Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:655;Page:4707] 
Questions to Ministers 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
1. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: How much if at all will the Government’s climate change emissions target for 2020 be influenced by the  
Synthesis Report 
 published last week to inform the December 2009 conference of the parties at Copenhagen? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The  
Synthesis Report 
 published by the University of Copenhagen brings together the views of 2500 scientists who gathered in March in Copenhagen to advance the science on the global issue of climate change. It is not an official Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change so has not been subject to the same peer-review process. The  
Synthesis Report 
 is still useful in that the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is now 2 years old. It is one of many streams of advice and many reports the Government will be considering in determining New Zealand’s 2020 emissions target. 
Metiria Turei 
: What account will his Government’s target take of the report’s findings that climate change is tracking at above the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s worst-case scenarios for both sea level rise and the loss of Arctic sea ice? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is true that a number of reputable scientific reports have raised issues about both polar ice and sea level rises that are greater than those projected in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report. That is of concern and it will be one of the factors that the Government takes into account in setting a 2020 target. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Minister think that our Kyoto partners will accept a modest target at Bonn in August when the UK has set an emissions target of 34 percent the German Bundestag has set a target of 40 percent and just last Wednesday the Scottish Parliament set a target of 42 percent all by 2020? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is well recognised in the international negotiations that national circumstance will be taken into account. I note that all three countries the member has mentioned—the United Kingdom Scotland and Germany—were all countries that had a very large portion of their electricity produced from coal. They converted to gas in the 1990s and that has actually made it substantially easier for them to achieve more impressive targets. New Zealand needs to have a credible target: one that is realistic and one that lives up to New Zealand’s environmental reputation. 
Craig Foss 
: What opportunity will the Government give New Zealanders to have a say on New Zealand’s 2020 emissions target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Nine public meetings have been organised all over the country during the July adjournment at which my Government colleagues and I will be consulting the public on this important decision. Meetings have also been organised with business with iwi with scientists and with academics. There is also the opportunity for those New Zealanders who live in more remote parts of New Zealand to be able to engage through an online chatroom and of course we will be receiving email and written submissions on the issue. The Government will make a decision on a 2020 target policy in time for the next round of negotiations in Bonn in August. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Why does the Minister persist in suggesting that cutting New Zealand’s greenhouse gases is really difficult when half of them come from burning fossil fuels in energy transport and industry and when in terms of energy efficiency we are so far behind those other countries in adopting energy efficiency that there is still plenty of low-hanging fruit that we could be picking? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The reasons I think it is very challenging for New Zealand are that 48 percent of New Zealand’s emissions come from agriculture and the fact that New Zealand has one of the highest levels of renewable electricity in the world. I also note that we have a very spread-out population. In a country about the same size as the UK we have but a fraction of the number of people which makes providing public transport services more difficult. The other point I bring to the member’s attention is that despite very big and bold goals New Zealand’s emissions have increased by 24 percent over the last 18 years with very little sign of abatement which I think is a warning about being too bold and big in an area where others have failed. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does he agree with the findings of the synthesis reports that no climate change policy will receive the support it needs either formally in the political arena or at the pragmatic day-to-day level unless cultures values and world perspectives are taken into account from the outset; and how does he believe these perspectives will be addressed in a meaningful way through the Government’s work on climate change? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member rightly points out that different perspectives on climate change need to be brought to the decision-making table and she should be reassured that the Minister of Maori Affairs and his officials are taking a very strong interest in climate change policy particularly as it relates to the fishing forestry and farming sectors as well as to the process of Treaty settlements. The Government is also organising jointly with the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group a specific hui to consult Maori on New Zealand’s 2020 target. 
Metiria Turei 
: Will the Minister consider splitting New Zealand’s target between agriculture and energy adopting a strong 40 percent target for the half of our emissions that come from energy transport and industry and a softer target for agricultural methane and nitrous oxide while we invest in further research and development? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is an interesting idea that New Zealand in its 2020 target could perhaps set a target for carbon dioxide and separate targets for nitrous oxide and for methane in that I think most people would accept that New Zealand does actually have a pretty challenging job around those emissions from the agricultural sector. There is no provision for annex 1 countries under the existing framework convention to differentiate between different sorts of gases but it is an idea that the Government is open to. 
