Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:656;Page:5583] 
Tuesday 18 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Adult and Community Education—Cuts 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his reported comments to Papanui High School principal Denis Pyatt when asked if his Government had seriously underestimated the impact of adult community education cutbacks on communities that “You’re probably right”; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 The Prime Minister met with a number of school principals including Denis Pyatt last month and recalls him raising the issue of community education and the effects of adult and community education funding decisions on his school. The Prime Minister does not recall the details of the conversation but it is likely he acknowledged that some people have reacted adversely to the decision. He reiterated that the Government stood by its decision to ensure that education funding is focused on high-priority areas such as literacy and numeracy and getting young people back into skills and work. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with his Minister of Finance Bill English who told the country that “School night classes have been a cornerstone of community education for decades providing opportunities for learning and companionship for thousands of people. The system has been cheap and flexible.”; and did Bill English justify to him the double standards of believing that yet slashing adult and community education by 80 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has discussed that matter with the Minister of Finance who pointed out that in the current fiscal environment where the Government has to grapple with a very large Budget deficit the Government needs to be clear about its priorities. It has expressed its educational priorities as being literacy and numeracy and getting young people into skills and back into work. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If it is a matter of priorities why is the concept of continued learning—everything from skills that help one to find employment to community classes like anger management and parenting—a lower priority than giving $35 million of extra funding to privileged kids in private schools? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In respect of the funding for private schools the fact is that if those schools go broke those kids will all show up in the public system where the Government funding will be considerably higher—in fact about three times higher—than it is for the private schools. 
Chris Tremain 
: What statements has the Prime Minister seen that endorse the need to reprioritise tertiary education funding? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has seen some statements and one in particular from the vice-chancellor of Massey University—who I understand used to be a member of the Labour caucus—pointing out that when the Government has constrained expenditure it needs to make choices about priorities. And that will be the reality of the next 10 years because it will take 10 years for the Government to get back to having a surplus. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister’s colleague the Minister of Finance explained to him why after saying “The demise of night schools is bad for schools for communities and for thousands of people who use them to learn something new.” he has undermined a century-long tradition of continued learning through life and reprioritised the funding to high-income groups through private schools? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister did speak to the Minister of Finance who reiterated that the Government is spending $124 million on adult and community education over the next 4 years. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. Does the Prime Minister agree that adult and community education night classes were cut to focus funding on literacy; if so why did the Government cut funding to Literacy Aotearoa the country’s main umbrella literacy education provider? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Those two funding streams are unrelated. Literacy Aotearoa is funded through the Tertiary Education Commission. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many National backbenchers have raised with him their view that these funding cuts are unsustainable such as National MP Jackie Blue who has emailed adult and community education groups offering to help them to oppose the Government cuts in this area? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister is delighted that National’s backbenchers are in touch with their communities. That is the reason that there are so many of them here and the reason that the Labour Party does not hold a single electorate seat outside a metropolitan area. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why are community groups like Youthline having their funding slashed as part of the 80 percent cuts to adult and community education funding when Youthline uses those funds to train its support workers who do invaluable work and do it voluntarily? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer in detail in respect of Youthline but I would make two points. One is that the Tertiary Education Commission has flexibility about how it uses its funds and the second is that the Government has set up a Community Response Fund designed to assist non-governmental organisations that are affected by the recession in their ability to raise money. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Can the Prime Minister outline the benefits of adult and community education including literacy night classes for new migrants seeking to assist their children with homework or seeking employment? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes that is one of the benefits of these classes. That is why the Government is going to spend over $100 million in the next 4 years on funding them. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Before making the decision to slash the funding of those classes by 80 percent did the Prime Minister or his Government consult with the schools the tutors or any of the 220000 people who enjoy night schools to find out what the costs and consequences would be to them and the community; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows those decisions were made in the context of the Budget round. I do not think there is any lack of opportunity for people to express their views about that. That is self-evident. 
Infrastructure—Improvement 
2.  
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister for Infrastructure 
: What measures is the Government taking to improve New Zealand’s infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure) 
: 
 As part of the Government’s plan for the road to recovery we have outlined a $7.5 billion 5-year plan to improve telecommunications schools and hospitals. We have also lifted spending on State highways by $1 billion over the next 3 years are investing record sums in upgrading the national electricity grid and have a plan to roll out ultra-fast broadband. 
