Volume 656 Week 20 - Wednesday 5 August 2009 
Volume 656 Week 20 - Wednesday 5 August 2009 
[Volume:656;Page:5443] 
Wednesday 5 August 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Business of Select Committees 
Meetings 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I seek leave for the Primary Production Committee to meet outside New Zealand with its counterparts in Australia from 10 to 14 August 2009 as part of the annual joint committee exchange with Australia. That is a resolution from the Business Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Questions to Ministers 
Health—Front-line Services 
1. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by his commitment to move health resources to the front line? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Yes. This is an important objective that is desperately needed given that over the last 9 years the health bureaucracy grew by around 25 percent and the outgoing Labour Government cut $150 million from the health budget a few weeks before the general election. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why is the Government so intent on moving resources out of administration and into improving front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Our focus is on improving services for patients and consumers. In the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s the Government has continued to make large investments in the public health service and it is unacceptable that the health bureaucracy has ballooned over the past 9 years. We are endeavouring to peg it back. For example the Government has cut the number of measures of district health board performance by around a quarter and we have cut the number of reports that hospital staff must send to the Ministry of Health by a startling 52 percent. 
Iain Lees-Galloway 
: Will the Minister refuse to sign off on any cuts to front-line services or front-line staff at MidCentral District Health Board given that he has personally demanded that it finds $10 million worth of spending cuts? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The MidCentral District Health Board is reviewing its staffing. For example three directors have replaced five group managers on the senior management team. At the MidCentral District Health Board we have inherited a major deficit of around $10 million which is not helped by that member’s party cutting $150 million from Vote Health before the last election. But I assure the member that on the issue of staffing and services at the MidCentral District Health Board this Government is putting an extra $25 million into that district health board for the next 12 months and it will make the decisions with regard to those resources. 
Clare Curran 
: Will he agree to the cuts to community services to the rural elderly in Otago and Southland proposed by the Otago District Health Board; if so how does he think those cuts will improve the health of these older people? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: District health boards are expected to make decisions within the funding that they receive and in Otago and Southland—[ 
Interruption 
] Members should wait for this: we have increased the funding of those district health boards by $29 million over the next year. On the matter of Ms Curran’s question I have received assurances from the district health board that with the changes to residential care no one will be unsafe no one will be at risk and no one will be unable to stay in his or her home because of these changes. 
Grant Robertson 
: How will the closing of wards at Wanganui Hospital as reported in the  
Wanganui Chronicle 
 help to deliver better front-line services for the people of the Wanganui region? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: We have inherited very significant problems in the Whanganui District Health Board. After 9 long years of the previous Government services at the Whanganui District Health Board are in desperate need of improvement. That is why this Government is putting an extra $8.6 million into that board in order for it to deliver its services to the people of the district. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Mr Robertson’s question was very specific: it was about the closing of wards at a particular hospital. The Minister gave us a political response; that is fair enough. But we wanted to be given specific information about how the closing of certain wards could lead to better health outcomes for the people of Wanganui. The answer went no way towards addressing that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the Minister in answering that question talk about the additional funding that he claimed was going into that health board and that seemed to me to be a reasonable answer to the allegation that wards were being closed. The Minister replied by saying the Government was actually putting in more funding. It would seem to me that that is a reasonable response to that question. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The Minister may well have made reference to general funding but he did not link it to the closing of wards. This was a very short supplementary question specifically about the closing of wards in a certain hospital. The Minister did not say that his funding changes somehow were linked to those ward closures so I do not think he has addressed that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: With respect if that is the kind of detail that the member asking the question wants to know maybe that needs to be put down in a primary question. It is fairly unreasonable to expect the Minister to know every detail of every hospital around the country when the primary question does not indicate that kind of detail is being sought. I think that is unreasonable. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: How do the cuts in funding for mental health services in Taranaki deliver on his election promises? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Taranaki District Health Board receives a significant amount of money from the Government from which to improve its services for the public. I have to say that the Taranaki District Health Board has done a very good job with its plans on how to spend the additional $11.1 million that this Government will be funding it this year—an increase of over 4 percent. 
Stuart Nash 
: Can he guarantee that the reported cut-backs in Tairawhiti District Health Board will not be to front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: First of all I say that is a rather broad claim of reported cut-backs to services at Tairawhiti District Health Board. It is much akin to the claims of the Opposition health spokesperson who keeps talking about cuts to different services that do not actually exist because she looked at the wrong table in the Estimates. I can tell the member that Tairawhiti District Health Board is getting the biggest single increase in funding that it has ever had in years—a total increase of over $8 million. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he would guarantee there would be no cut-backs to front-line services; he did not mention the words “front-line services” once. It was a reasonably general question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Oh a rescue brigade. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Here’s the rescue. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I am pleased that the Opposition think I am so capable. I just suggest that we are getting a lot of questioning again of answers where in fact rather than a point of order being raised you Mr Speaker are being asked to judge the quality of the answer. We have been over and over for probably some hours in this House in the last few months the position that puts you in. Perhaps some reinforcement particularly to new members of exactly what the Standing Orders say and require and of what Speakers’ rulings have determined over a large number of years would be useful. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable member for his intervention. The line I am taking with Ministers when they are answering questions is that where the primary question is clear and the Minister should have the information I believe that the House and the public of New Zealand deserve to have such straight questions answered. However where a general question is the primary question and then it is followed up by a number of detailed questions it is much more difficult to expect the Minister to have specific information on those detailed further questions. Basically in response to the member’s question the Minister really refuted any allegation that there will be a cut-back in services and in his answer stated there would be an increase in funding. I cannot judge the quality of that answer but it would seem to me that it is a reasonable answer to the question he was asked. He is refuting the allegation and saying that rather than funding cuts in respect of that particular health board there is a funding increase. I think that that is a reasonable answer to the question given the primary question. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Why did the Minister agree to the proposal to cut 5000 visits to the emergency department for a 10 percent cut in X-rays and for the cutting of 200 operations all at Timaru Hospital; and how will he explain those health cuts to the good people of Timaru? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think one would explain that by actually looking for the truth behind those reports rather than misinterpreting information and tables as the member does. For example the truth behind the so-called cut to radiology is that the South Canterbury District Health Board is going to pay its private providers less. But it is apparently a cut to service that the board is going to reduce the amount it pays its private providers! I can tell that member that the district health board is making decisions within the resources it has including an extra $6 million this year—a 4.4 percent increase. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Can the Minister now confirm that doctors and nurses are not front-line staff and that home support community services for the elderly hospital wards on weekends mental health services emergency departments X-rays and operations are not front-line services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: What an odd question from that member! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do I need to go into any detail? I think the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes; if the member has raised the point of order he will run through it quickly with me. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Well very quickly that answer was prefaced by an offensive comment—one that was absolutely spurious and unnecessary. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well if I heard the Minister correctly he referred to the question as being unusual. 
Hon Members 
: No—odd. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Did I hear wrongly—odd? I beg your pardon—odd? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He’s odd. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with a point of order. If “odd” is offensive I apologise for that. But it was an unusual way to phrase a question I have to admit. It sought an opinion. The kind of answer that members will get when they seek opinions or state questions in an unusual way—I cannot ask Ministers to be totally non-political in the way they answer questions like that. I mean if members put down straight questions on the Order Paper I will make sure Ministers answer them but I cannot insist on a particular answer to that kind of question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: District health boards are making decisions with regard to increased funding. These district health boards are led by many of the same people whom Labour—those members’ party—appointed while previously in Government and they are endeavouring to do the best they can within the generous and improved financial resources we have provided in this year’s Budget. I can tell that member opposite that this Government is determined there will be improved front-line services for New Zealanders. We simply cannot continue to have the situation where over the last 9 years the budget has doubled but fewer people have had operations. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Manawatu Standard  
headlined “Hospital jobs to go in $10 million cost cut”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press article. Is there any objection to that? There is. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Otago Daily Times 
 outlining cuts to community services for elderly people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table an article from  
Otago Daily Times 
. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Wanganui Chronicle 
 headlined “Hospital looks to close wards at weekends”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that press article. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Taranaki Daily News 
 outlining proposed cuts in mental health services and Maori health support services. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that article from the  
Taranaki Daily News 
. Is there any objection? There is objection? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table two articles from the  
Timaru Herald 
: one outlining the 200 operations to be axed and the other outlining the proposal to cut 5000 visits to the Timaru Hospital emergency department. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table those two articles from the  
Timaru Herald 
. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Tony Ryall to the South Canterbury District Health Board saying the board has his full support in implementing the plan of cuts outlined in my supplementary question. 
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. 
Job Ops and Community Max Schemes—Access 
2.  
TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: How can employers organisations and groups access the recently announced Jobs Ops and Community Max schemes? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The calls have been flooding in. Groups of employers with entry-level employment or volunteering opportunities can call Work and Income and get young people into those roles really quickly. If they meet the simple criteria for Job Ops we can pay up to 50 percent of their wages for those 6-month opportunities. For Community Max we will pay the minimum wage for 30 hours a week to get projects done in people’s towns and communities. I encourage employers and community groups to give Work and Income a call on 0800 778008. 
Tim Macindoe 
: What kinds of employment opportunities are now available? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: We have had calls from all over New Zealand and here are just a few: a dairy farm in Feilding a concrete company in Tauranga and a transport company in the South Island. We have even had employers who have called about Job Ops and who have gone on to list several other vacancies in their business with Work and Income. I am really pleased that employers are listing more vacancies with us realising the high calibre of people and broad skill set that Work and Income can provide. Recently we had a guy in his fifties at one of our Canterbury Work and Income branches who was looking for work and—I kid you not—within 10 minutes he had a job with a company down the road. 
Tim Macindoe 
: Can the Minister give the House an update on the level of interest in the programme? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: On day three of the youth opportunities package we have had a total of 130 phone calls to the employer line for Job Ops and Community Max and 10 registrations of interest from community groups about the Community Max programme. And we have 47 Job Ops positions ready to go on our books on just the third day. Young people are stepping up in their droves asking for those opportunities. 
Hon Annette King 
: Can the Minister give a guarantee that the two young people she said had already been placed into jobs—one as a factory worker and one as a cafe assistant—have been filled from totally new positions and not existing vacancies because according to the rules she put out at the weekend pre-existing vacancies are not eligible for Job Ops? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is my understanding that those employers called in on Monday with those jobs that they were matched on the Monday and people were placed in them and that on Tuesday they started the job. That is my understanding of how it happened. 
Physical Therapy—Funding for Severely Disabled Students 
3.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the members’ colleague. I say to the front-bench members on my left that I have called the Hon Clayton Cosgrove [ 
Interruption 
] And I will have order on the right-hand side of the House too. [ 
Interruption 
] Either way I am not happy with the member continuing to interject when I have called another member to ask his question. I accept that there had been a breach on both sides of the House and I will ignore the latter one. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Has she considered the impact of the Government’s decision to discontinue physical therapy funding for students with severe disabilities? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What would the Minister say to Kaiapoi mother Julie Baker whose 12-year-old daughter Brittany has cerebral palsy and faces the very real prospect of having to remove her from school as a result of those cuts which the mother says will have “devastating consequences for children like Brittany”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am advised that a student with high or very high needs would still continue to receive about $20000 from both the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme and from the operations grant and a quarter of that Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding should be used for therapy. I am also advised that there are a number of children throughout the country with similar or even higher needs who are not receiving any of that extra support because this additional funding for therapy was schools-based not needs-based. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why did the Minister tell the 23 schools throughout New Zealand affected by these cuts that to make up the shortfall in funding “those schools might contribute from their operational grants or their staffing entitlement” and does she agree with the principal of Addington School which runs as she should be aware a conductive education programme that such a suggestion is “insulting”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to that member that up and down this country there are a large number of schools that under the previous Government were supporting special-needs students from their operational grant and from their staffing entitlement. This Government has put an extra $51 million into Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding and that will create another 1100 places for children whom the previous Government left unfunded and unsupported. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What reports has the Minister received on funding for special education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have received an email from the mother of a 5-year-old girl with autism. She wrote of her long campaign to secure special-needs funding for her daughter. She thanked the National Government for boosting special-education funding by $51 million which will provide help for another 1100 children so that other mums and dads would be spared what she had suffered. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just ask members to be a little reasonable. I have called the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to ask a supplementary question and he has not had a chance because his colleagues are interjecting so much. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does the Minister consider it fair that although private schools are set to receive an additional $35 million in funding the future development of an education for some of the country’s most vulnerable children is now under threat as a result of her directive to discontinue funding and how on earth does she reconcile that little anomaly? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: What is not fair is under the previous Government some schools got extra funding and some schools did not. Some children got that extra funding and some children did not. That is what was not fair under the previous Government. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect that was a straight question that asked the Minister about the fairness of funding private schools to the detriment of the most vulnerable children. She started the answer off by saying she would tell me what was fair and then she prattled on about something else. She did not even address that question. It was a straight one. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further help on the matter. All I invite the honourable member to do is to read his  
Hansard 
. If that was asked it might have been possible to get an answer but he went on to ask the Minister how she reconciled something to do with fairness. The Minister gave an answer reconciling how she sees that and that is the dilemma the member will get when he adds that type of thing to his question. The Minister is entitled to respond to that part of the question. 