Craig Foss 
: What arguments has the Minister heard for New Zealand to take a modest 2020 target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The European Union has presented some work at the negotiations on factors that should be taken into account when setting targets. These factors include setting GDP per capita in terms of which I would note that New Zealand’s sadly is amongst the very lowest levels of the developed annex 1 countries. A further factor is the opportunity for emissions reductions. It is noted that with both the agricultural issue and aspects of our transport system New Zealand has fewer opportunities than some other countries. Those are not the only factors. We need to carefully balance what is needed from us to make a fair contribution to this global problem while also ensuring the target is both realistic and achievable. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is an emissions trading scheme the financial tool that the Minister identified last week at the estimates hearing for Vote Climate Change as his preferred primary instrument for reducing emissions; if so does he agree that it is important to finalise a new entry date into the emissions trading scheme for the stationary energy and industrial processes sectors that entails as little delay as possible on the current deadline of 1 January next year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. The Government does consider that an emissions trading scheme is the best and the most sensible way forward. I am advised by officials that the 1 January start date for both the stationary energy and the industrial processes sector is not achievable and never was achievable. We need to work as effectively as we can as parliamentarians in coming up with a modified emissions trading scheme that will work for New Zealand. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With reference to the Minister’s statement that reducing transport emissions is difficult will the Government take the easiest most cost-effective route to that end and set fuel economy standards for vehicles coming into the country as soon as possible given that the fuel economy of our fleet in New Zealand is roughly twice as bad as it is in Europe? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: It is true that New Zealand vehicles are both old and dirty. It is also true that an emissions trading scheme applied to the transport sector would provide some incentives. The new Government has taken the initiative to provide a tax incentive for electric car technologies which is a step forward. The new Government tends to favour financial instruments that provide incentives rather than getting excessively regulatory about the choices that different New Zealanders have in choosing a vehicle. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Minister confirm whether the Prime Ministers of Great Britain or Australia have personally contacted his Government regarding the setting of a 2020 target after his Government’s failure to do so in Bonn this month? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am aware that Prime Minister John Key had discussions about climate change with Prime Minister Rudd and that he set both myself and my equivalent in Australia Penny Wong on working more closely together. I have discussed with officials the question that has been raised by the Greens and they have not had any concern expressed to them about the timetable for New Zealand setting a 2020 target. I would note that this is the first time that a Government has consulted the public about this issue. I also say the forest satellite data from the Land Use and Carbon Analysis System is critical to New Zealand making that decision. We will receive that information next month. 
Job Summit—Prime Minister's Statement 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement last week that “the Government has to tighten its belt and get on top of the issues. We are doing that in a responsible way …”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What action will the Prime Minister take to help the iconic Line 7 clothing company given his inconsistent approach when he did nothing to help another iconic clothing company Lane Walker Rudkin but he boasted last week in the House that the Government had saved an iconic company in reference to Fisher and Paykel Appliances Ltd? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition raised the last bit of his question because when I stood up and tried to do something for Fisher and Paykel Appliances the Leader of the Opposition bagged me. It is actually a company that went on the 9-day working fortnight and has managed to sort out its financial position from there. In relation to Line 7 I say that the Government has had no approach from the company. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What about Line 7? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member should pay attention; I am giving him the answer if he wants it. If the company wants to approach us we are quite happy of course to look at the circumstances but it is worth remembering that 19 years ago Line 7 was brought out of receivership. If this company is to continue I hope that it can be brought out of receivership as well because it employs 100 people and we do not want to see it lost. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister Bill English and Paula Bennett all refuse to front up to the Television New Zealand programme  
Sunday  
last week to explain why they had axed Enterprising Communities given the fact that Enterprising Communities has a proven track record of success in getting young people into work and training? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not aware of the requests I get on a daily basis from media. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Oh come on! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I am not because I get a lot of them. What I can say in relation to the Enterprising Communities scheme is that by and large it was set up for 3 years of funding. At the end of that the schemes were meant to be sustainable. The vast bulk of them have not been. In the case of Otorohanga that has been successful; we acknowledge that. It got an additional year’s funding and in all likelihood it will be funded in the future when its funding matures in November. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister axe Enterprising Communities which had a proven track record of success yet he has found $35 million for boot camps which have a proven track record of failure? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I would not agree with the Leader of the Opposition in relation to the first statement he made. It was 3-year funding that was meant to be sustainable and it did not prove to be sustainable. I am interested in the Leader of the Opposition saying that he does not think that boot camps or programmes that have a bit of structure and discipline to them are any good because funnily enough in 1996 Phil Goff said that “Labour would also encourage young offenders into the armed services to gain discipline self-esteem and trade qualifications.” Excellent idea! 