Craig Foss 
: Why is the Government focused on improving New Zealand’s infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: After 10 years of mismanagement of the economy it is very important that we increase our productivity. Better roads more secure electricity and faster broadband will help us to increase productivity and grow our exports. 
Craig Foss 
: How does increased infrastructure investment support jobs? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government’s increased investment in productive infrastructure has two benefits for jobs. In the short term it supports thousands of jobs as these projects get up and running and in the long term the benefits from a more productive economy will support sustainable jobs in the export sector. Unfortunately many people who are losing their jobs now are finding out that their jobs were based on the previous Government’s reckless spending and too much borrowing. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: When will the Government announce its intentions to use the infrastructure fund to subsidise the development of water storage capacity for the agricultural sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There have been a number of propositions from the agricultural sector for some kind of Government participation but it is not exactly clear what it has in mind or what might be effective. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Can the Minister guarantee for the House that his expenditure on infrastructure is warranted from a cost-benefit point of view including investment in the cycleway KiwiRail and other similar make-work schemes? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: For the broad range of infrastructure I can give the member an assurance that what the Government is currently investing in meets the criteria of productive investment. I must say however that KiwiRail is a bit more of a problem. The previous Government spent $1 billion acquiring KiwiRail; today it is probably worth nothing. We are going through a major exercise of trying to work out how much investment is appropriate. 
Craig Foss 
: How will the Government maximise its investment in infrastructure? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The next step in our plan to maximise investment in infrastructure is to produce the first national infrastructure plan probably early next year. That plan will help to prioritise investment by identifying bottlenecks and investment gaps. 
Health Care—Policy 
3.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better sooner and more convenient health care? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Despite the fact that the previous Government left the health services delivering $160 million of services that were unfunded yes. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will the Minister reject the proposal for the establishment of a national health board or is he now prepared to admit that this is a broken election promise with increased rather than decreased bureaucracy in health? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The member refers to a report by an independent group of people from across the health sector. It has yet to be considered by Cabinet. But look I can rule out anything that will increase bureaucracy or not improve patient services. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will the Minister instruct Waikato District Health Board to unfreeze its cap on doctors or will he concede that the promise to deliver more doctors to the front line is now another broken election promise? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I first looked into this matter when it was raised with me 2 weeks ago and I found that the so-called cap on employment actually referred to the level of staff in the Waikato District Health Board’s budget. This year the district health board is forecasting to have more clinical staff than last year including more doctors nurses and allied health staff. However it is endeavouring to ensure that recruitment focuses on areas of understaffing such as mental health. I have been assured that the district health board has made no suggestion to make clinical staff redundant. That is because we have increased its funding by $54 million. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What responses has the Minister seen in relation to the public release of the ministerial review group report? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have received a number of items of feedback on the independent report. The  
New Zealand Herald 
 said the “Minister must move fast on health reform” and that “These are not radical suggestions”. The Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners said: “It is about providing the right care in the right place at the right time by the right person and this report acknowledges the importance of this approach.” The Public Health Association of New Zealand welcomed the renewed focus on quality as a way to reduce health inequalities. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will the Minister now apologise to the people of Dunstan in Central Otago for his broken election promise to them given the reduction in physiotherapy and disability home support both of which are front-line services provided in their area? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I would say to the people of Dunstan that they should have a look at a report that I am holding here because I am surprised that the previous Associate Minister of Health was silent on this issue when her Government approved cuts to aged-care services in Wanganui for example. In 2006 her Government agreed that Whanganui District Health Board had to take fairly swift action resulting in individuals with lower levels of need being reassessed services removed and access criteria tightened and there was not a word from that member. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Will the Minister now apologise to the older people of Canterbury for his broken promise to them given the reduction in both home support services and access to rest home care? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I visited Christchurch Hospital last week and had an opportunity to speak to over 300 doctors nurses and students. I am advised that Canterbury District Health Board has not reduced funding for aged residential care and it does not expect to reduce the number of residential care beds. The district health board is also refocusing its services on providing home support for people with higher levels of need. Its spending on health for older people will increase by $5 million this year. I suspect if one behaves like the Opposition spokesperson on health by reading one table that says there is a cut when actually there is an increase one could get confused by that information.  