Early Childhood Education and Care—Participation 
4.  
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the Government doing to increase participation in early childhood education and care? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yesterday the Hon Dr Pita Sharples and I announced $8.9 million in funding from the discretionary grants scheme to create more than 400 new places in early childhood education centres. The grants include more than $5 million for new capital works in the Counties Manukau District Health Board area where participation rates are generally low. Other projects will create 70 places in Samoan immersion centres a new centre in Arrowtown and services for Maori Pasifika and refugee communities. 
Allan Peachey 
: What other activity is under way to increase participation in early childhood education in Counties Manukau? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: A wide range of initiatives is going on as part of the Counties Manukau participation project. Three early childhood centres have been confirmed for school sites and more centres will be established in South Auckland. Among other projects the first street-side playgroup has been established in Papakura three education play days have been held a community champions initiative is being developed with community groups and three new certified playgroups have been set up. Increasing early childhood education participation is a top priority for this Government. 
Sue Moroney 
: How will the Minister ensure increased participation in early childhood education when her own Ministry of Health predicts that New Zealand will need 19000 extra early childhood education places by 2011 just to maintain 2008 rates of participation and to increase the participation of Maori and Pasifika children; does she realise she will have to do better than just maintain a grant scheme established by the Labour Government in order to make the headway that is required? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Despite the previous Government’s establishment of the discretionary grants scheme it left the incoming Government the legacy that that member refers to. I can assure her that this Government is addressing those issues in every way possible and the first step is to increase participation rates in a sensible and community-driven way in areas like South Auckland where there is not good participation of Maori and Pasifika students. 
Rahui Katene 
: How will the discretionary grants scheme impact on Maori in early childhood education? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am pleased to advise the member that the recent funding round allocated funding to create 30 new places at a kohanga reo in South Taranaki and five other kohanga reo have grants to plan new buildings or refurbishments for over 120 children. Planning grants have also been given to projects that include supporting the development of Maori immersion centres. 
Allan Peachey 
: How will this money be allocated in future? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Groups that have been involved in applying to the discretionary grants scheme have told me not surprisingly that the process under Labour was overly bureaucratic and consumed far too many resources. I have asked the ministry to look at ways in which that same amount of money could be used more effectively to increase the number of children participating in early childhood education by creating more places. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a letter dated 28 May 2009 from a Ministry of Education deputy secretary Nicholas Pole which shows that the last Labour Government funded every year the physical therapy package for children like Brittany Graham and the 2009 Budget of the National Government cut it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That last statement is out of order when seeking leave to table a document. 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. 
Adult and Community Education—Cuts 
5.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: Does she consider the cutting of the adult and community education budget to high schools to have been a retrieval of low-value educational expenditure? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 No. The previous Government of which the member was an Associate Minister for Tertiary Education left the incoming Government with $500 million of unfunded tertiary commitments. We had to fund some of them such as the CPI adjustment in 2010 and student support increases. That required reprioritisation in other areas. We also had to have a close look at every area of tertiary spending. We decided that we need to focus our dollars and attention on young New Zealanders and on ensuring that the number of higher qualifications completed increases. We are still committed to adult and community education which is why we are investing $124 million into it. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Is the Minister aware that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report of June 2008 estimated that for every dollar of Government investment in adult and community education there is a return of between $16 and $22 not including private or volunteer contributions to the sector; if so can she advise the House which sector of the education system gives a higher return on the Government’s investment? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes I am aware of that report. The member should look closely at where PricewaterhouseCoopers got that information from. I understand that it did five case studies of different community organisations providing adult and community education. It also did a survey that was put out amongst those who participate which from memory had a response number of about 500. I consider that to be a very small sample to try to extrapolate answers to those sorts of questions from. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What value would the Minister place on the two most popular courses offered through Counties-Manukau adult and community education programmes: English in the workplace and the learner driver’s licence theory course both of which are likely to be cancelled because of the cuts to adult and community education funding; and how does she expect people in the Otara area to pay for those courses when the Tangaroa College investment plan clearly states that “user pays in Otara is not a viable option”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I say to the member that by refocusing adult and community education on language literacy and numeracy I would have thought that English in the workplace would certainly be one of the top courses that would be funded under that focus. My advice to the people who are taking part in those courses would be to be in touch with the Tertiary Education Commission to ensure that those courses are provided. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou katoa. Can the Minister confirm that the funding for the training of Youthline volunteers who counsel distressed young people has been cut? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No I cannot. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Was the Minister advised in her meeting with the representatives of the Community Learning Association through Schools recently that she risked going down in history as the Minister who killed night classes; if so does she intend to do anything about it? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I had a very good meeting today with the representatives of Community Learning Association through Schools. We had a free and frank discussion. They put their views to me and I explained the situation to them. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does training for Youthline volunteers who counsel distressed young people fit her definition of a hobby course? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have no definition of a hobby course. I would suggest—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Gardening in the wind. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Gardening in the wind. I would suggest that Youthline or the providers of that course get in touch with the Tertiary Education Commission which has asked schools to provide it with expressions of interest for courses that they propose to make available next year. I believe they have until 21 August to make those expressions. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table the Tangaroa College adult community education investment plan which states that user-pays is not a viable option in Otara. 
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. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: I seek leave to table a photo of yesterday’s meeting in Parliament that the Minister was unable to get to. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a photograph. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan 
6.  
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Will he be withdrawing New Zealand’s successful provincial reconstruction team from Afghanistan and instead sending a deployment of the New Zealand Special Air Service; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: The review of New Zealand’s commitment to Afghanistan will be considered by Cabinet in the next 2 weeks and any announcements will be made following that consideration. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with New Zealand Brigadier Tim Brewer who said that our provincial reconstruction team is “making a difference”; if so what will happen to New Zealand’s civil aid programmes in Bamian if our team pulls out? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can assure the member that views such as the brigadier’s will be taken into account. 
Keith Locke 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that by contrast with our provincial reconstruction team an SAS unit is likely to be deployed with US combat forces which seem to be losing support among the Afghan people partly because their operations are causing so many civilian casualties? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Again I reiterate that the Government is taking into account a range of opinions and considerations as it reviews our involvement in Afghanistan. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Up until now I have not raised a point of order about whether the Prime Minister has answered the question properly because I thought I would let him answer one or two questions. But I have asked him three questions and I have heard no specific answers or reference to the provincial reconstruction team or the SAS. He has just talked about a review. At least at some point he should answer the questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness the member asked his primary question in relation to whether New Zealand will withdraw the provincial reconstruction team and send a deployment of the SAS. The Acting Prime Minister gave a perfectly good answer to that. He said that Cabinet will consider the matter in due course and will make a public announcement. That was a very informative answer. I believe that kind of answer is absolutely a perfectly proper answer. I think it is unreasonable what the member is saying. I think the member finally sought an opinion from the Minister about the value of certain activities and about how people perceived the performance of American forces in Afghanistan. The member cannot expect a precise answer. The member cannot expect an answer that he might wish to hear from the Minister. He has a couple of further supplementaries and I invite him to pursue the matter. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: In advance of any decision made within the next few weeks would any potential deployment of SAS forces in Afghanistan operate under the same mandate as the provincial reconstruction team or a different mandate; if it were different what mandate would it be and what legal basis would it rest on? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the first place those are hypothetical questions. The Government understands that this is a complex and serious issue and there will be plenty of opportunities to debate whatever decision the Government makes. I think that the member has raised the issue before of the legal basis of having any New Zealand personnel operating in Afghanistan and the Government has satisfied itself that there is an adequate legal basis. 
Keith Locke 
: What is the Prime Minister doing to investigate recent detailed claims in the media that in 2002 our SAS could have contravened the Geneva Convention by handing over Afghan prisoners to US forces without sufficient regard to their possible mistreatment in US jurisdiction? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has been looking into that matter. He has been advised that in 2004 and 2005 the previous Government conveyed through diplomatic and defence channels to the US our expectations in writing that detainees are to be treated in accordance with international humanitarian law and human rights law. The Prime Minister also notes that the current US administration under President Obama has placed an emphasis on the non-use of torture and on the humane treatment of detainees as is evidenced by the decision to close its detention facility in Guantanamo Bay. The SAS acted in good faith in 2002 in entrusting detainees to the US. 
Keith Locke 
: I seek leave to table an article from the  
Taranaki Daily News 
 entitled “Six weeks in Afghanistan” on Brigadier Tim Brewer’s tour— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is seriously seeking leave to table a press article? 
Keith Locke 
: It is relevant to my question because I did— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All right; I will put it to the House. Leave is sought to table that press article. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Health Maori—Improvement for Whanau 
7.  
Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What steps if any is the Government taking to improve the health and well-being of Maori whanau? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 The statement of intent for the Ministry of Health reflects the steps being taken to support whanau to achieve their maximum health and well-being and I refer the member to that document. We are moving to a much stronger focus on outcomes rather than on a lot of activities. We want to empower whanau and providers to identify what will bring wellness to those communities rather than have a more top-down prescribed approach. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: In the light of that answer does the Minister still intend to reallocate $1 billion to the whanau ora fund; if so how does he reconcile that with the comments of the Minister for Social Development and Employment Paula Bennett on  
Q+A 
 this weekend when she stated that she does not “envisage us carving off a billion dollars from the welfare from certainly social development to go into that sort of scheme”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think the important point in respect of whanau ora is that we are currently in the midst of developing work on it. The Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia is working very closely with her group which is led by Professor Durie. Work is going on with Maori public health organisations and other providers about how whanau ora can make a big difference to whanau. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Does he agree with Taitimu Maipi the chairman of Hauora Raukura o Tainui—one of the original architects of whanau ora—who stated that it was important to foster the provision of health services to Maori by Maori because it increased their rate of participation; if so why is he allowing the Waitemata District Health Board and the Auckland District Health Board to cut over half a million dollars from Maori provider development? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is true that the Counties Manukau District Health Board has carried out a major review of its contracts using a systematic approach that aims to put funds closest to the front line and reduce duplication. I am advised that that approach has freed up enough money for it to increase service contracts by Maori for Maori overall by 42 percent this year. 
Rahui Katene 
: How will he achieve improved outcomes for whanau? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia is working very hard to achieve real gains and improved outcomes for Maori. She recognises that it requires the resources and application of all those involved—not only those in the public health service but also those in other parts of public service delivery such as welfare and education. The Associate Minister has asked the Ministry of Health to monitor health and disability services for Maori and in particular to focus on reducing the incidence and impact of cancer for Maori; ensuring high-quality interventions for diabetes and cardiovascular conditions; early detection and screening; and quality integrated public health services. 
Hon Mita Ririnui 
: Has he received any other reports from other Ministers who are not prepared to help fund the Associate Minister’s $1 billion whanau ora fund by making cuts in their own areas? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can advise the member that I have been working closely with a number of our colleagues—the Minister of Education and the Minister for Social Development and Employment together with the Associate Minister—to advance whanau ora because it is a move away from the patronising dictatorial Wellington-knows-best approach that we saw from that member and his failed Government towards an approach that is prepared to empower whanau to take responsibility for their health and welfare. 
Tax Agreements International—Entered Into By New Zealand 
8.  
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: What recent international tax agreements has New Zealand entered into and what are the reasons for becoming signatories to these agreements? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 New Zealand has recently signed two new tax agreements. Last December we signed a protocol to substantially amend our double tax agreement with the United States of America and in June we signed a completely new double tax agreement with Australia. Both of these agreements represent a definite improvement over our existing treaties with those countries. They reduce tax barriers to investment by reducing withholding rates on dividends interest and royalties. They also bring our treaty arrangements up to date with modern treaty practice provide greater certainty for taxpayers and improve cooperation between tax authorities in the respective countries. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What further tax agreements has New Zealand entered into that provide more transparency around financial transactions and help combat tax evasion? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: In addition to the double tax agreements we have concluded a number of what are called Tax Information Exchange Agreements with key tax havens and other low-tax international finance centres. These include Bermuda; the Cook Islands whose agreement the Prime Minister signed recently; Guernsey whose agreement I signed recently; the Isle of Man; Jersey; and Netherlands Antilles. Agreements with the British Virgin Islands the Cayman Islands and Gibraltar will be signed next week. These Tax Information Exchange Agreements extend the ability of the Inland Revenue Department to request offshore tax records business books and accounts bank information ownership information and other tax-related information for the purpose of detecting and preventing tax avoidance and evasion by New Zealand residents. 