Chris Tremain 
: What other reports has the Prime Minister seen about Government responses to tough economic conditions? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have seen a report from a Minister of a previous Government facing debt and the threat of credit downgrades who supported the decision to impose a surtax on older New Zealanders: “It is true that the Labour Party said that a Labour Government would not cut superannuation. Frankly to have sustained that point of view against all the evidence would have been totally irresponsible.” That statement was from none other than Phil Goff. Well we are facing tough international times but unlike when that member was a Minister older New Zealanders can know that their superannuation is safe under this Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If I can bring the Prime Minister back into the 21st century—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the Leader of the Opposition’s question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Government cut $2.5 million designed to provide therapy assistance to the most disabled kids in our community while providing $35 million to help the most advantaged kids in our community going to private schools when he claims that this Budget was about helping the most vulnerable? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We cut the $2.5 million I suppose because we put in an additional $51 million which is the greatest increase that has been seen in funding for special-needs kids. You see the trouble with the Leader of the Opposition is that one cannot rely on any of the figures he uses in this House. Just last week he said in this House that a third of all new money—and I quote from him—going into tax cuts applies to just 3 percent of taxpayers. He said it was just the top 3 percent. Well I thought that that sounded a bit odd so I went off to the Inland Revenue Department and asked what the real number is. The real number is that 3.2 percent of taxpayers— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition’s question was about education matters. The Prime Minister is now giving us a recitation on revenue policy. There is no connection between the question and the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member will note that the primary question is very wide in what it asks. I accept the point that he made though that the Leader of the Opposition’s question was specifically about education matters. I think the Prime Minister should probably conclude his answer right there. I take it that he has concluded. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very specific: why did he cut $2.5 million from funding for disabled kids. He went on at length about other matters and he never answered the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Actually as I heard the Prime Minister he disputed the allegation in the honourable member’s question. I recollect that the Prime Minister told the House in his answer that more money had been added to that funding. So by disputing the allegation made by the honourable Leader of the Opposition I believe that is a very fair answer a real answer to the question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: We will have the $2.5 million back then. Does he stand by the statement made by his Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy that cutting $2.5 million—which she acknowledged had been cut even if the Prime Minister will not—from funding for severely disabled children would “have no adverse effect on the children” and has he asked her why she has refused to front up to the parents of those severely disabled children to explain why those cuts have been made and to listen to the vicious effect that those cuts will have on those vulnerable children? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes because the Associate Minister knew that the Government had put in $51 million extra. That is why she was confident. She was a lot more confident than these numbers from the Leader of the Opposition who just cannot get it right when it comes to tax and should be honest enough to admit that he got it wrong and misled New Zealanders. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister justify the budget for ministerial support and staffing services jumping by more than $1 million a month—from $1.844 million in December 2007 to February 2008 to $2.955 million a month in December 2008 to February 2009—when elsewhere in the Public Service he has cut staffing numbers by more than 1400? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition asked that question because back in 2004-05— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Maybe you’ll answer this one unlike the others. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well back in 2004-05 the Ministerial Services budget was $45.518 million. In the last year of Labour’s term in office which would be 4 years on it rose to $63 million and this year it will be $61 million. We have value for money on this side of the House. 
John Boscawen 
: How do the costs of his travel compare with the previous Government’s entrepreneurial excursion into the train business? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can report that it is cheaper to go by plane than by train because under Labour the Government paid I am advised the better part of $1 billion to buy KiwiRail which is valued at $388 million today. That would be a reduction in value of over $600 million. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I seek leave of the House to table the  
Synthesis Report 
 referred to in question No. 1 today prepared by members of the scientific steering committee for the International Alliance of Research Universities congress and released on 19 June 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Question No. 2 to Minister 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to table a briefing note from the Inland Revenue Department that shows that the Leader of the Opposition’s claims that 3.2 percent of taxpayers are receiving one-third of all benefit is in fact quite incorrect; 3.2 percent of taxpayers are in fact getting 16.6 percent of the benefit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jobs—Initiative Compared with Other Countries 
3. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How do the Government’s initiatives to support jobs compare with other countries’? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Government has focused on a stimulus programme that protects people from the sharpest edges of recession in the short term and raises our economic performance in the long term. The Government is borrowing an extra $30 billion over the next 4 years to support the economy and to support jobs. The effect of this is that while the rate of unemployment is 9.4 percent in the United States 7.2 percent in the United Kingdom and 9.2 percent in the eurozone in New Zealand it is 5 percent which is why it is intriguing that the Opposition finance spokesman should be telling us to copy Australia whose unemployment is higher than ours at 5.7 percent. 
Craig Foss 
: What is the underlying cause of the rise in New Zealand’s unemployment rate? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand is dealing with two recessions. One is the coordinated global recession. The other is the New Zealand recession that started in early 2008 which was caused by 10 years of unbalanced policy under the last Government. Many of the people who are losing their jobs today are the unfortunate victims of policy that built economic growth on borrowed money and big Government spending. Those were never sustainable jobs and it is unfortunate that those individuals and families are now feeling the pain of losing jobs that were not sustainable. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is the Minister aware that the 2009 Australian Budget is forecast to save 210000 jobs—the equivalent of some 40000 jobs in New Zealand terms—and to reduce the unemployment rate in Australia by 1.5 percent below its forecast level; if so why will he not now admit what every other New Zealander knows: that National has failed to construct a credible systematic plan for jobs and that New Zealanders are sick and tired of gimmicks charades and “party central” instead of a substantive plan. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Opposition finance spokesman might want to explain this simple conundrum: our unemployment rate is 5 percent; Australia’s is 5.7 percent. Its rate is higher so why should we copy its policies? 
