not to the best of my knowledge.Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he directed his staff to investigate how a journalist from theDominion Postobtained the information that led to a report that Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee members were being muzzled from asking detailed questions on the Dotcom saga as reported in theDominion Poston 13 December 2012?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No.Rt Hon Winston Peters: As Prime Minister and chair of the parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee does he believe there is a leak in that committee and if so who does he believe is that leak—Mr Shearer Mr Norman Mr Banks the Prime Minister himself or the remaining member of that five-member committee who wrote of the Government Communications Security Bureau on 24 October last year: “I am starting to feel very uncomfortable.”?Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No I do not think there is a leak. It is possible that someone has made an indiscreet comment and if they have I am sure that they would regret that.Crown Revenue—Accident Compensation Levies and Carbon Taxes5.Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to theMinister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that the proposed reductions in ACC levies is a “stealth tax cut”; if so does he agree that by keeping levies higher than they need to be ACC is operating as a stealth tax; if not why not?Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes I stand by my statement in the context that it was made where the member labelled ACC levies as a stealth tax. I do not agree with the member’s second point. Last month the Budget signalled ACC levies will fall by $300 million in 2014-15 and by around a billion dollars in 2015-16. This is a direct result of a much-improved performance by ACC. The Government has been keen to ensure that its much-improved performance on rehabilitation which is the core of its activities is well bedded-in before we have considered passing some of the benefits of that back to households and businesses.Hon David Parker: Is it correct that if he implemented the reduction of $700 million in ACC levies for this year and next as recommended by ACC an operating balance before gains and losses surplus would not have been forecast for 2014-15 in his most recent Budget?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No not necessarily because as I pointed out to the member before there is no single decision that means the Government achieves surpluses and it makes its Budget decisions as a package—for instance you could argue that if we had not given schools up to $80 million in increased operational grants we would not have posted a surplus. But of course that is not how the Government approaches the issue. The Government has had a different view from ACC about the future funding track because we wanted to ensure that its better performance was well embedded and that we could reduce the number of changes in the levy—for instance not have levies go down and then have to put them up again.Hon David Parker: Well then if other revenue and other expense items were unchanged but he implemented the reduction of ACC levies as recommended by ACC is it correct that an operating balance before gains and losses surplus would not have been forecast for 2014-15 in his most recent Budget?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No because we could say that about every single decision as I have explained to the member. What we do know for sure is that if ACC had continued to be run as it was by the Labour Party as a political tool we would be nowhere near surpluses today because it was losing hundreds of millions of dollars.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question could not have been more specific—Mr SPEAKER: Order! And I invite the member to ask his question again.Hon David Parker: If all other revenue and expense items were left unchanged and if he had implemented the reduction of ACC levies as recommended by ACC is it correct that an operating balance before gains and losses surplus would not have been forecast for 2014-15 in his most recent Budget?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No for exactly the reasons I stated in the previous answer when I also said no. That is because that is not the way the Government makes Budget decisions—either this Government or the previous Government. What I can also repeat is that if we had left ACC running as it was under the previous Labour Government losing billions of dollars a year we would certainly not have surpluses.Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Again my question has not been addressed. My question said: “All other things being equal if you changed this if you had accepted the ACC advice would you not have reached surplus?”. The Minister does not want to admit it but that question is directed specifically and I would like the Minister to be required to answer that question not what he wanted the question to be.Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the answer is not according to the design or the wishes of the member but the Minister when he started his answer disputed that. He simply said no and then gave some reasons.John Hayes: What reports has he seen on proposed stealth taxes?Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a proposal to increase taxes under the emissions trading system by up to $500 per household. This report has puzzled me because the same people who are proposing to put up taxes on electricity by $500 per household have told the public they are going to reduce the cost of electricity by $300 per household. Both of those policies cannot be right.Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that if the system of pricing electricity moved to a basis of production cost plus return on capital the cost of carbon would not flow through to all electricity and the total cost of carbon and electricity prices would decrease?Hon BILL ENGLISH: No I am not sure what the member meant and I was not aware of it. I was not aware of it. What I can say is that it is puzzling that the same two parties are promising to put up electricity prices by $500 a year with one policy and reduce it by $300 a year with another policy.Sue Moroney: Why did he ignore official ministry advice in the regulatory impact statement that keeping ACC levies artificially high would “negatively impact on … economic growth and reducing costs for business.”?Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government considered that advice but did not agree that the levies were artificially high. What it did agree on is that ACC had done a good job of turning round the fact that under the previous Government rehabilitation rates for injured workers got significantly worse and that meant that ACC was making large losses. It has over the last few years significantly improved the rehabilitation rates. Now that we believe that the damage done by Labour has largely been fixed we can start to reduce the levies.Canterbury Recovery—Housing New Zealand Properties6.NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to theMinister of Housing: What progress has the Government made in repairing or replacing the over 5000 Housing New Zealand homes damaged or “munted” by the 2010 and 2011 earthquakes?Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The repair and replacement job from the Christchurch earthquakes is a massive undertaking involving hundreds of millions of dollars. The first phase which started on 4 September 2010 involved 27000 emergency repairs to make properties safe and functional in the immediate term. The second phase involves the substantial long-term repairs on 5000 homes so they are brought up to full standard. That work is well under way and will be completed by the end of 2015. The third phase announced on Friday with the earthquake recovery Minister Gerry Brownlee was the construction of 700 new houses to be built on sites where home are uneconomic to repair or are munted as I think Cantabrians call it. This programme will involve a new house being built—a new house being built—every single working day from now until the end of 2015 and it is the largest and fastest Government house-building programme ever in Christchurch’s history.Nicky Wagner: How has the settlement of the Housing New Zealand’s $320 million insurance claim helped to advance this work and get a better outcome for Christchurch’s highest-need citizens?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The insurance settlement has made an enormous difference to both the pace and the quality of the rebuild. Previously each house had to be individually assessed quotes checked with the insurer and work done to repair the house to its pre-earthquake status. This was both slow and cumbersome. Housing New Zealand now has the flexibility with the insurance money in the bank to reconfigure its housing stock for today’s needs. That means more one two and four-bedroom homes rather than just rebuilding the old three-bedroom ones. It means moving to a mixed and denser housing model and it means that we invest simultaneously in safer drier and warmer homes. It means that by the end of 2015 not only will we have the same number of houses as we did pre-earthquake but they will be better in terms of being safer warmer and drier.Nicky Wagner: Will all the 700 new houses be retained by Housing New Zealand?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. We are taking the opportunity to rebuild a lot more houses on the land where older homes are being demolished and we want to take the opportunity to move to mixed housing and to expand community social housing. I notice members opposite interjecting. It shows how little they care for the poor people of Christchurch whose homes have been affected by the earthquakes. Some of the houses will be onsold to low-income families as affordable houses and others will be sold to community social housing providers as part of the Government’s broader programme of expanding community social housing.Child Protection—Methamphetamine Labs in Homes7.JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to theMinister for Social Development: What advice has she received about the number of methamphetamine labs that have been found by Police to have children present and how many of these children have been subsequently removed by Child Youth and Family Services?Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Associate Minister for Social Development): on behalf of theMinister for Social Development: I can advise that as per the written response to her written question these numbers are not gathered centrally on a crime-specific basis. The interventions that are made on a house by house case by case basis are done according to a protocol signed up to by police and child safety is at the forefront of those decisions.Jacinda Ardern: Does Child Youth and Family Services have a formal protocol for children found living in homes with methamphetamine labs; if not why not and when can we expect to see one?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Interventions that are made with the police as a result of crimes committed are conducted in respect of a protocol that was drafted in 2010. It is currently being reviewed at the moment and ongoing discussion between police and Child Youth and Family Services specifically in respect of methamphetamine labs is part of those discussions.Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked specifically about the Child Youth and Family Services protocol. The police protocol I am aware of—it has been around since 2009—but there is no Child Youth and Family Services protocol—Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please just repeat the question. It might not have been heard correctly.Jacinda Ardern: Does Child Youth and Family Services have a formal protocol for children found living in homes with methamphetamine labs; if not why not and when can we expect to see one?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: My understanding is that there are discussions going on currently between the police and Child Youth and Family Services as to a memorandum of understanding that would form the basis of that protocol. Currently they are in discussion. The protocol that is being operated on at the moment is a generic criminal memorandum of understanding protocol that operates between the police and Child Youth and Family Services but is not crime-specific.Jacinda Ardern: How long will it take for her department to settle on a protocol to protect these children when more than 480 children have been found in meth labs already the police have had a protocol for several years and Child Youth and Family Services has said that it has been working on one for more than 12 months now?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: As I understand it there have been 384 children who were found in 199 methamphetamine labs. In the same time frame of those offences the police have referred 250000 children to Child Youth and Family Services for dealing with and for consideration of intervention not including those young children on the premises where family violence has occurred. In terms of what the time frame would be for the completion of that protocol I do not have that information in front of me except that it is urgent for the department. It is working with the police currently. That is the way that it should be bearing in mind that when we are dealing with these sorts of matters the police has one role and Child Youth and Family Services has another role.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. One could not be other than concerned to have a Minister answering questions in a way that denies Parliament information on the basis that there is some sort of protocol and then giving a figure for the number of children who are found to be present at a methamphetamine lab discovery—right? [Interruption]Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am trying to understand what the point of order is.Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is that he knows how many children were found when there was a meth lab discovery but he cannot say how many were removed. We are being deliberately denied knowledge essential for parliamentarians to make a decision here.Mr SPEAKER: The Minister at all times in my mind has addressed the questions adequately. He said right at the start from the first question that the information as requested was not gathered. We have moved on from that question.Jacinda Ardern: Does she think it is acceptable—Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. To clarify in terms of the point of order made by the previous speaker Winston Peters the numbers that the member Jacinda Ardern in asking her question referred to were not referring to the same period as the numbers of children I was referring to. I was talking about the execution of search warrants the discovery of 199 methamphetamine labs and 384children found in those labs. It was not part of the same question but it did relate to the number I later gave her—250000.Mr SPEAKER: Order! And that is now becoming another answer to the question.Jacinda Ardern: Why do the police collect information on how many children are found in homes with methamphetamine labs but Child Youth and Family Services which is charged with the children’s care and protection does not collect that information?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: It is not true to say that Child Youth and Family Services does not collect that information. That information is collected on a region by region basis as matters are intervened in on a case by case basis. If that information were collected nationally it would not change the protocol it would not change the response and it would not change the outcome for those children living in that situation.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is the precise point of my original point of order. Now we are being told that the information is available region by region. The Minister has had 3½ hours for his department to find out region by region the total number. Why is Parliament being denied this important information?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: Mr Speaker.Mr SPEAKER: Does the member want to speak to the point of order?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: That was not the subject of the original question.Jacinda Ardern: Just for further clarification for the Speaker I asked that question on notice. I have asked it in written form before and been denied that information by the Minister.Mr SPEAKER: At the end of the time it is now for Parliament the House here and the public to judge the quality of the answers that have been given. I have become increasingly confused by the answers that have been given but that being the case the Minister started by saying that information was not available—it was not gathered in that form. He has then proceeded to give further information but maybe that was sourced from police rather than Child Youth and Family Services. So if the member wishes to ask further supplementary questions—Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry but the fact is that this is a very particular specific question on notice and apparently has been asked before in writing and it is about how many of these children have been removed by Child Youth and Family Services as a result of methamphetamine lab discovery by the police. We started off with “Well you can’t have the information because that is subject to a protocol.” and then we got to “Well yes the information is available region by region.” If that is the case surely the Minister can tell us after 3½ hours of time to prepare what region by region that all adds up to.Mr SPEAKER: It is not my job here to design the answer for the Minister. The Minister started a question and at that stage the House actually accepted his answer: that such information as requested was not gathered. Subsequent supplementary questions have gleaned some information. I can do no more today with the particular answer that has been given by the honourable Minister.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you were right at the beginning and you were right in the first part of your—Mr SPEAKER: I thank you.Hon Members: Ha ha!Hon Trevor Mallard: Well credit when it is due.Mr SPEAKER: Would the member please come to his point of order.Hon Trevor Mallard: I am now getting to the second point and that is that in the past Speakers have advised Ministers to get their offices to use old-fashioned technology like a phone and get on the phone to the regions to get the answer.Mr SPEAKER: We are moving forward now. If there are no further supplementary questions we are going—[Interruption] Further supplementary questions?Jacinda Ardern: Does she think it is acceptable that there are reports of children being found in meth labs and being removed by Child Youth and Family Services only to be returned to caregivers who after being bailed have continued to cook meth with children in the home; if not what will she do about it?Hon CHESTER BORROWS: I am not aware of such a case specifically. If it was drawn to the Minister’s attention then she would certainly have that investigated. My understanding is that when a clan-lab has been searched and children are located they are taken into care. They may be put back they may be given to other members of the family or other caregivers may be found for them as is appropriate for that particular situation.Schools Partnership—Use of Closed State School SitesMETIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Tēnā koutou e te Whare. My question is to the Minister of Education and asks—[Interruption] Thank you Mr Mallard.Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can we just proceed with the question please.8.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to theMinister of Education: Will the Education Amendment Bill allow private businesses to set up charter schools on the sites of closed state schools?Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe. The Public Works Act not the Education Amendment Bill continues to govern the process for the disposal of any surplus—[Interruption]Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Sorry with all the chatter from this side of the House I could not even hear the Minister start her answer.Mr SPEAKER: Order! There was substantial noise from many parts of the House. I could not hear the start of the answer. Would the Minister now start the answer.Hon HEKIA PARATA: Tēnā koe. The Public Works Act not the Education Amendment Bill continues to govern the process for the disposal of any surplus Crown land including where relevant schools.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question had nothing to do with the Public Works Act. It was a question expressly about whether or not provisions exist in the Education Amendment Bill. I would like an answer to my question.Mr SPEAKER: That does not seem unreasonable to me. I can see the connection with the Public Works Act but would the Minister please attempt to answer the question. She has had the question—or her office has certainly had the question—for 3 hours.Hon HEKIA PARATA: In order for closed State schools to become available for other purposes of the kind that are being asked in this question they have to be subject to the disposal mechanisms of the Public Works Act.Mr SPEAKER: So we take that to be a yes.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You cannot take that to be a yes because the Minister said no to your statement. We cannot waste the public’s time and Parliament’s time with that sort of response.Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that is the case.Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that she told Cabinet earlier this year that “The most practical options for the first partnership schools are renting premisesincluding existing educational buildings such as a closed State school or by a private school converting to a partnership school.”?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No I cannot confirm that. I would have to investigate the member’s assertion.Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a Cabinet paper signed by Hekia Parata on 13 February 2013 saying that the most practical options for partnership schools are existing educational buildings such as a closed State school or a private school converting to a partnership school.Mr SPEAKER: That is sufficient information. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.Document by leave laid on the Table of the House.Metiria Turei: How many of the schools closed in Christchurch were done so purposely so that private businesses could take them over as charter schools; if none will she rule out the use of those closed Christchurch schools for private businesses to make a private profit from as charter schools?Hon HEKIA PARATA: To be clear the Education Amendment Bill is focused on partnership schools not on charter schools which the member keeps identifying them as. The Education Amendment Bill is about partnership schools. Partnership schools are yet to be considered for approval or not. What is happening in Christchurch is on a completely separate time line to partnership schools.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was twofold—Mr SPEAKER: Order! I suspect that the Minister did not hear your question clearly. Would you please ask the question again.Metiria Turei: How many of the schools closed in Christchurch were done so purposely so that private businesses could take them over as charter schools; if none will she rule out the use of any closed schools in Christchurch for private profit charter schools?Hon HEKIA PARATA: In answer to the first part of the question none.Metiria Turei: Does her own signed-off plan to give closed State schools to private businesses to make a profit under charter schools and her plan to convert private schools into fully funded charter schools not show this policy for what it really is which is an attack on public education and a back-door plan to give private schools more and more public money?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.Chris Hipkins: Will she give the people of Christchurch a guarantee that she will not approve the opening of a partnership school on a school site where she has closed a public school?Hon HEKIA PARATA: No I will not give guarantees of that nature because they are two separate policies and the whole point of schools is that they be used for educational purposes. They are quite separate decision processes.Budget 2013—Tertiary Training in Science and Engineering9.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki) to theMinister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment: What investment has the Government made in new funding for science and engineering in Budget 2013?Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment): As part of the $130 million in new funding initiatives for tertiary education announced in Budget 2013 the Government is investing an additional $17.9 million in science tuition and $9.3 million in engineering tuition an increase of 2 percent funding per full-time equivalent. Science and engineering degrees have been thesubject of under-investment in the past and industry demand for skilled engineers and scientists remains high. The Government has made investment in these areas a priority in the last 2 years recognising that scientists and engineers are key drivers of innovation and productivity and are crucial for growth in our economy.Simon O’Connor: How is this part of the Government’s wider commitment to science and engineering?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The increased funding as part of Budget 2013 builds on recent announcements committing the Government to providing an additional 1000 engineering places at universities and polytechnics. This puts us on track to achieve our goal of producing an extra 500 engineering graduates per year by 2017. The increase in funding is also on top of the $159 million committed to engineering science and research - led learning in our tertiary institutions announced in last year’s Budget which demonstrates this Government’s ongoing commitment to investing in areas that will help grow our economy and retain our international competitiveness.Simon O’Connor: Why is the Government focusing on increasing science and engineering funding?Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand has historically had an undersupply of engineers. In fact we have been training only about half the number we require and about half the OECD average for many many years. We have also recognised the need to increase our investment in training scientists to help fuel the innovation required to grow our economy. Compared with Australia we subsidise engineering science and other degrees with high capital costs much less than those with lower capital costs like arts and humanities degrees. The Business Growth Agenda outlines the actions the Government is taking to build a more productive and innovative workforce giving Kiwis the skills they need to compete in a complex and dynamic global environment.Employment Relations—Legislative Reform and Effect on Wages10.DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to theMinister of Labour: What advice has he received about the effect on wages of changes to collective bargaining in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): I have not received any advice on the member’s specific point. The changes are fundamentally about improving the efficiency and fairness of the bargaining process not pushing wages one way or the other. I would not expect these changes to have a significant impact on wages.Darien Fenton: How will his changes in the Employment Relations Amendment Bill improve wages given his department advised that removing the 30-day rule will allow employers to pay less to new workers performing the same work?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: If the member had listened to my answer I made it clear that I do not think it will particularly push wages one way or the other. Actually you can make a very strong argument that through improved efficiencies and productivity that leaves more money in an employer’s pocket to pay higher wages.Darien Fenton: How will wages be improved when his bill will enable employers to fine workers 10 percent of their pay for taking partial action and reduce pay below the minimum wage regardless of how much time is actually lost?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I do not accept that at all. I think actually what these changes do is level the playing field so that actually employers have the same sorts of rules and processes that unions have had for a very long time. I know that in Ms Fenton’s Arthur Scargill - like world that is not right but actually on this side we believe in a level playing field between the parties and that is what we are providing for.Darien Fenton: Does he agree then with his department’s advice that enabling employers to opt out of multi-employer collective agreements is inconsistent with New Zealand’s obligations under ILO Convention 98 and could result in an investigation by the ILO for breach of a fundamental convention?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: No not at all but in a couple of weeks I am going with my new “bestie” Helen Kelly to the ILO in Geneva and we will be able to ask it then what it thinks.Budget 2013—Home Insulation11.KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to theMinister of Energy and Resources: What recent announcements have been made about home insulation for those most in need?Hon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Energy and Resources): That is a much better question. As part of the Budget this year I announced $100 million of funding over 3 years to the new Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes programme. In conjunction with third-party funding Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes will target low-income households for home insulation particularly those families with children and high health needs and will insulate at least 46000 homes at no cost to the households.Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How does this new programme build on the success of Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart?Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart has been a game-changer. By the time the programme ends later this year 230000 homes will have been insulated. Through the scheme the Government has helped create awareness about the benefits of insulation. Most New Zealanders now understand that insulated homes are healthier and easier to heat.Māori Economic Development—Minister’s Statements12.RINO TIRIKATENE (Labour—Te Tai Tonga) on behalf ofHon SHANE JONES (Labour) to theMinister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Māori Economic Taskforce that “These developments led to immediate outcomes that have supported whānau through the recession. They have also laid a foundation for the long-term growth of Māori business work force and communities”; if so why?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Yes most definitely. The work of the task force has resulted in a number of demonstrable successes. Importantly without these types of interventions whānau and Māori businesses would undoubtedly have been worse off through difficult economic times.Rino Tirikatene: How can he stand by that statement when the median income for Māori was 93 percent of the overall median income in 2008 and has now in 2013 fallen to 85 percent of the overall median income?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The good news is—and it is not that good—that there has been a decrease in the last quarter in the rate of unemployed Māori both Māori youth by 2 percent and general Māori by 1 percent. But you know none of us enjoy this low rate and clearly the country has to do more about it.Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was about median incomes. That was not referred to. What was referred to was—Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to ask the question again.Rino Tirikatene: Certainly. How can he stand by that statement when the median income for Māori was 93 percent of the overall median income in 2008 and has now in 2013 fallen to 85 percent of the overall median income?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Despite the ventures that we have created—in export for Māori trade training and helping homes that are in poverty—this is the situation that exists. It is not good; none of us like it but it is the reality. We are always the first off last on. So this is what happens. While everything else grows Māori come last.Rino Tirikatene: Why is he claiming that whānau have been supported through the recession when in the Te Tai Rāwhiti - Tūranga region and across Ngāti Kahungunu weekly real per capita income for Māori has fallen by 14 percent while real per capita income for non-Māori has increased by 3 percent?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: It is very lucky that it has not fallen further. But because of our interventions it is in a better state. For example trade training Māra Kai Warm Up New Zealand: Healthy Homes cadetships marae—these are all things that we have put into place to take care of these things. We have increased Māori business exports and when you do that the money trickles back to the hapū and the iwi—Hon Members: Oh no!Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Oh yes! Take the honey contract that has gone to China. It is produced by the people along the river along the villages and they get the benefits of that when it comes in—[Interruption] No this is the reality. You have got to increase the economic trade as well as the imports to develop more trade in order to make it work.Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order is simply this: first of all we have had a long explanation of why things are not happening; then he started to blame you.Mr SPEAKER: The answer was certainly long enough. The Minister was asked what initiatives have supported whānau etc. and he gave adequate examples.Rino Tirikatene: Does he support the target of his Government colleague Steven Joyce to raise median incomes for Māori to that of the overall population by 2040; if so does he think that 200 years since the signing of te Tiriti is an acceptable time frame for Māori to achieve parity in this country?Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Absolutely and that is why we have created He Toki ki te Rika as well as He Kai Kei Aku Ringa—both of those. The first person to start things down in Christchurch was from the Māori Party where we gathered all the builders together and Ngāi Tahu Te Puni Kōkiri and all those for He Toki ki te Rika. In addition to that now we have He Kai Kei Aku Ringa and that is a joint venture between Māori and the Crown to develop initiatives based on education and everything else to increase Māori productivity. If you do not do that you ain’t going to succeed. You cannot just pick out one thing. And so education becomes a very important arm of that development.Urgent Debates DeclinedSpring Hill Corrections Facility—RiotMr SPEAKER: I have received a letter from David Clendon seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the riot that occurred on Saturday 1 June at Spring Hill Corrections Facility. The occasion of the riot is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. The test for whether a particular matter requires the immediate attention of the House is a very high one and the fact that the Budget debate is before the House means that there is another means by which the House can discuss the matter. The purpose of an urgent debate is to hold the Government accountable for its decisions. Working through the riot’s underlying causes will take time. Resolution of the wider matters the member raises in an application is important for public confidencein the prison system but I am not convinced that I would be justified in setting aside the business of the House today. The application is therefore declined.Urgent DebatesTeachers and Support Staff Payroll—Ministerial Inquiry into Novopay SystemMr SPEAKER: I have also received letters from Metiria Turei and Chris Hipkins seeking to debate under Standing Order 386 the findings of the ministerial inquiry into the Novopay school payroll system. The release of the inquiry report is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. Although the Budget debate is ongoing the significance of the findings and the urgent need to restore public trust and confidence in the education sector are sufficient reasons to warrant the attention of the House today by way of an urgent debate. As Metiria Turei’s application was received first I call on Metiria Turei to move that the House take note of an urgent matter of public importance.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): I moveThat the House take note of a matter of urgent public importance. This Government has a habit of making its officials take the knocks for its decisions. We saw that when it apparently vindicated itself over Skycity blaming the officials for not giving it enough information and we are seeing exactly the same here: a Minister who has no idea what is going on in her own ministry who is prepared to rely on advice without questioning any of it reasonably when she makes her decisions and who is then found to have managed it so appallingly that she had to give it over to another Minister who also cannot handle it. And this is a deal—this Novopay deal—worth tens of millions of dollars.What do we find in this report theReport of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Novopay Project from Maarten Wevers? Well I can certainly say that the public are tired of Ministers pretending that they have no responsibility for asking the right questions over these enormous projects that not only cost millions and millions of New Zealand taxpayers’ dollars but have significant implications for families and for teachers and schools and that is what we have seen. It has been teachers and schools who have paid the cost of the failure of Minister Hekia Parata and the roll-out of Novopay. Although it has to be said the Novopay inquiry does highlight some of the failures from officials it certainly does not vindicate Ministers as they would like to say. If it did why then did Maarten Wevers find that the “creation of a dedicated ministerial portfolio for Novopay and the appointment of a new Acting Secretary gave the sharper focus for addressing the issues and improved the key relationships.”