Youth Employment—Workers Employed Under Government Youth Opportunities Package 
9.  
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she agree with the Minister for Social Development and Employment that the Employment Relations Amendment Act 2008 will not apply to workers employed under her Government’s youth opportunities package; if so why? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I understand that 90-day trial periods will not be available for employers making use of the Job Ops and Community Max packages. In order to receive the subsidy employers will need to agree not to use a 90-day trial period which I remind the House is not compulsory nor is it automatic. It is entered into only by mutual agreement. 
Darien Fenton 
: If for any reason a young person employed through the youth opportunities package is fired using the 90-day trial period will her Government take action to retrieve money or subsidies given to those employers and what action will she be willing to take as Minister of Labour to protect the employment of those young people? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That does not fall within my responsibility. The Department of Labour is not administering the subsidy. That question should be directed to the Minister for Social Development and Employment. 
Darien Fenton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were two parts to that question. The second part asked what action she would be willing to take as Minister of Labour to protect the employment of those young people. That does fall within her responsibilities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Sadly as the member knows when the member asks two parts to a supplementary question the Minister needs to answer only one of them. The Minister has done that so I cannot assist the member further. 
Jacinda Ardern 
: Did the Minister or her department advise the Minister for Social Development and Employment prior to question time yesterday that the 90-day trial period would not apply to young people on the Job Ops scheme; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand that our respective departments did have discussions about the implementation issues including the trial period. 
Darien Fenton 
: Is the Minister satisfied that all fixed-term contracts to be created under the Government’s youth opportunities package will be for genuine reasons as required under the Employment Relations Act; if so why? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: This Government unlike the Opposition believes that it is bound by the law and it is covered by the law. It is not above the law. Fixed-term contracts are provided for in the employment relations legislation as that member should know. They are not per se illegal. If there are illegal fixed-term contracts then action will be taken accordingly. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. As a member of the previous Government I take offence— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No. The member will sit down when I am on my feet. The member cannot litigate that issue under a point of order. If he believes there is inconsistency he can ask supplementary questions to point that out; if he has taken personal offence he can make a personal explanation but he cannot litigate the answer by way of a point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Repeatedly in this House over the last 25 years when members take personal offence at comments made about them or a group that they are part of or responsible for they have been able to raise points of order on that. I am very offended by the suggestion that I— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I cannot assist the member if the House has not complied with its own Standing Orders in the past. The member is welcome to bring forward a change to the Standing Orders if necessary. When members disagree they can ask supplementary questions or if they take offence they can make a personal explanation. But they cannot litigate answers by way of points of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I alert him to the fact that I have ruled on the manner. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation with regard to allegations that I have broken the law. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation along those lines. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: As part of her answer the Minister of Labour indicated that the previous Government—involving its Ministers as she is aware—disregarded the law and broke it. I take offence at that and it is not true. 
Mothers—Effect of Section 59 of the Crimes Act 
10.  
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What advice if any has she received on the effect of the changes made to section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961 on mothers raising their children and what has been the effect of this law on women? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 None. But I am touched by the member’s sensitivity towards women’s issues which is in stark contrast to the constant calls from other members of his party for the abolition of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. 
John Boscawen 
: What then does the Minister say to the young mother who had two Child Youth and Family workers take her 10-year-old daughter away after the daughter made a false complaint that she had been smacked especially in light of the statement by National MP Pansy Wong in 2006 “I doubt that scratching the clause from law will act as a deterrent to those who use force against their child”? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: Of course I agree with the wise National MP Pansy Wong. In fact scratching that section alone will not completely stop the use of force against children. That is why I am very pleased that my colleague the Hon Simon Power in the first 100 days of the National-led Government introduced the Sentencing (Offences against Children) Amendment Bill which permitted violence against children to be taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing. 
John Boscawen 
: What if anything has caused her to change her mind on the anti-smacking law? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: We will be listening and listening very properly with full attention to the results of the referendum. I agree with the Prime Minister that if indeed there is a big No vote then Parliament would be better to have the backbone to change the legislation if it starts to fail people. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Has she received any representation from the Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins to scrap the Ministry of Women’s Affairs? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the member responds to that I say it is a fair stretch from the primary question. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not need to hear the member. I will allow the Hon Pansy Wong to answer. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: What a question! Unlike that member I am very appreciative of the 100 percent support that I enjoy from my National colleagues particularly my National women colleagues. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister did not answer a very specific question about a direct representation from the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins to scrap the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe I heard the Minister say in answer that she enjoyed the support of that Minister in respect of the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. I cannot judge the nature of that support but I believe that is a reasonable answer to the question. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and asks— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe the question has been shifted to the Minister of Health and with the Minister answering on behalf on the Associate Minister. If the Government is happy with that—the Government has the final say on that—the honourable member may continue. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: Thank you Mr Speaker. My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and asks: has she received any evidence that point-of-sale tobacco advertising increases the likelihood that adolescents will start smoking? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt but on the Order Paper we actually have a question to the Minister of Health. I appreciate that it is up to the Government to decide who the question will be directed to but I would have thought and my understanding of the Standing Orders is that the decision needs to be made ahead of the printing of the questions sheet. That is all we have to rely on and if at the last minute a change can be made it disadvantages other parties. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 It would seem that we are at sixes and sevens all round in lots of ways— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Well you’re running the show. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No I mean the Opposition. The question as I understand was originally set down to the Associate Minister of Health. The expectation was that the Opposition might have asked for that question to be held over and the Government was perfectly happy to have it held over because Mrs Turia wants to answer the question. The Minister of Health was simply saying that if the Opposition wishes to ask the question as it has set it down he would be happy to answer. But I have indicated another course of action that it may like to pursue. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not think I need any further assistance on this matter. It is perfectly the right of the Government to transfer a question right up to the point at which the question is asked in response to the point of order raised by the Hon Rodney Hide. The Government indicated to me it is happy for the Minister to address the question to the Associate Minister of Health and I believe that is in order in the House. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We absolutely agree with your ruling that the Government can transfer a question right up to the last minute but I take up the invitation of the Leader of the House that this question could be held over until tomorrow to go to the Associate Minister of Health Tariana Turia and be the 13th question set down for Thursday. If the Government is happy for that we accept the invitation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold this question over to the next sitting day. Is there any objection? There is no objection to that course of action. 
Question by leave postponed. 
Prisons—Escapes 
12.  
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any reports about the number of escapes from New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Yes. I am pleased to advise that the number of escapes has fallen to an all-time low— 
Hon Members 
: Hear hear! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —thank you—although any escape is one too many. The number of escapes in the 2008-09 financial year fell to 12 compared with 23 in the 2007-08 financial year. The 2008-09 result is especially pleasing when one notes the increase in prisoner numbers. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What work is under way to further reduce the escape rate? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: At my request the Department of Corrections has completed a comprehensive review of the eligibility of every prisoner to be employed on work parties outside the prison perimeter as those are the prisoners with the most opportunities to escape. Following the review a small number of prisoners have been brought back inside the wire. In addition the result of the re-evaluation of security classifications to ensure that escape risk is appropriately assessed and balanced is due next month. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: Has the Minister seen any other reports about the number of prison escapes? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. I have seen a press release in which the Hon Clayton Cosgrove claims that “this year prisoners have been taking off seemingly willy-nilly.” In fact of the 12 escapes in 2008-09 most occurred when his party was in Government. The member needs to get his facts straight before he issues shrill and misleading press releases. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the Minister taking credit for this drop in prison escapes or is it an operational matter? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I am very proud of the good work that the Department of Corrections has been doing and I did ask—[ 
Interruption 
]; if members would listen to the second part—for a comprehensive review of the security rating of prisoners working outside the prison. It has actually worked and I am very pleased that the Department of Corrections took up my suggestion. 
General Debate 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I move  
That the House take note of miscellaneous business 
. I want to tell the House a story about the little 12-year-old girl I made reference to in my question to the Minister of Education during question time today. I preface my statements by saying that I do not have implied permission to talk about this little girl; I have the absolute permission of her mum Julie Baker. 
Brittany Graham is 12 years old. She was born prematurely she is lucky to be alive and she has struggled to survive her 12 years. Brittany and her mum are courageous individuals. Brittany as I said during question time has cerebral palsy. She requires the fulltime assistance at Addington School of physical therapy through conductive education every day. 
Brittany is a girl who to use her mum’s words was not going to make it. The Government spent an inordinate amount of money helping Brittany into this world looking after her special needs and looking after her health needs and at the age of 12 her mum tells me—and I have met Brittany—she is making it. For the first time she can stand up with the aid of a ladder. For the first time in 18 months a little girl who has a blocked bowel and who has difficulties with her bodily functions is off her medication and is making it. 
Brittany’s mum said to me: “You know the Government has had its way cutting $2.5 million annually nationwide out of the special needs budget—that is $114000 annually cut out of Addington School’s budget.” Brittany’s mum made an interesting point. She said the Government has spent a packet of dough on her daughter but that the cost of Brittany going back on medication as she fails medically because of the lack of physical therapy will far outstrip the small sum of $114000 that goes to Brittany and the other kiddies with the same special needs—the most vulnerable at Addington School. 
That mother came to me and asked for help and we talked about this publicly. I have questioned the Minister of Education and I have asked the Minister why she is prepared to fund $35 million as an increase to private schools but is prepared to cut the knees out from under the most vulnerable; the Brittany Grahams the mums like Julie Baker—the people who need it most. The Minister sent a letter through her department to the principal of Addington School—and in case there is a witch hunt I tell the House that I got the letter through a parent and not the principal so she should not be hung out to dry. 
The letter was interesting because it confirmed a number of things. It confirmed that the package funding—that is the therapy package—was introduced ran for 3 years from 1999 to 2002 and then rolled over annually. For the 9 years of the Labour Government this funding was available. There was no question about it. Then the letter dated Budget day went on to say that during the 2009 Budget process the Government looked at all the funding and decided to discontinue the additional physical therapy for students on the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme. It was as blunt as that—it was gone. 
All the bleating from the Minister was to the effect that somehow 7000 students eligible for Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding would be treated far more fairly and the money would be spread around. Well does she not realise that yes most of those students do need that funding but most do not have critically high special needs and do not have the requirement for physical therapy every day? Does the Minister not realise that most of those students do not have the requirement for conductive education like a girl called Brittany Graham who cannot stand under her own steam? 
Julie Baker does not like talking publicly about her daughter—and what mother would? But she said to me and others—and this is graphic—that for years she has had to take care of six pairs of damp underwear from her daughter every day because she has not been able to control her bodily functions. Julie Baker reckons that in 2 years’ time if this therapy went on her daughter Brittany Graham would be toilet trained to use her words. But the fear that she now faces is that Brittany will have to be withdrawn from school. Her fear is that mainstreaming—if that is the agenda for this little girl—simply will not work given the intensive therapy she needs. 
I say to another Cabinet Minister Kate Wilkinson who occasionally resides in my electorate that she has done nothing about it. She is part of the decision and she should front up to Brittany Graham and Julie Baker. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 In a recent poll we saw that Mr Phil Goff was at 7 percent. What I do not understand is why if one is accused of being invisible one would wear camouflage for one’s photo in the  
Listener 
. If one is already invisible to the New Zealand public why then go out and be like a lamb to the slaughter as I have heard the photograph being described many times and wear camouflage which quite frankly makes one even more invisible? 
We have heard from Mrs King in recent days saying about her fine leader and colleague that the king is dead but the prince is not quite ready yet. But like a lamb to the slaughter he stepped up today. In the last 2 weeks we have heard about over a billion dollars of welfare spending in relation to what members opposite want to do for middle New Zealanders. In week 1 we heard that the wives or husbands of millionaires could be eligible for a benefit under Labour’s great plan for turning stuff round. The most recent proposed spending we heard about was the estimated $450 million to be spent on the in-work tax credit for those on a benefit. But as the Prime Minister said there are no pixies in the garden. Money does not just come out of thin air. But boy do Labour members know how to spend; boy do they know how to load that spending on to taxpayers; and boy would they like to see this debt constantly increasing. 
Let us talk about what we are really doing. This week we announced another 16900 job and community work opportunities for young people. Let us not underestimate the problem we have here. The statistics are clear: about a third of those on the unemployment benefit are 25 years old or under. We have seen a dramatic increase in the number of young people going on to the unemployment benefit and leaving them to languish on that benefit is not an option for us. If we leave them with no future ahead for them that tells them that we do not care. It is simple this Government certainly does care. So the Government has stood up and said that first of all there are 4000 jobs under the job opportunities scheme. Job Ops will need employers to step up and say: “Here is a new entry-level role that we have been looking at introducing and that we need a young person to step into.” Let me give an example of a hairdresser in Taupo who owns a salon. Business has been a bit shaky for a while but it is starting to get a little bit busier and she wonders whether she has the means to take on a new entry-level person. We will help her out. We will give her $3000 upfront for that new-entrant role then $2000 at the end of that 6 months. That is a $5000 investment that we are putting into that young person to support the hairdresser’s business and to provide those sorts of opportunities. There are 4000 of those job opportunities. 