Jo Goodhew 
: What reports has the Minister seen about district health boards and their decisions about how they allocate their funds in relation to services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have seen a range of reports about the need for district health boards to live within their means. I have seen statements from Dr Cullen and the previous Minister of Health. But as I have said before the most interesting statement was made in July 2004 by the Associate Minister of Health who was defending claims of negligence from the Wellington City Mission over funding cuts for aged care. The then Associate Minister of Health said that how health boards allocate funding was not her responsibility. That Associate Minister of Health was Ruth Dyson. 
Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Retrofitted Houses 
4.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: To the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member. Today for some reason the basic noise level in the House is very high. If members are having a private conversation I ask them to please go out into the lobbies. The noise is discourteous to those seeking to ask and answer questions. The noise has been quite high all afternoon. I apologise to the member. 
NICKY WAGNER 
: How many houses were retrofitted in the first month of the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 I am very pleased to advise the House that in the first month of the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand insulation scheme 3282 homes were retrofitted. This means that thousands of Kiwis will now be living in warmer drier and healthier homes and it is very pleasing to see the public respond so positively to this programme. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How many houses lived in by residents with community services cards have received assistance under the Warm Up New Zealand scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Although the universal nature of the Government’s new scheme sets it apart from the previous scheme promised by the previous Labour Government it is extremely pleasing to note that of the 3282 homes retrofitted so far some 1983 homes are lived in by residents with community services cards. That is about 60 percent of the houses done so far. We think that is very good in terms of the health benefits and for the general comfort and warmth of the community services cardholders who live in those homes. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How many service providers are being approved to deliver the scheme; if they are approved from when will they be available? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority recently opened application arrangements for people who want to become providers to become accredited. It received some 249 applications and those applications are being considered at the moment. Those new providers will be available to carry out some installation work from 1 October this year. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister aware that Government-approved providers have increased their prices as a result of the subsidy cancelling out the discount for the household; does he think that the Prime Minister’s announcement last week setting up the 38th review committee so far announced by this Government will do anything to ensure that families will get access to insulation and clean heating this winter? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: When any new Government takes over the mess left by a previous Government there is a lot of cleaning up to do. In respect of the claims made by the member I say he should have read the  
Dominion Post  
last Friday where an apology was printed for the story it ran that suggested that the scheme providers were ripping people off. The case that was cited was of a Wellington couple who had a heating appliance installed in their house. The appliance was a 4.8 kilowatt heater. The quote they had received which they said represented a rip-off was for a 6.25 kilowatt heater. The member might like to know that the difference between the two is the difference between the prices that he is hanging his hat on. 
Prisons—Private Management 
5.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does she agree with the recent comment by the Minister of Finance in regard to private prisons: “this is not about ideology: private sector involvement will only happen where it makes sense.”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes I do. I also agree with the Hon Phil Goff who said he would support the private construction and leasing of the new prisons if the Government is concerned about capital expenditure considerations. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the Minister aware of data from her own department showing that New Zealand’s only privately run prison proved to be more expensive to run than its public sector equivalent? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am aware of information from my own department that in 2004-05 the last year the Auckland Central Remand Prison was privately run the cost was $57280 per prisoner whereas the equivalent in the public sector cost $61796 per prisoner. I have given that information to the member who asked the question. He really should read his documents before he comes down to the Chamber. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the Minister aware that prison officers who have worked at Auckland Central Remand Prison both when it was privately run and when it was publicly managed reported that under private management incidents such as drug use and violence were much less likely to be identified or reported in order to protect the reputation of the contractor and to ensure that performance bonuses were received? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I find that statement quite extraordinary particularly when I have just received a letter from Mr Mel Smith a former Ombudsman in charge of prisons who stated: “I can say categorically that the ACRP was very well managed and certainly lost nothing in comparison with overseas examples in Australia the USA and Great Britain.” 