? He said that because the fact is that when Novopay was in the hands of Hekia Parata there was no sharp focus on the issues there was no interest in improving the key relationships and there certainly was not any commitment to making sure that when Novopay was brought in it would be a system that would work for families for schools and for teachers.When this fiasco was in full boil Hekia Parata was in charge along with a woman with whom we now know Hekia Parata had a pathological problem communicating and that was Lesley Longstone. Is it any wonder that Wevers found that key questions around the finance were not asked by the Minister by other Ministers related in that portfolio or by their officials and that the decisions were rushed through without proper oversight without listening to all the warnings from teachers and from payroll workers who said that they did not trust the system to work because they were having to deal with the consequences of it? The context was a ministry overseen by a Minister who we now know is incapable of listening. We know that this report shows how that kind of attitude can infect a whole workplace and how information just will not flow freely when you simply cannot trust a Minister to deal with that information effectively.Ministers can blame officials for not giving them good advice in the crucial 5 June report to Parata English and Foss but the inquiry found that there were concerns in that 5 June report that were so obvious that most of us are now left wondering why they were not picked up on by Ministers. Did they not bother to read that report? Although the officials reported that they were ready to go live and they did not think that there were any outstanding issues in that 5 June report they also pointed to two criteria that were not being met and they described elsewhere in the report that some criteria were only “close to being met.” With the stability of the entire education system at risk and with the fortnightly pay of hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders at risk why did these Ministers Parata English and Foss not just ask a few key questions? Why did they not say to officials: “Go and get these uncertain elements checked out first. Find out why the criteria have not been properly met.”? Wevers found that Ministers at the time were not even sure who was in charge of the project and that Ministers were having meetings with these great teams of people but were completely unclear as to who had responsibility for a multimillion-dollar IT project that affected thousands and thousands of New Zealanders and their fortnightly pay. How is that even possible? What kind of mickey mouse operation was Hekia Parata Bill English and Craig Foss—and effectively this entire National-ACT Government—running that they did not even know who was responsible for a multimillion-dollar IT project? It was like Novopay just did not exist. It was not on their radar even though it affected thousands of New Zealanders.Ministers were told back in July of 2009 of significant risks with the system and they should have been on heightened alert. We have to ask ourselves why they were so obsessed with pushing go before the system was ready to handle the problems. What kind of culture had infected the ministry that officials did not feel free to give Ministers good and honest information? What kind of culture did these Ministers create? The 5 June report—5 June was a key date according to Wevers. There was no turning back from the decisions that were made then. It was crucial that Ministers got that decision right. Ministers either did not read that 5 June report or did not read it properly. On one page the report stated that go-live was ready and there were no issues; on another page it said that there were a couple of criteria that had not been met and not a single question was asked about those criteria or about whether that advice was really accurate.We cannot blame Ministers for everything; I think that has to be said. But they do not work in a critical vacuum. They exist in this House to be accountable to the public. They exist to ask the questions of officials and to make sure when they make the final decisions they are making them with full information and with the concerns of the New Zealand public at heart particularly when you are talking about a multimillion-dollar project that affects thousands and thousands of New Zealand families. That was clearly not the case. These Ministers took their hands off the reins and left a vacuum of leadership. That is what we have seen here with Minister Hekia Parata.This project was given the go-ahead by this Government at a time when there were very serious concerns about its ability to go live. As a result we have had more than 12 months now of families not being paid and people being overpaid and chased by debt collectors. Schools have had to fork out their own money to make sure that their teachers and employees were being paid. We have had schools having to use the money that would otherwise be used for the education of our kids to fix up to patch up the mistakes made by this Government and by Ministers who did not bother to care enough to make sure that they looked at the papers properly. The families in this country are the ones who have borne the price of the neglect by these Ministers Parata English and Foss. They owe it to them.In fact even the money that this Government has allocated to schools to help cover the costs we know does not cover the costs. We know that schools have lost workers particularly payroll workers who were extremely important and long-time employees of those schools because of the harm that was caused by Parata English and Foss. Those Ministers led those schools to be existing in extreme stress for months and months on end just for the basics just because they wanted to make sure that their teachers and their workers were being paid their wages.This Government clearly has a problem with workers or it would not have put New Zealand workers at such risk with such neglect and such complete lack of consideration for the people who are being affected by their decision so much so that they did not even bother to read the papers and make sure that they had the right information to make the right decision.Hon Member: They don’t like teachers.METIRIA TUREI: They do not like teachers. I think that is right. I think we have seen that in the way this whole education portfolio has played out. The effect of that has been that for many many families many many teachers and their kids they have had real difficulty paying their bills and have borne real financial costs because of this debacle. These Ministers owe the country an explicit and very clear apology for their consistent and persistent failures over this issue. The Government has tried to make things easier and has been trying to improve the system but there is still no certainty for schools and for teachers as to when the system will work effectively and properly as it is supposed to. We know that more and more millions are being poured into the Novopay system to try to patch it up. That is millions of dollars that are not going to the education of our kids because it is going to patch up the IT mistakes that Novopay and Talent2 made in their process and that the Ministers allowed them to proceed with.This apology needs to be made explicitly and immediately to the teachers to the students and to the schools for the hugely destabilising effect that these decisions have had on them. They need to admit that it was a fiasco that prudent ministerial oversight could have been avoided and heads need to roll. We have previously called for the Minister Hekia Parata to be sacked for both this debacle over Novopay and the Christchurch schools debacle and the persistent failures in her management of her portfolio. This report is a clear example this report from Maarten Wevers and others that she can be held responsible for the decision to go live for the failure to get proper advice from officials to ask the important questions and to make the right decisions. The only genuinely respectable action that Hekia Parata can now make is to step down as Minister as part of her apology to schools to teachers and to families for the debacle that she has created. Thank you.Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister responsible for Novopay): Today was the day theReport of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Novopay Project was released. Unlike what the Greens have just said in that last speech where they seek to blame the Ministers the point of the report I think is clearly that there is blame to go around for all parties and sadly nobody has acquitted themselves with great distinction in the introduction of this project. There is a bigger question actually because this is not the first information and communications technology project that has had issues. In fact it is not the first information and communications technology project with the education payroll that has had issues. In fact you can go back to the mid-1990s and the introduction of a payroll under another company’s name where there was again an inquiry this time by the head of the Ministry of Education about concerns in the way that that particular programme was introduced. The net result was that a number of changes were made and it was thought that these things would not happen again. So rather than just leaping to the political conclusion that the Greens seek to leap to and nodoubt other members of the Opposition as well it is important to take the time to at least read a few pages of the report and ask yourself what actually went wrong here.Sadly what went wrong was that in a number of ways the people whom the public should be able to rely on—some of the staff some of the suppliers—in this instance were not able to or did not fully perform their role well. The problems with Novopay as the report notes have affected public trust and confidence in the Ministry of Education and of course also in the wider public sector. The report identifies weaknesses in project governance and project leadership that allowed the system to go live with a number of significant risks that the ministry and its vendors including Talent2 were in the words of the inquiry “over-confident of managing.” These risks as we now know resulted in service issues that the ministry and Talent2 were unprepared for and they were overwhelmed by their nature and scale.The report goes into the history of what happened in the whole saga and it goes back many years right the way to 2005 and earlier. It makes the observation that New Zealand’s school payroll is very complex. It compares it with the health sector payroll. But it is also very complex with some very unique elements to it. As a result there was extensive customisation of the Novopay software. The ministry notes there was a failure by the ministry to involve the users of the Novopay system in the schools and appreciate their requirements. So those two things alone indicate some of the difficulties that you can see happen in these situations when the project that was set up did not first seek to simplify its business processes and did not stay close enough to the users of the system.Probably one of the biggest issues was the lack of accountability for independent quality assurance. Ministers were entitled to expect that the quality assurance processes that the State sector has would have applied in this case and unfortunately despite assurances that they did this was not the case. The result is that Ministers were not well served by the information they were given on the project. The report notes that reporting to Ministers was “inconsistent … unduly optimistic and sometimes misrepresented the situation.” I think it would be important to quote in light of what Ms Turei has just said what was said in regard to the June 2012 document. This is on page 88 of the report. It says: “We were particularly concerned about the 5 June 2012 document which invited Ministers to approve the Ministry’s Go Live decision. This report misrepresented the situation in two significant ways. It suggested that the Go Live decision was supported by three members of the ICT Council which was not the case; and it stated that Confidence Point Two criteria had been met when in fact a number either had not been met or were ‘deemed’ to have been met (a lower criterion). These factors overrepresented project readiness and its chance of success.” That was the paper that invited Ministers to make a decision to proceed with the go-live situation with Novopay. I think it is important whenever members get up in this House to acknowledge that because irrespective of your political background it is important that Ministers are able to accept the written word of their advisers in the ministries. If you cannot do that then the Government processes break down very quickly.Overall this report makes for very sober reading. It confirms the view that there is a lot of blame to go around for the problems with the software program. It does provide a greater understanding of the level of fault between the organisations involved. It mentions the ministry at significant length. Actually you do not have to go far to know that the ministry has had issues that stretch back again for some period of time many years in fact including the period of the previous Government. The performance improvement review or PIF review for the ministry just a couple of years ago was very sobering reading indeed and unfortunately its difficulties are reflected in this report. But it is also the case of being able to rely on other advisers and I note that the primary consultancy PricewaterhouseCoopers has been mentioned in the report and the StateServices Commission and Treasury as well. So it is fair to say that nobody—none of the agencies involved and none of the organisations contracted—has come out of it very well. Of course it mentions the key supplier the Talent2 organisation which failed to meet a number of deadlines. But again even that process was fraught because it becomes apparent as you read the report that the ministry changed the specifications significantly over the period of time the project was in development.So I think there are many places where people who have perhaps already read the report online this afternoon could shake their heads and say: “This is a real problem. This is a difficulty. Why did this happen in this way?”. I think if we come back to the issue of independent quality assurance unfortunately in relation to that I think you could make the observation as I did myself earlier this afternoon at a press conference that a process of groupthink developed where there was a drawing in of those who were there to provide that independent assurance for Ministers into the project itself. The State Services Commission PricewaterhouseCoopers and others were drawn into that project—Grant Robertson: Go on. Just take a little bit of responsibility just a little bit.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —Mr Robertson and basically were not able to give that independent approach that potential to say “We should blow the whistle and not proceed necessarily with the project at this time.”Like I say these issues that the report very adequately lists bring a number of questions and lessons that need to be learnt for the future and the inquiry report lays those lessons out quite clearly for the public sector.Sue Moroney: Pretty basic.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member may say it is pretty basic but actually it is pretty basic that some of the things should have been done at the outset. Seeing as we are laying a bit of blame around the place and obviously the member seeks the desire to lay some blame those members on that side of the House who were part of some of the original decisions perhaps should have actually called for some process simplification before the process actually began instead of sitting there now today saying: “It’s nothing to do with us. Nothing actually happened when we were there.” when quite fundamentally it happened over a significant period of time.So where to from here? It is very important to address the issues that go forward. There will be some issues that arise out of this report. One of those issues will be as the Secretary for Education has announced an investigation into some employment matters. That is appropriate. There will also be other consequences of some of the recommendations in this report. More specifically there needs to be a real think forward about how to handle these projects in future. For my money one of the key parts of it is to actually go through that business process assessment—to go there and say: “Can we change and simplify some of these processes before we make a big change in an information and communications technology system in this regard?”. I think it is incumbent on every agency to go through that exercise and to encourage the Government of the day to try to make these simplifications before the process starts.For this particular system we are in the process of remediation and we have made some significant progress although nobody would say that the system is fixed at this point. We have improved dramatically the performance pay period to pay period. We now have the situation that for five out of the last six payroll periods the error rate has decreased to less than 0.5 percent of transactions which is good progress. Last week 88500 people were paid a total of $173.53 million and 29 staff were notified as being not paid. That has been reasonable progress.The second stage is of course the remediation and dealing with the backlog of issues in the system. Firstly there is the outstanding work and there have been veryvery large numbers of transactions that have to be caught up with. We are making some pretty good progress in terms of outstanding pay instructions the backlog of inquiries to the ministry and leave balances. I am hopeful that these would be back to business-as-usual levels by the end of June. However overpayments resolution is taking a longer period of time and additional work is being done into the overpayments resolution system to speed up the clearance of those issues. The next area that has to be resolved is the resolution of software defects. This last weekend a further 58 defects were closed. We are now down to 14 category 2 or very serious bugs left nine of which are targeted for closure in June. If we achieve even half of that number then we will have fewer than 10 category 2 bugs by the end of June. We are on target to achieve that.But going forward there are a number of things that now need to be addressed. Firstly usability to encourage people to use the system online is very important. Secondly the end-of-year and start-of-year issues that we had last year need to be solved. Thirdly we need to close the service gap that has been identified by schools. There has been good progress with the schools. We have done some surveys of the schools and generally they have noticed improvement. But as I said nobody including myself would say at this point that we are satisfied that the project has been satisfactorily remediated.I would like to take the opportunity once again to acknowledge the hard work being done by everybody involved in this system particularly the school administrators but also the teams of people working hard at the ministry at Talent2 and around the place to get the system back on its feet. There has been some heroic work done by any number of people involved in dealing with the challenges that this system has laid out for them. I would also like to thank for their patience—severely tried at times—the staff involved with the issues that have been apparent for individual staff members. Again they have my assurance that we are working as quickly as we can to resolve those issues.Finally I would like to take the opportunity—although I appreciate the opportunity for sober reflection may or may not be available in the House this afternoon depending on how the next speakers—Grant Robertson: I’m as sober as a judge Steven.Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —decide to take their view. No doubt Mr Robertson et al. will immediately decide to disappear back into the political cartoon that is their lives and try to lay political blame where quite clearly as set out in this report there is a much more serious issue for the whole public sector that we need to address. Perhaps it is not too much to hope that at least some of the speakers this afternoon would seek to address that issue rather than laying political blame. But for my money I know that every member of the Government is very disappointed in the outcome of this programme. I personally apologise to the teachers and administrators for the pain and suffering that has been caused to them. They again have my absolute assurance as the Minister responsible for Novopay that we are seeking to address these issues as quickly as possible and that the lessons that are contained in this report will be learnt. Thank you.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): If ever New Zealanders needed a clear example of the fact that they have a hands-off Government that is not up to the task of running the country they got it today—yet another example today—in this theReport of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Novopay Project. I will quote from page 1 the foreword to the report which says: “This state of affairs and the wider disruptions that were caused were avoidable.” This all of this this entire shambles was avoidable. Steven Joyce talked about there being plenty of blame to go around and then proceeded to try to scatter it anywhere except with the Ministers who actually made the decisionsto sign off on the Novopay project. He blamed the officials and he blamed the past Government. And of course the Government has tried to blame the schools. It has tried to blame everyone except for the three people who actually signed—put their names on the piece of paper—to say to go ahead with Novopay. Bill English Hekia Parata and Craig Foss were the three people who signed off on the implementation of Novopay and ultimately they are the ones who are responsible.It is great that Steven Joyce has apologised to all the people who have been affected by this but why on earth did it take such a long time? Why did Hekia Parata not front up and apologise? Why did Hekia Parata the Minister of Education not front up and apologise for the massive turmoil that she caused within schools? I agree with another comment made by Steven Joyce. He said that Ministers should be able to trust the advice that they receive from officials. I absolutely agree with that. But Ministers get paid $250000 a year and one of the reasons they get paid that is to test the veracity of the advice they get and to ask some difficult questions. When officials give advice that is inconsistent as was clearly the case here it is up to the Ministers to say: “This advice is not good enough and I want better.” They did not do that.They got given advice that said in the same report that the milestones had been met and that the milestones had not been met. And that was signed off by three Ministers. I can tell you now that if that sort of advice were given to me as a Minister I would not sign it off. I would go back to the officials and the very first question I would ask them is: “Well which is it? Were the milestones met or were they not?”. Apparently that was too difficult for Bill English Hekia Parata and Craig Foss—three senior Government Ministers and not one of them was able to spot the inconsistency in that report from their officials. Not one of them turned round and said: “I’m not satisfied with this advice. I want more information.” Not one of them thought to ask: “Has this actually been tested? Have we actually got some results to show whether this is going to work or not?”. Not one of those three Ministers asked for that advice. Had they done so we would not be here having this debate because it was abundantly clear before Novopay went live that it was not going to work and any Minister doing their job properly could have established that in a very short order of time. They did not do so. They did not live up to the expectations that the public should rightly have of them.Did they ask whether schools were involved in the development and the design of the new payroll system? Had they asked that basic fundamental question the answer that would have come back was a resounding no and all of the alarm bells should have been ringing at that point. The people who had to use the system the people who had to make it work were not actually involved in the project. Had it been tested? Did they ask that question? No they did not.There are a whole lot of questions left unanswered by this report. The report talks about the removal of the contingencies the phased roll-out and the old system running in parallel. It talks about the fact that that was removed. Well who signed that off? Who signed off the removal of those contingencies? If any Minister signed off on the removal of those contingencies they should resign immediately because the responsibility is very very clear. The report is suspiciously silent on that. There is not one word on whether the Minister has signed off on the removal of the contingencies and why not? If they did they have to go. It is as simple as that. If they signed off on the removal of the contingencies then the Ministers are responsible for the chaos that followed and the blame for that rests squarely on their shoulders and nobody else’s. They can blame officials they can blame previous Governments they can blame the schools but the Ministers were the ones who signed off on the implementation. The Ministers are the ones who should accept the responsibility for that.There were known faults—multiple known faults—with the system. There was clear evidence that even if the system was ready the sector was not ready for the implementation of it and yet it was still signed off anyway. The report finds and I will quote directly that “levels of trust between the Ministry and the sector that were necessary to ensure the success of the project were not always evident.” Well goodness me! That is the understatement of the decade. There is very little trust between the Ministry of Education and the entire educational community. The responsibility for that rests with Ministers as well because the Ministry of Education is ultimately left with the task of implementing the policy agenda of this Government and it is the policy agenda of this Government that has resulted in the massive breakdown in relationships between the Ministry of Education and just about everybody who has to actually implement the policies that the Government is trying to ram through. Whether they be national standards charter schools performance pay for teachers and all of those other things that this Government talks about all of the time those things have contributed to this breakdown in relationship and clearly that has had an impact on this project as well.So what is the Government going to do next? What happens now? Well there are some interesting comments in the report. It talks about removing unnecessary practices—i.e. banking staffing. Is that not interesting? Basically what it is going to do is take away the ability of schools to keep and retain and use any underspend in their staffing allocations. Basically this is another Bill English clawback—ripping more resources out of schools ripping more money and more staffing away from schools. This is how it will make up for its failed experiment with bigger class sizes—by removing banking staffing. What does banking staffing do? It allows schools if they do not use up all of their staffing within the period that they have been allocated to roll it forward. The Government wants to take that away and it wants to use its Novopay shambles as the excuse for taking away banking staffing. It also talks about reducing the complexity of collective employment agreements.Hon Members: Ah!CHRIS HIPKINS: Ah now here we go. Performance pay is on the way. It is now going to reduce the complexity of the collective agreements and we can expect to see this Government trying to ram through major changes to the way teachers and those working in schools are paid. This report is all part of the Government’s plan to change—[Bell rung] Oh that is the second 2-minute bell Mr Assistant Speaker. That is very good; I am just getting warmed up. The Government is going to use this as an excuse to ram through changes not just to the payroll system but to the collective agreements and the very nature of teachers’ employment and that is so totally wrong.Ultimately what people wanted from Steven Joyce—an apology was good—was for him to stand up and say that he accepts that the Government made a mistake the Government should not have signed off the implementation of Novopay and yes this National Government accepts responsibility. And no nobody heard that from Steven Joyce today and they have not heard that all the way through this debacle which has been now going on since August of last year. It has been going on since August and still the Government tiptoes around the edges and tries to shed the blame elsewhere. Steven Joyce even had the audacity to try to shed the blame on to the previous Labour Government yet that was actually one of the few positive findings—that the original procurement of the payroll system was actually OK. That was the bit of it that was all right.It became a shambles when Hekia Parata and Bill English and Craig Foss got involved. They were the Ministers who signed off on the go-live decision. I am looking forward to Craig Foss’ contribution because I have seen him taking extensive notes during this debate. As he is the person responsible for signing it off I look forward tohim standing up and apologising to schools apologising to teachers and to support staff—because it is not just teachers it is all the other staff who work in schools who have been affected by this. In particular I want Craig Foss to stand up and say that he is sorry for trying to blame the schools because when the system first went live and all of those problems came up Craig Foss came to this House and tried to blame the schools. He needs to stand up now take a call in this debate and give them an unqualified unreserved apology because he was totally wrong. The responsibility for this fiasco rests with him.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Assistant Speaker. This would be a comedy of errors if it was not so serious. This is not funny and it is a shame to have Ministers stand up in this House and as has been said several times already pass the buck. They passed the buck to officials. They passed the buck to the Labour Government. They passed the buck to school staff. I think that was the lowest lowest part of this conversation. Part of the problem has been that this was a money-saving exercise. We have not seen the end of it yet. I agree with my counterpart Mr Hipkins that this is the third time or fourth time that Mr Joyce has mentioned the complexity of the pay scale structure inside our schools. Can I just say that when an IT system is developed the machines serve us. The machines are supposed to serve us. We are not supposed to change how we do something to make it easier for the machine. When we move to that part of the world then I hope I am not in it.So one of the suggestions at the beginning of this process was that it was actually the front-line payroll staff who were too dim to actually input the data correctly. Not only was no training offered to payroll staff not only did they then halfway through this process show up to training and have to teach the Talent2 people what they were doing but the suggestion was made in this House by an elected Minister that it was payroll staff who were the problem. Yet ultimately the reason why a Minister stands and answers questions as the Minister responsible is that they are responsible. The buck stops there. That is why they get paid all those bucks. The buck stops there.When I first stood for election one of the things I said in a public meeting was to elect somebody who reads the stuff. Elect people who read the documents that they are going to make decisions on. Then elect a person who when they do not understand something that is written in those documents has the courage to ask: “What does that mean?”. Elect someone who has the courage to say as a Minister: “Explain this to me again. That doesn’t make sense to me. Bring in somebody else who can make this clear to me.” At the end of the day this is ministerial responsibility. There are Ministers here who need to take responsibility. They need to do that for the New Zealand public and they need to do that for the staff who have been insulted through this process. They need to do that for the staff who are like the young first-year teacher down in Tauranga who lost her flat and had to move back in with her mum and dad because she did not get paid for the whole first 6 months of this year. Ministers need to take responsibility for the staff member who has a $17000 accumulation of overpayments sitting over here waiting for the debt collector to bang on his door while his wife has not been paid for 3 months. The Ministers need to take responsibility for that stress. It is very easy to do that and to say: “It was my call and I was wrong. I was wrong. I apologise. I am sorry.” We did not hear Mr Joyce say sorry. We heard Mr Joyce say thank you. He said: “Thank you for your patience. Thank you for your time. Thank you to all the people working hard behind the scenes to put the patches on.” But we did not hear him say sorry. We have not heard an unconditional apology from anybody. I know it is the hardest word to say but it actually gets you the furthest along the track and that is all the staff want.This Government is exceptionally lucky that teachers love children and love their jobs and are committed to their work because any other industry would have walked off. Any other industry would have thrown it in and said: “Until you pay us properly we’re not going to do this any more.” But these people did not do that. These citizens stayed in the classroom and all they ask for now is first for somebody to take responsibility and truly say sorry; secondly that you do not muck around with their payroll system until you get this one right; and thirdly they want recognition that it is still broken. The bank staffing which Mr Hipkins referred to is not going to wash out for another 12 months. When the headlines over this issue have gone it will be another 12 months before schools may have to end up fronting with cash to the ministry because of the payroll stuff-up around this and the ministry will have to take it from their operations grant.There are several several things wrong with what has gone on and we know it and we need to move on and we need to move forward. But there is obviously something wrong with the relationship between the Ministers involved here and the ministry and that is probably more serious. If the ministry does not feel confident or brave enough to say to the Minister that “This is wrong and we can’t do this any more.” and that “Yes we’ve spent $10 million but to spend another $23.9 million trying to patch up a system that is terribly broken would be a mistake.” then we have got an issue. The Minister must allow people to come into his or her office and give him or her the truth. Whichever Minister it is must be able to let those officials come in and provide the truth even when it is bad news. Then we need to take the steps to make it right for the mass for the citizens inside our schools.There are many recommendations inside the report and it will take some time to digest. I hope that most of the recommendations will be listened to but I would strongly urge the Minister who now has oversight for this issue to please talk with the sector stop fixing it away from them stop siloing it off and actually go and see them and have them input into the solutions. Do not use it as a doorway to change the pay scales. Do not use it as a doorway to save more money. Do not use it as a doorway to change anything else because you do not have a lot of—I beg your pardon Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister does not have a lot of trust now and any attempt to change the structure of pay to hide what are actually fundamental errors with a base computer system will do nothing to restore it. We have patch upon patch upon patch on this program. So even when we fix all the backlog problems and we are running at say only about 23 errors per pay period it is full of patches. We are going to have to do this all again. This is not a clean program. This is not going to be the end of the issue. We now have a base program with several errors that is being patched over the top. It is not the best practice when it comes to an IT system and I would suggest that in the next 5 years we are going to be looking at another one.Hon CRAIG FOSS (Minister of Commerce): I agree with and endorse and join with Mr Joyce when he apologised and I apologise to all those who have suffered through the unfortunate outcomes from the way in which Novopay has played out over recent months—albeit it has got quite a bit better in recent months—and the issues that have been of major concern over recent months. School staff support staff boards of trustees principals—you name it—have suffered because of what this report released today points to.I will not get political as one or two members have done but what I would like to do is just point out some of the facts in the report and actually let the report speak for itself. I do acknowledge members around the House not questioning those who produced the report and I join them in respect of the professionalism and standing of the people who were in charge of it. Just a couple of things—for example on page 79 under the section“Leadership—The Secretary for Education”. I will quote the first sentence: “The two former Secretaries for Education told us that they were clear that final accountability for the Novopay project lay with them.” That is quite clear. Yes Ministers have responsibilities; of course they do. But Ministers—those who have been in a ministerial role or in a ministerial office—know that Ministers rely on the advice that they get from officials in response to questions asked reports required Cabinet guidelines etc. Perhaps as this report shows unfortunately at least in this instance that has not been able to be relied upon.I will just make a quote again. On page 88 which is one of the findings it quite simply says in bullet point one: “Ministers were not always well served by the quality of advice about the project from the Ministry.” And then there are points two three and four and Mr Joyce read out point four particularly in relation to the 5 June 2012 report which essentially recommended that Ministers sign off on the go-live. The assumption of course was that that advice rested on robust governance internal audit monitoring fairness robustness transparency peer-reviewed testing and reporting and quality control—and no unintended perhaps conflicts of interest and not being captured by processes that in fact started in 2003 as members do I think know. The timeline is very interesting. About eight or nine Ministers have been involved in this Novopay system. So the assumption that advice rests on robust public service ethos is perhaps a fair assumption. Not just in education but across Government across Cabinet and across Governments the advice of professional well-meaning public servants is relied upon and used every single day. Unfortunately the report here outlines some instances where that does not seem to have been the case and the Acting Secretary for Education Mr Peter Hughes is investigating those matters right now.I do note that the Acting Secretary has also just put out a press release and I do want to take a couple of quotes from that. Essentially what it does say is: “The acting Secretary for Education Peter Hughes says he accepts in full all of the findings and recommendations of the Ministerial Inquiry that relate to the Ministry.” Further down where he is talking about the system not just since go-live but the bits leading up to go-live and the system as a whole he goes: “In the end those efforts fell well short. The Ministry did not have the capacity—skills processes and governance—for a project of this scale and complexity. There was not enough oversight from the leadership.” He repeats: “Government Ministers were not served well by some of the advice and reporting they received and that is unacceptable. I have apologised to them.” I accept that apology of course and as Mr Joyce and other speakers have noted the system is running much better now perhaps now where it was intended to be—albeit there were the problems with implementation.But sadly many agencies mentioned in the report both Government and outside of Government have in various ways and forms somehow been captured by the changes. The customisation contracts not being finalised and schedules customisation have been captured by that. All that has led up to advice that is not robust and perhaps misrepresented advice being given to Ministers which led to them making the recommendation to their colleagues to pick up on the ministry’s advice and to go live. So I repeat as unfortunate—and I do generally apologise for all of those—as the angst—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Your time has expired.Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I was listening from my room and then I came into the House and it might have happened in the minute or so that it took me to come down but I think that that member Craig Foss did not apologise. He did not say sorry. He was the Minister in charge of the project—the Minister responsible for Novopay—he was the Minister who did not ask the questions thatneeded to be asked and he was the Minister who was not getting the weekly reports that he should have been getting. He is sitting behind the Minister of Education and it is hard to tell whether she did it deliberately or not but someone did not do their job.It is no good whatsoever as is made clear to everyone who has studied Westminster democracy to say that it is the fault of the officials. You are to blame Minister. The Minister is to blame and in this case the two Ministers are the ones—Chris Hipkins: And Bill English.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —and Bill English but Bill English is to blame for a lot more than that. Hekia Parata’s job was to make sure that she had systems set up within her ministry whereby she got at least weekly reports on at-risk projects. Did she do that? No she did not. That Minister does not even get proper weekly reports on her area of responsibility. And I sort of wonder why we pay her a quarter of a million dollars a year when—Dr Megan Woods: Clothes.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well you know when that is appropriate it is appropriate. But in this case we have a Minister being paid a quarter of a million dollars a year she has the highest-risk project going on in education—something that involves the payment of teachers—and did she ask them a single question before she signed the paper?Hon Hekia Parata: Yes many times—many times.Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Did she ask—Chris Hipkins: “Many times.” She said “Many times.”Hon TREVOR MALLARD: She said she asked questions many times. Well clearly as is made clear in the report there were issues at the time she signed off the go. She signed off the go not the officials. She signed—and she is nodding; she agrees that it is her responsibility. Well have we heard an apology from her for being an inadequate Minister who does not know how to ask a question? What is the point of having officials and blaming them? You might as well abolish the ministry if she is going to be run by officials—although that I understand is the approach that she prefers to take. Hard work and Hekia Parata do not go in the same sentence.That Minister Craig Foss used to have potential. Craig Foss at one stage was seen in the same class as John Key. He was brought into the party by Brash Boag and that team apparently for the difference that he was going to make. What a disappointment he has been—what a disappointment he has been. One would have thought that someone with some business experience would not just sign the paper that was put in front of him. Frankly under Helen Clark both those Ministers would have been gone. Both those Ministers would have had the sack. They would have been out of Cabinet because they just did not do their jobs.Nothing can be worse for people—maybe those people over there do not understand it. People who are lords and ladies and rich former business people do not care about income and wages but most New Zealanders do. Most New Zealanders care about getting their pay and not only the teachers but the support staff in schools. The members opposite might think that payroll is not that important because it is not that important to them and it is not that important to their funders and to their mates. This is a classic case of those members getting too close to the people who have things and not understanding people who do not. If those members did understand how important pay was how important salary was how important wages were to ordinary New Zealanders they would have made sure that they read the papers that were put in front of them that they took the warnings that they asked the questions and that they did their jobs properly. But instead we have over there two very guilty Ministers—Ministers who do not do their work. I do not know whether it is ignorance or laziness. I really do notknow whether Hekia Parata is as silly as she pretends to be or whether Craig Foss is as lazy as he pretends to be. It does not really matter whether it is laziness—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! Your time has concluded.Dr CAM CALDER (National): Pay period 5 has just finished and in that pay period 88524 people were paid a total of $173.55 million. The PricewaterhouseCoopers report shows that complaints and notifications were received regarding 0.39 percent of staff across the country. Twenty-nine staff were notified as not paid 115 were overpaid and 199 underpaid. Affected staff were from 234 schools or 9.5 percent of schools in the payroll system. This is obviously unacceptable. This is totally unacceptable and theReport of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Novopay Project makes sobering reading. The inquiry was undertaken by the former Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Sir Maarten Wevers and chairman of Deloitte Murray Jack. Their 113-page report contains 15 significant recommendations and was presented to the Government just last Friday. The ministerial inquiry team has produced a comprehensive report outlining the history of and issues within the school payroll system and it concludes that there were many factors over many years that contributed to the problems with Novopay.I understand that Peter Hughes the Acting Secretary for Education has written today to all school principals and board chairs to personally apologise to them. He has also written an open letter of apology to all staff in schools. I personally as a foot soldier in the National Government someone passionate about education and chairman of the Education and Science Committee express my sincere regret to all staff members who do an outstanding job throughout the country. Of course these problems have made their task a lot lot more difficult. We acknowledge that and the Government will be acting upon these findings.What were some of the key findings? Some of the key findings were to do with the project life cycle: “The schools payroll environment is overly complex as a result of an accumulation of historical changes. There was no serious attempt to simplify collective agreements or Ministry or school business processes before embarking on the Novopay project.”—the retrospectoscope is a hugely useful instrument in medicine and so it is in this instance—“This was an underlying cause of later problems. The strategic decision to change from purchasing software to an outsourced service was valid but the rationale was simplistic. Customers’ perspectives particularly those of the boards of trustees”—and I acknowledge Tracey Martin who has spoken earlier—“were insufficiently considered in the business case. The Ministry’s requirements for the outsourced service as outlined in the Request for Proposal were too high level to convey the full complexity of the required solution.” So as I say it is easy to be wise after the event but these are the results of this very in-depth and comprehensive report that we have received from two very able investigators. The report continues: “The process of gathering user requirements was poorly managed and took too long. The failure to involve users appropriately was a key weakness. The Ministry was negotiating on behalf of the users in the schools sector without an appreciation of all of their requirements.”One of the points that did come out was that the papers presented on 5 June 2012 to the Ministers following the so-called “Confidence Point Two” actually misrepresented the state of the project. It was found that “Ministers were not always well served by the quality of advice about the project from the Ministry. Reporting to Ministers was inconsistent and at times unduly optimistic and sometimes misrepresented the situation. In oral briefings to Ministers officials often expressed confidence and reassured Ministers”—who were asking the questions—“that risks were in hand … We were particularly concerned about the 5 June 2012 document which invited Ministers toapprove the Ministry’s Go Live decision. This report misrepresented the situation in two significant ways. It suggested that the Go Live decision was supported by three members of the ICT Council which was not the case; and it stated that Confidence Point Two criteria had been met when in fact a number either had not been met or were ‘deemed’ to have been met (a lower criterion).”COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): I think that to start off with it will be worth making a statement—a very common and well-used statement—and that is: something that has been made crooked is hard to make straight. When we stop and think about those original decisions it is easy to be wise afterwards as has been communicated in this debate. TheReport of the Ministerial Inquiry into the Novopay Project certainly does leave us with some very strong messages. As the member for the Kaikōura electorate I want to say a special thankyou to the teachers the principals and the boards of trustees of the 36 schools that have had to endure this whole process which once it started rolling out has been an incredibly bumpy ride to say the least.The ministerial inquiry has certainly taken its toll when you stop to think that we no longer have either of the two Secretaries for Education with the Ministry of Education. The problem with Novopay has also affected the public trust and confidence in the Ministry of Education and no doubt concerns us all as it does us on this side of the House. Given the weakness of the project governance and of the project leader it is clearly evident that the governance and leadership were not adequate and that a number of significant risks with the Ministry of Education and its vendors including Talent2 showed and displayed an overconfidence in approaching this situation.I would have to say that the complexity of anything like Novopay is well beyond the member for Kaikōura. However there are people who practise these fine arts and everybody who goes to work in New Zealand expects that on a given day—a predetermined day—they will be paid. For that not to happen is a disappointment and an utter failure on the part of any employer. Whatever came at the ministry and Talent2 they were totally unprepared for it. One’s thoughts do go out to those Ministers who had oversight in the way that information was relayed back to them. How do you cut through and ask those searching questions and get into areas that are dark and dingy and that people are espousing as being ready to go?When you talk about the school payroll it is complex but that is not an excuse. In the very essence of a systems analysis complexity should have been a fundamental part of the life cycle of the development of the Novopay system. The fact that it is now extensively customised is a concern. It needs to be very quickly stabilised. It is heartening though to see that 0.5 percent or less of mistakes have been recorded over the last quarter or two. However there is a long way to go to get out of the woods. We have just got to be very very aware of the lessons that we have learnt during this miserable process. There was no overall accountability for independent quality assurance—some very fundamental failures there. The project has cost $23.9 million more than was estimated and has a total cost to date of $56.8 million.So what have we learnt? Well we have learnt that implementing a system with the complexity of Novopay—of a payroll system involved with the education system—is incredibly difficult and high risk. We on this side of the House certainly welcome this report. We offer our sincere apologies for any difficulty frustration and hardship that have come upon the fraternity of teachers boards of trustees and schools as a whole. In conclusion I would like to make the comment as quoted by the Minister responsible for Novopay: “There are substantial lessons to be learned by the Ministry of Education in a number of areas which the Acting Secretary of Education is taking steps to address.” Thank you.GRANT ROBERTSON (Deputy Leader—Labour): I think it is very important at the outset to say that this report on the Novopay system does scatter around the blame for what happened. We have had Ministers on their feet and they have talked about the problems with the Ministry of Education the problems with the State Services Commission the problems with PricewaterhouseCoopers and the problems—goodness only knows—probably inside the schools. And we have got a whole lot of blame in here about how complex it is to pay people who do not all work a 40-hour week in one place and how terribly terribly difficult all of that is. But there is something missing from this report and what is missing from this report is the acceptance of blame from the Ministers who got the 5 June report in 2012 and said “Go live”. That is what is missing from this report and that is fundamentally flawed.This report ought to share the blame across not only those officials who were working on this issue but also those Ministers who finally took the decision to go live on 5 June 2012. Those Ministers are Hekia Parata Craig Foss and Bill English. It is a fundamental principle of our Westminster system that Ministers will take responsibility for the actions of their agencies. It is unacceptable to have Ministers come down to this House and tell us that they are not going to take that responsibility. The speech that Craig Foss delivered in this House was disgraceful. He went out of his way to find quotes in the report that would mean that he did not have to take responsibility. He took a press release from Peter Hughes who says that yes the Ministry of Education is going to take its share of the responsibility and he used that so that he did not have to take responsibility. That is wrong. It is wrong for Ministers to stand up in this House and not take their share of the blame. We on this side of the House are not saying that it is just the Ministers. Of course it is not just the Ministers. But as Trevor Mallard pointed out what is the point of having a Minister or Ministers paid a quarter of a million dollars if they are not prepared to stand up in this House and say that they got this fundamentally wrong on 5 June 2012?It is important to look at the report. Mr Foss alerted us to page 88 of the report. It is actually important to look at the report and see that Ministers were briefed in May 2012 about what was happening. And in that paper that they were briefed on they were invited to consider arrangements for rapid decision-making if it became necessary to terminate Novopay. So Ministers were being told in May that things had got to such a point that it was possibly necessary to terminate the contract with Novopay. A matter of mere weeks later they received a briefing that gave contradictory advice about whether or not all the milestones for the project had been met—only weeks after being told that they might have to terminate the contract—and the Ministers said that it was all fine. They said that that was all fine and that they were going to sign it off. That is not adequate oversight by Ministers.Ministers are paid the big bucks to ask the hard questions. They are meant to ask those questions and they completely failed to do so in this case. They got a report in June that said that there were 150 software defects and 5913 payslip errors in the testing. That is just the testing—nearly 6000 errors in the testing and 150 software defects and that was just weeks after being given advice that they may need to terminate the contract. Yet all three Ministers—Hekia Parata Craig Foss and Bill English—signed it off. That is not the kind of ministerial oversight that New Zealanders would rightly expect.This was a complex process; there is no doubt about that. That should be all the more reason for Ministers to give it an even more thorough oversight than they might have but knowing these risks existed the Ministers signed it off. That is bad enough but what makes it so much worse is that the Ministers have failed to take responsibility today. We have had all kinds of faux apologies over the last few months. We have hadpeople apologising for the difficulties that have been caused and apologising for the extra work that has been put on staff. They are not real apologies. They are not apologies that say: “I am the Minister and I stuffed up. I made the wrong decision. I didn’t ask the right questions.” There has been no sign of that kind of apology up to today and no sign from Ministers who have spoken in the House today. They would much rather get the officials and throw them under the bus than actually admit their role. That is as I said a fundamental breakdown in what we call the Westminster system of Government.There is a chapter in this report called “Leadership” and it starts off by talking about the Secretary for Education. That is a flaw in this report because if we are talking about leadership then leadership comes from the Minister of Education. The Minister should be the person at the top of that section and instead what we see immediately is the term “The Secretary for Education”. There have been faults by officials in this process—quite clearly. Where is the acknowledgment of fault from the Ministers who said “Go live” in June 2012 when they were presented with contradictory evidence?I also want to pay tribute today to the school staff who have dealt with the problems that have come up from this. As most MPs in this House will have done I have been in schools in my electorate as they have tried to grapple with Novopay problems. I have seen school administrators with decades of experience reduced to tears because they could not make this system work and in the early days particularly they got the reaction from Government that it was basically their fault. That was the message. Craig Foss when he was the Associate Minister of Education was sending out the message that it was the fault of the school administrators. They deserve a proper and thorough apology from Craig Foss and the Ministers on the other side of the House because of the stress that they went through. School administrators have had to give up their jobs because of the stress—that is what has happened across New Zealand—and those staff deserve better.I also think that the teachers and the other school staff who have been affected by this deserve a tribute because they have shown up to work day in day out. It is not just the teachers; it is the support staff. It is the teacher aides who are often paid just above minimum wage who need that pay. They rely on that pay. They live week to week. They need the money. Ministers over there may not understand that but that is what was at stake here: people who need the money.When New Zealanders go to work they deserve to expect to be paid. When people go to work in New Zealand they should know two things: that they are going to come home safely after a day’s work and that they will actually get paid for their jobs. That did not happen here and that did not happen for far too long before this Government actually got up and said it was going to try to do something about it. That was the fault in leadership that should have been found in this report.It is not only in respect of 5 June that we need to look at this. I am interested by a line in the report that talks about the context in which this happened. I will quote from page 83 of the report: “The Ministry’s relationship with the schools sector has in recent times been uneasy and sometimes highly politicised.” That is what it says in the report. Where do the politics come from? The politics come from the National Government. It is the policies of the National Government that have been imposed on the sector which the sector knows are wrong and will damage educational outcomes. It is that environment of politics which has come from the Minister and this National Government that is mentioned in this report as the context in which the ministry was managing Novopay. I think that is a very interesting line and what that speaks to is that this Government should be shouldering its share of the blame for this debacle. It has failed to do that in the past and it has failed to do that today.I just want to finish—very briefly—on the point that Chris Hipkins raised about two of the recommendations. One of those is around the recommendation to modernise the collective agreements in this sector. We will be watching that like hawks because that sounds to me like more from this Government to undermine collective agreements. We will not accept this debacle being used as an excuse by this Government to undermine collective bargaining rights. There is also the idea of changing banking staffing arrangements which allows schools to accumulate hours.This Government has made a mess of this payroll system and this Government should apologise for what it has done but what it must not do is put pressure back on to schools. They have had enough from this Government they deserve better and they deserve a proper apology and some responsibility being taken for this debacle by these Ministers.Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe Mr Assistant Speaker. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in this snap debate on Novopay. I think it might be helpful if we just review what was intended by the introduction of Novopay. First of all it was intended that we have an up-to-date payroll system that would manage the complexities of over 100000 pay instructions every fortnight to a diverse workforce with different arrangements across the country. Everyone who has been involved with Novopay set about it with the best intentions. There was no one person who decided that they should get involved in this and work it so that it would be difficult; it would be a problem; it would underpay overpay or not pay teachers support staff and principals; or it would create headaches for every school administrator. That was never the intention. The intention was to have a much better payroll system driven by a very clear understanding some years ago that the payroll system that was then in place was no longer going to be capable of meeting those needs.Members in the Opposition—Labour and the Greens—seem to be under the misapprehension that somehow or another there was an intention that this would all go wrong. Nobody wanted that; nobody wants that now. There also seem to have been a number of allegations that Ministers on this side of the House have been completely culpable and unwilling to take responsibility. Again that is not true. What is clear from this very comprehensive and very thorough report that has been written by the well-respected senior experienced former public servant Sir Maarten Wevers and another very experienced businessman and adviser Mr Murray Jack is that there have been a range of people involved over the many years of this particular project. In fact if one looks at the report there are three pages about ministerial responsibilities and there are a number of Ministers who have held those responsibilities over the years beginning with the decision in 2003 and 2005 that the system needed to be replaced progressing through the signing of a contract which was done under Minister Mallard then under Minister Maharey and then Minister Carter who in fact signed off the Novopay contract with many of the schedules attached to it not yet filled out. Nevertheless again it was with the intention that a better fit for purpose payroll system would be devised and implemented that would see all of the complexities which have been much talked about dealt with and teachers principals and support staff paid.Of course our Government came in and inherited it and we have also been part of the process of design development and implementation. This report—a very thorough and comprehensive report as I said prepared by Sir Maarten Wevers and Mr Murray Jack—canvassed that very extensive history over all of that time from 10 December 1999 to the present date and as the Minister responsible for Novopay made clear when he first took over this responsibility there is absolutely enough blame to go around. It is not something that any of us celebrate on this side of the House nor should it be the case on that side of the House. What was intended was that a fit for purpose 21stcentury payroll system would be designed and delivered. Did that happen? No. We know that now we knew that comprehensively from when the system went live in August last year and we have seen a momentum of errors that have beset that system. We know that many people were underpaid overpaid or not paid and we have apologised to them and continue to apologise to them because that was never the intention. We want people paid on time and paid what they are owed in their banks as intended and we want to see that occur.Where are we now? Well significant progress has been made. We have already heard from previous speakers including the Minister responsible for Novopay that five out of the last six pay rounds have been very successful in terms of error rates. We know that we have invested more money to fix the problems and to recognise the significant contribution that has been made by school administrators in particular. We acknowledge how hard it has been for them and the call on their time and how difficult it has been for everyone embroiled in this process. We are working to get everything fixed and we are making progress. Talk about taking responsibility: we instituted a technical review and the recommendations of that are being followed through. We instituted a ministerial review and today’s debate is driven by the fact that we have a 113-page report that sets out in thorough comprehensive and transparent detail all of the issues relating to the Novopay situation. Where to from here? Well a number of findings have also been made in this report that we will be following up on because we want to get this right—we want to get this right.There have been suggestions from the Opposition that this has been an exercise in shifting blame—not at all. This report is very clear about where responsibilities have lain at different points in the process. I want to make it clear that not once—not once—in the time that I have been Minister of Education and that is almost 18 months to the day have I bagged the Ministry of Education and I do not intend to start now. Novopay has contributed significant difficulties and challenges and they are being tackled. The Acting Secretary of Education in the 4 months that he has been in place—and I would like to acknowledge and thank him for the work that he has done—has instituted a number of immediate changes seeking to ensure that the systems and processes within the Ministry of Education are robust. For instance he has put in place new governance arrangements across the ministry. He has implemented new project management arrangements and accountabilities to deliver on the Better Public Services targets and other ministerial priorities. He has put in place a new risk management approach for the ministry. He has started an end-to-end review on how we manage private and sensitive information. He has talked to a range of agencies groups and members of the sector across the sector and he has started a process of culture change in the ministry with a focus on teamwork service and flexibility.But there are also a whole lot of other things that the Ministry of Education has been doing and is doing successfully. It has focused significantly on our Better Public Services target. We have a Better Public Services target that recognises that we need to have more young learners involved in quality early learning and that we need to have more young people at and above the national standards and more young people—Chris Hipkins: Just say sorry.Hon HEKIA PARATA: —passing National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. If the member had been here in the House for the bulk of my remarks the member would know that I have canvassed all of these issues including the responsibilities that relate to all Ministers since 1999 and the decisions that have been made at different points.Chris Hipkins: Did she say sorry?Hon HEKIA PARATA: Indeed I have and I am now talking about the significant contribution that the Ministry of Education has been making is making and will continue to make across a raft of issues including how we attend to and address all of those arising out of Novopay; the challenges to the repair of relationships that must occur within and between the sector and us; and how we ensure that the sector has confidence that the system is meeting its needs. We know that that is increasingly occurring.We are focusing on fixing this because we want teachers support staff and principals paid on time. We want boards of trustees and school administrators to have all of this pressure alleviated. We want a system that works which indeed was the intention of the previous Government when it first signed off this system. All of us I believe have had the best intentions of ensuring a 21st century fit for purpose payroll system. That is what the sector deserves and that is what we are bent on providing. That is why we have this report today setting out for us not just the technical detail which we have canvassed but all of this detail here. We have lessons to learn and we are moving on with those. Thank you.The debate having concluded the motion lapsed.Budget DebateDebate resumed from 30 May on theAppropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill.Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): It is a great opportunity for me to talk about the great way that the health budget this year is dealing with the changing needs of our population thanks to the stronger financial management that the National Government has brought to the public health service. Health is again the biggest recipient of increased funding in the Budget. The total health budget this next year will be $14.65 billion including capital. When you contrast that with only 5 years ago it was $11.8 billion. So this Government has continued to invest in protecting and growing the public health service in the last 5 years. In tight world financial times when so many countries are reducing their public health spending or freezing it we are continuing to protect and grow our public health budget. In fact the OECD found that New Zealand had the third-biggest increase in public health investment of any country in the OECD in the latest available figures that it has produced. Vote Health in this Budget gets an average of around $400 million available for each year over the next 4 years to meet pressures and initiatives. That includes $350 million in new money and around $50 million in savings. It gets a lot better because we are able to use that money to invest in the changing needs of our population.Let us just have a look at some of those changing needs. We have been able to take money that we had set aside for district health board deficits and risks and because of our strong financial management we have been able to take that money—about $35 million—and put it into a heart disease and diabetes initiative. This heart disease and diabetes initiative is a very very significant boost in funding that we have announced in this year’s Budget. Why is it important? It is important because heart disease remains a leading killer of New Zealanders and similarly so many of the risk factors associated with heart disease are also associated with diabetes. We know that diabetes is a major challenge for New Zealand but what is an even more important challenge is the prevalence of pre-diabetes and what we can do as a country to deal with pre-diabetes. So in our $35.5 million funding boost for diabetes and heart disease in this Budget we are including $16 million to further increase the number of New Zealanders getting heart and diabetes checks. These heart and diabetes checks are an important preventive health target. They are important because they tell people of an age that they have gotrisk factors that may lead to them having heart disease or a heart attack or maybe having diabetes or being pre-diabetes. Once people know that they have got these risk factors once they know that they may be pre-diabetes they can then make the lifestyle changes that they need to make in order to better control their disease risk factors. So we are doing that.Secondly we are going to double the number of Green Prescriptions that doctors and nurses can give their patients. Green Prescriptions are a reference for a patient to go to a provider who can help them with more physical exercise or better nutrition. We know there are very very significant health benefits if people are more active so that is why we are going to double the number of Green Prescriptions over the next 4 years. It is a really significant investment of over $7 million. For those who have got diabetes—remember this is very much about preventing people getting diabetes; a very strong focus on pre-diabetes and prevention—we have got a number of local diabetes care improvement programmes. We are going to significantly increase that funding by about a third over the next few years in order to expand those local diabetes care programmes to provide more diabetes nursing and more podiatry services. That is dealing with heart disease and diabetes but so many of these people who have got heart disease and diabetes also have other diseases—they call them co-morbidities in health. We want to support those people to get better care from their general practitioners so we are putting $13 million into expanding the Care Plus programme which is a general practice - based programme that provides additional support to patients with long-term conditions. So you can see this is a Budget about the changing needs of our population.Similarly with aged care we know that we are ageing and we know that our country is getting a greater prevalence of dementia. The prevalence of dementia is growing at 4 to 5 percent a year. It is going to be a very very major challenge for New Zealand so in this year’s Budget we have got a very very significant investment of $70 million extra over 4 years for aged care and diabetes and a $20 million boost for home support because we think we should be supporting our older folks to stay longer in their homes if they want to and that is a $20 million boost to help those people do that. Similarly there is going to be a $12 million boost to dementia bed subsidies. What we know is that we are going to need a lot more residential facilities for people who are demented. As I said it is growing at a rate of 4 to 5 percent a year so what this will do is say to rest home providers: “We need more dementia beds. Switch on the investment signal.” This is the third year we have had a pretty significant increase in dementia bed subsidies and we are getting more of those beds.We are also going to put $2 million into dementia awareness because over the next 10 years dementia is going to affect everybody in terms of their friends families or someone whom they know who will be suffering from dementia. It is not a disease that people should be frightened of. They should be aware of the supports that are out there so we are investing $2 million to provide more dementia awareness programmes and to assist our general practitioners and our general practice teams with how they can identify dementia particularly with early detection because that can better help manage those people’s positions. Over $1 billion extra is going into training for our health care workers and there is also a $33 million increase for rest home bed subsidies across the board. We increase those subsidies every year and this is a very significant increase of $33.2 million. So that is focused on our ageing population but also on this increasing prevalence of dementia—150000 New Zealanders are projected to have dementia by 2045-50. So that is a very very very significant investment there.At the same time this Government continues to invest very strongly in preventive health and we are almost doubling our rheumatic fever programme. Members will recall that rheumatic fever became a national priority in 2001 and then that Governmentdid nothing. It made it a priority and then it did nothing other than more people got rheumatic fever. So our Government came into power and we have invested in two Budgets in a rheumatic fever programme aimed at reducing rheumatic fever in our most at-risk communities. What we know is—and even the Green Party which did not really want to admit this but in its leader’s speech on Sunday it actually talked about the fact—that where we have run this throat-swabbing in parts of the Hutt Valley we have not had one case of rheumatic fever while we have been running that programme. So we are running this programme right across the high-prevalence areas—Porirua the Bay of Plenty Rotorua the East Coast South Auckland west Auckland—and it is making a very very big difference.But of course what happens when school is not in? That is why we are investing in this Budget $11.25 million in developing sore throat drop-in clinics. One of the key messages is that one of the reasons why mums do not take their kids with a sore throat to some doctors is the time they have got to wait to be seen because mums are leading busy lives. So what we are going to fund are these sore throat drop-in clinics particularly in Porirua South Auckland and parts of west and central Auckland where parents will know that if their kid has got a sore throat and they need to be seen they can turn up at these drop-in clinics. There is no charge they can be seen straight away and they can have the throat swab taken and know whether their kid needs to get some antibiotics to deal with streptococcus A. It is a really sensible initiative. It is backed up by the $100 million investment on expanding the home insulation programme. This is a Government that acts across the life course and puts a huge investment into prevention. You know almost a quarter of a million homes were insulated under the first 4 years of our insulation programme. Another $100 million is going in particularly targeted at those high-risk homes.So this is another Budget of another year of record investment in health targeted at the areas that matter most to patients: making sure we have got a strong investment in prevention making sure that we are dealing with the changing needs of our population and making sure that our hospitals continue to provide the quality services that New Zealanders want. That is backed up by our 2000 extra nurses and our 1000 extra doctors working on the front line of New Zealand’s health services. This Government came to power with the challenge of repairing the damage of a decade of neglect wasteful spending and clinical disengagement. In the last 4½ years this John Key Government has delivered more operations faster more preventive care across the whole range of services and a health system that New Zealanders can be proud of.