There are 3000 Community Max opportunities. That is for those projects in our communities that people would like to get done but they do not quite have the manpower—the people power—to get them done. That means iwi standing up and saying what could be happening around their marae and what they would like to see their young people doing. It means mayors stepping up for some of those initiatives whether it is tree planting whether it is painting something down the road or whether it is a project that really needs to be done. It could be a Lions club that will get something together under this scheme. For example the local Piha Surf Life Saving Club may have a project that it would like to do. It is actually limitless. We know that the ideas are out there in our communities; what we want to do is back those people to do it. 
I am pleased to say that there will be Community Max advisers. They are the very people who were working on the Enterprising Communities scheme. We are taking the local knowledge they have in their communities and asking them to go out and speak to local community groups to ask them about what needs to be done in their local areas and to talk to them about their projects. We will pay the minimum wage for 30 hours a week for up to 3000 young people. There will be a skills and training subsidy alongside of that for those young people and we will also fund a supervisor for them. There is no doubt that the package is impressive. Members will hear from others about the Youth Guarantee. They will hear about service academies being doubled—about another eight of them are coming on board. Limited service volunteers are the way to go. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I stand to speak in this debate with much concern and anger. I stand as Labour’s associate spokesperson on aged care and I want to focus on the elderly: generations who have built and contributed to our society and economy and generations that for many of us represent our parents our grandparents our great-grandparents and us. It is the responsibility of the Government to look after the welfare and well-being of its citizens. Today we are focusing on our elderly our senior citizens. 
In my role as the associate spokesperson on aged care I have visited met and spoken with people in rest homes people in hospitals and people who are still living in their own homes with some home-based support. I have also spoken with doctors nurses caregivers family members and members of the community. I have also met and spoken with members of Grey Power and of Age Concern. As the spokesperson on Pacific Island affairs and the Interfaith Group and as the MP for Mana I have also spoken and met with church organisations and with elderly people from Palagi Maori Pacific Island Asian and other ethnic groups. 
Aged care is the collective responsibility of all of us. Surveys conducted by organisations like Age Concern have shown that the majority of people over 65 years want to continue to live in their own homes and to maintain independence as much as possible. Social isolation is also a major issue. The elderly have expressed their appreciation for having support in their homes especially where they have medical conditions that limit their activity. There are currently around 28000 older New Zealanders living in residential care and a further 60000 older people are receiving home support services. Reducing home-based services could result in more people ending up in hospital and costing health boards more money. People need better not reduced home support. Where that has become a cost-cutting service it means we have rendered elderly people unsafe in their own homes. That is not acceptable and it can also put tremendous stress and anxiety on them and their families. 
We also know it can be more cost-effective to provide quality home-based support to our elderly while they are still able to remain in their own homes. In April this year the  
Southland Times 
 reported in its headline: “Home support faces razor” and we all know that Tony Ryall’s razor ain’t blunt! The media release also quoted David Crisp the local district health board’s regional planning and funding general manager who said that reductions were most likely to be where the boards funded domestic help to the elderly. It is very important that the actions follow the rhetoric when the Minister of Health has publicly stated his commitment to moving health resources to the front line. Yet district health boards are stating they will make cuts to home-based services to the elderly. It is very clear that these cutbacks will be disastrous for our senior citizens some of whom rely on those services in order to stay in their own homes and to lead relatively independent lives. The Minister of Health Tony Ryall has promised that he will improve front-line services but it has become increasingly clear that the current Government does not see home support services as front-line or essential. Our elderly deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and not as a drain on resources which is clearly the message these district health boards and the Minister of Health is sending. 
Financial arguments for reducing home-based support services are critically flawed. Providing support for people to stay in their own homes is always going to be a less expensive option than providing 24 hours a day 7 days a week residential accommodation. Without home support more elderly will have no choice but to look at the option of residential care. The elderly deserve more than to have their health compromised because of a call for financial restraint from a Government that promised better health care. Instead National is delivering rhetoric and cuts to front-line services and in this case to home-based services for the elderly. 
Our elders deserve to be treated with dignity and respect which is why last month and again this morning I have sought at the Health Committee with Labour members’ support to have a select committee inquiry into the quality of health care for older people. It is to ensure that older New Zealanders are receiving the appropriate access to health services both in the community and in residential care. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 New Zealanders are very lucky people. We live in a democracy. Last year we had a peaceful transition of power from a Labour-led Government to a National-led Government. That may seem unremarkable but there are far too many countries around the world where that would not have happened. 
Democracy is fundamental to our society. Democracy is precious and we must protect it but we should never take it for granted. Less than 2 years ago Labour attacked the very foundations of democracy with the Electoral Finance Act. In a desperate effort to get re-elected Labour sought to pass a law that severely restricted the rights of New Zealanders to criticise it. 
Hon Annette King 
: We sought to stop the rort. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I led a campaign against the Electoral Finance Act and I am sure one of the reasons as Annette King is well aware that she sits on that side of the House is the law she promoted and passed. New Zealanders did not accept it. 
I say to Mr Williamson that the boot is on the other foot today. The previous Parliament also passed a law to amend section 59 of the Crimes Act. The law denies parents the right to raise children in the way they wish. One of the very basic protections we have in our society is the right to challenge Parliament and to bring an issue to the attention of politicians. That is a right contained in the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act. 
Three-hundred thousand citizens went out and requisitioned a referendum. What has the National Government and in particular the Prime Minister done about it? They have derided and criticised those people and their referendum has been criticised as confusing. I found it very interesting to listen to Mr Key on  
Breakfast 
 on Monday. He said he accepts the law and that it technically states that if a parent smacks a child for the purpose of correction then it is against the law. I say to Mr Key that it is not technical; that is what the law states. It is against the law for a parent to smack a child for the purpose of correction. 
A referendum is going on and 3 million voting papers for the referendum have been posted out. Members opposite and all New Zealanders should participate and vote in the referendum. Democracy is precious and we should never take it for granted. 
I found it very interesting to see that Colmar Brunton had conducted a poll on the referendum and 70 percent of New Zealanders said they will vote. I congratulate those people and I tell others to vote and participate in the referendum. They should express a view because they never know when they may lose that right. I find it very interesting that 83 percent of people who responded to the Colmar Brunton poll said they do not believe a smack for the purpose of correction should be against the law or illegal. 
We have a Prime Minister who has already told the people of New Zealand he will not listen to them. He is not prepared to change the law. He says the law is working and that the police are not prosecuting. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Is he right? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: We have Child Youth and Family going into people’s homes. I highlighted a case this afternoon in which a child laid a false complaint against her mother. She was taken away from her mother overnight while the complaint was investigated. The complaint was totally false and I ask Mr Hughes how he thinks the mother felt. 
The law is not working and there is no certainty. As Mr Paul Henry on Television One said to Mr Key the police may not be prosecuting— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Has the member ever been with the family of a murdered kid? 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I can understand the interjections from the Labour members. I pointed out that the very reason they are sitting on that side of the House is in part I believe the Electoral Finance Act. New Zealanders National members and the Prime Minister should not make the same mistake Labour made when it passed the Electoral Finance Act. 
Eighty-three percent of New Zealanders believe that the law on smacking is wrong. They want the law changed and apparently 91 percent of National Party supporters want it changed. Next time those people are asked to participate in a poll they should say they will vote for the ACT Party because the ACT Party is the only party that has stood up and fought for the rights of parents. Thank you Mr Assistant Speaker. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I want to stand in the House today and talk about the really exciting package for young New Zealanders that our Prime Minister John Key launched in Christchurch on Sunday. What a fantastic package that is! It will create almost 17000 opportunities for young people in this country and it will spend $152 million. We should be out there applauding this initiative by this Government. It just goes to show that the rolling maul that our Minister of Finance Bill English and our Prime Minister John Key have been talking about as an answer to the economic recession is the right one. It enables us to wait and watch evaluate what is happening and move in and take action when we have identified where we are needed. We know that our young people are starting to suffer in greater numbers than many other sections of society. 
I was on the radio this morning talking about the opportunities that this package provides for young people in Gisborne. Half the population in Gisborne are Maori. Many many of them are young people. My electorate of East Coast has I think one of the highest proportions of young people in the country. We are an area that has suffered over the last months some quite severe shocks to employment. Grape growers have been told that their contracts will not be picked up this year by Pernod Ricard. A sawmill has closed which has resulted in the loss of a large number of jobs and Cedenco has closed its sweetcorn processing factory. So we have had a large number of shocks which will have a ripple effect right throughout our rural community. 
The ones who suffer the most are the young. They are first ones to be put off—Maori and Pasifika youth in particular. They do not get the opportunities. So I think the Government’s package is fantastic. Four thousand opportunities will be created through Job-Ops a straight wage subsidy for employers. There is also Community Max. I know my community will respond because they care about young people. There are lots of jobs around to be done and I am absolutely confident that the community will come to the party. 
I want to talk about two specific parts of this package that I am really excited about. The first is the Youth Guarantee. The National Party went into the election talking about the Youth Guarantee and about making sure that 16 and 17-year-olds have an entitlement to free education so that until one is aged 18 one can attend school polytech wananga or a private training establishment—whatever suits the student. When we came to put that together in policy we found it was quite complicated. It is not as easy as it sounds for a whole variety of reasons but out of the Job Summit came the idea that we needed a tightly focused early roll-out of that Youth Guarantee to get the whole thing started. 
So what has the Prime Minister done? He has topped up that fund and said we will fund 2000 places next year and another 2000 places in the following year. Those places are specifically for the Youth Guarantee and they are specifically targeted at our Maori and Pasifika youth and I think that is fantastic. I can see that all around the country polytechs wananga and private training establishments are working away to find how they can provide courses to engage with these young people. 
The second part of the package that I really want to draw attention to is the service academies. Currently a number of service academies are operating in schools around the country. Some are run by the Tertiary Education Commission and some are run by the Ministry of Social Development. Each has different criteria and each has different funding. We will bring all those into the Ministry of Education because they are in-school opportunities for young people. I said to the people of Gisborne that a large number of our young people go into the armed services. I am sure that my Gisborne area can see an opportunity for a service academy in one high school or a collaboration between local high schools. These service academies will enable young people to get up to speed with the physical requirements for the armed forces. It will give them National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1 in English and maths which is the entry point and it will give them some idea of the discipline and the requirements of the armed services. That in itself is great for our young people. I have met some young people who are in a service academy and they say it is fantastic. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 The Minister of Education has the audacity to come into this House and celebrate success by re-announcing Labour Party initiatives and at the same time say to disabled children—constituents of Clayton Cosgrove—that they will not get the physical therapy support that has been funded year in and year out enabling them to keep going to school because she has put $35 million extra into what is clearly her priority over disabled kids which is private schools. That is the choice this Government has made. It is taking money off disabled children and putting it into private schools. That is a total disgrace. 
Paul Quinn 
: Rubbish. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Mr Somebody or Other whose name escapes me— 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Quinn. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: Mr Quinn said that is rubbish. Well I do not think Brittany who lives in Kaiapoi and whom Clayton Cosgrove talked about in the House today is rubbish. But that is how that member and his party are treating her and that is the way she feels. She knows she might not be well enough to keep going to school in the future because the Minister has cut her funding. 
Paul Quinn 
: Ha ha! 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: The member laughs at that. Well I challenge him and Minister Tolley to go to Kaiapoi meet Brittany and her mother and say to their faces that they are rubbish and do not deserve the very small amount of financial support they have been getting. For the whole country that fund is only $2.5 million. That is such a tiny amount out of the entire education budget. Out of the entire additional funding given in the same Budget to private schools $2.5 million is a tiny amount. But for those children it will be the difference between them being well enough to go to school and staying at school or being ill and staying at home. 
Those are the sorts of priorities that this Government has now made clear to the public. Day after day I hear people saying “That’s not what I thought we were going to get under a National Government. I didn’t think Kate Wilkinson who campaigned in Waimakariri would not front up to Brittany and her mother and tell them that they are rubbish in the view of the National Party. That is not what any of those members said before the election.” People will remember in 2 and a bit years’ time just what the Government has done on its promises in the same way as Tony Ryall revealed in the House today how little substance there has been to his commitment of better sooner and more convenient health services. Seven times today the Minister of Health was asked to justify health cuts to front-line services and staff being cut in different district health boards around the country. All the Minister could say was that National inherited a terrible situation. Then he started washing his hands and saying “I didn’t make the decision; it’s the terrible terrible district health boards. They made the bad decisions.” Tony Ryall gets to announce all the good decisions and the district health boards are to blame for all the bad decisions. Frankly that just will not wash. 