Sandra Goudie 
: Has the Minister received any other reports on the operation of private prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes I have; I have seen a press release from Clayton Cosgrove on private prisons and on the four prisons built by Labour in which he claims: “Labour’s record is incredibly positive compared to National’s.” That is an astonishing claim given the cost blowout in prison building when Labour was in Government. It was $643000 a bed in Spring Hill Corrections Facility under the previous Labour Government. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How can this Government claim that its plans to allow private management of prisons is “not about ideology” when there is evidence to clearly suggest that private prisons are neither more cost-effective nor safer for the public? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member should listen to the answers before he reads out his pre-prepared questions. I am happy to advise the House that in New South Wales private prisons cost 32 percent less per prisoner than public prisons and in Victoria it is 11 percent less per prisoner. Private management of prisons clearly does work. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. Does the Minister agree with Maori Council spokesperson Maanu Paul that prisons should be privatised and that Maori should run them because State control has failed Maori; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have made it perfectly plain that I expect to have better representation by Maori amongst the management of prisons. Frankly we could never do any worse than we did under the 9 long years of a Labour Government. 
Youth Employment—Youth Opportunities Package 
6.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she seen that support the employment opportunities in the Government’s Youth Opportunities package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to say that I have seen a report from the ministry that shows that at the end of yesterday 414 Job Ops positions for young people have been put forward by employers. We are getting young New Zealanders into those employment opportunities quickly. Already 55 young people have started work and a further 79 young people are close to being placed in these roles. We are working hard with employers and community groups to ensure we back our young people in these tougher economic times. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What other reports has the Minister heard that support those employment opportunities for young people? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have seen a report that the ministry is placing young people who have either never been in employment before or been out of employment for quite some time. I heard a media report on  
Nine to Noon  
on Radio New Zealand National of a restaurant owner in Te Kuiti who was on the verge of hiring possibly one person but since he heard about this programme he has taken on another person and he has now hired two people. Those two young women aged 18 and 20 had left school and had never worked before. Those entry-level roles are giving them the opportunity they need to get the experience skills and on-the-job training to further themselves. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: What proportion of those young people does the Minister expect will still be in work 6 months from now given that her own department’s website promotes the scheme to business by stating: “There is no expectation that the opportunity will lead to a long-term or permanent role.”? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: That is quite correct; that is the way the programme is designed. It is for 6 months. We have been quite up front about that. What that member might not realise is that young people are really disadvantaged in the workplace. They do not have a reference to take in to a job they do not have skills and they do not have work experience. That 6 months will give them work experience and if they do well it will give them a really positive reference to take on to their next job. That is as much as this opportunity is about. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports on the Government’s Youth Opportunities package? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Actually I have. I have seen a report that says it is “a step in the right direction” and “Any initiative that creates opportunities for young people is to be welcomed.” That was from the member who promptly stood up just before and bagged the programme. She herself stood up and said not long ago that it was a step in the right direction. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: How many Maori organisations have expressed an interest in taking up the Community Max programme and what are the types of projects that Maori communities are coming forward with? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In total to date we have received 119 registrations of interest for the Community Max programme. Of these I believe around 40 percent are from Maori organisations. Some of them are from Maori trusts and others are from Maori community groups. There is a wide range of community projects and an example is a Maori organisation in Rotorua that has come forward with a project to renovate their marae. They are looking at taking on five young people on the Community Max programme over a 7 to 8-month period. Another Maori organisation in Dannevirke is looking at setting up a Maori library and is bringing young people on board to do that job as well. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One is the criteria listed on the Work and Income website for the Job Ops scheme. 
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. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: The second document is my entire press statement released in response to the Government’s Job Ops scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seriously seeking leave to table her press statement? 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seeking leave to table her press statement. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
7.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he have confidence in the economic modelling used to inform the Government’s decision on the 2020 emissions target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes but I also acknowledge that macroeconomic modelling in this area is inherently difficult. There are significant unknowns around the price of carbon and the extent to which other countries will constrain their emissions. The assumptions behind the analysis are reasonable and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics are both reputable economic analysts. Treasury’s analysis which was released today was very similar. In fact it recommended a considerably lower target because it was concerned about the cost to the New Zealand economy. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Hugh Saddler that it is inherently contradictory to use a general equilibrium model to determine the impact of a carbon price and how does he justify commissioning analysis of the 2020 emissions reduction target that is “incapable of describing the way in which real economies can and do respond to changes in selected input costs like a price on carbon”? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it was important for the Government to do some economic analysis so that we balance the ambitiousness of the target with some realism about what the costs to the economy are. I acknowledge that such macroeconomic analysis is difficult but if we are to make a well-informed decision it is proper that the analysis is done. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What reports has the Minister received on the claims made by Charles Chauvel that the Government had cynically and blatantly misled the public with the dubious cost estimate by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics of approximately $30 per week in 2020 when in fact the cost was one-tenth of that spread over 10 years? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Given the way that that question was put I ask you what responsibility the Minister has for a member of the Labour Party. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need it. If I recollect the question was asked correctly. The member asked what reports the Minister had received on a statement. The Minister is at liberty to answer a question such as that as long as he does not go into detail and himself criticise what the Opposition member has said. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have received reports from both Infometrics and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research which were both stunned by the elementary mistake made by Charles Chauvel in his claims. Of course the reduction in gross real national disposable income cannot be divided by 10 because it happens to be an estimate for 2020. I suggest members opposite do some elementary mathematics. 