Craig Foss 
: What is this Government doing to create sustainable employment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because of a decade of economic mismanagement the Government has a huge job in creating sustainable employment because we cannot base jobs on extensive borrowing and big Government spending. We are setting out to create an environment for business to thrive and have the confidence to retain and create jobs. In the long run those businesses need to be in the export and tradable sector rather than in the Government and domestic sector. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How can it be that when the Minister is discussing the 5 percent annual unemployment level that currently exists it is all his Government’s fault but when he is discussing the 60000 extra unemployed yet to arrive it is all the previous Government’s fault? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has put together a programme designed to deal with two major problems: a decade of economic mismanagement which is one of the reasons so many New Zealanders are losing jobs and a global recession which is another reason New Zealanders are losing jobs. No amount of strategies and press releases can create jobs; only the nitty-gritty of infrastructure investment an improved business environment and getting Government finances and debt under control can do that. We are proud that New Zealand has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the developed world. 
Craig Foss 
: Has the Minister seen any reports that take a realistic view about unemployment during a recession? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. I have seen one such report which states: “There is in some quarters a temptation to address the problem of unemployment with simplistic answers. In reality there are no quick-fix solutions … Unemployment has to be addressed at a number of levels. By far the most important are macro-economic policies aimed at achieving sustainable economic and employment growth.” That is a quote from a previous Minister of Employment Phil Goff. 
Child Abuse—Child Youth and Family Jobs 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement at question time last week that “Members on this side of the House care about abused kids.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Absolutely. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement made last week: “We are going to do something about abused kids”; if so why did he allow the termination of the community liaison social worker role a role that is front-line in educating others to recognise child abuse raising awareness and promoting early detection of child abuse? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I think it would help if I explained some facts to the member. Child Youth and Family is closing— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: His nose is growing again. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: It looks as if the problem is spreading actually across the front benches but that is OK—diseases often can. Child Youth and Family is closing 12 administrative service centres which affects 80 positions. The majority of those administration support or management roles will be absorbed into four existing Child Youth and Family regional offices. The other positions are the 18 community liaison social workers which the member mentioned whose work involves promoting awareness of child abuse. The chief executive has decided that this educational role should be performed by a wider range of staff from across all 60 Child Youth and Family offices and that the priority for qualified social workers should be front-line social work. Savings from these positions are to fund extra front-line social workers on top of the 90 front-line social workers that Child Youth and Family is currently looking to hire. In other words some people who were employed to promote awareness are being replaced by a much greater number employed to promote prevention. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with Christine Rankin the newly appointed Families Commissioner whom he described as having an incredible record in the area of child abuse who said last week that the children and young persons service is already too busy and cannot respond for 6 weeks; if so can he guarantee that the already busy social workers who are required to pick up the extra work will not end up facing rising numbers of unallocated cases? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do on this occasion find myself agreeing with Christine Rankin which is exactly why the Government is putting 90 extra people into front-line services. This is what this Government is all about: increasing the front line and reducing the back office. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the Prime Minister is so keen to do something about abused kids why has he sanctioned cuts to parenting courses budgeting services 12 Child Youth and Family service centres around New Zealand and the community liaison social worker role as well as sanctioning the future demise of the family violence task force to name just some of the cuts to services that help to reduce child abuse in New Zealand while at the same time he has enough money to spend on a big party in Auckland during the Rugby World Cup? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not agree with the assertions made by the member. I will say this because I think it is worth noting: notifications of child abuse and neglect have increased hugely in recent years. [ 
Interruption 
] That is the point. The problem is not awareness any more; the solution is prevention and doing something about it not promoting more awareness of it. 