MidCentral District Health Board had to cut $10 million out of its budget. It was a very high-performing district health board in the past. It is now carrying out a line-by-line review of services and has said amongst other things that the standard of health services may have to be reduced in order for it to balance its budget. It is predicting job losses on the front line not that there are many backroom people in the health system. If there are people in the backroom they are doing the clerical work for the doctors and nurses so that they can do their health work. They all work together as a team in the health system. There is not a lot of fat to prune in the system. MidCentral District Health Board has just announced that it will not be able to contract out its private hospital elective surgery procedures because of the health cuts. That is something National has been promoting as the answer to so many questions. But with Tony Ryall’s health cuts MidCentral District Health Board has had to cut back that decision. These are not better health services; they are cuts to health services. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I will tell the House about two really inspirational events I have attended in the last few days—not just the National Party conference. Last night I had the pleasure of attending the Porirua secondary schools’  
Malaga 
 production and I am sure Winnie Laban would agree with me that the kids out there put in a great effort. After watching their dress rehearsal some weeks ago it was fantastic to see their efforts pay off in a high-quality and enthusiastic performance. Last Saturday evening I attended the finals of the secondary schools’ chamber music competition in Christchurch. Four of the finalist groups were from Burnside High School the former Prime Minister’s—the Prime Minister’s—old school. A Burnside High School trio eventually won the competition. I was wondering as I was watching both the groups just what makes them so good. The thing that turned them from enjoyable experiences to uplifting experiences was the sight of enthusiastic and positive young people putting their all into an enterprise and enjoying it. What a parallel is the attitude of those young people with the attitude of our Prime Minister! After 9 years of the brooding Nixonian menace of a woman with chips on both shoulders perhaps we have grown used to Helen Clark’s viciousness and unkindness. But John Key is a completely different character. He is bright positive and very enthusiastic. Has there ever been a time in New Zealand’s political history when there has been a greater difference between the two parties? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That’s a very old one—very old. Don’t use that Chris. Is the member proud of Muldoon’s lines? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I regret to tell Mr Mallard that Labour is in worse shape than at any time in its history. I do not know whether the gravity of the situation has actually hit Labour members but I suspect from their general look of despair and their braying that they know they face a very long time in Opposition. 
New Zealand’s greatest political historian Michael Bassett wrote a book called  
Working with David 
 which could perhaps have been called “ 
Working Against David” 
. He described the last caucus he attended in 1990 after Labour had been thumped when Helen Clark stood up and promised she would do anything no matter how unprincipled or vicious to regain the Treasury benches. But that is the old Labour Party approach. The  
Listener 
 tell us that Helen Clark is off in New York brooding and plaguing her colleagues with texts. Indeed she was so anxious to get the inside oil that she invited the Hon Darren Hughes over to visit her. So keen was she on having “Sir Darren” visit her that she arranged for Ministerial Services to take him to the airport in a Crown car. 
She knows that the present-day Labour Party is in a shocking condition. It is in a worse condition than after Peter Fraser led it to defeat in 1949 after Walter Nash led it to defeat in 1960 and after Bill Rowling led it to defeat in 1975 and even worse than the state it was in after Mike Moore led it to defeat in 1990. The Labour Party really needs some advice and being the charitable sort of chap I am I am here to provide it. I have some advice to offer the Labour Party. I offer it because I have great respect for the traditions of the Labour Party. I have great respect for the party. I believe that it has lost its way. So my advice to the Labour Party—and I hope the mother of the Electoral Finance Act listens very carefully—is to stop take a breath cut out the smearing cut out the innuendo and cut out the dirty tricks and the arrogance— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: This guy just slags people off all the time. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: —I tell Mr Hughes because New Zealanders do not like it. They did not like it during the last 9 years and they did not like it during the election campaign. My advice to the Labour Party is to concentrate on policy get some new ideas communicate those new ideas to the public engage with the public and listen to them. But until that happens no amount of  
Listener 
 articles with good shepherd - style photographs of Phil Goff will help Labour’s poll numbers. It is time the Labour Party listened to the advice. This is not a speech about personalities; this is a speech about contrasts and about advice I really want to offer the Labour Party. We are a positive Government. We are an optimistic Government. We have a great belief in the potential of New Zealand. But the Opposition is negative. It is stuck in the past and it needs to change. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 The Attorney-General is almost not even worth talking about. All he had to add to the general debate was to slag off people. But he did say one thing that is worth reflecting on—other than referring to John Key as the former Prime Minister; perhaps he knows something we do not know but I am sure that will all come out in the fullness of time—when he said to the Labour Party that we should get some new policies and ideas. Well quite frankly the Government needs to listen to the Attorney-General’s advice because the health sector has gone back to the 1990s. It has gone back to the time of Health Cuts Hurt and the 1990s policies we saw that ripped the guts out of our health system. 
Before the election we heard ad nauseam that we would have “Better sooner more convenient health care”. That is what National was going to deliver. It was going to deliver “more doctors and nurses and less bureaucrats”. Besides my personal abhorrence for the way National maligns the English language with some of its slogans—so much for literacy on the Government benches—those slogans have systematically been unpicked over the 9 months National has been in Government. They are broken promises. We will not see a “better sooner more convenient health system”—whatever a sooner health system is. We will see fewer health services which are understaffed and more expensive. That is what we are getting from Tony Ryall and the National Government in the health sector. 
Tony Ryall came up to my electorate of Palmerston North not so long ago. He swaggered in and read the Riot Act to the MidCentral District Health Board. He said: “Find $10 million worth of service cuts. I am telling you that you have no option no choice.” He sat down with the district health board and told it in no uncertain terms that that is what it must do. It must find $10 million worth of service cuts. Then he walked away. He went back to Wellington and he washed his hands. He got to the soap as fast as he could. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: He minced away! 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY 
: He might have minced away; I do not know. But he got as far out of Palmerston North as possible so that he could leave the onus of making those decisions on the district health board. He does not want to be anywhere near the tough decisions that the MidCentral District Health Board will have to make as a result of his strong-arming and his demands to it. 
I am yet to speak to one person at the district health board or to extract one answer from the Minister that suggests we will not see cuts to front-line services. To find $10 million worth of service cuts in their budget is a lot to ask. It cannot be found through administration and the much-maligned bureaucrats that the Government likes to go after. The cuts will come from front-line services. Doctors and nurses will lose their jobs as a result of the Minister of Health’s policy and his strong-arming of the district health board. But he just walks away. It is not his problem. The people of Palmerston North Horowhenua Manawatu and Rangitikei will get fewer health services. They will see their services cut but the Minister just walks away. 
It is happening not just in Palmerston North either. Just up the road the Whanganui District Health Board will be closing hospital wards on the weekend so that it can cut back on nursing salaries and nursing overtime. How will that affect elective surgery? How will that affect health services for Wanganui people when they cannot access health services on the weekend and when surgery that needs to be done cannot be carried out? The Taranaki District Health Board has not had its annual plan signed off but it has already signalled that the hospital is preparing for cutbacks. At the South Canterbury District Health Board the number of patients it will be able to see in its emergency department is being cut back by 5000 people a year. It has also looked at axing 200 elective operations per year because of the cut in Government funding. 
That sounds just bizarre to me because this Government has been quite clear in saying that it is looking to produce some good numbers. It has eschewed all public health aspects; it has taken the focus right off anything that is preventive anything that might actually have an effect on the health of our nation 20 years down the track. Why? It is so that it can produce some good numbers for the 2011 election. That is what it is all about. Yet it still cannot get that straight because we are seeing elective surgery being cut down in South Canterbury. 
Recently the Law Commission produced a fantastic issues paper on alcohol issues in New Zealand. Although that paper focused heavily on legislative aspects it also focused on health aspects. With cuts to mental health funding there is no way that can be implemented. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I acknowledge as Mr Lees-Galloway resumes his seat how difficult a transition it is from Government to Opposition. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You’d know! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I do. I remember it well in the year 2000 and I know that we transformed into an effective Opposition far quicker than that member is doing at this stage. I guess what is making it hard for the Labour Opposition members is that they look over to this side of the House and watch the ever-rolling success of this National Government. Nine months on and we are tackling the issues and the voters of New Zealand respect that. 
I never thought I would stand here and honestly say that I have had a wonderful weekend at a National Party conference in Christchurch. But it was a wonderful weekend. There were 700 delegates present all enjoying the success of a National Government. They waited with bated breath as the Prime Minister John Key came in to deliver his keynote address. We wondered ourselves what the Prime Minister would announce. He had the opportunity in front of 700 delegates to announce yet another initiative that is being well received by all New Zealanders. For young New Zealanders 17000 job opportunities have been created through new initiatives—17000 new opportunities for the youth of this country. Was it well received? We had the New Zealand Union of Students’ Associations which was the first off the block to praise the initiatives and welcoming the opportunities for youth. The union was especially pleased with the move to implement the Youth Guarantee scheme. The Tertiary Education Union which is hardly a normal friend of the National Party said that it welcomed the opportunity and the package. New Zealand Aotearoa Adolescent Health and Development came out and welcomed the package. The Foundation for Youth Development the Mayors Task Force for Jobs—everybody came out and said that John Key had done it again and that it was a wonderful opportunity. 
I will talk about another mess we are tidying up for Labour. On Friday there was another decision from the Land Valuation Tribunal whereby the previous Government had attempted to increase the rents for high country farmers by some 2000 to 3000 percent. In some cases the rents were greater than the gross farm income. That is how stupid it was. The previous Labour Government said that if it was to be taken to court it was confident that that policy would survive. The decision was released on Friday. What did the court decide? It said that the rents were against the law and would not stand. That is yet another mess that we have tidied up for the previous Labour Government. 
I will also talk about the Labour Party and how it is going. It is struggling struggling struggling. There was a recent article in the  
New Zealand Listener 
 on the transition of leadership of the party from Helen Clark to Phil Goff. Do members know what deal was done? It is unbelievable! The deal was that Goff would not be challenged for 3 years. That was the deal that was done. It was negotiated by Helen Clark. To make sure it stands she texts Labour members on a daily basis. Who is in charge? Is it Helen Clark in New York or Phil Goff in Wellington? Good question! I do not know the answer but the next Labour member can stand and tell us. One Labour member has been particularly busy the Hon Trevor Mallard the member of Parliament for Hutt South. I know what he did on 17 July. He went to a company called Celcius Coffee. Having been there he got an email from the company complaining that it could not sell coffee to the Government. So Mr Mallard comes into work the next day and writes a letter to Mr Martyn Dunn Chief Executive and Comptroller of Customs and he effectively wishes in that letter that the Customs Service could consider buying the coffee from his constituent. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: What’s wrong with that? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Nothing is wrong with that! But if Mr Mallard wants to become a coffee salesman he should go and do it and stop being a member of Parliament. 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 On Monday our Government will announce in Bonn the climate change target it is prepared to accept for the year 2020. The latest science tells us that target needs to be 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels for developed countries if we are to have a hope of stopping dangerous climate change. But the Minister for Climate Change Issues the Hon Dr Nick Smith has been softening up the public to accept a very low target. On the one hand the UK is offering 34 percent Germany is offering 40 percent and Scotland is offering 42 percent. On the other hand Australia is offering 4 percent unless everyone else has a high target in which case it will go to 14 percent. New Zealand looks set to follow Australia’s pathetic example and to cover our embarrassment the Minister is making extravagant claims about cost that he simply cannot substantiate. 
Nick Smith needs to tell us where he lost the $13 billion; that is right $13 billion. That amount is the difference between what he told the House yesterday the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research report says and what it actually says. Yesterday he told the House that the report advises that reducing our emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels would cost us $14.5 billion. He has said this a number of times. Sometimes he has said it is $15 billion. This is clearly rubbish. Even if we purchased all 48 million tonnes overseas and did nothing at all to reduce emissions here and even if we paid $200 a tonne for them it still comes to far less than that. 
What the report does say is that at a carbon price of $25 a tonne it would cost us $1.2 billion even assuming—wrongly—that we could not cut any emissions in our own economy. Where is the missing $13 billion I ask Dr Nick Smith. New Zealanders want it back please. Maybe the Minister should enrol in one of his colleague’s literacy and numeracy courses. 
Yesterday he told the House that four departments had done significant work on opportunities to reduce New Zealand’s emissions cost effectively. Where are those reports published? What do they add up to? Why can we not have them to inform the current debate on targets? I ask why he told the public consultation meetings on the targets that if people wanted an ambitious target then they should tell him where the reduction should come from. Is that not the Government’s job? I ask how he expects unfunded non-governmental organisations to do that sort of modelling. 
Yesterday the Green Party published our analysis of the savings we could make at negative zero or low cost. We showed that replacing the Huntly coal-fired power station and two-thirds of the Taranaki gas-fired station with renewables stations like geothermal and wind would save 61 percent of emissions from electricity. Those are already in the Electricity Commission’s statement of opportunities as being cost-effective. 