Charles Chauvel 
: How can the Minister claim to have confidence in the modelling given that it did not take into account likely increases in new forestry plantings comparable action to be taken by other countries benefits from improved domestic energy efficiency or the adoption of new low-carbon technologies in New Zealand; and will he accept that he has overstated the costs when more appropriate modelling would have shown that deeper emissions cuts were possible at relatively modest cost? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The simple point I would make to Labour is this: if reducing emissions was so easy and so inexpensive why did they go up in every single year that Labour was in Government? I would further point out that the Treasury analysis of the costs would suggest that the analysis done by Infometrics and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research was conservative. The third point I would make is that the member is incorrect in saying that the analysis did not include the impact of what other countries would do; it specifically addressed that point. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics report to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee that a carbon price of $100 a tonne would still leave emissions 20 percent above 1990 levels; and what price has he been advised would be needed to take New Zealand 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 or does he not know? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is very important for the member to recognise the difference between an emissions reduction target and a responsibility target. What is being debated and what is being agreed in international forums around climate change is a responsibility target—that is that New Zealand has the option either to reduce emissions to deal with sinks such as forestry or to buy units internationally. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics analysis was based on a responsibility target which is proper because that is what the debate is about. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite precise: does the Minister agree with the report’s figure of $100 a tonne to keep emissions 20 percent above 2020 levels and what price has he been advised would be needed? The question did not go anywhere near responsibility targets or whatever other label the Minister gave. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The point I am making to the member is that the 10 to 20 percent target that the Government has tabled at the international negotiations does not necessarily equate to a reduction in emissions in New Zealand. That is why his question is incorrect in that New Zealand has the option under the international model to buy units at the international carbon price. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: To deal with the point of order raised by David Garrett it would appear that the Minister is disputing the information that the member provided in the first part of his question. The Minister does not need to answer the second part. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Has the Minister received any reports in response to the claim that the 10 to 20 percent target relative to 1990 would result in New Zealand facing trade penalties from North America? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes. I have been flabbergasted by the claim that New Zealand’s 10 to 20 percent target would according to Mr Chauvel result in New Zealand facing trade barriers and tariffs from North America. The reason it is extraordinary is that the United States has a target of zero percent compared with our target of minus 10 to 20 percent and Canada has tabled a target of minus 3 percent relative to 1990. It is extraordinary and a disservice to New Zealand that the Opposition is making claims of tariff barriers when New Zealand is going significantly further than either major North American country. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Why does the Government continue to present climate change policy as a trade-off between economic and environmental outcomes and in doing so ignore the fact that the future costs of failing to avoid large-scale climate change greatly exceed the costs of starting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions now? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Quite simply because the repeated claims made by members of the Opposition that New Zealand can radically reduce emissions with absolutely no cost are off in fairyland. This Government is taking a realistic approach of balancing the economic and environmental challenges associated with climate change. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answers he referred to some reports he had from Infometrics and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. I wonder whether those are official documents; if so I would ask the Minister to table them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister would be required to table them only if he had quoted from them. I ask the Minister whether he was quoting from official documents. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am more than happy to table them; they are in the public arena. They were released by the Government 2 weeks ago. If tabling them would please the member I am happy to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It seems that the Minister is perfectly happy to provide those documents. 