Health—Cooperation Between Private and Public Sector 
5. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What announcements has the Government made in relation to increasing cooperation between the public and private health sectors? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I am happy to report that yesterday the Government announced that it had amended the protocols for district health boards to allow them to make better and smarter use of private hospitals so they can take pressure off waiting lists and get better value for money. Specifically the providers’ selection protocols have been amended to better enable district health boards to enter into longer-term arrangements with private hospitals to complement their own services. The district health boards will be able to contract with private providers to deliver a set number of procedures over several years to complement their own delivery and to negotiate a better price and more operations. These changes reflect both the National Party’s election policy and the provisions of its confidence and supply agreement with United Future which ensure greater utilisation of private hospital capacity to reduce elective surgery waiting lists. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What has the Government done to ensure that viability of the public health system is not weakened through smarter use of the private sector? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: A couple of things are important to note in this regard. Firstly a special protocol is being developed that says that district health boards are free to use the private sector to complement their own service delivery provided the long-term viability of their resource and delivery is not undermined. Secondly the Government has already announced that it will build 20 extra dedicated elective surgery operating theatres and train extra nurses and doctors in the public sector to staff them. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the Minister agree with comments from Jeremy Cooper an anaesthetist at Auckland Hospital that senior staff in the public hospital build the system teach and look after emergencies and see their interesting work and the work which has remuneration attached to it go to the private system; if so what is the Minister going to do about it? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: It is worth putting into context the number of total procedures that are carried out at the present time. Between 2005-06 and 2007-08 an additional 12000 elective surgery procedures over and above the baseline were carried out. Under the previous Government over half of those were already carried out in the private sector. The argument that the member is referring to simply does not hold water. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Why did the Government consider it necessary to increase the cooperation between the public and private health sectors? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The simple reason is that although there has been a significant increase in health expenditure—in fact it has doubled in the last decade—we still have rising waiting lists massive waiting lists in the public sector underutilised capacity in the private sector and a lot of New Zealanders who are desperate to get operations. This is a step towards fulfilling that objective and making the system work more effectively so that the patients of New Zealand become the winners for a change. 
Primary Health Care—Access 
6. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What guarantees can he give of continued access to primary health care? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: The guarantee this Government gives is that it will be working hard to improve access to primary care despite inheriting a major shortage of health professionals including general practitioners in many parts of the country. That is why the Government has announced the voluntary bonding scheme which already has 115 doctors registering interest and has announced 50 extra general practitioner training places over the next 2 years and 60 extra medical training places next year as the first tranche towards an extra 220 medical student training places. We are also conducting a line-by-line review so that we can move money into front-line services. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What response does the Minister have to the concerns expressed by Dr Gay Keating who says that the Government has focused on the wrong area and that more money should be spent on primary health in order to keep people out of hospital? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well there will always be a variety of approaches and views on where the money should be spent. I note that in the last Budget this Government has committed $750 million of new spending on health care and I think people will find that that will produce greater outcomes and better results for New Zealand patients. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What reports has the Minister seen recently in relation to health funding including primary health funding? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The Minister has seen reports that show that last year Labour planned to cut over $110 million allocated to health projects across the sector. That included cutting $13 million for primary health care $10 million for people with disabling chronic medical conditions and $24 million for public health services. Those are strange actions indeed for a party that pretends to be horrified by line-by-line reviews. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister has quoted a number of figures about reported “cuts” to public health. He has not made clear whether those— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No no. The member cannot litigate an answer by way of a point of order. If members do not think the Minister has given accurate information they can drill into that with further supplementary questions but they cannot do it by way of points of order. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why did the Minister refuse to give the Health Committee any assurance that this year’s increase in general practitioners fees of 6.5 percent will not be repeated in the future? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: There is a well-established framework which was set up under the last Government for changes in doctors fees and this Government is adhering to it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What link does the Minister think there should be between the rate of inflation and the increase in general practitioners fees or are his actions confirmation that his view is that general practitioners and the market should set the fees? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It is tight financial times. General practitioners are having difficulties maintaining financial viability just as anyone else is. They are trying to provide a service—and I am sure they will continue to do so—in very straitened financial circumstances. 
Early Childhood Services—Funding 
7. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent decisions have been made about funding for early childhood services? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday Cabinet agreed to increased funding rates for early childhood education services using funding set aside in a tagged contingency at Budget 2009. The funding will provide an inflation increase of 1.95 percent to funding rates and maintain the value of existing subsidies in line with pre-election commitments. The additional funding over 4 years is $27 million. 
Louise Upston 
: What other changes has the Government made to increase the access to early childhood education services? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yesterday Cabinet also agreed to the policy changes necessary to include 5-year-olds kohanga reo and playcentres in the 20 hours’ early childhood education scheme from July 2010 and to remove the 6-hour daily limit from 2011. These changes give parents more flexibility about how to use their 20 hours and acknowledge the quality care and education that whanau-led and parent-led early childhood education services provide. 
Sue Moroney 
: Has the Minister forgotten about her other recent decisions about funding early childhood education services where she axed planned improved staff-child ratios put a stop to centres of innovation and canned the ECE Advisory Training/Education Fund and other professional development programmes all aimed at ensuring the quality of our early childhood education services? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: At a time of economic recession which that party seems to have forgotten about tough decisions have to be made and expenditure redirected into priority areas. In early childhood education actually this Government’s priority is increased participation amongst the target groups. I know that that is anathema to the party opposite which while in Government had millions of dollars to spray around but this Government believes that increasing participation amongst Maori Pasifika and children from low socio-economic areas who are the least likely to get it now is a top priority. That is where we are directing our funds. 