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am advised that the Greens wish to split their call—two 5-minute calls.DAVID CLENDON (Green): I am pleased to take the opportunity to speak in this debate on the Appropriation (2013/14 Estimates) Bill and particularly to talk about Vote Corrections—the money we are committing to spend on our prisons over the next 12 months. It is interesting to note that the amount assigned this year is in the order of $1.2 billion or $1.3 billion which is in line with what we saw last year but it is worthwhile going back 10 or 11 years when the budget for the Department of Corrections was to the tune of perhaps $460 million.Vote Corrections has increased by some 250 percent over 10 or 11 years—two and a half times more money is being spent this year than we spent a little over a decade ago. Increases of that order are not only unsustainable they are unacceptable given that one would think that the expenditure of all that extra money would be leading to better outcomes from our prison system but sadly that is not the case. We are seeing outcomes that are no better and indeed in many situations are actually worse than theywere 10 or 12 years ago. We need to ask some serious questions about why this considerable expenditure of public money is not producing better results.We saw a very graphic example this weekend just past of a corrections system in turmoil. We saw a major prison one of our newer prisons with serious fires burning and with 30-odd prisoners running amok. We saw a number of guards injured and a number of inmates injured. We saw lives put at risk—and I must take this moment to acknowledge the work of the corrections staff the firefighters the police and others who were obliged to go into harm’s way to try to settle that very unfortunate situation.You might dismiss this event as a one-off event but the outbreak of violence at Spring Hill Corrections Facility was actually one in a series of events and these events these violent outbursts are becoming much more frequent in our prison system. Going back to the middle of last year we saw two major incidents at Hawke’s Bay Regional Prison of prisoners protesting breaking out and setting fires. At Pāremoremo similarly about a year ago prisoners were barricading themselves in a tower trying to draw attention to the absence of response to their legitimate complaints. At Ngāwhā prison last year we saw several rubbish fires and damage to cells. At Rangipō prison a few months ago in March this year prisoners were protesting about poor conditions. In April this year we saw two incidents: one was when prisoners were fighting amongst themselves and then there was an assault on guards a few days later. Two weeks ago there was a serious stabbing at Pāremoremo and now we have had a major riot at Spring Hill.These are not isolated incidents; these are indicative of a system in turmoil. We are spending a great deal of money but we are not getting good outcomes. A lot of the reason for that can be sheeted home to the general culture the attitude over the previous two decades. There is more and more of a punitive culture in our prisons. There is much more of this nonsensical political contest to be seen as being tough on crime which actually means being tough on our communities because ultimately inmates in our prisons with very few exceptions are returned to the wider society. To the extent that we treat inmates poorly do not respect their human rights and do not provide humane conditions in our prisons inevitably we will see the knock-on effect of that when these people come back into our communities brutalised dehumanised paranoid and wanting to strike back at the system that has struck them.We need to do a great deal better. The money assigned in this Budget is sufficient to do better. We do not need to spend more money; we need to spend it differently.There is one obvious place to spend that—there is one safety valve in our prisons one opportunity for prisoners to attempt to have their rights and their conditions respected and that is the complaints process. We know the complaints procedure which is an internal process managed within the corrections department is failing badly. We are seeing too many complaints going directly to the Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsmen is being overwhelmed with quite low level prisoner complaints because there is no confidence within the prisons and within the families. Those who know what is happening in our prisons know that the internal complaints system is failing. The Ombudsman is being over burdened. That would be one very good place to start making a difference to get a system that works.HOLLY WALKER (Green): I would like to focus my attention in this short call in the Budget debate on the issue of housing which is indeed an issue that has dominated much of the coverage and debate of this year’s Budget. I guess to start on a positive note the Government does deserve to be congratulated—in the sense that it has finally cottoned on to the fact that we do have an affordable housing crisis in New Zealand. I must say it took it long enough. As we know this affordable housing crisis is absolutely the worst in Auckland where the average house price last year was $735000. That isthe average price to buy a new home in Auckland and that increased 12 percent in the last calendar year alone. So any time you hear the Minister of Housing crowing about low interest rates and how affordable housing is I would just remind you of that figure. Not only that but in Auckland it takes a staggering 71 percent of the average take-home pay to service the mortgage on a house that is priced in the first quartile. That is this house is one of the cheapest quarter of houses in Auckland and it takes 71 percent of the average income to service the mortgage on that house. When we talk about housing affordability anything over 30 percent of your income spent on housing is considered to put you in housing stress and for that house to be severely unaffordable. We have a situation in Auckland where it takes 71 percent of the average take-home pay to service the mortgage on one of the cheapest houses in the market. So that is your crisis for you and it is a pretty severe one.Well the problem is supply and demand right? We know that in Auckland we need about 13000 new dwellings to be consented each year. We have been averaging only about 3000 so it is no surprise that we have a severe housing crisis in Auckland. It is worst in Auckland but it is actually bad everywhere. That equivalent figure for the national average in New Zealand is that it takes 49 percent of the average take-home income to service a mortgage on a lower-quartile house. So again remembering that anything over 30 percent is severely unaffordable and puts a household in housing stress we have got a problem across the whole of the country. In places like the Central Otago lakes Nelson and Marlborough Wellington and Waikato that problem is elevated above the national average so we have a major problem.What we have seen from the Government in terms of solutions is the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill which I look forward to beginning to hear the submissions on in the Social Services Committee tomorrow. In recognition of the fact that the housing crisis is worst in Auckland this bill is effectively giving effect to the Auckland Housing Accord that the Government reached with Auckland Council earlier this year. That might be all right if that was all that it did. Clearly it has spoken with the council in Auckland it has identified the problem there it believes it has identified a solution to it and it has brought some legislation to the House to deal with it. Unfortunately the legislation does not deal with the issue just in Auckland it actually applies to the whole country. Not only that but Auckland Council itself because it was not consulted on the drafting of the legislation once it saw it actually found that there were inconsistencies between the legislation and the accord that it thought it had signed up to with the Government.But there are serious problems with the models that are proposed in the Housing Accords and Special Housing Areas Bill. First of all it is based on the idea that the development at Hobsonville Point is the answer to affordable housing in Auckland. Given that the so-called affordable houses at Hobsonville Point cost either just over $400000 or $485000 which is not affordable for most people that is not a great model to base it on. There is also no guaranteed percentage of affordable homes in the new special housing areas that are going to be created and they override local democracy. Those other regions that I mentioned where housing affordability is also a problem had better watch out because the Government is coming to create special housing areas in their region whether they like it or not. All the power is with the Minister and if they cannot negotiate an accord with the Minister he can just put a special housing area in place regardless of whether the local council actually agrees overriding both the Resource Management Act and the local democracy for that area. And remember at the end of all of that there is absolutely no guarantee in that special housing area that a percentage of those houses that will be provided will actually be affordable for the New Zealanders who are in severe housing stress at the moment. So congratulations to theGovernment on identifying a problem—it is a shame that none of the measures do anything at all to address it.JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth): I am very pleased to stand and speak on this debate on Budget 2013 a Budget that keeps us on course in a consistent and a steady way. I recall the comments of the chief executive of the Tātua dairy company who said that consistent is good predictability is even better. I think that we have produced a Budget that certainly the business community and consequently I think families and industry around this country can rely on. I think that has been par for the course under Bill English our finance Minister who over this last number of years has enabled this country to be seen as a standout country amongst many economies around the world because of our solid track record and where we are going with this economy. We are right on track. We are delivering what we said we would.I think that today is a very hard day for the Opposition which is having to throw up all sorts of objections and criticisms when we know that so many things are going right. It is to do with the leadership the vision the stability and the safe pair of hands that we have in our Minister of Finance as well as our Cabinet colleagues.We have the lowest mortgage rates since 1965 after-tax wages have increased 22 percent since September 2008 and we know the cost of living increases have been their lowest since 1999. This is good news for New Zealanders. It is not just statistics and information coming out from the Government benches; this is what Statistics New Zealand says. Just over a month ago it reported that grocery food prices for the year ended April 2013 decreased—that means they went backwards went down became more affordable for New Zealanders—in the last year. Fresh milk went down 7.4 percent. I can remember that before the last election in the Commerce Committee there was such a hue and cry for an inquiry on the price of milk because everybody thought it was out of control and that we were paying huge international prices. We know that even just this last week Fonterra has announced a record payout for farmers and yet we see in the last 12 months that the price of milk has come down. That is I think the response of a good economy that is tracking along nicely. We also know that cheese went down 7.8 percent. Butter is down 23 percent. Meat poultry and fish are down 6.7 percent. There were a couple of things that went up: avocados went up 48 percent. So when you go to the shop to buy your avocados sorry. It was such a small production in 2012 compared with a bumper season in 2011.This is all good news for New Zealanders. This Budget is sensible and it is solid. It is what New Zealanders want right now. We do not want big sweeping and novel ideas like capital gains taxes and wholesale electricity monopolies. We do not want all of that stuff that those people are throwing up there because they are desperate. They are trying everything they can to attract the attention of New Zealanders. It is voodoo politics. They are hoodwinking people when we have got it right for 5 years now getting it right all the time for New Zealanders.Labour believes that it can enhance competitive power pricing by becoming the monopolistic buyer of wholesale electricity in the country. Pull the other leg. Come on. We are wide awake to that. The only people who are doing that are people who are moving away from monopolistic purchasing into a market-driven economy. Those members know that but they will not say it. It is a daft idea and we do welcome all their daft ideas because they just go to prove how solid and sensible this Budget and this Government are for the sake of all New Zealanders. Colin Espiner—who as I said in my last speech is no friend of the Government—says: “This is Third World funny-money stuff.” TheNew Zealand Heraldreferred to it as a 1930s command economy solution. We need to understand that we live in a society where when we get thebalance right around competition it brings through all the benefits of not only better innovation but better pricing for New Zealanders.I think that this is what the Government is doing in this Budget. We are responsibly managing the Government’s books. We are building a more competitive and productive economy and we are delivering better public services.Andrew Little: What about households?JONATHAN YOUNG: We are doing a lot in the housing space. It is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. It is steak on the plate while you wait and that is so good. We are delivering better public services. We are rebuilding Christchurch. We are building the foundations for future success. We need to understand that this is something that we need to build into the economic DNA of this country. It takes time. It takes time to get things right because it took 9 whole years to get it wrong—we know that. We know what a stuff-up they made of this economy and we know the hard work that we have put in place the hard thinking and the hard yards and it is starting to pay off. There was 3 percent economic growth this last year. It is far above the growth of the UK America Australia and the European Union of course. It is better than all those economies and all those nations that we look up to. They are looking up to us now because we have got it right and this Budget is doing a great job.We are increasing education investment. We are not just aiding people we are enabling people. There is a difference there. There is something there. We are putting tools in the hands of people so that they can have choices. They can be predetermined in their life because we are ensuring that they are getting education where it is really needed. We are pouring more and more money into early childhood education to ensure that those young kids are getting their foot on the first rung of education early on so that they are not struggling and trying to climb up later on. We are putting more and more money into tertiary education and more and more emphasis on and accountability into tertiary education. This is so that our young people—and not just young people but all New Zealanders—who go through these educational programmes can have their foot on the ladder of employment in a very successful way. They are coming out of our high schools with National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2 in far greater proportions and numbers. We are seeing already that this is shifting. Already we are seeing some great responses. We know all the controversy and criticism that we have narrowed education. But we have not. We have a broad base on our education.What we are getting right is the fundamentals. We are getting the foundations right so that people can go into tertiary education with really good linguistic skills and abilities and so that they have really good numeric skills and abilities. These are the foundations for future learning and we have got to have them right. We cannot keep seeing our polytechs having to do level 1 and level 2 courses. They need to be doing levels 3 4 5 and 6. We need to make sure that our secondary schools are getting all the fundamentals right and they depend on the primary schools to get that right. So we have this complete pathway of learning and every single step on this pathway has to be strong and fit for purpose and has to be achieving for our young people. We cannot have one part of this system falling over because it is like a domino effect.We are getting it right. We are putting the money where it really counts. We are investing in education. We are investing in innovation. We are investing in all these areas that in time to come even as we see it now progressively we will see more and more. We are seeing New Zealanders succeed. This is incredibly important for this nation. We are just a small nation of 4.4 million competing in a huge world market of talent. We have got to maximise our talent. We are innovators we are dreamers we are thinkers and we are inventors. And when we have our education strong and robustwhen we have fewer people needing Government support and more people bringing resources to Government and to their communities what we are going to see is a nation with its head up. We are going to see a nation that forges ahead and we are going to see a nation that internationally economically and educationally will continue to forge ahead. We are going to take those high places of achievement and we are going to earn them. This Budget is very much a part of that long-term future for the future success of all New Zealanders. Thank you.Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour): As we discuss the Budget that this Government has handed down I think it is important to consider the Government’s progress through its agenda to exploit all of New Zealand’s natural resources. In that context it is necessary to look at the importance that the Government places on its environment budget. I have taken a look at Vote Environment and I find it absolutely remarkable that there has not been one single policy initiative in the environment budget—not one new idea not one new programme not one new policy initiative to protect maintain and enhance our environment.The Minister for the Environment has done things but they are not reflected in this Budget. Let me give the House some examples. The budget for Vote Environment is to be set against our claims—our diminishing claims and our claims that are consistently under criticism—of being 100 percent pure. We have poor and declining water quality. We have erosion of our protections for our environment proposed in the Minister’s second tranche of Resource Management Act amendments and we have some self-interest reflected in the water recommendations and proposals that the Minister put out earlier this year. I would really like to know whether the Minister even put in a bid for her environment vote because it is not apparent from this Budget.I will just list some of the things that are contained in the Vote Environment part of the Budget—let us have a look at them. Environmental management obligations and programmes—there is no change absolutely no change. Improving resource management—there is a drop of $2.4 million from the previous year so improving resource management as a Budget line gets a cut. This needs to be explained. If the members opposite wish to give the Minister a heads-up that will be asked in the estimates questions when she appears before the select committee.I will tell the House where one area of increase has happened and it is in the funding to service the Minister. Funding to service the Minister has gone up by $313000 and the note attached to that in the vote is that the ministry expects that there will be an increase in ministerials as a result of the Resource Management Act and water management reforms. Clearly the Minister is aware that the Resource Management Act reforms and the water management reforms are going to be controversial so in order to bolster her own ability to answer the questions that are going to flood in and the challenges that are going to be taken against her she has increased the funding to service her office by $313000. That does not enhance the environment one iota.Advice on environmental hazards and waste—there is no change; no change there. The waste levy administration and assessment of projects for funding by the levy—there is a drop of $600000; $610000 actually. But it is a $600000 drop in the waste levy administration and assessments of projects that are funded by that levy to see how various industries can minimise their waste production. So there is not any vision about next year or the year after and whether or not our waste production and our minimisation of that is going to improve. There are no new targets. There are no new ideas. In fact there is a cut of $600000 in that area. The Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund—there is no change there. There is no change in the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. How is the Minister intending to deal with new contaminated sites as they emerge?She has only to look in her backyard at the Ōwaka Pit in her electorate which has had medium-density fibreboard combusting spontaneously and releasing toxins into the air. This has been happening for months. The fire has gone out only just in the last 2 or 3 weeks. The Minister clearly does not bother about that even though it is in her electorate because the prevailing wind makes those toxic fumes blow over the people who live in the electorate of my colleague Megan Woods. The Minister is not so concerned about the people in that electorate that she thinks there is anything that needs to be done about the burning of formaldehyde and the release of those toxins into the atmosphere creating an unpleasant smell and an irritating set of toxins that have caused some discomfort. So even for the Minister’s own backyard she has not appropriated or it would seem even asked for additional funds to address contaminated sites. The Ōwaka Pit is now in a state that needs remediation. The fire is out; now the ground has to be recovered.The Contestable Waste Minimisation Fund—no change. This fund has a certain allocation per year. Sometimes the funds are not spent in 1 year and they are moved into future years but there is no change. Where there has been an increase—and here we go again—is to the Environmental Protection Authority which gets an increase of $1.9 million. Why? It is so that the Environmental Protection Authority can implement its functions under our exclusive economic zone legislation and the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 so that when challenges are brought about the illegality of the law that this Parliament has passed in respect of controlling shipping above the continental shelf—which I am still of the opinion is not legal—then there will be sufficient resources in the authority for it to address those things.There is no change to the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund for New Zealand water bodies—no change to that. For the Rotorua Lakes Protection and Restoration Programme there is a slight re-phasing of funds between the years but no overall change. Lake Ōkareka in Rotorua is suffocating from hornwort. It is a hugely invasive aquatic plant and there has been nothing in the way of additional funding put aside to restore Lake Ōkareka which is one of the Rotorua lakes. I have been to the lake. I have seen it myself. The people there work hard at trying to deliver quality. The fund for the Waikato River clean-up—no change. There is an amount of funding over 30 years but the real value of the funding will reduce over time. There is no change to the Waikato River co-governance no change to the Waikato River co-management and no change to the waste disposal levy disbursement to local authorities.The environment budget is a disgrace. The environment budget is lacking in any vision any foresight and any protective measures and simply plays into the hands of this Government’s agenda to mine and drill everything it can get its hands on in terms of our natural resources. It does not matter whether we have the legal right to do it or not this Government will proceed to exploit our environment in order to produce dollars and usually for its friends. So Skycity was sold the gambling laws Warner Bros was sold the employment laws and now we have Shell being sold the Crown mineral laws. Thank you.MAGGIE BARRY (National—North Shore): Budget 2013 is Bill English’s fifth Budget and it is indeed building momentum. It confirms that New Zealand is back on track with more economic growth more jobs rising wages and a return to surplus by 2014-15. That is all great news for New Zealand and very bad news for the Opposition which is bereft as we have heard this afternoon of any fresh ideas or policies. Both Labour and the Greens are of course—and have proven it time and again—anti-growth parties. They are opposed to any and all initiatives that would create jobs and boost the economy. The Opposition’s policies of borrowing more and spending more would takeour economy backwards at a great rate. And when no one would lend us any more money what is its solution? It is to print more of course. That is the sort of madness that the unholy alliance of no ideas would deliver. It is the tired old tried and failed policies of Labour and the “Watermelon Greens”—those individuals who are green on the outside and socialist red at heart and who think they are doing so well.This Budget 2013 is a defining document from a Government that is spending prudently not spending up large which is all Opposition members can come up with. So I am not going to waste any more time this afternoon on them. Instead I intend to focus on the very positive measures that were introduced in the Budget in the vitally important areas of health housing and welfare. As our very competent and successful health Minister Tony Ryall outlined at the start of today’s Budget debate this John Key - led Government is investing more in health than ever before. The Minister outlined the number of green prescriptions and the strong focus on investing in preventative care. To recap we are making a $1.6 billion investment available over 4 years. That has boosted the total health spending to a record level of $14.7 billion.Let us look specifically at where that is being targeted. As our population is healthier and we are living longer it is projected as the Minister indicated that by 2045 or 2050 there are going to be 150000 New Zealanders with dementia. As I and many New Zealand families know only too well the painful reality of living with dementia is a terrible struggle for the sufferers and for their families who have to watch as the people they love gradually decline and need more and more high-level support. My late mother’s 10-year decline with multi-infarct dementia was not untypical. It was very sad to see a once independent successful businesswoman and vibrant personality struggling to do the simple things like making tea and toast and desperately wanting to stay independent and in her own home for as long as possible. To help people in these difficult situations we are investing an extra $70 million in aged care and dementia services. That money is being very carefully targeted into the areas where it will help most.As my mother Agnes lost her ability to recognise people and places it became even more important to her to stay in her own home because it was a safe place and it was a place where she was familiar with all her surroundings and her garden. She was a happier and calmer person there. But as that eventually took its toll on her Mum needed more and more support to stay at home. Although I was able to pay privately for much of the assistance that she needed it is a very difficult thing to manage long term. I know that the $20 million that has been allocated in this year’s Budget targeted specifically to be invested in home support services will be invaluable. Some things are priceless. It will provide practical help so that people can stay in the familiar environment of their own home for as long as possible. With an ageing population we need to ensure the best possible quality of life for dementia sufferers and for their families. It is very clear to me that it is important to detect dementia as early as possible. I know of many families who were in denial for a long time and who were just not aware of the onset of dementia and its early signs. So they experienced I am afraid to say heart-breaking misunderstandings and family rifts actually until they understood what was happening.Overall as a society we need to have a much better and earlier awareness of dementia and its inevitable pathway. When the time does come for more expert intervention and residential care options we need a workforce that is equipped with the right level of training. There is no question in my mind that caregivers need to be compassionate and they need that quality in abundance. I believe it is basically a vocational guidance—it is a calling really to look after people who are losing their minds to dementia. There is also the need for better training and more specificallyskilled people to meet that growing demand. To meet that we have allowed $3.2 million towards training for health professionals and towards awareness programmes and also for early detection assistance for the clinical teams. These kinds of conditions require that high level of skill as well as that high level of compassion. Believe me I and people who have experienced it think that is money well spent. It will make a huge difference to the quality of life for the person suffering from dementia and for their families. With the best will in the world it is very difficult once the condition has reached a certain stage for most New Zealand families to look after dementia sufferers at home. That is why the $12 million increase in funding for bed subsidies and the vital encouragement for further investment in dementia beds are essential. So over the next 4 years we are also funding through the district health boards an additional $33.2 million on aged residential care subsidies.In the vital area of housing the Minister Dr Nick Smith is as determined through his portfolio as the health Minister Tony Ryall is with health to help the vulnerable in our society. We know that crowded cold and damp conditions contribute to dismal health outcomes. So making homes warmer drier and healthier is one of his priorities. It is the right thing to do. And unlike the waffle and the weasel words of the Opposition Dr Smith is not leaving that to chance. An extra $100 million investment in the highly successful home insulation programme is going to boost the number of homes insulated to 230000 by September this year. That is a clear and measurable thing. So all State houses that are capable of being insulated will be. It is a measure of the standard of our State housing stock. He is developing and trialling a Housing Warrant of Fitness to apply to all 69000 Housing New Zealand Corporation properties so that over the next 3 years this Government is making a record investment of $2.9 billion in State housing. It is also making very bold changes to the way that we deliver housing assistance and it is targeting it to the people who really need it.The shift from State dominated housing to community housing has been very successful in Europe in North America and in Australia. So in Budget 2013 our Government has announced that we are also going to extend income-related rent subsidies to community housing providers. Churches charities and other NGOs often integrate housing with other wraparound services to people with disabilities to people with mental health issues and to people with drug and alcohol problems. These sorts of wraparound services can often do let us face it a better job of meeting their clients’ complex needs. This Government is determined to create the right environment to grow the community housing sector.Quality affordable housing is good for the economy and it is also very good for communities. High housing costs ultimately raise debt and increases demand for social assistance. Under this Government the Kiwi dream of owning your own home will again become a reality and within reach of low and middle income New Zealanders. We have announced a raft of measures to make housing more affordable. We are looking at increasing land supply we are streamlining consent and compliance costs we are looking at better delivery of core infrastructure to support that new housing and we are also getting on top of the costs around building materials and construction. We are not just sitting back and leaving it to chance; we are doing something about it. We have concrete measurable things.As my colleague Jonathan Young said in his earlier call we are not just aiding people we are enabling people. That is why I come to our welfare reforms. They are increasing and under Budget 2013 low-income families will be receiving greater support. It is really a combination of what we have been doing—extending proven programmes and also introducing new initiatives targeting resources and targeting support. This is complemented by the Government’s $139.3 million investment throughthe Social Housing Fund which others have detailed. Helping people to help themselves is what is at the heart of this Government’s Budget. This is a Government and this is a Budget with real heart and measurable outcomes that will really help people because it is targeted it is precise it is measurable and it is going to work.This Government has put another $1.5 million to support budgeting services as well for people who have not ever really been taught how to grasp the reality of budgeting and making sure their cheque books work and making sure they are not overspending. Those are lessons that perhaps the Labour colleagues across the way could well benefit from.To end I will say that the people in my North Shore electorate have given me very positive feedback on this Budget 2013 and all its measures. Measures relating to ACC were some of the things that they have been looking for. They wanted to have some better provisions there and what we are doing there with the reduction in the levies has been outstanding. They have told me that they love the significant levy reductions of around $300 million which will extend to $1 billion the following year. Thank you.Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I listened very carefully to the Budget speech from the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery where he said that anyone standing for the Christchurch City Council should look at the finances. He said—and I want to quote him—“do not be deceived by what you are being told by the people who are presenting those figures.” That is an extraordinary statement coming from a senior Minister in the lead-up to a council election. I placed the Minister’s speech on my Facebook page and the response was immediate: what does the Minister know that we do not know? There was a considerable amount of fear expressed that the Minister knows things about the council’s finances but is not telling the people of Christchurch exactly what those concerns are even though the council is at the moment going through its 3-year plan process. Christchurch City Council is not going through the 10-year plan process that other councils are going through. It has had its planning process reduced to 3 years but more significant the Government has decided not to make the council subject to the usual Auditor-General oversight.So on one hand the Minister says that we should be concerned about Christchurch City Council’s finances and look at them very carefully and not be deceived by those presenting the figures—he is referring to the mayor and the chief executive who have signed the 3-year plan; he cannot be referring to anyone else because it is their signatures that actually appear on that document—and yet the Government has decided in its wisdom not to make it subject to usual Auditor-General oversight. The Labour Opposition members asked that that Auditor-General oversight be included in the Order in Council when we were asked to comment on it but we were not listened to. Why did the Government allow this process to proceed with no proper scrutiny clearly knowing things that the people of Christchurch do not know and with an election looming?Add on top of that the extraordinary pressure that the Government is placing on the council to pay for the Government’s blueprint even though the people of Christchurch had absolutely no say whatsoever with regard to the major anchor projects that it announced. I do not think that the people of Christchurch need a Cabinet Minister—the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery—to stand here in this debating chamber firing shots at the council down in Christchurch but also in the same breath can I say that we do not need a council that shows that it is incapable of being the kind of partner that a Government needs in a recovery situation.The Minister warned us about these people who are presenting these figures and I think that deception is a pretty strong allegation. But how does the Government have confidence in the council when the front page of the paper has been dominated by a chief executive who is blatantly double-dipping both as the chief executive receivinghis extraordinarily high salary—which received huge feedback in a negative sense from the public—and also as a director receiving director’s fees for sitting on the Civic Assurance company? He is now having to appear in front of the council to explain why Civic Assurance is taking so long to pay the council’s insurance bill. He is double-dipping. In any situation like that a chief executive of an organisation would pay their director’s fees directly to the organisation that they were representing on that body. Only three or four councillors have actually consistently stood up for transparency in Christchurch but they are accused by the mayor and the chief executive of being the problem.I have to say that this has got to stop. It absolutely has got to stop. The people of Christchurch need their leaders to really step up at this time. We are going into our third winter—our third winter—and people are still living in unacceptable situations that we would not ordinarily tolerate in a First World country. The pressure that is being brought to bear on ordinary Christchurch residents living in areas where the land is the most challenging is unbelievable. They do not need to read in the paper about what can only be described as sheer greed and then at the same time hear that the Minister is making these allegations in Parliament without giving the substance to the people of Christchurch. I think it is absolutely vital that the people of Christchurch are told the truth about what is going on at Christchurch City Council.The Government’s blueprint is part of the problem. It is a big part of the problem. The people think that they have been forgotten—put to one side while we talk about what buildings are going to be built in the centre of the city. We see a campaign bid for City First or Christchurch First but really it should be the people first. If the people are dealt with first then surely the rest will follow.In the last couple of weeks the Prime Minister has said that “big-ticket Christchurch recovery projects could be scaled back to help bridge the funding gap between local and central government.” But whose funding gap is that? Who created the funding gap? The Government manufactured the funding gap when it decided that it would completely rewrite the city’s draftChristchurch Central Recovery Plan and would then hand the bill to the people of Christchurch. That is what has happened in Christchurch. John Key says that major projects like the new convention centre and the roofed sports stadium could be downsized to save money. But whose money would that save? They were not our decisions. Christchurch City has never had the opportunity to have a say about these major anchor projects that the Government has foisted upon us.John Key said the council had only three ways of paying its share of recovery projects: borrowing the money significantly raising rates and “it changes its asset mix”. Well what does “it changes its asset mix” mean? It means selling Christchurch’s strategic assets that we have held on to because those assets have actually been a part of ensuring that we had revenue-generating opportunities but also the strategic ability to govern our ports both the airport which is the gateway to the South Island and our seaport similarly in terms of goods coming in and out of the country and also obviously Orion which was the standout performer after the series of earthquakes that we had. I have never seen an organisation operating the way it did but the work that it did in advance the resilience that it built into its network ahead of the disaster occurring was what saved Christchurch and indeed saved New Zealand a considerable amount of additional cost that would have otherwise applied.So when the Prime Minister says “it changes its asset mix” the Prime Minister is saying: “People of Christchurch you must sell your revenue-generating strategic assets and fund loss-making facilities where the council cannot even tell the people of Christchurch how much they are budgeted to lose because the Government has not even prepared a business case for any of these so-called anchor projects.” This is aNational Government and there is no business case prepared for any of these assets. How can the council pay its share when we do not know as a city what our share is? And why should we pay for any share that was not part of what we as a city determined was in our best interests?John Key then said it was up to the council to ask whether residents wanted the “nice-to-haves” in the city’s rebuild. What are these “nice-to-haves”? No one in Christchurch has been told that any of the anchor projects are negotiable. Many people feel that John Key has relegated the repair and rebuild of homes on the most challenging land in Christchurch to being a “nice-to-have”. We in Christchurch say it is not a “nice-to-have”; it is a “need-to-have”. That need is very very real. We need the Government to be working alongside the council in partnership with the community. Take the community with us as we rebuild our city. I am extremely optimistic about what we can achieve in Christchurch but we need central government local government and community all working together on the rebuild and repair of our city.Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Police): I moveThat the debate be now adjourned.Motion agreed to.Education Amendment BillThird ReadingHon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): I moveThat the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time. The Education Amendment Bill amends the Education Act 1989. It will play a key role in supporting the Government’s objective of how we get five out of five students achieving educational success. This Government is absolutely focused on that. We do not want educational success for a few—for some—but for all so we have focused on a full range of measures that will deliver that possibility to all New Zealand school students and learners. This bill helps deal with a number of things in fact. It creates the legal framework by which we will establish partnership schools or kura hourua. It also looks at the provision for how school staff may exercise search and surrender provisions in order to ensure that schools are safe and secure places while protecting the rights of students. It also makes provision for a number of other areas that will allow greater flexibility in the delivery of education in New Zealand.Starting with the two significant or substantial provisions in terms of creating the legal framework for partnership schools or kura hourua we know that it will help us deliver a third option for educational provision in New Zealand. It will enable us to have a legal framework that allows for partnership between the community sectors business and education because this Government recognises that there is not a monopoly on how quality education can be delivered. In fact it can be delivered through a number of ways and we are interested in exploring all of those ways because we will leave no option unconsidered in how we ensure that we raise educational achievement for five out of five kids.We know that our education system in New Zealand is world class but not world leading. We know that it is top performing as an education jurisdiction. It performs for the vast majority but not for all. We know that those who have been traditionally underserved by our education system are the same groups of people year in and year out. So there is a system response that we need to make. We want those parts of our education system that are performing well for the majority of our students to continue to perform well and indeed to perform better but we also want to address those parts of the system that are not performing as well. That means working with all of the schoolsthat we have—and we have over 2500. Those 2500 schools already canvass a range of options. We have single-sex and coed; we have total immersion in English and total immersion in Māori and bilingual units; we have faith-based and secular-based schools; we have small medium and large schools; and of course they are spread the length and breadth of our country.What partnership schools do is offer us another option—another option that is focused on results on transparency on ensuring that the sponsors who propose and go through a very thorough approval process are focused on how they will deliver educational results for the students whose parents choose that they should go there. There will be no compulsion in this. Partnership schools provide another option but it will be transparent in terms of what is expected. It will be transparent in terms of the conduct of its business. It will be transparent in that the disciplinary provisions of the Ombudsmen Act will apply. It will be transparent in that all of the requirements will be specified in a contract between the Ministry of Education on behalf of the Crown and the successful sponsor and all the reporting that will be expected in respect of that whether financial operational or educational will be reported to the Ministry of Education which of course will ensure that it is captured by the Official Information Act.The bill provides that the sponsors may recommend that a proportion of their staff may not be registered as teachers but that is not to be confused with not having qualifications and not having skills. Indeed kura kaupapa had the same kind of difficult birth that the Opposition would try to attend partnerships schools with. There was a belief that kura were so different from the rest of the mainstream system that they could not possibly be good when the facts which have been incontrovertible since they started are that children and young people who go to kura by and large on average do better—Māori kids—than they do in the mainstream system. The kura will tell us that much of that success is due to experts in te reo me ōna tikanga who may not be registered teachers but nevertheless deliver learning in ways that ensure educational success. We envisage the same sort of track record occurring here with partnership schools. So what this legislation does is put around it a legal framework that makes this option clear stable transparent and focused on getting five out of five kids being educationally successful.As I have said there will be no compulsion for a parent to send their child here as there is no compulsion for a parent to send their child to any particular type of school. And as I have said many times before too it is not the type of school; it is the quality of performance. We will be holding these schools to the highest standards. We will be expecting that they will be able to deliver successfully to these kids and if not the ultimate sanction will apply and that is that they can and will be closed.A second part of this legislation focuses on ensuring that we are very clear about what the rights are of not only teachers and principals but also other authorised staff to ensure a safe and secure environment wherein learning can break out potential can be realised and educational success can be within reach of every one of our students. But we are realistic. We know that schools are also microcosms of society and that there can be dangers and unsafe instruments or behaviours that are brought into schools. We want to ensure that our teachers and other authorised staff have the ability to exercise search and surrender responsibilities that ensure that where staff suspect that a student may indeed be harbouring inappropriate equipment or anything that might present a danger to other students staff have the ability to require these young people to disclose those.The Education and Science Committee members have worked really hard together and with the sector to strike a very good balance between ensuring the safety of all students and protecting the rights of the dignity and privacy of other students. This hasbeen a very challenging balance to strike and I think that this legislation does that. It will be reinforced by the establishment of guidelines which will be formulated under the Secretary for Education’s auspices but also through involving a working group from the sector. After all principals and teachers are the ones who every day face these challenges and want to know that they are going to have sensible and practicable provisions by which they can exercise these cautions.The final part of this legislation deals with a range of other provisions all of which are dedicated to this Government’s commitment to raising educational achievement for all kids. One of the things it starts off with is a recognition that boards of trustees are Crown entities but unlike every other Crown entity they have no purpose articulated at law. This legislation remedies that omission by making it very clear that the role and purpose of boards in everything they do is to focus on ensuring that every student has the opportunity to do well educationally. So whether it is the management of property financial responsibilities to be discharged the kind of curriculum programme that is to be taught or the kinds of skills that are to be employed at the school the board is doing all of that with one clear focus and that is to raise the achievement of all.Allied to that is a provision for making timetabling flexible. We learnt from Christchurch that by enabling schools to have flexibility in their timetables they could cater for a whole range of students but in particular for that very permeable interface which this Government has made more permeable in the secondary-tertiary transition where young people go off to trades academies for 2 or 3 days a week or take up other options such as internships practicums and so forth. We do not want a hidebound structure within schools that precludes that possibility. We want educational success to not only be in reach but also be achieved by five out of five students and this legislation puts that within their grasp.CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka): Before I begin the substantive comments that I want to make on the Education Amendment Bill I have a quick question for the Minister of Education. I would like her to name one school board of trustees that is not focused on student achievement. Which one?Hon Hekia Parata: We’re providing a legal basis for all of them.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh right there we go—the Minister of Education cannot name one school board of trustees that is not focused on student achievement because the reality is that when parents put their names forward to be on school boards of trustees they do so specifically because they care about their kids’ educational achievement and because they care about the educational achievement of other kids within their community. I think it is absolutely disgraceful that this Government does not acknowledge that and that it seems to think it has to legislate for something that is blatantly obvious. It is blatantly obvious because parents teachers and everyone who works in the education system go into it with the view of improving the lives of young people in New Zealand. They already want to do that. They do not need to have the Government come in here and accuse them of not doing that which is what Hekia Parata is constantly doing all of the time.This is a sad day for the public education system in New Zealand. It is a very sad day because it is a day when the National Government put politics before education. So when did this all start? We know how this bill came to be in the House. It was all to do with the cup of tea between Mr Banks over there and John Key—the one that was inadvertently recorded and the one that they went to court to try to cover up. The cup of tea between John Banks and John Key is why we are debating this legislation in the House today. It is not about education. It is not about what is going to be good for education. It is riding roughshod over public opinion which is something that we are well used to this National Government doing. Eighty-two percent of New Zealandersare opposed to the idea that charter schools should be allowed to employ unregistered teachers yet this Government is bringing this bill to the House to deregulate the teaching profession effectively and it is ignoring the public’s concern about that matter. It voted down Supplementary Order Paper 221 which I put forward which would have ensured that there were qualified registered teachers in schools.Seventy-one percent of the New Zealand public are opposed to the idea that a charter school operator should be able to make a profit because New Zealanders know that money taken out of charter schools in profits is not money—Hon Hekia Parata: Specious numbers.CHRIS HIPKINS: “Specious numbers.” Hekia Parata says. I think it was aOne News poll.Hon Hekia Parata: We don’t make up stuff like the Opposition does.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh she says they do not make up stuff. They do not make up stuff like the Opposition does. I am sure this is going to get better. Seventy-one percent of New Zealanders are opposed to charter schools making a profit because they know that the money that is sucked out of the education system in the form of profits is not money that is going into educating kids. And why should the taxpayer be lining the back pockets of the National Party’s and ACT Party’s mates who want to set up their charter schools rather than putting that money into education? This Government is putting $19 million into these charter schools and in the very same Budget it cut the funding for a programme like Te Kotahitanga.Hon Hekia Parata: Rubbish!CHRIS HIPKINS: A programme that has a proven track record of lifting student achievement has been cut by this Government. Hekia Parata says that is rubbish. How much money is going into Te Kotahitanga next year?Hon Hekia Parata: It is called building on success and actually—CHRIS HIPKINS: No. That is right. That would be no money going into Te Kotahitanga next year—no money at all going into Te Kotahitanga next year not one cent. The Government has cut the funding for it because it has decided that charter schools are more important—charter schools which the international evidence proves do not actually work.Let us look at the United States. The Government seems to be so in love with the charter school system in the US. Stanford University did research into charter schools and found that for 37 percent of learners they produced significantly worse outcomes—for 37 percent. For 46 percent they made no difference at all and only 17 percent did better in charter schools. These are the sorts of numbers that the Government thinks justify its experiment in charter schools in New Zealand. This is not an experiment that is designed to improve the outcomes in education. This is an ideological experiment that is designed to privatise aspects of the education system when what we should be focused on is ensuring that every school in New Zealand is a great school and that every New Zealander has the opportunity to fulfil their full potential—their full potential—through access to lifelong learning opportunities and a quality public education system.Hon Hekia Parata: No every New Zealander hasn’t—not under that Government. They’ve just wrung their hands and said: “Isn’t it terrible that every year more kids are not passing—more Māori more Pasifika.”CHRIS HIPKINS: Hekia Parata has got the audacity to talk about Māori educational achievement when that Minister cut the funding for the best Māori education programme in the country—cut the funding completely. It is gone. It is completely gone from next year and Hekia Parata is talking about Māori educational achievement when actually she has been the Minister who has cut the one programmethat had outstanding results. Why? Because it was too expensive. And what was her excuse? “Oh well we have got to come up with something that is a lot cheaper.” She has decided that it is going to be cheaper to cut corners and to cut the programme that works. That is how much Hekia Parata cares about Māori students’ educational achievement. She wants to cut the one programme that actually works.And Hekia Parata wants to put unregistered and unqualified teachers in front of these Māori students. They are not going to have to learn the New Zealand Curriculum. They are not going to have to learn the New Zealand Curriculum in these schools. If Hekia Parata is so confident that they are going to be such good-quality schools why are they not going to be subject to the Official Information Act? We hear nothing from the Minister. Deathly silence—nothing. Because the Government does not want the public to know what goes on within these charter schools. If the Government is so confident that these charter schools are going to act in a manner that is totally appropriate why is it that the Ombudsman’s powers do not apply to the entirety of the charter schools’ operations? Another deathly silence from the Government. No answer to that question. We know that the Ombudsman’s powers in regard to the State school system have been used judiciously and have highlighted major systemic problems—Dr Rajen Prasad: Bullying.CHRIS HIPKINS: —including systemic bullying in one particular school which the education agencies did not pick up. This is the sort of stuff that the Government wants to hide in charter schools by making them not subject to the Official Information Act and not allowing the Ombudsman the power to investigate. In short the Government wants to shortcut the democratic process. It wants to hide what is going on in these schools.The Government talks about the priority learners. Here is another question for the Minister: name one learner who is not a priority learner.Hon Hekia Parata: All of them are priorities but that Opposition—CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh all of them are priorities. So when the Government talks about its priority learners what on earth is the point? They should all be priority learners. So it is absolute weasel words when the Government talks about priority learners. What is it that Hekia Parata has against parent-led boards of trustees? What is that Hekia Parata has got against parent-led boards of trustees? She wants to allow private charter schools to be set up as profit-making businesses with no parental involvement whatsoever in how they are run. That is what this legislation allows plain and simple. This is a failed ideological experiment that is being imported from overseas. It is not about improving educational outcomes for New Zealand students. It is not about making sure we pick up the best examples of what is working in this country and what is good for New Zealand students. It is not about that at all. It is about importing failed ideology. It is about the failed ideology that says that if we increase competition we will get better outcomes. Well actually we have had several decades of increased competition in our education system and the very priority learners whom Hekia Parata talks about are some of those who have been most disadvantaged by that competition that we have within our education system.Hon Hekia Parata: Under that Government. Didn’t care enough just published reports and cried about it.CHRIS HIPKINS: Oh no. No actually it was a Labour Government that set up the Te Kotahitanga programme which that Minister has now cut the funding to. It was a Labour Government that established schools of special character to recognise that there is a gap within the existing public education system. Schools of special character already allow that gap to be filled yet this Government is turning its back on that saying that it does not think that schools of special character are of any use at all. It isturning its back on that and it is saying that it wants to privatise education and deregulate the teaching profession instead. And deregulate the teaching profession it will because we saw from the Novopay inquiry today the veiled references to further deregulation to renegotiating the collective agreement to make it simpler. Oh yes that is the agenda. We know that Treasury has been working on it. The Government is going to use any excuse it can to deregulate the teaching profession in New Zealand because the National Party never learns the lessons of history. When we look at the countless examples of where deregulation of professions has gone wrong we see that we do not need another one. The future of New Zealand’s education system and the future of the young people in it are far too important to experiment on which is what this bill does.Dr CAM CALDER (National): The Education Amendment Bill amends the Education Act in the two principal ways that we have heard. The Minister of Education gave a very lucid explanation of how it sets out a legal framework for a new type of school the partnership school. It alters another very important area by establishing powers around surrender to schools of harmful items and retention by schools of harmful items. These harmful items may be defined as items that pose an immediate threat to the physical or emotional safety of a person or that detrimentally affect the learning environment. These might include such things as knives drugs grenades guns and items stored in electronic form.This is a bill that as introduced included a number of new sections intended to clarify the powers of schools in searching and retaining students’ property. We made some key recommendations towards that. The Education and Science Committee looked at this in a huge amount of detail and some of these key recommendations are worth delineating because these were not clear in the original bill. I have to once again acknowledge the hard work of most members of the committee for achieving this end.Some of the key recommendations on the bill are as follows. We recommended allowing authorised staff members to exercise surrender and retention powers. I want to acknowledge Mike Sabin and his work in this area for a number of years. He made an outstanding contribution. We recommended allowing teachers to require the removal of outer clothing or the surrender of bags with safeguards. The Minister alluded to the safeguards in this legislation. We recommended allowing teachers to require the removal of any head covering gloves footwear or socks; clarifying that students may be encouraged to participate in voluntary drug programmes; clarifying that drug dogs can be used to search school property; and making it mandatory to have rules and guidelines about the implementation of this. I hear some barracking from the Opposition. This is crucially important. This is legislation that this committee can take great pride in because it has made the life of students throughout New Zealand a lot safer. It has made the life of staff principals and members of boards of trustees a lot clearer. So I want to acknowledge this work by members of the committee. There were some who stood to one side but in fact those opposite and Tracey Martin from New Zealand First did work hard on this.We have mentioned the key recommendations. I would like to now come on to why we have this extra strand in our cable of lifting student achievement that is called partnership schools. One of the simple reasons for it is that the only area in which New Zealand is leading the world is inequality. The gap between our best students and our lowest-performing students is the biggest in the world—the biggest in the world. As one submitter asked—I will repeat it—are we living in two different countries? Can we afford to be complacent? The committee heard that the Partnership Schools Working Group had received from sponsors 34 indications of interest in setting up a partnership school. Groups were saying that they want to do something about this.Contrast that with the unions which were ineluctably locked into opposing anything that showed the least bit of innovation. Most of those 2300 submissions were form submissions and there was not a lot of original thought but the people who are actually wanting to get involved with these partnership schools were saying that they want a chance to do something about this. They want to use innovation to enable their kids to engage in learning and get a decent start in life and they are willing to be held accountable for doing that.The significant point is that it is a matter of choice. Nobody has to go into a partnership school. As outlined earlier the most fundamental difference in the relationship between the Minister and the partnership school is that the relationship with the Minister will be contractual rather than regulatory. It is a contract to deliver engagement and achievement outcomes—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member. The time has come for me to leave the Chair for the dinner break.Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m.Dr MEGAN WOODS (Labour—Wigram): I want to start my final contribution to this debate on this Education Amendment Bill by paying tribute to the parents and the teachers throughout our country who have the best interests of their children and their education at the front of their minds and that is what leads their actions. Unfortunately this is a group that has come under attack during the course of this bill’s passage through the House. We have seen attack after attack from members of the National Party on the fact that we had members of teacher unions come to the Education and Science Committee and offer their opinion. Well these are the trained teaching professionals in our country the people who have the expertise in education and yes they did have an opinion. They had a unanimous opinion that this legislation is going to do nothing to further educational outcomes in New Zealand.This is a dark day for education in New Zealand. Before the dinner break my colleague Chris Hipkins mentioned in his contribution that this is a fundamental change to what we understand about education in New Zealand that we are passing through this House tonight. I do not see this as anything to celebrate. I also want to pay tribute to the number of parents who are putting themselves forward for boards of trustees as we debate this legislation going through the House and who have stood to be part of the community governance of their schools because this is something that charter schools will not have. This is something that the kinds of schools we are creating tonight in this House are doing away with—the very thing that has led New Zealand to have one of the most innovative one of the most creative and one of the most community-involved education systems in the world. We are doing away with that system with the passage of this legislation tonight. It is absolutely nothing for us to celebrate.I want to make it very clear about the future of charter schools under a Labour-led Government in 2014. The ongoing funding and support for charter schools will not be guaranteed under a future Labour Government. We will not guarantee any charter school established during this term of the present Government the right to integrate into the State school system. We do reserve the right to impose additional contractual obligations on any charter school established such as a requirement to employ registered teachers and the removal of exemption from the Official Information Act 1982. No further charter school will be established under a New Zealand Labour Party Government and legislation allowing for their establishment will be repealed. Let us not make any mistake about what Labour’s position on these charter schools is. We do not agree with them and we do not agree with them because they are not in the best interests of the children of our country.Throughout the various stages of this legislation colleagues have outlined exactly what our problems are with this type of school being set up in New Zealand. It has been well rehearsed. Our objection to unregistered and unqualified teachers is on the record. We would not let unqualified doctors treat any of us but members opposite think that it is OK to put unqualified teachers in front of classrooms. We do not.Andrew Little: They don’t respect them.Dr MEGAN WOODS: We respect the teaching profession and the expertise that they bring to their job. This is not something that we are willing to undermine.We also object to the lack of scrutiny that these schools will be subjected to—the fact that they will not be subjected to the Official Information Act that parents will not get that level of scrutiny and that they will not have that recourse. We have talked throughout the various stages of this legislation and shown examples of when this has come into play and where it has been very useful and indeed needed. I have talked already in my speech about the lack of community engagement by doing away with something that has become a New Zealand institution: the rights of communities to be involved in decision making about their schools through the role of boards of trustees.But most disturbing we know these schools will not work. The international evidence points us in that direction. The very examples that have been thrown across the House by members opposite are actually the very failed experiments. They have touted Sweden as the great example. Well educational achievement in Sweden went down when they introduced their freedom schools. And actually if they had read their Maxim Institute documents they would know this because the Maxim Institute has told them this. Right-wing thinktanks are telling them that charter schools do not work so why do we not actually look at an evidence base for what we are doing with the education of our children? It just does not stack up. What we want is to celebrate the innovation that exists in our education system and to pay credit to the people who have been doing that and the wonderful things they do. Throughout the select committee process we had submitter after submitter come to us and tell us about the wonderful things they were doing and that nothing they were doing now—or indeed wanted to do—they could not do under the present legislation.But for me as a Christchurch member of Parliament one of the most disturbing aspects of this is the guinea pig nature of Christchurch children in the Government’s thinking—that we are having the closure of schools in the Christchurch network to make way for charter schools. In fact in question time today the Minister of Education refused to rule out establishing charter schools—or “partnership schools” as she preferred to call them because she could not quite stomach those words “charter school”—on the site of Christchurch schools that she closed down last week. She is not ruling this down.Before our select committee we had Karran Harper Royal come and tell us of the experience in New Orleans and the way in which natural disaster is used as an excuse for experimentation. Today in this House we had the Minister confirm that is exactly what she is thinking. She will not give that commitment to the people of Christchurch and the communities of Christchurch. For the schools in my electorate—for Branston Intermediate School and Manning Intermediate School—that are being closed down I want the Minister to give a commitment that a charter school will not be established on those sites. This is something these people deserve. They need to know that their school closure is not about building capacity in the network so this Government can implement its charter schools which are the price of coalition with John Banks. That is right. Christchurch children are being used as the pawn in this coalition game. It is the price of a vote. It is the price of getting through all the pieces of legislation that this Government has been able to do by that one vote. This is not something that we on this side of theHouse feel is anything to celebrate—in fact it is something that we should all be very sad about and something that we should all see as a shameful day for education in our country.This evening I received an email from a constituent. The Minister also received this email from this constituent of mine. She was very very upset after hearing what happened in question time today and the fact that the Minister was not going to rule out establishing charter schools at the very schools that she was closing. She wrote to the Minister and she copied me in: “The schools you have closed and you decide to replace them by using the land for charter schools to me is another kick in the teeth.” This is how people are feeling. This is how people in Christchurch are feeling on the schools that have been closed. The people of Phillipstown are feeling like this. They know they have been let down by their local member. They know they have been let down by this Government. They do not have a school in that community any longer.This is something that is straight from the playbook of New Orleans. That is one of the most distressing parts of this. We could have sat back and predicted this given this Government’s commitment to playing from that playbook. This is what happened in New Orleans. And it is nothing about educational achievement. The educational achievement there has not gone up. Indeed the educational achievement has not gone up anywhere where charter schools have been introduced. Members opposite have not been able to show us this through all the stages of this legislation be it in debates in this House or at the select committee and have not been able to point to the fact that these are going to lead to better educational outcomes. For Labour that is the bottom line: what will deliver the best educational outcomes for our children. We know it is not these partnership schools. This is not the way to do right by our children and Labour cannot support this legislation. Thank you.METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green): Charter schools have no future in our country Aotearoa New Zealand and I am pleased that the Labour Party has also made it very clear in the last address that it too believes that charter schools have no future in this country. We want to make it very clear to any of those who are considering establishing one that should there be a change of Government in the near future your schools will no longer exist as charter schools. I have said that we may apply the integration criteria to those schools just to give those kids at least a bit of a chance because changing schools is always very difficult. But if those integration criteria are not met or there are other reasons why those schools should be closed including the fact that the legislation will be repealed then charter schools will no longer exist in this country. It is important for those who are considering setting them up to know well in advance the risk they are taking in establishing charter schools in New Zealand. Why do we say that? Because we believe that the public money for education should be spent on a strong free and quality public education system not on lining the pockets of a few wealthy cowboys who will drain the public purse for their private profit.It has been very disappointing that the Minister of Education herself has shown no real awareness of her portfolio and the impact that the policy decisions she makes has on schools teachers children and their families. We have had the Novopay debacle report today showing that she did not even know who was responsible for managing this multimillion-dollar disaster. In this charter schools legislation and the policy behind it we see exactly that same neglect and frankly incompetence from this Minister in managing this policy.One of the key issues that was raised today in question time was the fact that this Minister will not guarantee that the schools that she has just closed in Christchurch will not then be rented out or used by charter schools for making a profit. Those schools were closed apparently because of population decline in those areas. Those schoolswere closed apparently because of earthquake damage that was too expensive to fix in those areas. But she still retains the power and obviously the intention to rent those schools out to the charter school cowboys who have no educational experience who will be able to make a quick buck off the public purse and who will in doing so exploit vulnerable New Zealand children because that is who will be running these schools—cowboys. There is no requirement for these cowboys to have experience in education management or its delivery. There are fewer checks on these cowboys than are currently applied to principals and to teachers. Not only that but they will be able to employ untrained people—these are not teachers; these are just ordinary people but without any training or expertise in education—to teach children who all of the research in New Zealand and before the Minister says need the best-trained most professional teachers in front of them. If you want to teach vulnerable kids they need the best possible teachers—those who are skilled and trained in this profession. But these cowboys will be able to get anybody they want including their mother and father and sister and brother and uncles and aunties and cousins—anybody they like—to come in front of these kids and get public money for that. It is significant amounts of public money for that.Not only that but they will be able to get money for for example dealing with children with disabilities. I do not know whether people realise that. But they do not have to spend it on those kids. There is no requirement for them to spend it on those kids and they can simply put it in their back pocket as a big fat profit from the public purse. At the end of the day it will be New Zealand children who are left to find a decent education somewhere in their area after being exploited and experimented on by John Banks and his mad ACT policies.Sometimes I think that Hekia Parata really does not believe in this policy. Sometimes I think more and more that she is being bullied into promoting this policy because of a $19 million cup of tea that John Key had with John Banks 18 months ago. I do think that Hekia Parata does know what works for Māori. She has certainly been told by her own people by her advisers. She has been told. She knows that kura kaupapa Māori are excellent and enormously successful for Māori kids because they are a kaupapa Māori solution that is developed by the very families that this policy is supposed to be directed at—Māori and Pacific learners. She knows that Te Kotahitanga works and she has been told that Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success needs more resources to be even more effective than it is but she has had to cut the funding to Te Kotahitanga in order to feed public funds into John Banks’ ridiculous ACT policy and his experiment on our kids. So the successful programmes are being cut and experiments that have a history of failure are being promoted.I think that she too is nervous about the financial side. During the Committee stage of this debate last week I asked the Minister very specifically to guarantee that if there is an Official Information Act request to her and her ministry about financial matters to do with charter schools she would never use the commercial sensitivity clause. She sat here and said that it was OK that the Official Information Act did not apply to charter schools because all of their financial information would be made public. But she would not guarantee that she herself would not hide that information from the public. It does beg the question of why that is the case. I think that the whole reason why the Official Information Act does not apply to charter schools and why the Minister will not guarantee that she will not hide financial information herself using the commercial sensitivity rule is that John Banks knows all about the importance of hiding financial information. John Banks actually is right in the middle of a serious debate a serious issue where he has been accused of hiding financial information from the public.You know this is the man who cannot remember how much money he was given by Kim Dotcom for his mayoral campaign. This is a man who took a cheque from Skycity—who took a cheque from Skycity—I understand with his very hand and still does not remember how much it was for. So this is a man who has deliberately hidden information about his public financial affairs from the public. He is now facing serious action elsewhere about this issue and because John Banks thinks that he is such a master at keeping financial information secret and clearly is unhappy to have it revealed here in the House he is making sure that all those charter school cowboys that he is promoting through his party membership—all those charter school cowboys—also get the chance to hide their financial information from the public. They will be funnelled funds and funds and funds—millions of dollars; at least $19 million in this first tranche—of public money and John Banks will make sure that they do not have to reveal the information. John Banks the master at keeping financial information secret will make sure that so can charter schools.So not only do we have all of the evidence about how charter schools fail these kids the most fail the most vulnerable children—overseas only 17 percent of them do better than in the public system; it is less than one in five—but the information about how public education money taken from our State schools will be used is being kept secret because John Banks wants to protect those cowboys so they can continue to make a public profit. There can be no other excuse for keeping those charter schools out of the Official Information Act. There can be no other excuse for the Minister of Education failing to guarantee that she will reveal all the financial information that is useful that is critical for the public to see. She would do that only if she is being bullied by this $19 million cup of tea that forces an exploitative experiment on our most vulnerable learners. We oppose the Education Amendment Bill. Thank you.Hon JOHN BANKS (Leader—ACT): What a weak contribution by the “co-loser” of the Green Party. How weak and pathetic being attacked at this hour of the night by—Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take offence at that insult that was levelled at me—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I think that after the conduct of the member during her speech and the way in which she lifted the tone of the debate outside the realm of the debate what the member has said—she might not like it but it is a response that is to be expected.