Document laid on the Table of the House. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—2020 Target 
8.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Did New Zealand tell the Bonn climate change conference that the Government’s emissions reduction target of 10 to 20 percent below 1990 levels is dependent on developed countries as a whole cutting their emissions to 30 to 40 percent below 1990 levels? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No the 10 to 20 percent target range is dependent on comparable efforts by developed countries. I note that to date other countries have announced target ranges—from the United States at zero percent or stabilisation at 1990 levels through to the European Union’s promised reductions of between 20 and 30 percent. The conditionality around New Zealand’s target range is broadly comparable with that set by Australia of a 15 to 25 percent reduction on 2000 levels taking into account different baselines and economic circumstances. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister denying that when the New Zealand negotiator at the Bonn conference was asked by the Philippines what New Zealand expected from other countries our negotiator answered that we expected that other developed countries would reduce their emissions by 30 to 40 percent? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is incorrect. I have read the transcript of exactly what was said by our climate change ambassador. What he said in it is quite correct: a 10 to 20 percent range for New Zealand given our unique circumstances—around 50 percent of our emissions coming from agriculture and the fact we are starting from 24 percent behind with the growth in emissions—means that a comparable economic amount and an economic impact would be for other countries to take those targets. But can I make very plain that New Zealand’s target is not conditional on those other countries making targets in the range that the member suggests. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does the Minister agree in light of his answer just now which effectively says that New Zealand is in a unique position on climate change that our grossly inefficient vehicle fleet gives us a unique opportunity to reduce energy emissions in a cost-effective way as outlined in the Green Party’s plan released just 2 weeks ago? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government has a broad range of policies to address the challenge of climate change. Only earlier today my colleague Gerry Brownlee was talking about the home insulation package. We have legislation that has just been passed to provide incentives for electric cars. As we speak I know that the select committee that has done the review on the emissions trading scheme is nearing the end of its work. It is my ambition to have emissions trading policy settled by the time of the Copenhagen conference. Important work is being done on agricultural emissions. Important investments are being made in public transport. The Government has many initiatives to reduce emissions and to meet its international obligations. 
Hekia Parata 
: Has the Minister received any advice as to the international response to our 2020 target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I am advised by our climate change ambassador that New Zealand’s announcement of the 10 to 20 percent reduction below 1990 levels was very well received including positive comments from Australia from the European Union and specifically from Denmark and the United States. I note particularly that the Pew Center on Global Climate Change which is well respected for its international work around climate change congratulated New Zealand and said that we had set a very ambitious target given our national circumstances. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does the Minister agree that although New Zealand is in a unique position in climate change with regard to its agriculture we are also with our huge indigenous and plantation forestry assets in a unique opportunity to sequester carbon as outlined in the Green Party’s plan? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I think it is important in the debate around forestry and climate change to recognise that forestry buys us time rather than actually provides a long-term solution. Although right now our huge increase in emissions is being offset by the trees that were planted in the 1990s when those trees become of harvestable age in the 2020s New Zealand’s climate change position will be quite difficult. So yes forestry has a role to play; we should not overstate it because it simply buys us time. 
Hekia Parata 
: Did the Minister or his Associate Minister recommend a more ambitious target to Cabinet? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Today I have released the Cabinet paper associated with the decisions that the Cabinet took around the climate change goal. I and my Associate Minister Tim Groser did recommend a slightly tougher target—a 12 to 20 percent range. The Cabinet paper shows that Treasury actually recommended a far more conservative target range. So Cabinet made a decision to reduce its target range—a decision that I think was quite appropriate. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister said that he had read the transcript from the meeting and then proceeded to quote the statements from the New Zealand ambassador in that transcript which to me is reading from an official document. If the Minister is quoting from the New Zealand ambassador from the transcript of their meeting then he should table that document—it is an official document. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I was watching the Minister very carefully during his answer. I believed he referred to what the ambassador had said but I did not see him in any way holding up a document from which he was quoting; he was going from memory of what the ambassador said. Under those circumstances I do not believe that the Minister can be asked to table the document. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Minister then saying based on his answers to the earlier questions that it does not matter whether the developed countries in the world actually collectively reach a 25 to 40 percent reduction which as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says is the only way we can keep global warming under 2 degrees; how is that consistent with the New Zealand statement which was put at the conference that says we will make only 10 to 20 percent reduction if we keep it under 2 degrees? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member misquotes what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists said. It is absolutely proper that the scientists advise Governments including this Government as to the reduction in emissions required to avert dangerous climate change. But it is not for scientists to assess what is the fair allocation of emissions reduction between different countries; that is very much a socio-political debate not a scientific debate. 