Did the Minister engage with us when we asked him? No. Instead he held forth about how expensive it would be to go to 100 percent renewable electricity which is something that the Greens have never proposed. We can only assume that this is because he could only agree with us and with the Electricity Commission that retiring the Huntly station and two-thirds of the Taranaki station is highly effective and not costly. 
Turning to agriculture the Minister failed to engage with the interesting issue that lower-intensity dairying would give farmers both lower emissions and higher profits. This is according to published research from AgResearch and Dairy New Zealand. At the milk payout for this year which is $5.20 for next year which will probably be $4.50 and the average over the last 10 years which is $5.20 high-intensity stocking rates are a loser. It costs farmers more to buy the extra urea feed off-farm grazing and animal health remedies than they get from the extra milk. Is the Minister supporting hard-working dairy farmers to farm more profitably? Of course not. Instead he attacked the idea of cutting a third of our farm animals which is another thing that the Green Party has never proposed. Finally bereft of all arguments he attacked me personally for the work I have been doing in energy efficiency. 
This is not a Minister we can afford to have representing us internationally. What will our trading partners say when he turns up at Bonn and says that we are prepared to offer only a very low target because it is really hard for us because we want to keep pretending that there is nothing cost-effective that farmers can do to reduce emissions and we want to keep burning coal even though renewables are more cost-effective? 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is interesting as the years creep on to reflect from time to time on where we find ourselves philosophically with regard to where we have been in the past. Over the weekend I had the opportunity to listen to a keynote address from John Key as he outlined a policy for the development of opportunities for our young people. I was reminded of a time when I leaned significantly to the left and of a time when I made a decision to start leaning a little more closely to the right. It was an unusual time for me. It was in 1987 and it was at a time when the Government of the day decided that it would treat people who were unemployed as a commodity. 
The Minister of Labour at that time decided that he would stop trying to find work opportunities for young people on the dole under the then Project Employment Programme or PEP scheme and would just pay the dole because it was too expensive to do anything more than just administrate the unemployment benefit. Thousands and thousands of people around New Zealand found themselves with nothing to do having been turning up and looking for job initiatives on a day-by-day basis. I was a sole charge police officer stationed in a small Taranaki town called Patea. The Minister’s decision had an immediate effect on me as everyone went out on the turps got drunk and started fighting one another and I was johnny-on-the-spot. I made the decision that I would join the National Party. I have to confess here that it took me some time to complete the change of horses but I look back to that particular day and realise that that was when I started to change my philosophy. 
I believe that young people who find themselves unemployed at the moment through this recessionary period are some of the most vulnerable people in the country. We know that these youth these people aged between 18 and 24 make up about 35 percent of the unemployment statistics and that Maori and Pacific Island peoples are well and truly overrepresented in those statistics. I am so pleased then to be part of a Government that will not treat these young people like some sort of butter mountain it needs to deal with and get rid of or to sell to the lowest bidder. The Government is prepared to take steps that will work increasingly in a way that will see these young people get into a line of work that may well set them up for a life that will change their chances and their perspective on life. 
For instance the programme called Job Ops will place 4000 people in employment. Within the first day of being back in my electorate from that announcement having been made I was approached by employers who were wondering how they could access that programme and they were telling me about the positions they would create for young people within the community. Another initiative that will go down very well within my electorate is Community Max which will place 3000 people on programmes where the Government will provide a supervisor and pay the minimum wage for 30 hours a week in order to get young people involved in working on projects within their communities. Some of those community projects are around kohanga reo and marae and other community projects have been identified already by the Ministry of Maori Affairs in respect of our community. 
Whanganui has a particular vulnerability because Wanganui City has traditionally had a workforce engaged in relatively low-wage manufacturing and parallel agricultural enterprises and the entry of young people into the workforce has traditionally been through things like the freezing works and other manufacturing enterprises within the city. With the very difficult times through the 1980s which continued on through the 1990s those jobs were significantly rationalised and the people who had been working within those industries tended to stay there. If we go around those workplaces now we see very few young people entering the workforce and taking up work within those types of occupations. A lot of the people there have tenures well in excess of 20 years; they are not moving on. So young people within my electorate are particularly vulnerable at the moment if they are leaving school in respect of their finding work opportunities within Wanganui and a lot of the young people who are out of work do not have the option of moving away. To then find we have $152 million to be put into this work enterprise and initiative which is designed to getting young people into work is absolutely fantastic. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD (Labour) 
: 
 The Government has a real problem. 
Paul Quinn 
: Make it good. 
Dr RAJEN PRASAD 
: This will be good. The Government’s real problem is that it does not know where the front line is. If it does not know where the front line is then I wonder how it will fight the war. How will it know whether it is fighting the right wars? The Government believes that because there is a recession that gives it licence to peddle its particular brand of policies which will create winners and losers. Rather this is the time to do much more. 
The Government first created the public perception that there were far too many people in the public sector working in the back rooms and doing things the Government says have little value and it now wants to move them into the front line. The Government now has this big mantra that its members are reciting. I wonder what the Government is doing under that particular mantra. No comprehensive definition has been presented to us about what is the front line. The definitions the Government has given are not sustainable and none is being provided in any detail. In the meantime the Government simply asks us to believe that it is doing the right thing. 
True leadership at this time would be taking the opportunity in a recession to be quite aggressive about creating a workforce for the future training our young people not losing the jobs that are already there and preparing for the economy that will come. Instead we get a push of the Government’s own particular ideology that privileges only some people. 
Let us have a look at some examples that are supposed to be those the Government has rejected. There have been casual and callous cuts to disease prevention programmes to future-looking health promotion programmes that have been helping our youngest Kiwis adopt healthy lifestyles and to home support for our older citizens and people with disabilities. Those programmes are being cut but the Government refuses to realise that that is the front line of the best services we can provide at this time. With those services we will create a much better citizenry for the future New Zealand we will have to cope with. 
We know that in the area of health cuts MidCentral District Health Board is to cut $10 million from its budget. What does the general manager of corporate services Stuart Wilson say? He says that a line-by-line review will reduce the standard of services. That is what it will come to. Where will Southland District Health Board and Otago District Health Board get the $10 million from? They will produce it by cutting services for the elderly. That population has done everything it can do for society and we are cutting services to them. That is mean and callous. Those people are at the front line they ought to be looked after and their needs ought to be met. 
It is heart-wrenching to know that the great work teachers do with children with disabilities in our classrooms aided and assisted by the support staff in those schools is under threat. What do we do? We take away those services we threaten them and we say they will be cut. That is mean and callous and it will take away the one opportunity that those young children have at this time to meet their developmental needs. The opportunity comes only at this time. We cannot make the children wait 5 years for their developmental needs to be met. 
What is the front line for this particular Government? It is the $35 million going into the classrooms of the most privileged children in our society. Private schools are to be privileged. I have not seen anybody on the Government side really defend that policy. The Government’s front line is to further privilege those who are already privileged while those who are not privileged and who could benefit much more from that money will continue to suffer. 
Let us see what else is happening at the front line. I wonder whether the Government realises that the sector will reframe the front line and present it to the Government in its terms. Social workers in Child Youth and Family Services are working up and down the country raising the awareness of child abuse. As they raise that awareness they are working at the front line. The children are those whom we constantly worry about. If we take away the social workers and expect a very busy workforce to take up that role internally they will be unable to do that. 
The debate having concluded the motion lapsed. 
Road User Charges Amendment Bill 
In Committee 
Part 1 Amendment to preliminary provision 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I am pleased to stand and speak to Part 1 of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. Essentially Part 1 is about electric motor vehicles. There is an amendment to the preliminary provision which states: “light electric motor vehicle means a motor vehicle whose motive power is wholly or partly derived from an external source of electricity and whose gross laden weight is 3.5 tonnes or less.” This bill will exempt light electric motor vehicles from paying road-user charges for 4 years as a first step towards encouraging their uptake. At present light electric vehicles are classed as diesel vehicles for the purposes of road-user charges. 
The Government sees private vehicles continuing to be the most significant mode of transportation in New Zealand and other statistics confirm this. Eighty-four percent of people go to work by car truck or motorbike and 70 percent of all freight in New Zealand is carried by road. The environmental impacts of the widespread use of private vehicles need to be taken into account. Therefore the Government feels it is important that we encourage the use of alternative fuel technologies in order to help meet our environmental obligations over time. The Government feels that this measure will encourage the uptake of electric vehicles hence the bill that members are speaking to today. This technology will make a significant contribution to improving the efficiency of our vehicle fleet. 
There are very few electric vehicles currently in the fleet and the forgone revenue costs will not be significant. This bill is about the Government supporting a new fuel technology and encouraging change to this new technology. Importantly electric cars can also decrease our reliance on imported fossil fuels and improve our energy security. Combining highly efficient electric motors with our competitive advantage in renewable electricity generation will reduce the greenhouse gases produced by the transport sector as well as the harmful emissions affecting air quality. There is no doubt that electric motor vehicle technology can make a significant contribution and improve the efficiency of our motor vehicle fleet as well as addressing the environmental impacts of fossil fuels. Increasing the proportion of light electric motor vehicles in the fleet decreases reliance on these fossil fuels and improves our energy security. We think these are important positives. Combining highly efficient electric motors with New Zealand’s competitive advantage will reduce these greenhouse gases and we feel this is definitely something that we want. We want to improve the air quality for New Zealanders. 
Light electric vehicles are much cheaper to operate per kilometre than conventional motor vehicles which is another added positive. Until there are economies of scale that will reduce the battery costs early electric motor vehicles will be quite expensive. For example the price of a conventional motor vehicle is approximately $20000 but an electric motor vehicle at the current time can cost anywhere between $40000 to $80000 which is quite prohibitive. We see it as very important to encourage the use of electric motors and this bill will go a way to helping to improve that uptake. 
Although New Zealand does not have a light electric motor vehicle manufacturer at the current time the Government feels there is an important role to play in improving the uptake and this bill will go towards fulfilling that. Part of this role is also to remove the barriers that could prevent or delay the uptake of the market for light electric motor vehicles in New Zealand. One barrier has been the use of road-user charges and this bill will obviously amend that provision. At the moment when considering the upfront costs of early electric motor vehicle technology road-user charges are probably only a minor consideration. We need to look at other ways to improve electric motor vehicle uptake but this bill is a first step in the right direction. The National Party promised in the lead-up to the 2008 general election that light electric motor vehicles would be exempt from paying road-user charges and now we have fulfilled that pre-election promise. In summary we see that this bill which will exempt light electric vehicles from paying road-user charges will have many many benefits. Certainly they will help the environmental impacts they will help our reliance on fossil fuels they will also support our energy sector and importantly this is an option that hopefully will see New Zealanders— 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
: 
 Thank you Mr Chairman for the chance to participate in the Committee stage of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. We are considering Part 1 which exempts light electric motor vehicles from paying road-user charges. I know that the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce has a Supplementary Order Paper that relates to this part and I am sure he will give the Committee the courtesy of explaining how that works shortly. 
I know that other members of the Opposition have questions they want to ask the Minister. I see that he is poised and ready and almost signalling to me that I should yield and let him take the opportunity to speak right now. I beg the indulgence of the Minister to complete my speech and then I will ask him a few questions. 
Obviously the Opposition supports Part 1 to try to get an emerging market within our vehicle fleet for light electric motor vehicles. We support it for many of the reasons that the member who spoke previously has outlined. It was very pleasing to hear in Dr Blue’s speech a direct overt reference to fossil fuel emissions. One of the things that has been missing a lot from the language of the Minister when he discusses transport policy is a commitment to battling climate change. So I want to encourage the Government— 
Hon Tau Henare 
: Why can’t you be happy? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I am congratulating the Government! I am congratulating the Government on picking up the sustainability agenda and on seeing that this can so easily fit into the topic of combating climate change. That I think is a very important thing that light electric vehicles can do. So in that sense the Minister has agreed for this effective subsidy to be placed on or to be awarded to light electric motor vehicles as a way of changing the modes of transport within the sector. That in itself is an interesting point. 
Paul Quinn 
: How is that a subsidy? 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: I said that it is an effective subsidy because those people do not have to pay road-user charges. So an interventionist approach is being taken by the Government in order for this policy to occur. 
The reason why I think that is a good thing for the Minister to do is that he has been very clear that he does not believe that other sectors of the transport industry should receive subsidies by way of coastal shipping and other alternatives to roading. I hope that what we are seeing here from this initiative he has taken is that he is open to the idea that the Government has a role to play in developing a multimodal approach to transport. Up until now it appears that he has seen just roads as the answer. I have not heard him make reference to subsidies for roads which no doubt exist. 