School-level Assessment Information—Publication 
8. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Will she support a law change to ensure that school-level test data is not made available for publication; if not why not? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I do not intend to express my support or lack of it for hypothetical legislation. I note that the member asked a very similar question over a month ago on 27 May and I told him that I would consider something if he put it in front of me. I have yet to receive anything. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Will the Minister be prepared to support the reference to a select committee for the select committee to decide whether to do it? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I repeat: this is hypothetical legislation. It is not before a select committee and is not before this House. It is impossible to give that member any answers unless he actually fronts up to me with a suggestion. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does the Minister support the principle expressed in my primary question? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I remind the member that we are currently seeking feedback from both the education sector and parents on national standards. Part of that feedback is about the reporting mechanisms. I will consider all the options that are put before me all of the information that comes out of that consultation process. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very direct question about whether she supported the principle not about whether there was consultation. Although I cannot insist on a yes or no answer and I understand that I think that at least having the question addressed would be useful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member makes a fair point. His question was very directly related to the primary question. If the Minister would please answer it as far as she can. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I will not pre-empt a consultation process. 
Colin King 
: What reports has the Minister received on parents’ desire for clear information on their children’s performance? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The reports I have received from the consultation with parents is that they are embracing the standards and are excited about getting clear information about their children’s performance. I have spoken to and heard from a large number of frustrated parents who feel that currently they have not been given a clear idea of their children’s progress and that this lack of clarity is a barrier to their getting involved in their children’s education. I am very proud of the fact that this policy will break down that barrier and give parents the information they should have about their children. 
Rahui Katene 
: Is the Minister aware that education inspectors are bringing in tougher standards for England’s schools including a new emphasis on raw exam results a move that teachers’ leaders are saying will make things harder for schools in deprived areas; and what influence have these developments had in the New Zealand setting? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to the member that comparisons with the United Kingdom are not particularly helpful because we deliberately decided not to proceed with a national testing system. In fact I can say to the member that the draft standards currently out for consultation do not rely solely on raw exam results. Instead they encourage the use of formative assessment. 
David Garrett 
: Can the Minister see anything wrong in principle with parents knowing how their children’s school is performing compared with other schools in the country? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I can say to the member that if the feedback that I receive from the consultation with both the sector and parents is that they overwhelmingly want this information then I am happy to consider how these comparisons could be made without compromising the intention of national standards which is to raise student achievement. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to table a draft bill to implement the principles outlined in my question. I indicate that I will seek leave tomorrow to have that draft bill—or something very similar following feedback—referred to the select committee for consideration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
KiwiRail—Valuation 
9. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What recent valuations has he seen of KiwiRail? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I have seen a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers valuing KiwiRail’s total operations at $388 million. I have seen another report that Treasury has updated that figure to $369 million. Those figures compare unfavourably with what the previous Labour Government spent on KiwiRail which included $690 million on purchasing the company’s operations $210 million on loans and $90 million on operational subsidies. It is quite obvious to anybody looking at those transactions that the previous Labour Government significantly overpaid for KiwiRail. Paying that much for KiwiRail has handicapped its future. 
David Bennett 
: What shape was KiwiRail in when it was purchased? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The rail company as a whole has a significant backlog of needed expenditure to pull it back into shape. Work done last year by the previous Labour Government’s Rail Development Group estimated that it would take approximately $1 billion worth of further expenditure to make the company work properly. That is obviously a very large financial burden which the public was not told about before the KiwiRail purchase was completed. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Would the valuation of KiwiRail be substantially higher if it had not been sold by the previous National Government for less than the value of the wooden railway sleepers and it had not been asset-stripped by Fay Richwhite; if so can the Minister assure the House that the National Government will not again support the privatisation and disastrous management of New Zealand’s public transport infrastructure? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I am afraid that for somebody as new to the House as I am a lot of that is very much ancient history. The second part of Mr Anderton’s question is hugely theoretical because sadly nobody in their right mind would pay the sort of money for KiwiRail that the previous Labour Government paid. 
David Bennett 
: What financial capacity does KiwiRail have to expand its operations? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: What is apparent is that although KiwiRail has a part to play in New Zealand’s transport future it will need more money to do so. Any investments must be made sensibly and with the backing of its key customers. Those who advocate a wholesale shift of freight from road to rail are caught up in some romantic notion of rail’s role that bears no resemblance to any sort of financial reality. Our focus must be on making sensible and pragmatic transport decisions that reduce costs overall and help the economy grow. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: If the Minister is unhappy with the valuation of KiwiRail and therefore Crown ownership of that operation does he support the scenario known as plan B in which there is no Crown ownership and many provincial rail lines would have to be closed? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Sadly it is not as simple as that. Just about every line that KiwiRail has does not make a lot of money currently so to suggest that there is a plan B in that respect is about as valid as the valuation the previous Labour Government placed on KiwiRail before it purchased the company. 