Redundant Workers—Protection 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What protection is available to workers who are made redundant? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 As the public advisory group noted redundancy is a form of dismissal and is subject to the personal grievance provisions and other protections of the Employment Relations Act. Compensation remedies and other damages are available under those provisions. 
Darien Fenton 
: What advice would the Minister give to the 45 Tritech workers who have just been made redundant without any redundancy compensation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: For anybody who loses their job it can certainly be an upsetting experience and we certainly sympathise with them. That is why this Government has made sure we are taking every step we can to get the economy growing again and to help workers to both stay in jobs and get new ones. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does the Minister think it is fair that some of those workers who have been with Tritech for more than 20 years are being sent out the door with no recognition of their service and with nothing to tide them and their families over in the hard times until they find a new job? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Redundancy is a matter of agreement between the parties obviously. I note that 78 percent of collective agreements actually do have redundancy provisions so unions have obviously negotiated good provisions in that regard. In relation to statutory redundancy I say that in the public advisory group’s report 14 of the 22 submitters supported the status quo; only eight were against. 
Road Safety—Safer Journeys Discussion Document 
10.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What work is the Government doing to make New Zealand’s roads safer? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Today I launched the Safer Journeys discussion document containing a range of possible Government initiatives that could help to improve road safety. The Safer Journeys discussion document invites views on a number of priority road safety areas including alcohol and drug-impaired driving safer speeds young drivers motorcycling roads and roadsides. The feedback received from road users will be used to develop a national road-safety strategy for the next 10 years. Initial actions will be implemented over the next year or two and I stress that public acceptability is an important aspect of any changes. 
David Bennett 
: What else is the Government currently doing to improve road safety? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Last week I announced that from 1 November this year it will be against the road rules for drivers to text or talk on a hand-held cellphone while driving. This is aimed at combating a specific driver distraction that has grown to become a significant problem. Between 2003 and 2008 there were 482 injury crashes and 25 fatal crashes in New Zealand where the use of a mobile phone or other telecommunications device was identified as a contributing factor. Drivers will still be able to use hands-free cellphones and make 111 calls for genuine emergencies as well. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: When the Minister set a fine of $80 for talking on a cellphone did he take into account the fact that for nearly 20 years drivers have been allowed to talk on a cellphone and drive; if so why did he set the fine so high when it comes in in just a few weeks’ time rather than allowing drivers to get used to the change with a lower fine and warnings? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Due consideration—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not know what provoked that outburst from the back of the House but I think we should actually hear the Minister’s answer before there is all that massive interjection. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Due consideration was given to the appropriate level of fine and number of demerit points. It is equivalent to exceeding the speed limit by 11 to 15 kilometres an hour. 
David Bennett 
: What other initiatives is the Minister aware of that improve road safety? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I have seen a proposal from a former member of this House who was concerned about the use of retreads once they are past their use-by date. He seemed to think that it is a particular issue in and around the parliamentary complex resulting in some erratic steering. It is not an issue that is expressly raised in the road safety strategy but I am advised that the Minister is prepared to accept submissions from any members particularly from those on the Opposition benches who are concerned about the overuse of retreads once they are past their use-by date. 
State Sector—Resources for Front-line Services 
11.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is it Government policy to move resources to the front line in the State sector? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 Yes. This Government wants to see people and funding move into areas that will deliver best value for money and improve front-line services for New Zealanders. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Nurses Organisation’s response to his ministerial review group report that “if health services were run without good managers and administrators then nurses and doctors would be lost in the chaos.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Certainly there is a very strong role for ward clerks etc. in supporting the work of doctors and nurses but the problem the Government has inherited is that the number of managers and administrators in the public health service has grown from 8000 to 10500. On top of that figure there are 1500 managers and administrators in the Ministry of Health. The Government has sought to slow that growth. That in itself has been a great achievement. 