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?Denise Roche: No it is on the same issue—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No I have ruled on it.Hon JOHN BANKS: Thank you Mr Speaker. They get dressed up on television with the lipstick and the make-up and butter would not melt in their mouths—Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [Interruption]Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet.Metiria Turei: I take personal offence at that comment about my appearance and ask that he be required to withdraw and apologise.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think it is perfectly on the same plane as the remarks that the member made previously and—[Interruption] Order! Look I understand whether or not a member takes offence but when the member gives offence and then jumps to her feet I believe that the point of order is out of order. John Banks.Hon Members: Point of order.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on this matter. [Interruption] I have ruled on this matter. [Interruption] Order! Please sit I am on my feet. But the member will desist from any further comments in relation to personal matters.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter.Denise Roche: A different issue.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A new point of order?Denise Roche: I am offended by the sexism and you have not addressed that.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled on the matter.Hon JOHN BANKS: The chairman of the Iwi Education Authority came to this Parliament. He is one of the most distinguished Māori educators in New Zealand. His name is Dr Toby Curtis and he says that Māori undereducation in this country is institutionalised and expected. Well we say it is institutionalised but it is not expected and we do not like it. We do not like kids going through 11 years of education and at the end of 11 years of education not being able to read and write. The Labour Party Opposition the apologist for the teacher unions might think that that is OK but we say that it is not OK because we want five out of five kids to have a world-class education. The leader of the Māori Iwi Education Authority came to the Education and Science Committee and he said to it solemnly that this bill is well overdue. He wants it to pass in its total content.Tonight is a celebration. It is a loss for the Labour Party it is a loss for the Green Party and it is a loss for the losers of New Zealand First but it is a big win for kids struggling out there in an education system that has doomed them to failure and that is the 20 percent of our kids who leave school with no educational qualification whatsoever.Almost 25 years ago Parliament passed the Education Act 1989 and put the Picot report into effect giving us Tomorrow’s Schools. Parliament wanted to empower educators and school committees. Parliament wanted to educate educators and school communities as well. It wanted to decentralise and liberate the compulsory education sector. The then Labour Government said that reforms would address inequality of achievement but the teacher unions cried foul. The teacher unions said that only education experts like teacher unions not parents would be able to govern schools. We on this side of the House say that on this the teachers unions have got it wrong. The schoolkids who are underprivileged schoolkids who come from deprived homes and Māori and Pacific schoolkids we are putting on a pedestal tonight because this bill promoted by the ACT Party and supported by the National Party and the Māori Party no less—the Māori Party no less—says that this is well overdue. In fact the teacher unions said that Tomorrow’s Schools was a first step in privatisation. I was in Parliament 25 years ago when the teacher unions came here and the apologists from the teacher unions on that side of the House said that it was the first step in the privatisation of education and no such thing is happening.All these arguments tired and worn out are ringing in our ears. The truth is that the union opposition to partnership schools has been straight out of the old playbook. They are the same tired old lines they trot out at any attempt at reform of the education sector.Twenty percent of the education sector is an institutional failure to the kids in that sector tonight and that is what the Iwi Education Authority came to the Parliament and told us. We have a long tail of underachievement in New Zealand. I say that it is not good enough the ACT Party says that it is not good enough the National Party says that it is not good enough and the Māori Party says that it is not good enough. Tonight kids are the winners. The Labour Party members are losers the New Zealand Firstmembers are losers and the Green Party members are losers on this philosophical debate because Parliament on balance has said that we are going to change it.It is shocking that any system could take a child through their formative years and after 13 years in the system turn out a student who is functionally illiterate and in no way prepared for the modern world. Partnership schools will make a real difference to New Zealand’s most disadvantaged students and for the life of me I cannot understand why the teacher unions and their apologists on the other side of the House are opposed to lifting the tide that floats all boats.The policy is not an attack on our teachers who by and large do a fantastic job. The policy acknowledges the contribution of the 35000 support staff in our schools who are so frequently belittled by the Opposition because they are not registered. They are belittled—35000 people who help out in schools every day of the week are belittled. We acknowledge them.No one is saying that this is a quick fix. No one here is saying that there are not a number of ways of addressing institutionalised failure. We are not going to spend this money on education and find that 20 percent of the kids leave after 13 years of education as failures. Every second Māori has not passed National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 1. Every second Pacific student has not passed NCEA level 1. The decision will be based on the needs of students as it should be not on the needs of teacher unions and not on the needs of the Labour Party - Green coalition of losers.Both the Ombudsman and the Human Rights Commission have been invited to work with the Ministry of Education on these contracts. Thankfully Parliament was not swayed by the Opposition’s attempt to limit the types of organisations that can run partnership schools. Achieving educational improvements and being accountable always mattered more than whether a partnership school is run by a trust charity business iwi or church group.I want to thank Cam Calder the chairman of the Education and Science Committee. I want to thank the Prime Minister and Hekia Parata and her colleague Nikki Kaye for the support they have given us and I want to thank the Māori Party because the Māori Party does not want institutionalised failure amongst Māori any longer. The Māori Party does not want kids to leave school after 13 years with no literacy and no numeracy. The Māori Party wants aspiration for young Māori and the Pacific Island representatives on the other side of the House should be ashamed of themselves for not supporting this—ashamed of themselves. Every second young Pacific student leaves school after 13 years without NCEA level 1 maths or English.I have good news for the House tonight: 35 quality applications have been made from groups across the country to turn this policy into something very worthwhile to turn education into an opportunity for everyone and to make sure that Māori and Pacific kids can foot it with the best of the other kids in the schools and have the dignity of work after a first-class education.It is a big loss for the small-minded apologists for the schoolteacher unions opposite and it is a big big win for kids up and down the country who are wondering what they are going to do when they have had 11 years at school and they cannot read and cannot write. Partnership schools will be established in areas that experience significant underachievement where students are underserved by the current system. I cannot for the life of me understand why the educated people on the other side of the House do not want a world-class education for everyone. They can sling the abuse and they do not like it they can wear the lipstick and look good on TV and make a big impression and they do not like it—Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Hon JOHN BANKS: —but they do not like it because they come into the House—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! There is a point of order.Denise Roche: Once more we are having to put up with sexism from that member and I find it really offensive.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did ask the member to desist. He will withdraw the remark.Hon JOHN BANKS: I withdraw. The ACT Party—Hon Members: Apologise.Hon JOHN BANKS: If these members opposite would breathe through their noses and listen for a minute I have got a compelling finish to this great piece of policy change. It is going to revolutionise education in this country for our poorest students right across the board.Sue Moroney: Downwards downwards—you’ll make it worse.Hon JOHN BANKS: Listen carefully Mrs Moroney and you might learn something. The unelected member of Parliament from the Labour Party might learn something if she breathed through her nose and this is what it is. We want to be associated with partnership schools. These schools will stand or fall on their results as it should be. I want to thank everyone who has helped support the passage of this bill and who believes like ACT does that every child deserves a world-class education—every single child deserves a world-class education. This is a land of opportunity and our future is predicated on looking after the poorest of the poor who can raise their aspirations by having an education that teaches them to read and to write. Partnership schools will make a difference—a big difference. Roll on first day first term 2014.TRACEY MARTIN (NZ First): Kia ora Mr Deputy Speaker. You know you are in trouble when the most honest person on that side of the House is John Banks. The vision is actually 50 schools to 60 schools.Maggie Barry: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception and offence to that remark. I am an honest person.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I think—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. We know that in this House all members are regarded as honourable members. I think the debate will make more progress if we stay away from personal attacks and debate the issues.Denise Roche: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?Denise Roche: Yes it is. I thought the Speakers’ rulings were that you could not say that you were offended by a comment that went to another member.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is the same point of order. I have already ruled on it. The member is quite out of order raising an issue after I have ruled on it.Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a new point of order?Metiria Turei: Yes it is. It is another offensive comment from John Banks who just described my colleague as stupid. That is not in order in this House and I—Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I did not hear the comment—Metiria Turei: Well I did hear it.Denise Roche: I heard it and I’m offended.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Did the member—will the member withdraw and—Hon John Banks: I withdraw.TRACEY MARTIN: The reality is that this is an emotive issue. These are our children we are talking about. That is why it is emotive. These are the children whom each one of us cares about. I have no doubt that members of the Government care about the education of children. I have no doubt that Mr Banks believes somewhere insidehimself that this is a good policy. Unfortunately as Sir Peter Gluckman just said earlier this evening this is not evidence-based policy—this is not evidence-based policy. Peter Gluckman was here earlier this evening in the Beehive theatrette promoting evidence-based policy so that downstream these decisions are endurable. This is not an endurable decision.New Zealand First needs to join with the Labour Party and the Green Party in issuing a warning. That warning is: please do not mortgage your home to open a charter school. Please do not put yourself in debt to open a charter school because it is very unlikely that you have a long future. Any best practice developed inside a charter school will be brought inside the State school system and it is possible that you may want to shift from a charter school to a private school but please I beg you do not put yourself in debt to do this because its future is too unstable.If this policy was about targeting those children who are achieving in the tail—the stanine 1 to stanine 3—and if that was whom these schools had to direct their services towards that would be different. If these schools had to provide something that is not currently supported for those students whom Mr Banks refers to being in the “tail of underachievement”—for example dyslexic or dyspraxic children—that would be different. If these schools had closed rolls only to target those students whom we are not supporting well enough inside our public school system that would be different but they are not. Catherine Isaac came to my office and said: “No no no no we are targeting middle New Zealand.” There is no money in decile 1 decile 2 decile 3 stanine 1 stanine 2 and stanine 3 children. They are very intensive work—and they deserve it—but you cannot skim a profit off them. So there lies the flaw. If this was not-for-profit that would be different. But none of those things are inside this Education Amendment Bill.I am still trying to find out who is driving this bill because it is not the New Zealand public. Private schools’ rolls have not increased from the 5 percent for the last 30 years. They have not increased. There is no more demand for that style of education and yet possibly—possibly—this door was opened when the recession began in 2008 and private schools’ rolls started to drop. It may be—it just may be—because the public system is doing so well. The public system is doing so well particularly over the last few years with the extra supports that needed to be in place and with more professional development compulsory professional development around Te Kotahitanga and Ka Hikitia—Managing for Success then we might have seen even further leaps inside the public system. But perhaps because the mainstream public school system is doing so well private schools are under pressure. Perhaps that is what is driving this because there is no appetite for it out in the real world.I need to also issue another word of warning. Under this legislation it is not possible to have a school for Māori. It is not possible to have a school for Pasifika students. This is an open-door policy. Mr Toby Curtis and Mr Pem Bird think that they will take 23 successful kura from inside the current Education Act 1989—and I believe my colleague Metiria Turei made the Minister give us volumes in her answer today at question time while she was trying not to say something. Toby Curtis and Pem Bird—who is the president of the Māori Party and therefore the Māori Party has a conflict of interest in this House—are intending to take and I predict 23 kura outside the Education Act 1989 and turn them into charter schools. They can then throw away the current curriculum deliver what they believe is more culturally appropriate and do what they like.The word is that there is a contract here though. The Minister says: “There is a contract. Trust us. Trust us because there is a contract.” Earlier today we had a debate about a contract. That was a pretty big contract. It had key performance indicators in itit had levels of achievement that had to be reached or it would be stopped. Why should we be confident with our children that these contracts will be any different? The point is that we will not know the key performance indicators—we will not know the key performance indicators. If it is a primary school we have a 6-year window. We have a 6-year window in which to get it right. Are we doing it 100 percent right? No we are not. But $19 million is taken currently out of Vote Education. Instead of supporting literacy support for 5-year-olds and 6-year-olds with an identified need instead of supporting dyslexic and dyspraxic children inside our systems and instead of supporting truancy officers to make sure children go to school we have decided to open another competitor.The other word that is being bandied about the other thing that is said to calm us all and to calm the public is that this is about “choice”. But actually to have true choice just as Dr Gluckman said earlier today you need to be truly informed. You need to know all the pieces of information before you can make a choice. There has been information withheld from the New Zealand public. For one thing there is no transparency around the “high-quality applicants” for the 35 schools. I happen to know one school that has found itself on that list but never asked to be on it. I find that very very interesting. Apparently it was asked to speak at an ACT electorate meeting and the next thing it knew it had its name on a charter school list.There are things that have not been said. I cannot believe—I choose not to believe that my colleagues on the Education and Science Committee truly support this bill. I understand their circumstances. I understand why they have had to stand and say what they do—very little to be perfectly honest because there is very little they can say. But I am sad for them because their names will be on this legislation when it passes through this House.The other thing I do want to touch on is the clause that has been inserted around governance and around making boards of trustees responsible for the academic outcomes of all students. I find that very interesting. It is interesting because—[Interruption] Why the boards of trustees is the question. They are not the professional leaders of the school. They are elected parent trustees who are there to govern the school not manage it. The School Trustees Association has warned that this blurs even further the line between governance and management. Is it possible that what this is about is the fact that the Minister can remove boards of trustees but cannot remove principals or teachers? The Minister has had a problem implementing national standards and there are still schools—even more schools now after the farce of e-AsTTle and other testing—that realise that national standards are flawed beyond repair. So possibly the ministry has suggested this is the way to place pressure on to make sure the national standards will be met.The final thing is that Mr Banks forgets that of the 20 percent of children in the tail 5 percent are children with special needs. Every one of those children has an individual education programme to attain their best. But Mr Banks holds so much ignorance around the field of education that it is impossible to have a conversation with him.COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura): It is a pleasure to take a call on the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. This bill represents very very positive options and choices for the public. I just want to put it on record that the House has heard the venom that has come from members on the other side who have spoken against the communities that have shown a passion to take ownership of the underachievement in education. I stand here tonight to say that it would be a lunacy of any future Government if the Opposition were to get into power to do away with communities taking ownership of the achievement of their young ones.So on that basis let us clarify a couple of points that have been falsely represented on the other side. They talk about unqualified teachers. Sadly when you hear Opposition members speaking when they are speaking to their friends they are trying to sound angry because they want to be believed to be wedded to that side of the debate. The truth of the matter is that those people who are unregistered teachers will have to show outstanding qualities in teaching in order to be in a charter school. There will be police vetting. There will not be secrecy around the Teachers Council vetting of teachers. The State system is not the only solution.What has ever happened to the Labour Opposition? It is not since 1989 that it has had any vision. What have we seen coming out of the National Party? We have seen the Industry Training Act the New Zealand Qualifications Authority framework the private training establishments the trades academies and more. It gives me great pleasure to support this great step forward this addition to the Education Act. I commend this bill to the House.SUE MORONEY (Labour): This bill—the Education Amendment Bill; from the crew who tried to convince us that bigger class sizes would be better for educational outcomes—just about says it all. This is the same bureaucratic babble and nonsense that those members tried to foist on New Zealand parents when they said that having more children in classes and fewer teachers in classrooms would be better for educational quality. Well they were trying to pull the wool over parents’ eyes then and they are trying to do the same now. Well actually they are not even trying to argue let us be honest about it. National members cannot even sustain more than 1-minute’s worth of arguments for charter schools. They are so embarrassed by their feeble attempts.I challenge the next National MP who gets on their feet to talk for 10 minutes and argue for charter schools and not do what Cam Calder did. He is the chair of the Education and Science Committee and he could not even utter the words “charter school” when he gave his contribution. He wanted to talk about search and surveillance. He would not even address the issue the main issue in this amendment bill and that is that the Government is borrowing a failed system from the United States like National does all the time with all of its policies. It cannot come up with New Zealand - grown Kiwi-based success stories so it looks to wreck our education system by borrowing from a failed system in the United States. Is not that the National Party all over? Is that not also John Banks all over as well?The shameful thing about this piece of legislation is that the Government is putting politics before our children. It is putting politics before our children and the quality of the education system. It is trading in our world-class public education system—it is trading that in—for a failed system. I am going to disagree a little with Tracey Martin from New Zealand First on this issue because she said there is no evidence around charter schools. Well there is. The evidence is that they fail. The evidence is that they fail. In every other country where they have been implemented they fail. So we have got the evidence. We know that charter schools do not work.What is it that the Government does not get about its so-called 20 percent tail of underachievement which it keeps going on about? The Government says that 20 percent of our children do not achieve. John Banks agrees. He has to agree. That is the line the Government has been trotting out for about 5 years now—20 percent. There is another 20 percent figure I want to remind that Government about. Twenty percent of our children in Aotearoa live in poverty. Twenty percent of children in the land of milk and honey live in poverty.What do Government members not get about the correlation between those two statistics? Twenty percent of our children live in poverty and 20 percent of our children the Government says are failing. What do those members not get? Why dothey not join the dots? [Interruption] Join the dots Mr Banks because you and that party over there will do nothing about addressing poverty. They are doing nothing. In fact they want to pretend it does not exist. That is the way that party wants to address poverty. It wants to pretend it does not exist.Instead of dealing with the root causes and addressing the issues that New Zealand families are crying out for in terms of support for their children what do those members do? They come up with a solution that no one has asked for. They come up with a solution over a cosy cup of tea—well actually a corrupt cup of tea as we learnt afterwards. That is the solution they have come up with—charter schools.No one asked for charter schools. Well actually I may be wrong there. I apologise if I am wrong because I think John Banks asked for charter schools. This was the dirty deal that was stitched up between ACT and National so that National could get back into power. They did a dirty deal over Epsom and they did a dirty deal over the teacups with charter schools as well. That today sadly is what our children are being exposed to. That is what future generations are going to be exposed to because of that dirty deal over a dirty cup of tea and that dirty deal over the Epsom electorate.Hon John Banks: Oh diddums!SUE MORONEY: John Banks says “Diddums”. That is a really mature contribution to the debate. That is about the level of it in terms of maturity. This is the man New Zealand who is wrecking your education system and his response is “Diddums”. That is as good as it gets. I want everyone in New Zealand to understand who the mastermind is behind charter schools. The best defence he can come up with is “Diddums”. Well that about says it all.On the select committee we had a briefing from a woman from New Orleans and Karran Harper Royal was her name.Hon John Banks: How bad was that!SUE MORONEY: Mr Banks wants to know how bad it was. I think he needs to listen up. It was pretty prophetic what she told us—not pathetic but prophetic. It was a prophecy. She warned us that in New Orleans what had happened was that the Government there used the opportunity of a natural disaster to close down a number of State-funded schools.Dr Rajen Prasad: It sounds a bit familiar.SUE MORONEY: It sounds a bit familiar does it not? Those State-funded schools were replaced by these failing charter schools. She came to warn us that she believed that exactly the same thing would happen in Christchurch: a natural disaster and the Government comes along and closes down State schools and then opens up on those same sites privatised charter schools without any accountability to the public.What did we hear today from the Minister of Education? I think the Minister pretty much confirmed that that is exactly what this Government has planned. Members opposite know it—listen; you can hear a pin drop. They know it. They know that their Government has gone about closing down State-funded schools in order to slip taxpayer money across to charter schools run by their mates without any accountability.And let me say while I am on that issue that John Banks tried to pretend—and so did the last speaker Colin King—that somehow these are going to be community-run facilities facilities run by the community for the community. Well they are not required to have a board of trustees; not like State-run schools. They are not required to actually give any information to the public about how the public’s own money is being used in running these schools. There is only one reason why the Government would want to hide that information—no actually I can think of two: one is it does not want the public to know how their money is being misused and secondly it does not want the public to discover how those charter schools are failing.The Government makes a lot of the contracts that are going to be made between the Crown and these charter school operators whoever they may be—and they could be anybody quite frankly because there are no rules there are no regulations and there are no standards when it comes to who can run a charter school. Is that not right Mr Banks? There are no standards at all as to who can run a charter school. There are no standards. The Government is dropping the standards. It will not let anyone understand what is going on because it has deliberately kept charter schools out of the purview of the Official Information Act. And it expects us to believe that this bill is about improving the education system.Well if it were an ounce about improving the education system the Government would be proud of it; it would not be hiding it. While I am on the subject of who would be proud and not hiding can I say “Shame on the Māori Party.” Shame on Māori Party members for not being involved in this debate and for putting their votes to something they are not prepared to even come and speak to in the House. They have not made a contribution to this debate. They are instrumental in forcing this upon our wonderful education system yet where are they when the rubber hits the road? Where are they to stand up and be counted on why they are putting their votes—Alfred Ngaro: What are you doing?SUE MORONEY: —beside these schools? I can tell that member what we did. The Labour Government funded te kotahitanga. We did not cut the funding like his Government is doing. He does not care at all for Māori achievement if he can be a member of a Government that will cut the funding to one of the most successful programmes for Māori students—te kotahitanga. That member need not take that attitude because if he really meant what he said he would not be doing that.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am astounded at what I have heard from the previous speaker Sue Moroney—actually at what I have heard from everyone on the Labour side and from their coalition partners their mixed-ownership model partners the Greens. It seems that it is OK for them to have choice but they do not want New Zealand parents to have choice. They do not want to see parties like the Māori Party actually trying to do something about the one in five students who is failing. They say partnership schools will fail but they do not want us to do anything about it. What are they doing and what did they do about the one in five who is failing? Their argument holds no water much like many other of their policies.I want to focus on just one aspect of the Education Amendment Bill which deals with the surrender and retention components.Sue Moroney: Oh search and surveillance here we go.MIKE SABIN: Well if that member actually took a little bit of time to talk to some people out there in the school community—parents principals and boards of trustees—instead of swanning around this place she would find that it is a challenge out there. This bill actually provides them with the meaningful tools that they need to keep students safe and the learning environment conducive to learning. That is what this is about—that is what this is about.I think I have pretty much nailed my point on this but can I just say over the din and the ranting I am hearing from the other side that the search and surrender components of the Education Amendment Bill are about providing the tools that these schools need to keep their environments safe and protect the learning environments of those students who are there to learn. The guidelines are something I encourage the Ministry of Education and the school community to get on with and to get sorted and let us make our schools function and work well.Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: A split call. Louisa Wall—5 minutes.LOUISA WALL (Labour—Manurewa): Kia ora. Thank you very much for this opportunity to talk about what is titled the Education Amendment Bill but for me is actually the “Anti - Public Education Amendment Bill”. This bill is gutting community involvement in education. It is gutting parents’ involvement in their children’s learning. I want to say from living in a community like Manurewa that my principals and my teachers are incredibly dedicated and hard-working people as Cam Calder knows. They are dedicated and hard-working people. So what is the biggest challenge in communities like Manurewa? As Cam will know it is not that our principals and our schools do not have the best interests of our children at heart. The reality is that we have two cohorts of children living in Manurewa—and my colleague Sue Moroney touched on this. We have children who come from stable families. They are able to go to school day in and day out. They may not have an early childhood education experience but what we know from Jane Milner and Redoubt North Primary School is that if they can have our kids who are on average 18 months to 2 years behind as 5-year-olds for up to 3 to 4 years those kids can catch up. Our children are clever. They just live in circumstances beyond their control that mean that it is hard for them to go to school.So we have a cohort of children who are stable kids and who come from families living in homes as part of the community. They can go to school and they can succeed. The other cohort of children is called unstable children. They come from homes from which some are enrolled in nine schools in 1 year. So what does the Government want to say? The Government’s solution in terms of charter schools does not address the underlying issues. The underlying issues are that families do not have access to affordable housing. That is the primary issue. Transience is a huge issue in communities like mine. The solution that this bill proposes is actually incredibly flawed and it is also scientifically corrupt. It is an incredibly dishonest piece of legislation. But at the heart of this legislation you are actually eroding parents’ rights to be on boards of trustees and to be part of solutions to ensure that their children are getting the best education.I am proud to say that of my 29 schools eight have had Education Review Office reports that say that they do not have to be visited for 5 years. Why is that relevant to this debate? It is relevant to this debate because what it says is that my schools—the schools that Cam Calder visits—are run by principals and boards of trustees who are doing a fantastic job for our children. I want to acknowledge the work that our teachers are doing and that whānau who work in Manurewa are doing to better our children and their education. But the reality is that they cannot control the social determinants of those children. They cannot control the fact that the children do not have a home. They cannot control the fact that some of the parents in my community are in low-paid work.Mike Sabin: What on earth has that got to do with this bill?LOUISA WALL: This bill is about charter schools and partnership schools being incredibly flawed and corrupt. Did you not hear me earlier? The solution that this Government is proposing is pathetic and it is not going to achieve anything for communities in my electorate.I want to conclude by agreeing with my colleague Sue Moroney about the Māori Party. It is only because of the Māori Party that this bill will be passed. It has tools within the current Education Act—sections 155 and 156—forkura kaupapa Māori to be designated as special character schools. We do not need charter schools and partnership schools in New Zealand and we will repeal this legislation as a priority. Thank you.HOLLY WALKER (Green): I am very pleased to be able to take a call in the third reading of the Education Amendment Bill on behalf of my colleague Catherine Delahunty. I am pleased to report for the benefit of the Hon John Banks that I am not wearing any lipstick tonight so unfortunately he will have to put his sexism aside and listen to the content of my speech.I am glad to be having my say because I have to say this is one of the most appalling bills to pass through the House in my time in Parliament so far. Basically at its heart this bill is a $19 million cup of tea. It is the result of the deal between John Banks and John Key which allows for a single member in this House to insist on an unpopular undemocratic non-transparent law change which no one publicly campaigned for before the election. That is the $19 million cup of tea that we are getting tonight in the form of this bill. It is yet another example I think of this Government governing for the benefit of its mates and in this case for its mate John Banks.What is so abhorrent about this bill? Well I have got five things and I hope I have time to talk about them all. The first is that there is no requirement for partnership schools—yes I will use the terminology—to have registered teachers in their schools. A university degree is apparently enough perhaps not even that to teach children—Hon Member: No they don’t even have to have that.HOLLY WALKER: —yes not even that—in the vital stage of their education. Teaching is a highly complex job it is vitally important and it is a job that we should value very highly. It is informed by theory pedagogy culturally appropriate knowledge and having the right skills to work with vulnerable learners none of which are going to be available to people who have not trained as teachers and who are not registered teachers. So this bill is undermining the teaching profession and with unregistered teachers it is an experiment essentially on our kids.The second reason that this bill is abhorrent is that it is not subject to the Official Information Act. So we have got $19 million of public money being spent on these schools with absolutely no level of public oversight on how that money is spent. There is no transparency there is no ability for the Ombudsman to investigate complaints about the schools of which I am sure there will be many and it is basically an inexcusable lack of accountability for the use of public money in our school system.The third reason that the bill is abhorrent is the use of public money for private profit-making businesses and it is straight-out corporate welfare. It is handing taxpayer money to private profit-driven companies to allow them to run schools for profit and to pocket public taxpayer money for profit. They can receive special funding for certain elements of that including for students with disabilities but they do not have to provide any level of accountability that that money is actually spent on what they say it is going to be spent on. They can pocket it as profit if they want to and that is taxpayer-funded public money.The fourth reason that the bill is abhorrent is what we heard today that it is rubbing salt in the wounds of schools that have been closed. Today we heard in question time that first of all the Minister of Education could not even remember signing her own Cabinet paper that suggested closed schools would be the logical first locations for the new charter or partnership schools. She did not remember signing that advice but that was her advice to Cabinet. Then when she was questioned about it she could not rule out that she might use closed school sites in Christchurch to open charter schools. After everything else that she has put the school community in Christchurch through—trying to tell them that their schools are irreparably damaged or that they do not have enough students to stay open and then closing their schools—she is now telling them that she might allow private for-profit charter schools to open up on the sites of the schools that she is about to close. Talk about adding insult to injury.The fifth and final reason why this bill is so abhorrent is that it is an ideological solution in search of a problem. We have a great public education system in this country and it delivers some of the best results in the developed world in terms of public education. There is absolutely no evidence including from the United States from where this model was imported that charter schools will actually deliver anybetter results for those most vulnerable learners whom those on the Government benches like to trumpet in this debate as though they are going to be solving the problem of inequality and education through the mechanism of charter schools. There is no evidence that that is required and that charter schools actually achieve that. It is already possible to establish special character schools to meet particular community needs under the Education Act. There is no need for this legislation. It is abhorrent and I am very proud to speak in opposition to it.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): Thank you for the chance to speak on this third reading of the Education Amendment Bill. We have heard a lot of talk particularly coming from the Opposition using the word “ideology”—that this is all about ideology. There are two general elements that you can kick into here. The first is that this side of the House has not used the word “ideology”. In fact it has been straw man or “straw person” politics—we have to be gender-neutral tonight. It has been straw person politics arguing what supposedly the Opposition has said. That is not what it is about. You see the key with ideology is that you can flush it out pretty quickly. I suppose I want to suggest charging that this has been more about the Opposition.Firstly the thing that you see when ideology comes from the Opposition is that you know it is ideology because it is highly emotional it is yelling and it is screaming and it is that belief from the ideological left that if you yell louder somehow it makes your point more valid. The second side—and we have been hearing again about ideology and I am reversing this back on to the Opposition—is around consistency. We have heard the Opposition talk about special character schools and State schools. We have heard about integrated schools.David Bennett: How about Catholic schools?SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes very good Catholic schools as well. Of course the thing is that if you want to be consistent then a further option really is not a problem. I suggested during the Committee stage that actually these parties—the Labour Party and the Greens—would have been fighting against integrated schools in the 1970s because they are different. What they want and they have talked about it themselves is to have their hands on a singular control. I also get the sense that they just want to keep on talking.The third element where you know the Opposition is coming from an ideological side is proportionality. When you look at any argument it is all about proportionality. We have heard tonight the “Chicken Little” approach to politics from the—Hon John Banks: Chicken liver.SIMON O’CONNOR: Chicken liver even possibly. It is sort of a pâté maybe. But the Opposition has said the sky is going to fall in. This is going to be the end of education. This is going to be the end of childhood. Somehow this is going to destroy New Zealand this approach here that attempts another addition to help one out of five children.The final side—the fourth side—you realise is not about ideology from the Government’s side but from the Opposition’s side and that is threats. You hear threats: “We are going to change this legislation come hell or high water.” It is the same with the whole casino thing: “We do not like it so we are going to make threats.” So you can see that ideology is being spoken about and accused of the Government but actually it is coming from the other side—lack of consistency lack of proportionality lots of threats and emotionalism.This Government—and I think all sides of this Government—supports teachers. It has a respect for the teaching profession. A number of the people on this side have been teachers. A number of us have friends who are teachers. We have respect for the teaching profession and what teachers engage with. This bill is not about replacingschools; this is about an addition. This is not removing the current system; this is adding on to it in the same way that our special character schools work. Tracey Martin was talking about how we have got a number of people who have special needs who are well catered for but there are still options. So this is not about replacing it is not even about replicating; it is about an addition.I think there are other elements we need to consider. There has been a lot of talk a lot of mix-up particularly from the Opposition around the whole registered versus qualified side. The language from the Opposition has been very imprecise. This bill says that being a registered teacher is not an absolute condition; being qualified is. I want to challenge one of the last speakers who was suggesting that somehow the only way you can teach is to have gone through teachers college—the only way you can teach is through teachers college. That cannot make sense—that cannot make sense.People all through this House teach their children in all sorts of different ways. Each and every one of us teaches and imparts knowledge in different ways and not all of us needed to go to teachers college to do this. We did not need to do that. In fact even when you look at something like tradition if you would even use that word “tradition”—dare I use that in the House—there is an element of teaching as tradition comes from the root word the etymology “to pass on”. That is something that each and every one of us—Hon Simon Bridges: My mother was a teacher.SIMON O’CONNOR: Yes yes. His mother is a teacher.Hon Simon Bridges: My brother.SIMON O’CONNOR: His brother is a teacher.Hon Simon Bridges: Sister went to teachers college.SIMON O’CONNOR: His sister has gone to teachers college on this side of the House. But see teaching is about passing on. It is about tradition—handing on—and that is the core of the teaching profession. So this is not about not having qualified teachers; this is about registered teachers. Just a couple of final points—Kris Faafoi: Thank goodness!SIMON O’CONNOR: Oh we go “thank goodness”. I come back to the ideology and contradiction—contradiction. This side—Dr Cam Calder: Tautology.SIMON O’CONNOR: Tautology even—repetitious tautology. They have been yelling and crying that side of the House that someone will not take a call. And then when someone dares to stand up it is “Oh no we do not want to hear that now.” This is all about control.I want to come back to what I was saying in the Committee of the whole House. This is taxpayers’ money. Individual taxpayers contribute to the education system. If those individual taxpayers want to come together to form a school with their money well all power to them. They are taxpayers. They are individuals. They are families. They want this education system. Let us pass this bill. Let us put it into law. I welcome 2014.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Education Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes62New Zealand National 59; Māori Party 2; ACT New Zealand 1.Noes57New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Mana 1; United Future 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.Land Transport Management Amendment BillThird ReadingHon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Transport): I moveThat the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a third time. I thank members of the select committee particularly the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in this case for the work that they have done on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. It has been given a very thorough examination and a number of valuable amendments have been made.The bill amends the Land Transport Management Act 2003 known as “the Act” and it also repeals the Public Transport Management Act 2008 and carries over its provisions as modified by the bill. The bill is part of the Government’s ongoing efforts to cut unnecessary red tape and to create better more effective legislation.The bill has three main components. First it simplifies the Act’s planning and funding framework. Second it streamlines the Act’s tolling and public-private partnership provisions and third it implements a new public transport operating model.Key changes made by the bill are first to planning and funding. The bill amends the Act’s planning and funding framework by making it simpler more streamlined and less prescriptive. To achieve this the bill focuses decision making on three key criteria: effectiveness efficiency and safety. It also combines the former five national and regional transport planning documents into three main documents. The bill simplifies the Act’s consultation provisions and enables regions to tailor their engagement processes to specific situations. The bill also allows the New Zealand Transport Agency to borrow against National Land Transport Fund revenue to finance projects with the approval of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport should circumstances suggest there is a good case for borrowing and it is prudent to do so.The bill also amends the Act’s tolling and public-private partnership provisions. The bill simplifies and streamlines the Act’s framework for assessing tolling schemes and processes for improving public-private partnerships. These changes will reduce potential barriers to the use of the Act’s tolling and public-private partnership provisions while maintaining robust approval processes. In respect of regional fuel tax the inefficient and impractical regional fuel tax put in place in 2008 is repealed.Finally the bill establishes the public transport operating model in legislation. This model provides a new framework for building long-term partnerships between regional councils and public transport operators to deliver public transport services. The model will deliver more competitive public transport services that are less reliant on public subsidy. Over time public transport users will see better integration of services and better-quality services with more focus on customer needs.The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is an important bill and I am confident that it will only improve land transport planning and decision making as well as ensuring that central and local government get better value for money from their investment in public transport. It will also support all of our efforts to cut unnecessary red tape to create better more effective legislation. I commend this bill to the House.DARIEN FENTON (Labour): I rise to take a call on the third reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill and to reiterate that Labour continues to oppose this bill. Despite putting up some excellent Supplementary Order Papers during the Committee stage that would have improved this bill the Government kept its head down. It remains stuck in the tarmac dedicated to building roads roads and more roads to the detriment of everything else.The truth is that this Government wants this bill to pass so that it can borrow more and charge more on toll roads. The bill clearly shows that the Government’s direction inland transport is to build more and more unsustainable roads and spend more on motorways to nowhere. It seems that the Government woke up one day and realised that the roads of national significance projects are too expensive and that it is going to have to borrow to fund them or make them all toll roads. That is the truth of why it needs this bill. That is what is at the heart of this bill. Without increasing petrol tax beyond CPI adjustments the New Zealand Transport Agency would need to borrow $930 million over the next 5 years to keep the roads of national significance on track. That is $930 million over the next 5 years that would need to be borrowed.Meanwhile this Government continues to underfund local roading. I am sure we will hear about more local roads in this debate. We will hear more about local roads in this debate and I know my colleagues have many a story to tell on that. The current level of subsidy sees State highways receiving $142509 per kilometre compared with just $7573 per kilometre for local roads. How unbalanced is that? That just shows you that what this Government is up to—Hon Maryan Street: More and more highways.DARIEN FENTON: Yes—more and more highways. It is addicted to tarmac and does not care about the local people.When you look at the purpose of this bill it says it all. The Government has removed references to words like “affordable” “integrated” “safe” “sustainable” “accessible” and “one that promotes public health environment and social responsibility.” During the Committee stage we sought to understand why the Government thought it could remove those criteria and reduce them down to three which is what it describes as streamlined project-level decision-making criteria—three criteria—to give effect to the Government policy statement and to be effective and efficient.What is being cut out? Let us remember what is being cut out. “Affordable”—what is wrong with “affordable”? I thought this was a Government that prided itself on being fiscally responsible but it does not want to have that as a criterion in this bill. It does not want to have the word “integrated”. It has removed “integrated” which is about incorporating not only roads but also rail and coastal shipping. Coastal shipping has died a death under this Government. We were making progress under the last Government and it has died a death under this Government which is so committed to roads. It is not committed to rail in real terms; it just wants to make sure that we have no other way of getting around except by roads.The Government wants to remove the word “safe”. Surely we want a land transport management system that is safe. What is wrong with “safe”?David Bennett: Look at the road toll.DARIEN FENTON: Well roads have not—[Interruption] No he does not. Maybe as that member was saying the roads of national significance should not be safe. Is that what the member is saying? Is that what he is saying? Look we just had a fantastic weekend when nobody was killed on the road. Nobody was killed on the road and that is down to the hard work of many many people over many years. Certainly I am sure that the people who were responsible for the wonderful road safety we had over the weekend will be very concerned to hear that this Government does not think “safe” is a decision criterion.The Government has also removed the words “responsive” and “sustainable”. “Sustainable” is a dirty word for this Government. This is a word that this Government does not like to use. It does not understand it but I thought it might understand assisting “economic development”. Would you not think that a National Government that again prides itself on being fiscally responsible and that boasts all the time about its wonderful economic management would want to have a criterion that requires land transport management systems to assist economic development?And “improving access and mobility” has gone. I think we saw during urgency the disgraceful performance of this Government and the lack of regard it has for people with disabilities and that is what this means—that is what this means. Removing accessibility and mobility not having those as criteria is a slap in the face to the people throughout New Zealand who have disabilities and who rely on the Government to actually recognise that for them to get around we have to take special care and provide special access.And then there are other things like social responsibility. Of course they are dirty words for this Government. I do not think it would understand what social responsibility meant. Here is another one: “environmental responsibility”.Hon Maryan Street: No idea.DARIEN FENTON: There you go. We had the Hon Maryan Street speaking this afternoon about the Budget and about the fact that nothing about the environment was mentioned in the Budget speeches—no new initiatives no new money. So I guess those are our concerns about the bill. This is why we are very concerned about it and why we continue to be opposed to it.There are other things about the bill. It abolishes the ability to have a regional fuel tax. That is just another cynical attempt by the National Government to prevent the Auckland Council’s plans for its transport system. The Minister of Transport already has complete control of whether a fuel tax is created. We know that Steven Joyce and Gerry Brownlee do not get along with Auckland but some of us live there. Some of us are just very very keen to see the plans that have been laid out by our properly elected mayor and council to ensure that we have a future transport system throughout Auckland that is fit for purpose that will cope with growing populations that does not rely on building more roads when we do not have any more room and that actually extends public transport. But abolishing the ability to have regional fuel tax takes that opportunity away.And of course local communities under this bill have less say in supporting transport projects that benefit them. The bill reduces opportunities for community input into the transport systems. We in Labour strongly believe that every community should have the ability to have its say about its transport systems but this Government is taking that away just like it is taking away other things that underpin our land transport system. It is taking away the right of communities to have a say on their local transport systems.So this bill will do nothing to fix the shambles the transport portfolio has been in since this Government took over with years of wasteful mismanagement. The sad thing about it is that future generations will pay the price for the very very stunted and short-term thinking that this bill demonstrates. It is a missed opportunity and it undoes much of the good work that Labour did when it was in Government around progressing and upgrading land transport management systems. It is a real shame and that is why Labour is opposed to this bill.DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East): I just want to thank members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee and the Minister of Transport for the way that this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill was progressed through the select committee. I thought that the members of the committee did a very good job and I would like to acknowledge the National members who are here in the House tonight who have followed this bill with interest throughout that process.I would also like to acknowledge the Labour members. Darien Fenton was part of that committee and it was very disappointing to hear her speech tonight. I thought it was probably one of her worst contributions to this House and I do not say that lightly. I have seen a few Darien and this one just did not do it you know. I do not know whatthe matter is but I think it is because Julie Anne Genter should lead off for the Opposition when it has its first speech on transport bills. She is the real transport spokesperson for the Labour Party. It does not even have one and it fell to Darien tonight.I feel sorry for you Darien. I know that this is not your area. I know that you are into labour relations and those sorts of things but it is a bit sad that they put you out as the first batter for the Labour Party. The Labour Party has got no policy.Darien Fenton: We’re going to have Phil Twyford back so he’s up next.DAVID BENNETT: Mr Twyford? He is not on the committee any more. No he has moved on. It is a bit of a shame so I feel sorry for you. So I just want to apologise to the people out there that Darien does not actually—this is not her forte.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full names.DAVID BENNETT: So—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full names.DAVID BENNETT: Darien Fenton. So it is a bit of a shame for her that she is having to lead off the Opposition speeches.Those members are all going to talk about roads of national significance and say how bad they are. I want to see one member of the Labour Party come to Hamilton and say that. Come to Hamilton in the next 15 months and say that in front of my people. No one over there would have the ability to do that and I want to see you come and say that.Dr David Clark: Oh so it’s all pork barrel?DAVID BENNETT: Oh yes we have got one—we have got a winner. We have got a winner here. He is going to come and say it after he says: “Worst economic record for 50 years.” That is the next line he is going to promote is it not?But Julie Anne well done.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): Full name.DAVID BENNETT: You have taken over the Labour Party policy on transport. It is wrong it is not what the public wants and you are going to lose votes for the Labour Party. And those New Zealand First members there who are still trying to work out what transport actually means you are also going to lose votes by sitting with those other two parties. It is such a shame that we have to debate it in that manner.This is a good bill. It is good for transport it is good for the solutions that we want and people want it as well. Thank you.PHIL TWYFORD (Labour—Te Atatū): It is a shame that the senior member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee David Bennett could not summon up more thought more intelligence more substance or even more wit in that last contribution. It is really a shame that a bill as important and far-reaching as the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill did not get a more serious treatment from the member opposite who gave it only 3 minutes.There are a number of reasons why the Labour Party opposes this bill and Darien Fenton summarised them very well. It is true that this bill narrows the principal legislation’s purpose statement and decision criteria in a way that we feel is retrograde and unhelpful to the future of New Zealand’s transport system. It is true that this bill reduces the say that communities all around New Zealand have in setting the transport priorities that they pay for with their petrol tax and their road-user charges. It is true that this bill perhaps most damagingly opens the door and facilitates more long-term debt and use of toll roads to fund a National Land Transport Programme whose priorities are fundamentally wrong and that is why we oppose this bill.More than ever—more than ever—the transport system in New Zealand needs to take account of sustainability. It needs to take account of social well-being the needs ofcommunities the environment and economic efficiency. Unfortunately what this bill does is cement in place the very narrow and distorted definition of economic efficiency that this Government has used to justify its roads of national significance. The National Government has gone on this motorway-building binge for the last few years wasting billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money building white elephant duplicate over-engineered and gold-plated motorway projects that will be an albatross around the necks of future generations of motorists.The bill also abolishes the regional fuel tax which is just part and parcel of this Government’s systematic stripping away of the powers and the options that local government might have to fund its own transport priorities. We have seen it recently in the debate in Auckland where within minutes of the report of the Auckland Council’s consensus-building group on funding options being released—and noting that he had not even read the report—Gerry Brownlee the Minister of Transport ruled out the very recommendations that that body of expert opinion recommended including a regional fuel tax to fund Auckland’s future transport agenda.But I want to focus the rest of my comments tonight on an issue that has not had much attention in the debate so far and that is a really insidious part of this bill which strips away the democratic rights of Aucklanders in setting the priorities of the transport programmes services and infrastructure—trains buses and ferries—that they pay for with their road taxes with their road-user charges and petrol excise duty and with their rates. This bill takes away the power to make decisions about Auckland’s transport system and hands those powers to Cabinet. It puts those powers in the hands of the executive at the expense of local government and the elected representatives of the people of Auckland. I think that is just unforgivable.It is just the latest move by this Government to clip the wings of the Auckland Council which it cannot abide. We have seen so many examples now that it is hard to keep track of them. There is a whole debate going on about the response to the housing affordability crisis in Auckland and we will come to that on another day.What this bill does is it strips Auckland Council of its right to determine the priorities for spending what is currently about $459 million a year. Thirty-three percent of the rates that Aucklanders pay goes to Auckland Transport. This bill takes away the ability of Auckland Council to have a say in setting those priorities. It is the only council in the country that is losing its democratic right. It is the only one and why is that? It is because this Government has a difficult problematic relationship with Auckland Council. The wrong guy won the mayoralty and the Government has never ever got over it. That is its problem and it will come back to bite it.There are two reasons why the measure in this bill is particularly offensive. The first is that it amounts to a giant loss of accountability for that $459 million a year that Aucklanders contribute out of their rates to transport. They are losing representation while they are being taxed. It is taxation without representation. It is a fundamental democratic principle that does not seem to be a matter of any importance to the National Government. It is quite happy to say to Aucklanders: “Never mind what you think. Never mind that 63 percent of Aucklanders want to see the city rail link built as a matter of priority. We in the National Government are going to impose this from Wellington.” Gerry Brownlee the “Minister of Gridlock” from his comfortable ministerial office in Auckland is giving the big middle finger to 1.4 million Aucklanders and saying: “Never mind what you think 1.4 million Aucklanders. You pay your rates you pay your taxes but I know best and I am going to set your priorities for Auckland. Never mind what you think.”This Government loves to treat Auckland with contempt. It is its No. 1 sport. We saw it actually right back in the setting up of the Auckland super-city when Treasury andthe Ministry of Transport advised Cabinet that Auckland Transport would be more accountable if it was set up within Auckland Council as a department. But Steven Joyce knew better. Steven Joyce advised Cabinet: “No set Auckland Council up as a council-controlled organisation—that way we can better control it.” That is exactly what this Government has set out to do. It wants to control Auckland Transport by requiring in this legislation that it act consistently with the Government policy statement. So Auckland Transport will take its marching orders not from the people of Auckland but from Cabinet. That is what is going on with this legislation. It is Cabinet telling Auckland how it is going to run its city and what the priorities are for its transport system.Andrew Little: They always do that.PHIL TWYFORD: That is exactly right.There is another basic principle of politics in Government called subsidiarity. Subsidiarity means that decisions should be made as close as possible to the location where the consequences of those decisions are felt by those people who live with the daily consequences. It is Aucklanders who have to live with the consequences of this Government’s policies and its priorities. It is Aucklanders who sit in traffic for an hour in the morning and an hour at night because this Government does not give a damn about their transport system and continues to want to impose a 1950s ideology of suburban sprawl and motorways. That is the mindset of the National Party and it does not give a damn. It does not give a damn that Aucklanders are actually crying out for something different.I want to say something to conclude about what National has done in the transport area. It has poured billions of dollars into gold-plated wasteful motorway projects. It has neglected public transport. Not a single new piece of public transport infrastructure has been initiated since these turkeys have been on the Treasury benches—not a single piece of new public transport. It is an absolute bloody disgrace. National has neglected rural roads. It has neglected State highways. It has run down KiwiRail. And now in this bill it is doctoring the legislative framework for our entire transport system in order to take power away from local communities and give it to Cabinet. What an absolutely disgraceful record. And I say to the National Government that it has gone too far. There is not a shred of consensus left in the transport sector after 4½ years that this Government has been in power.If there is a good thing that comes out of the wasteful mismanaged ideologically blinkered management of transport by this National Government it is that the next Labour-led Government will lead major reform. It will lead major reform and the legacy of the National Government will lie in tatters. I say to the members over there that all the things that you have done for the last 4½ years will be swept away because people do not want the kind of transport system that you have ushered in over the last 4½ years—not you Mr Assistant Speaker; these people on the National Treasury benches. There will be major reform. People will notice the difference. There will be public transport in our cities. The local roads will be maintained properly. There will not be billions of dollars wasted on motorways as the National Government has done. And that actually will be the legacy of that party’s tenure on the Treasury benches.JULIE ANNE GENTER (Green): I rise to speak on the third reading of the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I would like to start out by talking about the cost of transport because I think it is something that Government members probably do not know that much about. What we know from the regulatory impact statement and from the Government books is that central government spends $3 billion a year on transport infrastructure and services and local government spends $1 billion to $1.5billion a year. So all together we are talking about $4 billion to $4.5 billion a year of spending on transport from local and central government.Of course that money that they spend comes from New Zealanders. It comes from petrol taxes from road-user charges and from rates. But of course a much larger cost is the cost of vehicles and fuel to run them so our road network does not work unless households and businesses have vehicles and have fuel to run those vehicles. New Zealand households and businesses are spending in the order of $12 billion a year on vehicles and fuel to run them.Andrew Little: How much?JULIE ANNE GENTER: Twelve billion a year. So while the Government is taking our tax money and spending it on transport infrastructure and spending in the order of $4 billion a year households and businesses are actually having to spend three times that much on vehicles and fuel to run them. And of course all of that contributes to our current account deficit because in this country we do not manufacture vehicles and we do not produce petrol that is used in the tanks of cars. Even if we did find oil off the East Cape we would not be using it in the tanks of our cars and trucks because we produce light sweet crude oil here in New Zealand and we export all of it.So the total cost of our transport system is more than the amount of taxpayer money that the Government is spending on infrastructure. It is the money that households and businesses have to spend on vehicles and fuel to run them because they have no other choice because subsequent Governments have spent all of the money on infrastructure for vehicles and cars rather than looking at a more cost-effective solution which would look at what the best way is to move people and goods. What is the most cost-effective way to move people and goods? What the Green Party is advocating is simply a rational approach to assessing the problem of what the most cost-effective way is to move people and goods.It turns out that since we have a very extensive road system the biggest bang for our buck is going to be in improving the productivity of our road system and of our existing rail network. That means investment in capital expansion of our rail network so that we can deliver better services for exporters who are using rail freight to get their products to market and also investment in passenger transport and safe walking and cycling because New Zealanders would actually like their kids to be able to walk and cycle to school but they simply do not have the choice. And of course it is much more cost-effective to provide safe walking and cycling infrastructure than it is to constantly increase the supply of roads for more and more vehicles.We live in an interesting time. It turns out that the trends of the past 50 years are no longer continuing in the direction that they were going in. Yet another report has come out of the United States there have been reports from Australia and there have been reports here in New Zealand that show that the fundamental drivers of transport demand are changing. What we have seen is absolutely no increase in traffic volumes on State highways since 2004. We have seen no increase in heavy-vehicle traffic volumes since 2007. This is an opportunity that the National Government could be seizing to catch up on the lack of investment in alternatives—that means safe walking and cycling public transport and rail freight. All of that enables our transport network to work more efficiently. But instead it has declined to take a rational approach to the assessment of transport infrastructure.What it has done through theGovernment Policy Statement on Land Transport Fundingis have three measures by which it is going to define the effectiveness of the projects: one is efficiency one is strategic fit and one is effectiveness. Efficiency is the benefit-cost ratio or BCR. That is the amount of benefit the project provides divided by the cost; that gives you the benefit-cost ratio. What we have seen is that the vastmajority of spending from the National Government on transport infrastructure has very low economic efficiency. The New Zealand Transport Agency has that data available. I have brought it up in the House many times. We have seen the relative benefit of our spending start to decline and it is actually all very low right now because the Government is prioritising projects that do not have very great benefits relative to their costs.But it justifies these projects on two other criteria: strategic fit and effectiveness. The strategic fit means whether they fit the strategy as defined by the Minister. The Minister of Transport said the strategy is to build the roads of so-called national significance which are just some pet project motorways that the Government thinks are going to win it votes. So it is a very circular logic obviously because to meet the