I would be interested to know from the Minister to what extent he is concerned that if the uptake for electric vehicles in this period is stronger than he has anticipated there will be an effect on the National Land Transport Fund. 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: It would have to be a very big uptake. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES 
: The Minister should be more optimistic perhaps than he is being so far to date. Obviously the number of cars we are talking about is very very small. He has set a very timid goal of only 300 cars. I would be interested to know his thinking behind that and whether he considered other options that would maybe run into the thousands. 
The explanatory note of the bill refers to a point when 1 percent of the vehicle fleet is electric as an option for exemption from road-user charges in terms of electric motor vehicles. I wonder why the Minister did not go down that path and choose that as a target in order to send a very strong signal not only to consumers but also to potential manufacturers and importers that the Government is seriously trying to promote light electric vehicles. I wonder to what extent the Minister feels that the target is just a little too timid. 
In the explanatory note of the bill there is also reference to concern about creating a precedent. I would be interested to know from the Minister to what extent he feels this initiative is creating a precedent and whether he feels that by going down this particular path other examples will be brought to him particularly things that might have an environmental benefit whereby people might be looking for a road-user charge exemption. So I would be interested to know what process or what criteria he will be using to in effect suspend contributions to the National Land Transport Fund by some motorists. I think that would be quite useful information for him to give us. 
I return to the point about climate change. We would like to know the amount of carbon dioxide emissions that he believes will be reduced as a consequence of Part 1 and we would like to know what target he would like to see set for that area. We know that people are very keen to make their contribution. One of the ways that households can do that most easily is through the transport sector where there are fossil fuel emissions. The ability for people to make decisions to reduce their footprint in that respect is important and for that to occur he has a role to play as the Minister of Transport. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 Considering that the Road User Charges Amendment Bill is only three pages long I was going to keep my speech pretty short until I heard that speech. But now I will say to Darren Hughes the member who just resumed his seat that this bill is in no way timid. 
Paul Quinn 
: What a disappointing contribution. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: It was disappointing. This bill is in no way timid. First of all this Government has recognised the issue of electric motive power. It is not since the days of Tesla that somebody has got out there on the front foot. It may not be the best thing since sliced bread but we have to start somewhere. 
I will read from the explanatory note. It states: “This Bill amends the Road User Charges Act 1977 to enable regulations to be made exempting light electric motor vehicles from road user charges (RUC). An exemption from RUC will encourage the uptake of light electric motor vehicles which are expected to improve the efficiency of the motor vehicle fleet decrease reliance on imported fossil fuels improve energy security and reduce vehicular emissions affecting air quality and greenhouse gas levels.” I ask what better way there is to make a statement that light electric motor vehicles will be exempt from paying R-U-Cs. And I call them R-U-Cs because the only people who are looking for a subsidy on a “RUC” would most probably be the All Blacks. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Wouldn’t know what a ruck was. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: The All Blacks would not know what a ruck was. 
The great thing about this bill is that it is a statement to the community not only the punter out there but also those who make the cars. Basically the statement is that people will not be penalised in any way for new technology. The technology is out there. I recently finished watching a documentary called  
Who Killed the Electric Car? 
 and— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That’s good. I’ve seen that. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: Yeah it was an absolutely fantastic documentary. The thing is that if we do not get out there and front-foot this issue then it will pass us by and nobody in New Zealand will drive around in electric vehicles. 
I have to disagree with the member Darren Hughes as to whether this measure is a subsidy. This is not a subsidy. It is an incentive to the producers and also to the punter who may wish to purchase an electric vehicle. In the long run over the life of an electric vehicle people will have their money back. At the same time we are making sure that we do not harm the environment as much as we have done over the last 100 years. This may be a very very small step in the right direction but I think it is a very very important step forward for our vehicle fleet in New Zealand. 
The word must go out to the producers—General Motors Ford Motor Co. Mazda Toyota or whoever—that the go today is to preserve the fossil fuels. The go today is that more and more people around the world are looking for that next step that next technology. Maybe one day they will come up with a V8 electric car who knows? It could be for the West Aucklanders. It is extremely important— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: One with tape-recorded noise. 
Hon TAU HENARE 
: One with tape-recorded noise. They can just plug a hole in the old lake pipe they will be right. 
It is a very very important step that we get buy in from the whole Committee and I think that we have 100 percent buy in from the whole Committee. As I say this measure is not a subsidy and it is in no way timid which is what Darren Hughes said. This is all about incentivising the industry and the punter. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call in relation to the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. Personal mobility in motor vehicles has been one of the great liberators of the mechanised age—it really has—and it has created huge productivity benefits. It has given people the ability to get around and of course most people find a motor vehicle a hugely wonderful tool. The challenge is that if the potential—and I stress “potential”—upcoming limitations on fossil fuels and climate change issues come into play then we will have to look for other forms of motive power and the electric car is one of those motive powers and also biofuel and bio-diesels. We must encourage all of those forms of motive power and we are doing so in the case of electric vehicles with this Road User Charges Amendment Bill. 
I had my first ride in an electric car the other day. Unlike Mr Hughes opposite it was very quiet and it was a very smooth run. But there were a couple of limitations. There was no car radio because there were not quite enough watts to drive the car radio as well as the car; and it was so quiet that I was able to hear my companion speak at great length quite easily all the way through the journey. The car drove very well. The biggest risk with electric cars is that they are very hard to hear because they are so quiet. 
The point is that the technology is still very new and this legislation is really about encouraging the technology to develop. It is not a massive cost; I think if it was a massive cost the Government would be concerned about the potential drain on the road-user charges in the National Land Transport Fund. At this stage it is not a massive cost; it is about encouraging electric vehicle manufacturers who are already looking favourably on New Zealand because of our high levels of renewable electricity and renewable energy use. They like the thought of their vehicles being introduced into this market as one of the earliest markets. They like the thought of New Zealanders being early adopters of electric vehicles and then showing the rest of the world how to do it. So they are encouraged by these sorts of signals from Government that this is something that we should do. 
I would like to make brief mention of the Supplementary Order Paper which is of great length and involves moving the word “issued”. We had the word “issued” at one point in a sentence and we have issued it across to another point in the sentence. I thank my colleague Amy Adams who very cleverly and sensibly made that change to make sure the meaning was clearer. Writing good law is always a good idea and I congratulate my colleague on making that amendment which strengthens immeasurably this particular legislation. 
As well as sending a strong message to the motor vehicle manufacturers we must acknowledge that there is still a lot of work to do in the electric motor vehicle area. The reality is that New Zealand will not be doing that level of manufacturing and work but there are some encouraging things. One of the challenges for the uptake of electric vehicles is the sheer cost of the vehicle compared to the operating cost—the sheer upfront costs. That is a difficulty; an electric vehicle is approximately double the cost of another light vehicle of a similar motive power level. That is a real challenge and it is one the manufacturers are working on at the moment. I have heard some very interesting ways in which they are looking to approach it. A big part of the cost of an electric vehicle is the batteries and those batteries could potentially be leased or sold to owners on a lease-back arrangement to get the operating cost of a car up and the purchase cost of a car down making it look a little bit more like an internal combustion vehicle in terms of the economics that people are used to. That is one of the things the industry is looking at and I think it is certainly looking at partnerships within New Zealand including with some of the State-owned enterprises to see whether it can have these cars introduced as early as it possibly can. 
Finally I would like to mention the importance of road-user charges. We have a system in New Zealand where road-user charge revenue is hypothecated. It is used in the National Land Transport Fund and this Government has made a special effort to ensure that as much of it as possible is returned to the road users who pay it. It is therefore the way that primarily we pay for our roading system and we must not have significant precedents. I have made it clear in the explanatory note of the bill that this is not to be seen as a precedent; this is purely a one-off to encourage electric motor vehicles. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 I welcome the chance to follow the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce because I wish to clarify a couple of points he made in his speech. Before New Zealanders who listened to that speech rush off to buy hearing aids because the Minister pointed out the danger of electric cars and the fact that they are silent I tell them that we have to be realistic. There are going to be only 300 electric cars as estimated by the Minister himself. It is important that New Zealanders do not get alarmed at the possibility of those quiet cars zooming around everywhere. 
The Road User Charges Amendment Bill is hardly huge legislation and one of the questions I ask of the Committee is how come it is going through today. I have a suspicion it is because John Key is somewhere else in the world because if this bill is in any way related to climate change then I have to repeat the words of the Prime Minister who said: “This is a complete and utter hoax if I may say so. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol even if one believes in global warming—and I am somewhat suspicious of it—is that we will see billions and billions of dollars poured into fixing … a problem.” We can be sure this legislation does not involve billions of dollars if indeed the Prime Minister has come around to the thinking of the Minister of Transport. 
The Minister has been careful to point out in the explanatory note of the bill that this does not set a precedent. That is a bit sad. One would hope that by passing legislation that is focused on climate change the general objectives are to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles even if there will be only 300 and we in the Opposition applaud that initiative. But it is hardly even the gem of a good idea. It is more like the atom of a good idea because it will not have that much impact. None the less as long as we are moving forward in the right direction and if this legislation was to set a precedent then we could be assured that the Chamber was using its time properly. 
Even though the Minister says that this legislation does not set a precedent I think we have to ask a few questions around precedents or indeed the objective. Does this mean that the National Government accepts that climate change is a reality? Is this the first spark the first glimmer of hope that we will see legislation going through Chamber that will bring New Zealand into the new world and hopefully put us in a position where we can say we are “100% Pure New Zealand”? That is what we are through our tourism marketing but the reality is that as we know we are not quite there in terms of carbon initiatives. Electric vehicles will move us down that path so I applaud the legislation for what it does but surely we could accept the small precedent that might be stated in the bill—but no it is not—that we are moving towards a path of low-emission vehicles across the country. If that was to be the case then the question why we did not remove the road-user charges for small diesel vehicles to encourage the uptake of them rather than the petrol-powered vehicles that are still the predominant vehicles on our roads must arise. 
If we are trying to set a precedent as we should be doing with any legislation and we are encouraging the uptake of low-emission vehicles why does this legislation not include light diesel vehicles? There are 299 electric vehicles—not 300 because the Minister for the Environment Nick Smith who no doubt has stated his self-interest has one of them—somewhere in the country that will be affected and will benefit from this legislation and I would say that will have a very very small impact on the climate. We need to do something substantive. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: It’s huge! 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: Mr Henare needs to change his V8 for an electric vehicle. I am sure that at some stage just as the Prime Minister has accepted that climate change is a reality that member may trade in his V8. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I am very pleased to take a call on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill and in particular on Part 1. Before I do I wonder whether I could address the accusations made by the former member for Otaki in the second reading of this bill about my flights of sycophancy as they related to the Minister. I want to reassure the Committee and the Minister that any compliments I give him are purely merit-based and have absolutely nothing to do with my own personal ambitions in that regard. 
I come back to the select committee’s consideration of this bill. We had some members visit the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in the deliberation. The Committee may be aware that the group included the Hon Mr Barker. He put officials through something of an examination I think we would say around the definitions of a light electric vehicle including why the vehicle had to be plugged into an external power source in order to qualify for the rebate. I think that that was very fair but the reasons for it were given. I am a bit surprised actually that our friends on the other side of the Chamber have not raised a Supplementary Order Paper in this regard. It may have been as a consequence of the honourable member’s cameo appearance in the committee that perhaps they were not able to produce a Supplementary Order Paper of a similarly reasoned nature. 
But we have other external electrical sources like solar power and we also have hybrid vehicles. Of course I was quite interested to know why hybrid vehicles were not included in the exemption from road-user charges in order to encourage the uptake and I was told that there are no diesel hybrids on the market at the moment. So that made perfect sense to me. But I will touch on the point Mr O’Connor made in the second reading debate about diesel which he has addressed again today. In my interjections on him during the second reading debate we were probably at cross purposes. I thought he was talking about diesel hybrids but he—and he has stated it again in his call in the Committee stage—was talking about light diesel vehicles and why they are not being exempted as well. Well that again could have been discussed by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. But the advice I have—and I am very happy to be corrected on this by any other member the Minister or the officials—is that diesel-emitting vehicles do not actually emit much less carbon than petrol vehicles do. I checked that with the good people at the Parliamentary Library. In fact if we excluded them we would need to exclude any light vehicle including petrol vehicles which is probably not a place we want to go. Obviously this legislation is about encouraging the uptake of new technologies and the exemption of light electric vehicles is certainly going to do that. 
I also challenge Mr O’Connor on his quite spurious comments around National’s commitment to climate change and remind him—as he should know—that National was first to propose a carbon tax or a form of emissions trading scheme as far back as 1998. Sadly the electorate did not quite see things the way we did and we were not able to implement that for some time. But I think it is very important to acknowledge that this Government has a very strong commitment to deal with climate change and there will be plenty of other examples of that as we go on. 