Wellington—Memorial Park Development 
10. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What is the status of the New Zealand Memorial Park project in Buckle Street Wellington? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 The project is in the planning stage. The New Zealand Transport Agency is working with both central and local government to investigate Memorial Park improvements and will be undertaking full public consultation as part of the Basin Reserve improvement investigations. This Government is also taking the time to consult with Mt Cook School the RSA and the local community. This approach contrasts with that of the previous Labour Government which wrote to Mt Cook School in August 2008 saying that it did not consider it appropriate for the school or the wider Mount Cook community to have any input into the decision-making process. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Does the Minister accept that seeing what resembles an abandoned tip immediately after placing a flower on the Tomb of the Unknown Warrior is a national disgrace and what action is he taking to complete the work for a respectful memorial to those who gave their lives for this country—and now I say to the Minister is the right time to do the right thing? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I agree with the member that that is a national disgrace and that is why last week for example when I met with the representative from Mt Cook School I discussed some preparatory work like asphalt removal. I agree with what the member said in that we have to get on with the development. But as I have said before to that member we are not going to do it in some half-baked manner. It will be done properly. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe e te Mana Whakawa. What reports has he seen about the development of Memorial Park? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have seen reports in which the previous Government said it was not appropriate for the local school or the Mount Cook community to have input into the decision-making process. I have seen reports that the Labour candidate for Wellington Central in 2008 Grant Robertson tried to get the Government to reconsider that decision but that he was told where to go. I have seen correspondence stating that the previous Minister refused to sign off on the design of the park and wanted to revisit the options. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister confirm that a design for the park that was acceptable to the Wellington City Council central government and the local school was agreed on late last year and that his reason for not taking up that option was simply as he told one person that he did not want to do something just because it was Helen Clark’s idea? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: That would be a very good reason not to do anything. I can confirm that there was a plan. The plan is not acceptable. Further work needs to be done further consultation needs to be done and it will be done. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave of the House to table Cabinet minute 09/13/8(62) which says the Memorial Park project has been cancelled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Meat Industry— 
Meat: The Future 
11. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent reports has the Government seen on the meat sector? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week I had the pleasure of launching  
Meat: The Future 
 a comprehensive meat sector study published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. This study lays out the challenges and opportunities confronting our $4.6 billion a year meat sector and maps out the potential shape the sector may take into the future. The report will play a key role in developing a shared vision for New Zealand’s meat sector. 
Shane Ardern 
: What has been the Government’s response to the study? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The Government has welcomed the report and the various challenges that it presents. We have made it clear that industry players and farmers need to work together to improve the sector and that doing nothing is not an option. Very simply we see this report as a call to action that cannot be ignored. As such following the launch I convened a meeting of industry leaders to look at ways of progressing reform and to address the issues that currently hinder this important sector. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: In the recent Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report on opportunities and challenges for the New Zealand sheep meat and beef sector over the next 10 to 15 years was the top priority after “overall farm profitability” investment in research and development; if so how was that helped by cutting the $2 billion public and private sector Fast Forward fund and replacing it with a puny $70 million annually appropriated primary production fund? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Research and development was certainly recognised in the meat sector report as absolutely critical and at the meeting I had later with industry leaders they congratulated this Government on its vision in promoting the primary growth partnership—an initiative that is substantially bigger than the previous Government’s Fast Forward fund. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why is the Government not doing more to progress meat sector reform? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Change in the meat industry will last only if it is driven from within the sector. It is not the Government’s job to tell the sector what to do. I have very strongly urged industry players and farmers to work together to deliver the higher returns to the sector and as I have already said the status quo is not acceptable. I am now working closely with major players in the sector to discover and establish exactly how the Government can constructively facilitate this change. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Following the release of the report does the Government intend to honour the $200 million suspensory loan promised for meat industry reform by the leader of the National Party John Key and supported by his finance spokesman Bill English in February of last year before the election; or was that just another promise that they had no intention of ever keeping? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I thank that member for his question and take this opportunity to welcome Labour’s fresh blood back to the House. Under no circumstances did this party ever promise a $2 million suspensory loan to the meat sector. However we are prepared to entertain proposals that are put to us that constructively move the sector forward. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I seek leave to table a report from the  
Southland 
Times  
dated 15 February 2008 where John Key quickly told Mr English— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a press report from the  
Southland Times 
 that the member is seeking to table? From when? 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Yes it is. It is from 15 February 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a  
Southland Times 
 press report from 15 February 2008. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister seen in the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry report the finding that the No. 1 issue for meat farmers is farm profitability; if so how is farm profitability helped by the total exposure to overseas-owned banks of $44000 million and will he support a select committee inquiry into bank profits in order to hold the banks to account for refusing to lower their interest rates on that debt by anywhere near as much as the official cash rate has dropped? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Yes I have seen the No. 1 concern being ongoing farm profitability and I am aware of the significant growth in farm debt over the last 5 years. It is something that this Government is concerned about. On two occasions of our regular meetings with the bank industry we have discussed that issue. 