Jacqui Dean 
: Has the Government heard any examples of Government agencies shifting resources to the front line? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Actually yes. In Budget 2009 the Government announced funding for over 700 additional front-line positions at the Department of Corrections and 600 in the police. The Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon Paula Bennett recently announced additional funding for 300 front-line roles at the Ministry of Social Development and 100 new positions have been created at the Accident Compensation Corporation. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister guarantee to nurses throughout New Zealand that the reorganisation of the health system being proposed by his ministerial review group will not lead to them spending more time on administrative work and less time with patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is a very serious issue that our nurses are not spending enough time with patients. The average nurse in New Zealand is spending a very low percentage of time on contact with patients. On Friday I will visit a ward in Tauranga Hospital where through nurse leadership staff have increased their contact time with patients by over 50 percent. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will the Minister guarantee to the House today that as a result of the reorganisation of the health system being proposed by his ministerial review group nurses will not spend more time on administrative work and less time with patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can tell that member and I can give him the guarantee that this Government will not approve any recommendations that increase bureaucracy or do not improve front-line services. National indicated before the last election that we do not want another round of distracting change in the health system whereby we went from hospital boards in 1988 to area health boards in— 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked Mr Ryall the same question twice because he did not answer it the first time. He has not addressed my question the second time either. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat his question and the House will listen more quietly to both the question and the answer. I thank members. 
Grant Robertson 
: Can the Minister guarantee to nurses throughout New Zealand that the reorganisation of the health system being proposed by his ministerial review group will not lead to them spending more time on administrative work and less time with patients? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can give that guarantee because that is the whole purpose of this Government. We have inherited a situation where in most of our hospitals nurses are spending only about a third of their time with patients because they are spending the rest of their time doing all the paperwork and bureaucracy that Labour put in place when it was last in office. That is why we are looking to clinical leadership and to our doctors and nurses assisting the Government to improve the productivity of the New Zealand public health service. 
Regulatory Reform—Initiatives 
12.  
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Regulatory Reform 
: What recent initiatives has the Government announced to cut red tape and lift the quality of regulation in New Zealand? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister for Regulatory Reform) 
: 
 The Minister of Finance and I yesterday released the  
Government Statement on Regulation 
 which guarantees better regulations and fewer of them. Specifically this Government will firstly introduce new regulation only when we are satisfied that it is required reasonable and robust and secondly review existing regulation in order to identify and remove requirements that are unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly. That is a big step up from the nanny State of the previous Government. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What steps is the Government taking to support the  
Government Statement on Regulation 
? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The statement will be backed up by the following four measures: firstly regulatory scans will be undertaken by agencies responsible for regulation on a systematic basis to identify regulation that is unnecessary ineffective or excessively costly; secondly there will be annual regulatory plans of all known and anticipated proposals to introduce amend repeal or review legislation; thirdly there will be enhanced certification requirements for departments and Ministers to strengthen accountability for meeting the Government’s regulatory commitments; and fourthly there will be post-implementation reviews for proposals that are formally assessed by Treasury’s regulatory impact analysis team as being inadequate. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Why has the Minister simply restated the previous Government’s policy implemented after the Quality Regulation Review? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I do not begin to understand why that former Minister would think these measures are anything like what the previous Government actually undertook. I suggest that the former Minister actually reads the statement. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What other steps is the Government taking to cut red tape and lift the quality of regulation in New Zealand? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: The Government has also established a Regulatory Responsibility Taskforce to recommend changes to the Regulatory Responsibility Bill aimed at increasing accountability and transparency around lawmaking. The task force is due to report in September 2009 and once again I look forward to receiving the support of Lianne Dalziel and of the Labour Party for this measure. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Does reasserting Kiwi values like individual autonomy and responsibility mean that the Minister thinks the owners of leaky buildings and investors in failed finance companies should take personal responsibility for the consequences of their investments; if so what protection does he think it is appropriate for the Government to offer through regulation? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No I do not. What I know is that New Zealanders made a very very clear statement at the last election which was that they were sick of a nanny State Government that always thought it knew best and wanted to tell New Zealanders what to do. I have to say that people are very pleased that we actually have a Government that stands up for Kiwis and the Kiwi values of individual freedom and responsibility. I point out that the previous Government talked long and hard— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In respect of that answer was it acceptable to answer no to a question and then continue by providing an abusive set of responses that had nothing to do with the question I put to the Minister? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the point of order the member has made; she makes a good point of order. Where the answer to a question is no it should not be followed up with a further response that attacks the Opposition unless of course the question that was asked was politically loaded. On this occasion it was not very politically loaded—I accept that. That is why I stood to stop the Minister continuing.