strategic fit when it is defined as building this particular motorway—well only building the motorway is going to meet that strategic fit. It is a bit of circular logic there in terms of what the Minister has said: “We want to build these motorways. Never mind that they have very low economic efficiency; we will say they have high strategic fit because the Minister said we had to build them.” Effectiveness is very similar. Effectiveness is how effective the project is at achieving the strategic fit. We have got two circular logic reasons for justifying projects. We have one that is about economic efficiency and by that test the roads of so-called national significance absolutely fail.Unfortunately we are talking about the single largest bit of spending in the National Infrastructure Plan. When the National Government talks about its plan for lifting our economic competitiveness and productivity it often refers to investing in productive infrastructure but about 90 percent of the money it is spending on productive infrastructure in the National Infrastructure Plan is on these roads of so-called national significance which have low economic efficiency. It is spending tens of billions of dollars on projects that have very little benefit relative to their cost. There is an opportunity cost. Most people do not see the opportunity cost of not spending that $10 billion on projects that would have greater benefits and actually reduce the costs that New Zealand households and businesses are having to spend on transport. Instead of reducing the costs that we are spending on transport by investing the money in a network that works more efficiently the Government has decided to spend the vast bulk of the money on new infrastructure—on a few projects that will win it votes.There is one other point that I would like to raise right now and that is clause 14 of this bill and what it does. Clause 14 of this bill takes away the right of regional councils to determine the strategic direction for transport in their areas. In particular it takes that away from Auckland Council and gives it to Auckland Transport. Clause 14 says that the strategic direction they are setting for transport in their region has to be consistent with theGovernment Policy Statement on Land Transport Funding. Of course the Government policy statement is written by the Minister who just says: “We want to build these projects not because they are economically efficient not because they are going to deliver benefits for the country but because we think they are going to win us votes.”So what the National Government has done with this bill—there are many bad aspects to this bill—is take away the ability of local ratepayers to determine what their money is going to be spent on. It also takes away the right of Aucklanders to determine what their money is going to be spent on what transport solutions are going to work best for them and it puts it all in the hands of the Minister who is writing his Government policy statement on a whim.Ultimately those roads of so-called national significance in the Waikato north of Auckland and in Wellington are not going to be used by very many people and they are certainly not being paid for by the users. If you look at the traffic volumes on theseroutes they are much smaller than the average daily traffic volumes on an arterial in Auckland. Auckland Council will not even have that much money to spend on upgrading those arterials or investing in productive infrastructure that would mean there were fewer cars on those arterials. Ultimately what is going on here is the National Government is saying to Auckland that it is not going to let it have its regional fuel tax it is not going to let it fund the solutions that would actually work for its communities; it is going to make its rates be spent on National’s electoral priorities and it is going to make sure that the fuel taxes of Aucklanders stuck in traffic well into the future are going to pay for some very low-value motorways. Thank you.MIKE SABIN (National—Northland): I am pleased to pick up after the member Julie Anne Genter has resumed her seat. She talked about circular logic. What happens when the member speaks is that the logic goes round in a circle because what she says makes so little sense that by the time I am speaking I am actually seeming like quite a luminary so I appreciate the member’s contribution to this debate on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill.Andrew Little: It ain’t as good as you make out.MIKE SABIN: Bring it on—bring it on. The Land Transport Management Amendment Bill goes to the heart of opening up the highways and byways that are fundamental to the economy of this country. The members over there say we should all be travelling around on unicycles or buses or something—I do not know—assuming somehow that they must levitate that they are hoverbuses or something because buses actually need roads as well. But so does a region like Northland where $800 million of that Northland economy makes its way to Auckland via State Highway 1. The State Highway 1 roads of national significance project is a project this Government is committed to and this bill goes to the heart of saying that this is about getting priorities and synergies right in terms of economic priorities because when we do not what we know is we end up with clogs and bottlenecks and every Aucklander will know that.For every member on that side of the House who says they are going to get rid of the Pūhoi to Auckland road the party vote for the National Party goes through the roof because everyone in Northland knows that the Pūhoi to Wellsford road is so important to Northland’s economy. I commend this bill to the House.DENIS O’ROURKE (NZ First): I am surprised that the last speaker Mike Sabin gave a 1½ minute speech on such an important bill. I felt that the speech was undercooked unpalatable and indigestible and so is this bill. The Minister of Transport said that the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill is about cutting red tape and saving money. In fact it is about much more than that. It makes some fundamental changes. It alters the objectives of the Land Transport Management Act. It changes the funding framework for land transport activities including roading public transport and road safety; it repeals regional fuel tax provisions; it changes the framework for assessing toll road schemes; and it establishes a policy framework for the relationship between regional councils and public transport operators.So I am starting first with the objectives of the New Zealand Transport Agency. The bill changes those objectives from the achievement of “an affordable integrated safe responsive and sustainable land transport system” to the achievement of “an effective efficient and safe land transport system”. The deletion of the words “affordable” “integrated” and “sustainable” and all that those terms mean will be a huge mistake for New Zealand. Essentially the bill means that the Government is interested only in saving money as its first priority but actually much more is at stake. The agency should be seeking much better integration of transport modes. As the era of the dominance of fossil fuel transport comes to an end—and it certainly is mostly because of the increasing costs and risks of production and the increased competitiveness ofalternative energy sources. As the dominance of the use of cars for peak-time travel is increasingly non-viable in the big cities especially at peak times and as the competitiveness of other modes and the huge increases in the cost of the road network expansions and maintenance continue then increasingly it is going to be necessary to ensure a properly integrated system so that the best use can be made of all modes and of the alternatives to more and more cars and bigger and more expensive motorways which is what the Government’s agenda is really about.Similarly it is essential for New Zealand to design a transport system especially for freight from one end of this country to the other and especially also for personal transport at peak times in the larger cities so that the system is sustainable. That means economically socially and environmentally sustainable and if that ceases to be an objective as proposed in this bill then the vast effects of the transport system will not be adequately controlled or mitigated. As a result the very environment that we rely upon for healthy lives and a good quality of life will be significantly degraded as indeed it has been in many other countries in the world.The bill will also entrench the current situation that has been with us for decades under successive National and Labour Governments in which we do not have a genuine and comprehensive New Zealand transport strategy. The intent of the bill under which the Government will issue a Government policy statement on land transport will not be a sufficient basis upon which the planning and funding of our future land transport needs and options can be properly assessed. Land transport will continue to be I think a political football kicked about in different directions by whichever political flavour is in power at any given time. It will ensure that there is no coherent long-term strategy that we can work towards. It will mean the wasting of huge amounts of public funds on doing what we have always done: failing to provide for fundamental future changes that will be imposed upon us by global conditions and developments.We need an entirely new approach that converts our system to one that over time firstly makes better use of our vast renewable energy opportunities especially to produce electric power; secondly reduces the dependence on imported liquid fuels; and thirdly replaces more clogged motorways with attractive safe comfortable and affordable public transport options as well as facilitating more cycling at peak times. The bill is going in entirely the wrong direction.We should be learning from the lessons of other countries where the headlong race to build more road capacity has resulted only in more and more demand especially at peak times. You only have to look at cities like Los Angeles to see that—the city that has basically destroyed its own environment with the demand for the use of the motor car.You can also see on the same west coast of the United States the city of Portland which shows the right way to go. I went there and saw where they stopped building more motorways. There is actually an off-ramp that is cut off and does not go any further because at that time that city decided on a new direction the sort of new direction that New Zealand should be going in. That city provided a very comprehensive light rail system for its population which is now extremely popular and goes to most parts of that city—a city by the way that is not too different in population from our own city of Auckland. The effect of feeding demand with capacity is a vicious circle that costs vast sums of capital expenditure and increased maintenance costs and in addition causes very large increases in externalities such as the cost of accidents health care and deaths and increased costs in relation to pollution waste delays community severance business dislocation and so on and so on.I also note that some of the best aspects of regional transport administration will be removed by this bill. Firstly the non-voting representatives of a prescribed list ofinterests as members of regional transport committees are removed altogether. This reinforces this Government’s disregard for the integration of land transport modes and its determination to favour road transport over all other modes through planning and funding mechanisms. From my experience which in local government is considerable the quality of the input of volunteer experts in public transport transport safety cycling walking business operators transport operators the Automobile Association and on facilities for disabled people was very significant and is too valuable to lose. Worse still is the intention to remove the option of regional fuel taxes and that means that a regional council will no longer be able to persuade its population in favour of such a tax which could offer an inexpensive effective and fair way of funding important regional transport options. That will be lost too.Finally one has to wonder what is really behind these changes. It seems to me that this Government is excessively influenced by road transport interests. New Zealand First is focused on a modern sustainable transport system for New Zealand. This bill will not deliver that. We will vote against it.CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National): I commend this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill to the House. We should pass it.ANDREW LITTLE (Labour): I rise to take a call on the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I begin by expressing my considerable disappointment in the last member who spoke Chris Auchinvole a member who in the past has attracted my admiration and indeed on occasions respect for his worthy contributions to this House but that speech frankly is an embarrassment. But it is more than an embarrassment because it demonstrates the ongoing contempt and disrespect in which this House is held by members of this Government. To stand up in the third reading of this bill an important bill that makes radical changes to the administration of land transport policy in this country with a cursory barely two-sentence submission by that member is frankly a disgrace. Mr Auchinvole knows better as indeed do the leaders of his party in this House tonight. It is incumbent of course on the Opposition to take the debate on these important points.This bill makes considerable change to the administration of land transport policy in this country. It changes amongst other things the purpose of the primary legislation and therefore of the New Zealand Transport Agency. In what has until now been an agency that has been driven by a sense of a comprehensive approach to land transport an integrated approach to land transport this bill now minimises it and reduces it in the reductionist sort of approach that this Government favours to a much narrower set of parameters and drivers. It replaces what is a comprehensive and integrated approach to transport with one focused almost entirely on efficiency whatever that means. So it changes our approach to road planning. It introduces scope for more tolling and therefore for the privatisation of more roading over and above the approach that typically until now has been taken which is to regard roading in a long narrow country like New Zealand as being integral to our total transport networks. But this bill will replace that.You know the irony of that is of course that only weeks ago—only weeks ago—we had rammed through this House rushed through under great urgency legislation that will increase excise duties on petrol by 3c a year for the next 3 years on the basis that it was needed for transport funding but indeed what this bill does is give greater scope for toll roads and the privatisation of roading. So we cannot even get consistency in the approach that this Government adopts. We cannot get members opposite to defend this bill—to defend the approach taken in this legislation—so that we can better understand and so that the members of the New Zealand public who are tuned in tonight on this cold windy “haily” night when people have got nothing better to do than to listen toParliament can understand. The citizens of New Zealand will be none the wiser from members of the Government who choose not to defend this important and this critical piece of legislation. What a disappointment—what a disappointment.I want to comment too on the other thing that of course this bill does. This bill from this Government which purports to be the Government of regional voice and local voice provides for and portends the greater centralisation of roading decision-making. I know that Mr Auchinvole now that he realises the folly of his ways is alarmed at that. He had not understood that that was in the legislation and he expresses in his facial expressions great alarm and horror at that prospect. I can see it—I can feel it from here.But I would be remiss in my duties if I did not come to the House tonight to talk about State Highway 3 and north Taranaki because they will be sorely affected by this legislation—sorely affected. I want to talk about Taranaki my tūrangawaewae the area that is dear to my heart and close to my mind right now. I want to say that in Taranaki what we desperately need is a sense of coherence and cohesion in our roading planning and this bill will not give it to us—this bill will not give it to us. What we also need to ensure in Taranaki and on State Highway 3 is that the local voice is heard and this bill will deprive the people of Taranaki of that opportunity. You see we need a good coherent plan for State Highway 3 that section north of New Plymouth and not just the Waiwhakaiho bridge and the 100-odd metres of that bridge and the stretch to Vickers Road but the 100 kilometres through to the little village of Piopio which is actually in the King Country—it goes from New Plymouth to Piopio there. I also want to mention that little stretch of road just north of Hāwera around Normanby bridge because that has been a big challenge to the people of Taranaki as well.Fifty-seven percent of the Taranaki economic output is geared towards export. Whether it is for oil and gas or dairy or some of the engineering activities that are there 57 percent of the Taranaki economy is geared towards the export economy. That is twice the national figure. That is the significance of Taranaki and therefore the significance of the Taranaki infrastructure. We need roading that reflects the economic contribution that is made by the people of Taranaki. The province of Taranaki produces the highest GDP per employee in the country—Dr Cam Calder: That’s right—$120000 per FTE.ANDREW LITTLE: It is the highest GDP per employee in the country. Cam Calder who once hailed from that great region and who made the mistake of settling way further north of that region knows. He is ashamed to be living in a region that is making far less of a contribution per capita than the people of Taranaki. One of the consequences of having a region that contributes so much to the economic well-being of the country and that contributes so much to our GDP and whose employees contribute a disproportionately greater amount than any other employee in the country is of course that it demands a skilled international workforce. Those people are travelling up and down the roads of New Zealand and therefore in and out of Taranaki all the time. Of course the products of Taranaki—not only the goods that come off our farms but the products of our heavy engineering industry—demand good-quality roads and we do not have them.Here is what the local economic development agency said about State Highway 3 only last year. This is Venture Taranaki the local economic development agency which is one of our best economic development agencies in the country. Here is what it said in its report on State Highway 3 last year: “But there are some roadblocks that are preventing the Taranaki economy from meeting its growth aspirations and thereby contributing to the national economy. Our region’s roading network particularly the central artery of State Highway 3—between Taranaki and the Waikato and then on to Auckland—is failing to fulfil its economic potential.” It went on to say because it is byintelligent people: “Where considerable effort has been made to get central Auckland moving insufficient attention has yet been given to reviewing the critical links connecting Auckland to the rest of New Zealand—and thereby New Zealand to the world.” That illustrates the problem for Taranaki.The people of Taranaki will look at this bill and they will say: “There is nothing in this bill for us. There is nothing in this bill that will improve the prospects of State Highway 3 for us.” This Government is doing nothing for Taranaki. It talks big and large about Taranaki and about the contribution that it is making but the reality about the National Government running New Zealand in 2013 is that it could not give a toss about State Highway 3 and the infrastructure in Taranaki. It talks long and large about that region that contributes disproportionately to the great benefit of this country but it will do nothing for the people of Taranaki to improve their roads.That is an issue that the people of Taranaki and New Plymouth are getting angry about and agitated about. I am talking to them all the time and they are going to see some action. They are going to see some action from the Labour Party. When Labour leads the next Government we will see action on State Highway 3 on Mount Messenger on Awakino Gorge and on all that stretch of road. That stretch of road includes 65 kilometres of road heading north without a single passing lane. What person travels 65 kilometres in this country without a passing lane? Only the people of Taranaki and they have had enough and they want it changed. This bill will not do it and we will be—Hon Damien O’Connor: West Coasters do.ANDREW LITTLE: The West Coasters do. We will change this legislation to ensure the people of Taranaki have a better voice a stronger voice and soon they will have a stronger MP representing them in Parliament.Dr CAM CALDER (National): Improving our nation’s infrastructure is a significant part of this Government’s Business Growth Agenda. The key aims of this legislation the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill are to simplify the way transport projects are planned funded and undertaken; to eliminate the duplication that exists throughout the system; and to better align the regional and nationwide strategies. I commend this bill to the House.The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I understand that the next call is a split call. Kris Faafoi—5 minutes.KRIS FAAFOI (Labour—Mana): Gerry Brownlee said in his opening remarks that this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill was about cutting red tape and saving money. Well I think we would call that an exercise in political spin because under this piece of legislation the Government has to do only three things—that is give effect to the Government policy statement in terms of transport for any transport decision that the Government makes to be effective and efficient. So I guess when you consider what the Transport Agency used to have to take into consideration it is cutting a lot of red tape. But let us look because it is always the case with this Government that the devil is in the detail—the devil is in the detail. What kind of red tape are we cutting here? The Transport Agency used to have to take safety into consideration. It used to have to take that into consideration but that is red tape under this Government so let us get rid of that. After Queen’s Birthday weekend during which we had no deaths on our roads—and congratulations on that to everyone involved—we are removing the need for safety to be taken into consideration when this Government is making its roading decisions. Under this Government the safety on our roads is red tape so it should be cut.Let us look at what else the Government is removing from those things that we have to take into consideration. Our roading solutions are being integrated. So now we arejust going to keep building more and more motorways. Do not worry about what freight we move on the sea. Do not worry about our air transport. Do not worry about our rail transport. Let us just blindly keep building roads. That is exactly what this National Government has been doing. And funnily enough we also no longer need to take account of—because this Government thinks that it is red tape—the environmental responsibility that we as New Zealanders have around the building of our roads. We do not need to worry about the environment any more when building our roads. Let us just build it whatever happens to the environment. Let us just do it. Do not worry about it because under this Government being environmentally responsible is red tape. Let us cut it. Let us get rid of it. It is gone in this bill.And one that I am going to get into more detail around what is happening in my area is that this Government says that it no longer has a social responsibility when it is building roads in our communities. So damn the people and damn the effects that the roads will have on communities. Do not worry about the people. Let us just build the road. Let us just get it done. The Government no longer has to take that into effect. The feelings of people in those communities are red tape so let us cut them. Unfortunately that has been the situation for the communities of Raumati South Raumati Beach and on the Kāpiti coast where this Government wants to build the Kāpiti Expressway.Mr Brownlee also said that this bill was about saving money and economic development. Well that is not necessarily the case because the Government’s plan to build the expressway rolled over the top of a $350 million plan that Labour introduced late in its last term. This National Government introduced an expressway a monstrosity through the Kāpiti coast which is going to cost New Zealanders $515 million a considerable amount more than what was planned. When you talk in terms of the economic benefit of the Kāpiti Expressway which this Government is going to build it is a dog. A leaked report last year from the engineering consultants Beca Group showed that the economic benefit ratio of the Kāpiti Expressway is 0.2. For every $1 that New Zealand taxpayers spend on this road we are going to get an economic benefit of just 20c. In terms of economic development and a good return for money the Kāpiti Expressway is an absolute dog. The New Zealand taxpayer is going to lose money by spending money on this expressway when what we could have had was a better local solution for the people of Kāpiti.One of the things that this bill does is it removes the local voice from communities when transport solutions are being offered by this Government. This is absolutely a trend of this Government’s and that is very very sad.I want to just go back to the Kāpiti Expressway because it was a funny twist of events. When the National Government came into power the member up in Kāpiti the member for Ōtaki Nathan Guy was absolutely cool with Labour’s plan. He wanted the Western Link Road. He said he was working hard with the local mayor to get this project started because the funding had been allocated and the community wanted this road. Unfortunately Steven Joyce and the National Party’s plan to keep building monstrosity roads rolled Mr Guy and the Western Link Road turned into the Kāpiti Expressway. It is another example that this Government is blindly building motorways.DENISE ROCHE (Green): I rise to take the last call on this bill the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill for the Greens. We will be opposing this bill because as the House has heard from my colleague Julie Anne Genter it is completely flawed. It is weighted towards roads roads and more roads as the only transport option. It allows this Government to borrow to fund infrastructure that may not stack up economically. It allows for public-private partnerships and road tolling so it privatises more of the public purse. Worst of all this bill once more strips decision making away from Auckland.What is it about this Government? Why does it hate Auckland so much? One of the first things this Government did when it came into power was to remove Auckland’s regional fuel tax. It was being collected to invest in public transport—things like the electric trains—and was an opportunity for Auckland to save up for the central rail link which has been on the agenda for years. In the Auckland Council’s submission to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee it specifically asked to retain the ability for the council to gather regional fuel taxes because as the council said in its submission: “It is important to not pre-empt the outcome of Auckland’s investigation and consultation process in relation to alternative transport funding mechanisms by removing one of these mechanisms. Auckland Council considers that the removal of regional fuel tax as a potential funding option could be inconsistent with consultation principles established in case law.”This bill not only undermines the council’s ability to raise money for transport options but it also says that whatever decisions the council makes about the spending priorities it may have they have to be consistent with the Government’s policy statement. As noted in the verbal submission from the Auckland Council this provision—what the Government is trying to do here—cuts across section 15 of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Act 2009 which states that the governing body of Auckland Council is responsible and democratically accountable for setting transport objectives in Auckland.The ratepayers in Auckland contribute about $400 million a year to Auckland Transport for transport infrastructure. I remind the House that it is not just roads. It is actually public transport walking and cycling options. It is not just the roads that the Minister may have chosen for dodgy uneconomic reasons. I spoke with the chair of the Auckland Transport board today councillor Mike Lee who says that this Government has deliberately singled out Auckland in this piece of legislation and has at least been consistent in its approach to dismantling any type of democracy for the region.The super-city legislation was the first go the Government had. The legislation for the forced amalgamation also created the council-controlled organisation Auckland Transport which is now with this legislation fast becoming a Government-taking-control organisation. We have seen since then that the Government has sought to undermine Auckland Council in every way—in the Resource Management Act changes in the decision-making process around the unitary plan in the changes to the Local Government Act and more recently with the housing bill that will force Auckland into more urban spread when Aucklanders want a compact city.The Auckland Council submission points out the potential for conflict when it says in its submission that “The provisions relating to the Auckland Regional Land Transport Plan need to take into account the different governance arrangements in Auckland and the existence of the Auckland (Spatial) Plan.” which was required of it by this Government when it set up the super-city. This Government has interfered so much in Auckland that it is fast becoming the worst nanny State Government in history.We will not be voting for this bill. It cedes power to the Government so that it can give more power to its vested interests. The Skycity deal is a classic example of that. With this interference there is less control for ordinary citizens over their environment and indeed over their lives. We will not be voting for it.SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tāmaki): I thought we were actually discussing the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill. I am not quite sure what was going on there. You see the key to land transport is ultimately about integration. That is what this bill does.They always say that a journey starts from A and moves to B. Well here we are at the third reading. We have moved from A through to B so I commend this bill to the House.A party vote was called for on the questionThat the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill be now read a third time.Ayes61New Zealand National 59; ACT New Zealand 1; United Future 1.Noes58New Zealand Labour 33; Green Party 14; New Zealand First 7; Māori Party 2; Mana 1; Independent: Horan.Bill read a third time.Employment Relations Amendment BillFirst ReadingHon SIMON BRIDGES (Minister of Labour): I moveThat the Employment Relations Amendment Bill be now read a first time. I nominate the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee to consider the Employment Relations Amendment Bill. This bill implements the Government’s policies aimed at a flexible and fair employment relations framework for both employees and employers. The bill continues our strong unrelenting focus on reducing compliance costs and unnecessarily burdensome regulation. We want to ensure that employers have the confidence to compete and expand while key protections for employees are maintained. There are matters in this bill in which I am anticipating keen interest such as the amendments to Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act. On that particular issue for example I encourage submissions. I will watch the select committee process with interest and I am open to considering changes that may be recommended.This Government is committed to maintaining the framework for collective bargaining but we wish to ensure that there is adequate flexibility and choice within that framework. The Government is also keen that ineffective and unnecessarily protracted bargaining that has productivity and other social impacts is avoided and that the fairness and balance of bargaining requirements are appropriate. To prevent unnecessary and protracted collective bargaining the bill will return to the original position of the duty of good faith in the Employment Relations Act whereby a concluded collective agreement is not required. Additionally to provide certainty for parties that collective bargaining is concluded they will be able to apply for a declaration to that effect from the Employment Relations Authority.The Government is proposing several other improvements to the collective bargaining framework. These improvements will offer workplaces greater flexibility and will remove unnecessary requirements. The proposals include employers being able to opt out of being a party to bargaining for multi-employer collective agreements. This recognises that employers should not have to enter negotiations with other employers that may be their competitors. Another proposal is to remove the 30-day rule for new employees who are not union members. Employers will now be able to offer the terms and conditions they want to offer to new employees who are not union members instead of being required to offer the terms and conditions in the relevant collective agreement for the first 30 days of employment. Unions and employers will now be able to initiate collective bargaining at the same time. A collective agreement will now continue in force for up to 12 months after it expires whether it is the union or the employer that initiated bargaining resulting in a level playing field.The bill provides that in response to a partial strike employers will have the additional choice of either reducing an employee’s pay by a proportionate amount or deducting a fixed percentage of wages. Currently employers are restricted in their response to a partial strike. They can suspend employees lock them out or simply accept the partial performance of work by employees. This proposal provides for more proportionate responses. More certainty is needed in the bargaining environment in relation to industrial action. Employers and employees need to know what action the other is undertaking and the nature of that action before it begins. The bill will improve the current lack of certainty by requiring advance written notice of any proposed strikes and lockouts. This is similar to the current regime for strikes and lockouts in essential services. Any withdrawal of that notice will also need to be in writing. Failure to provide the required notice of a strike or lockout will mean that the action will be unlawful.This Government also considers that employees and employers should be able to agree on flexible work practices that suit both parties. To this end following a statutory review of the flexible working arrangements provisions under the Act in 2012 the Government is proposing a number of changes that acknowledge that the workplace needs to better reflect modern lifestyles. These proposed changes include extending the right to request flexible working arrangements to all employees removing the 6-month period before an employee can request flexible work removing the limit on the number of requests an employee may make for flexible work over a 12-month period and reducing the time frame for employers to consider requests for flexible working arrangements. Flexible working arrangements not only provide employees with work-life balance but improve productivity. This provides a win-win for New Zealand employers and employees.The bill addresses issues arising from a case considered in the Employment Court involving restructuring at Massey University. The case highlighted conflicting obligations for employers regarding the disclosure of personal information under the Employment Relations Act the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act. This has created uncertainly for New Zealand employers. The bill will therefore amend the duty of good faith to clarify that it does not require employers to provide an employee with access to confidential personal information about another person or to evaluate material about the employee concerned where an employer is proposing to make a decision that will or is likely to affect an employee’s continued employment.Last year the Government completed a review of the continuity of employment provisions in Part 6A of the Act. The review found that there were significant operational issues for businesses. These issues centred on transferring employees’ entitlements and information to a new employer. The proposals in the bill will provide more certainty and clarity for employers while retaining key benefits for affected employees. Also the Government has been especially concerned about the impact of Part 6A on small to medium sized businesses. The bill will exempt small to medium sized businesses from certain parts of Part 6A which will remove significant compliance costs for small to medium sized enterprises. The associated persons limitation in the bill is designed to discourage large employers from gaming the exemption by setting up smaller businesses. I am as I have said especially keen to hear what affected parties have to say on the Part 6A proposals in the bill—in particular the associated persons limitation—and how they think it will work in practice. I will carefully consider their submissions and the recommendations of the select committee.This bill will also speed up Employment Relations Authority processes with regard to determinations. This should be welcomed by employers and employees alike. The authority currently has a best-practice target of 6 weeks to issue a determination.However this has not been achieved in recent times and I consider that a statutory time frame is necessary. The bill will require that at the end of an investigation meeting the authority will have to provide either an oral determination followed by a written record of that determination within 3 months or an oral indication of preliminary findings to the parties subject to additional information being received. Again a 3-month deadline for a final decision would apply from when the additional information is received. This change supports the authority’s objective of delivering speedy informal and practical justice. Additionally the proposal for an immediate oral determination will provide the parties with an opportunity to consider their respective positions and whether they may wish to settle their dispute between themselves without waiting for the authority to issue the final written record. The bill proposes to—The ASSISTANT SPEAKER (Lindsay Tisch): I am sorry to interrupt the honourable Minister. The time has come for me to leave the Chair.Debate interrupted.The House adjourned at 10 p.m.