Pay and Employment Equity Unit—Closure 
12. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she stand by her statement to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee at the estimates hearing for Vote Labour on Thursday 25 June that she decided to close the pay and employment equity unit because “it had completed its work”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes. The pay and employment equity unit was established in 2004 with a 5-year plan of action. It has been 5 years and the plan of action has been carried out. Sixty-five reviews were completed and the research and resources remain available but a broader approach is still required to close the 12 percent gender gap. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Minister aware then that her Government stopped pay equity investigations for 24000 school support staff and for social workers that were being supported by the unit and that the unit has yet to complete pay equity reviews for thousands of staff at 15 polytechnics Te Wananga o Aotearoa the Waitakere City Council HortResearch one university and the Teachers Council? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member should be well aware that the investigations were of staff in the Public Service and came under the responsibility of the Minister of State Services. The member should direct her questions to the relevant Minister. 
Amy Adams 
: What should people do if they are paid less for doing the same work for their gender? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: They should provide that information to the authorities so that unscrupulous employers can be prosecuted. The law is clear: people cannot be discriminated against because of their gender. The standard is equal pay for equal work. If Labour members have evidence that women are being paid less only because they are women as those members claim they need to bring that evidence forward. It is a breach of the Equal Pay Act 1972 which was enacted by a National Government and the Human Rights Act 1993 also enacted by a National Government. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why did the Minister’s Government take credit for the work of the pay and employment equity unit in the presentation to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) this month without disclosing that she had just closed the unit down and the Government had scrapped its ongoing pay investigations? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That member should have more information; she is incorrect. The Government reported to the ILO on the work that had been undertaken in the past year as required. And can I say to that member that if equality or equity is of such concern to the member opposite why did Sue Moroney not replace Moana Mackey on the select committee who asked no questions whatsoever in relation to this issue—no questions whatsoever? And Sue Moroney was not even there! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no responsibility for whether a member asked questions at a select committee. That is out of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say just to support your ruling that the member also made reference to the absence of a member from a select committee which is completely out of order quite apart from it not being correct in the context of her question. She should have to withdraw that reference to a member which was unparliamentary. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have not called the Minister. I will ask the Minister though: did you make reference to the absence of a member from a committee? [ 
Interruption 
] You did? I therefore ask— 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: But the reference— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: She’s trying to clarify. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is very simple; there is no clarification required. A Minister may not refer to the absence of a member. If the member did do that— 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I made no reference to the absence of a member on the select committee. She was in the select committee room but she was not on the select committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me deal with this matter first. I warn the Minister that she does not make statements to the House without my asking her to do so. I asked her a moment ago whether she had referred to the absence of a member and she said she did; now she is saying she did not. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think the explanation is relatively simple and the Minister got close to it at the end of her statement. The member was not a member of the select committee and therefore she could not ask questions; she was sitting in the public area listening to the Minister’s responses. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard sufficient. The Minister should not refer to questions being asked or not asked by Opposition members. They are not her responsibility. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table the document “Pay and Employment Equity Reviews” which outlines the several reviews that have not yet been completed by the unit closed down by the Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Sorry I missed where the document is from. 
Sue Moroney 
: It is called “Pay and Employment Equity Reviews”. It details the reviews that have not been completed by the pay and employment equity unit. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Who prepared the report? 
Sue Moroney 
: It came from the Minister’s office. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a document from the Minister’s office. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I respectfully suggest that you take a close look at the video of question No. 12 and draw your conclusions accordingly. [ 
Interruption 
] Do you want me to spell it out? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have dealt with question No. 12. Forgive me but I do not know what the honourable member is talking about. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table page 22 of the 9 June 2009 report of the ILO committee on gender equality where the New Zealand Government says that gender equality and non-discrimination must be at the core of decent work. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from the ILO. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Questions to Members 
Banking Practices—Inquiry 
1. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: Will the Finance and Expenditure Committee give consideration to the proposed banking inquiry at its meeting this week? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The committee is scheduled to spend time this week considering whether to initiate an inquiry into the relationship between the official cash rate and short-term interest rates. This matter is scheduled to be considered from 10.50 a.m. to 11.45 a.m. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the chair anticipate that this will provide sufficient time to consider whether to proceed with an inquiry during the meeting this week? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: I am sure that depends on all the other business before the committee but we will try to give it our due consideration.