I will also touch on Mr Hughes’ comment about the potential for shifting the burden from those exempted from paying road-user charges when they buy light electric vehicles if there is a high number of these vehicles sold. The goal is 300. Would it not be great if we had that sort of problem? But it is also worth bearing in mind that the exemption is time-bound so we will come to 2013 and it will be reviewed. The Greens are rather concerned about the fact that the measure is contained in regulations rather than in primary legislation. I will be interested in their views on that. I notice there is not a Supplementary Order Paper on that which surprises me. I think there were some valid concerns around that. But again it comes down to materiality. If we are worried about the burden being shifted to low-income earners who have low-technology cars but believe only as few as 30 electric vehicles will be purchased we cannot quite argue both sides of the same coin. But I will be interested in what the Greens have to say about that burden and whether it should be in primary legislation. 
I think overall that this is a really sound initiative and one that I think in the future will probably see a much greater number of people taking up electric vehicles than has been the case. 
IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) 
: 
 I rise to make quite a specific point and to request the Minister to respond to that point if he would. I am not a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee so I had not been closely following the progress of this bill until a matter was raised with me by an organisation in my constituency in Palmerston North. It is called Zero Emissions Vehicles. The Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce nods his head. I do not know whether he has been in contact with this organisation but it is developing something that is quite a visionary idea that may be some time in the making—that is a heavy electric vehicle. The company is working on the components to create a chassis and base on which I suppose there could be a truck or bus—a heavy vehicle—completely run on electricity. The company has developed the battery and it is a long way down the road of developing the drive mechanism that could make this work. 
The company has raised a question with me about the 3.5 tonne limit for the road-user charge exemption whether any consideration was given to the possibility of a heavy electric vehicle or whether the concept of a heavy electric vehicle was even considered. Quite reasonably I think the company has raised the point that an exemption would assist it in having a selling point for such a vehicle if it were able to be developed—that councils might be interested in an electric tram or bus set-up within cities and that transport companies might be interested in the truck option as well. So having the exemption to the road-user charges would be advantageous in the uptake of such vehicles. The company has also made another very good point which is that given such a vehicle does not exist currently increasing the exemption beyond 3.5 tonnes would not cost the Government anything because there is no such vehicle. The Government would not be exempting anybody at the moment; hopefully further down the track that might happen. 
I acknowledge that I am raising this issue quite late in the piece; there is not a Supplementary Order Paper around it. Perhaps if there had been a little more consultation at the select committee these guys could have had the option to come along and make their submission but on their behalf I raise that with the Minister. I get the feeling from his body language that he gets the points and I will be very interested to see what response he has to that. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and support this Road User Charges Amendment Bill in its Committee stage. When we look at the part we are debating at this stage we see that it predominantly focuses on the use of electric vehicles and the incentives this Government is making for those vehicles. 
This is a new technology and something that may not yet be available in the sense that we will not see a whole fleet of electric cars taking over tomorrow the fleet of cars already on the road. But it is a starting point that is going forward for the future. When we look at what is happening around the world we see there is an attempt to do that throughout the world. People are looking for cleaner greener forms of car technology. The  
New Zealand Herald  
today has an article about a US programme that is basically encouraging people to trade in gas guzzlers for cleaner more environmentally friendly cars. They are not quite of the electric technology because that is the next level. I guess that electric technology will be the next level from the one of more fuel-efficient cars which the US is going through at the moment. But the article shows that the world is moving that way and New Zealand needs to be in that space. This bill is putting New Zealand in that space so that we are ahead of the game when it comes to environmental concerns and so that we are making the best initiatives possible to encourage the best results for our transport sector. I think it is a great initiative for this Government to do that because it is showing not only that we are up with the play internationally but that we are taking a leading role in what we are doing with electric vehicles in this case. 
 The Road User Charges Amendment Bill is a perfect opportunity for us to show that desire and willingness to take a lead in regard to electric vehicles. The road-user charges that would have been on these light electric vehicles will now be exempt. We want to encourage this technology to go forward and to take advantage of what we see as one of the solutions for transport in the future. When we look at the current road-user charges for an electric vehicle weighing 3.5 tonnes or less it is about $36 per 1000 kilometres. So that is about $400 a year based on travelling an average of 12000 kilometres a year. We are keen to give that initiative to the purchasers of those vehicles so that they can make that choice. 
An electric vehicle will be more expensive than a contemporary vehicle at this point in time because it is new technology that is advancing. Over time we will see the price come very much down. The amount of $400 may not seem like a lot in comparison to the cost of an electric vehicle compared with the cost of a conventional vehicle but over time as that technology grows the price gap will narrow and there will not be such a big gap between them. 
Sue Moroney 
: Oh you’re going to slap the road-user charges on then! 
DAVID BENNETT 
: Labour members are yelling out things about electric vehicles. Obviously they do not care about our environment. They do not have any concern for what is in the best interests of New Zealand. I imagine that they prefer to drive around in big diesel cars rather than taking some initiatives that are in the best interests of this country. They do not see the value in being a leader in environmental concerns. They do not see the value in taking an approach that takes greenhouse gas emissions into account. This Government is taking a constructive approach to ensure that this valued technology can be taken up by as many car owners in New Zealand as possible. 
It is a small but important start in recognising that technology. A lot of the time it is about giving recognition to new technology so that people understand the importance of it and that the Government values that kind of technology which is why we have given that exemption. The exemption will come into effect later this year and it will apply until 2013. During the select committee consideration the Green Party had concerns about the time frame for the exemption. It wanted it to be a shorter time frame believe it or not. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call in the Committee stage of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill and to address Part 1. I do not think there is anything in Part 1 that members on this side of the Chamber would find much disagreement with. 
Hon Tau Henare 
: OK sit down then. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: If Tau Henare would be patient I do have some things to say about it. 
Grant Robertson 
: He isn’t a patient person. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: That is true but I did happen to listen to his contribution so I ask that he please listen to mine. I am sorry to go over this point again— 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Well then don’t. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I am sorry to do it; I am not bitter about this but I am extremely disappointed in the process. My colleague Iain Lees-Galloway was talking about the things we could have considered had the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee had the opportunity to do so. I for one was looking forward to hearing more about the science and the future of electric-powered vehicles. I will admit that I do not know a lot about this topic. I wanted to know more and I wanted to learn more. We could have learnt more about what other countries are doing. We have heard some of that in this debate. We could have had a look at those things and suggested to the Government that some of them could be considered if not in this bill then perhaps in the future. That would have been a forward-thinking innovative report from the select committee. Never mind as I said I am not bitter but I do feel disappointed that there are lost opportunities. 
I am glad that David Bennett referred to the report in the  
New Zealand Herald  
about what is happening in the United States. Sure the report is about the buyers of hybrid vehicles but I just want to ask the Minister whether he has considered some of the reports that came out of this article today. The United States has a programme that offers rebates to hybrid vehicle buyers. The objective is to increase the percentage of fuel-efficient vehicles in the national fleet thereby producing environmental benefits. But any increase in hybrid vehicles has come largely at the expense of small fuel-efficient conventional cars rather than people getting rid of their gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles which is what the United States was trying to target. Apparently American car buyers are choosing hybrids over similarly priced small and medium sized conventional cars and these are not far behind hybrids in terms of fuel efficiency and emissions. So the reduction in carbon emissions is therefore minimal. Two-thirds of the Americans who bought hybrids were going to buy them anyway. So for the majority the rebates are not changing behaviour. 
I am interested to hear from the Minister as to what research has been done and what information he had prior to considering the measure in this bill. People are saying that yes it is a small start but it is aimed at encouraging people to take up the use of electric vehicles. I think we need to be on top of these issues. As I said it is a small start but now that we are offering road-user charges relief to the buyers of electric vehicles we need to start to think about the issues a lot more. We do have a great opportunity. Other members have talked about some of the things that other countries have been doing. When we say that it is a timid measure I go back to what I said about the opportunity that was missed at the select committee to consider what Denmark and the UK are doing; to have a look at other countries and at what works and what does not work. The reason we say this measure is timid is that it will mean only 300 cars after 5 years. 
Labour members have also raised in this debate their concern about how we help people in old gas-guzzling cars who cannot afford to buy electric cars. How do we help those people to move forward into this new technology? Otherwise what we are saying is that people can have a subsidy if they can afford a brand new electric car but if they are poor and they are stuck with a family car that is 10 years old and does not fit that model they are stuck with it and they will have to pay more. We do not think that is fair and we do think that again the select committee could have considered that issue; it could have thought about it and perhaps come up with some other ideas. 
The other thing is that the Minister has referred to how quiet these vehicles are. I think there is a perverse issue or an unintended consequence from the introduction of electric vehicles and it is the risk that their quietness poses for transport safety. The other day I met with a group of people from the Royal New Zealand Foundation of the Blind. They are genuinely concerned about this because when they are out walking on the footpaths they rely on being able to hear cars coming before they cross the road. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to take a call on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. When we stop and think about the context of this bill we find that it is introducing an incentive to stimulate the development of electric vehicles. From listening to the speeches in this debate we can see that members are drilling down into a wide-ranging area. While we consider Part 1 “Amendment to preliminary provision” I draw the attention of members to the fact that it is only a bit over 100 years since we have had motor vehicles which is quite amazing when we consider what Mercedes-Benz produced back in the late 1800s compared with what the motor vehicle is like today. When we compare the Wright brothers in America and the aircraft they flew with what air travel is all about today then from that point of view what we are endeavouring to do today becomes significant. 
It is a pleasure for me to be involved in the Committee stage of this bill even though I was not involved in the select committee process. I commend the thoroughness with which the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered this bill and returned it to the House for its second reading. 
Most of us would have been aware of the slot car which was electrically run. We all had a lot of fun with that. I also draw to the attention of members opposite that in Marlborough one thing the elderly use a lot is the mobility scooter. When we start talking about the advances that are occurring and about how the battery is becoming far more effective in today’s use we have to use only part of our minds to imagine what will be occurring in the future. I think this bill creates an incentive. It is going some way to ensuring that we have alternatives to the motor vehicles of today that use fossil fuels. The old adage “Big things come from small beginnings” is appropriate. The member opposite talked about the atom and we can see what atomic energy and atomic medicine can do today for the human race. We are inspired by this legislation going forward; it offers a whole wide vision of opportunity going forward. 
Another point that needs to be underscored in this Committee stage of Part 1 the “Amendment of the preliminary provision” is that the bill was an election promise from National. It is good to carry that out. We on this side of the Chamber recognise the importance of being able to portray to the nation the confidence to go forward and to build on the policies of the Government and this legislation fulfils an election promise. When we consider that the average cost for a motor vehicle under the road-user charges is $36.07 per thousand kilometres which equates under a 12000 kilometre year to something in the region of $432 annually we know that that is an incentive to pass this legislation. 
I thank the member on the Government side for explaining to us why hybrid cars were not involved and that they had effectively to be plugged into an exterior power source and recharged. Some clarification was certainly greatly appreciated there. We cannot undervalue the opportunities around technology and this bill encourages that. It is interesting to note that given the dramatic recession of today and the adjustments within economies and such like we see such magnificent organisations like Chevrolet having to totally readjust themselves. It is important that New Zealand keeps pace with what other nations are doing. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to finally rise and speak on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill albeit in the Committee stage of Part 1. It is interesting because it gives us the definition of a light electric motor vehicle. I have some questions to ask the Minister of Transport about this definition because it specifically says: “light electric motor vehiclemeans a motor vehicle whose motive”—Colin King was probably quite right to talk before about motivation—“power is wholly or partly derived from an external source of electricity and whose gross laden weight is 3.5 tonnes or less”. My question is what vehicles does this exclude? Which vehicles over 3.5 tonnes does the Government not wish to see involved in this particular legislation? Certainly I imagine that it means the Government as we know is not committed to electric trains because they will be more than 3.5 tonnes. There obviously is a big question mark. The Minister is not sure but I think they will weigh more than 3.5 tonnes. There is a big question mark over this Government’s commitment to electric trains or in fact trains at all but I will come back to that point.  
We are talking about the definition of what is in and what is out. The definition excludes particular vehicles and I would like some clarity from the Minister about those vehicles that the Government is moving to exclude by limiting the weight to 3.5 tonnes or less. I imagine that it will exclude the juggernauts that the Government seems to want to fast track and let loose on our roads the same juggernauts that many local government authorities up and down the country are submitting on and opposing because they know that our roads are not equipped built or designed to carry those sorts of weights. I imagine that the juggernauts will be excluded from the 3.5 tonnes or less definition and that those juggernauts will be discharging this dreadful diesel that David Bennett keeps mentioning when he talks about this bill and which apparently the National Government is using as an excuse to go around opposing the proposal for a passenger train from Hamilton to Auckland. Apparently the Government is opposing it on the grounds that it will use diesel. I ask the Minister what on earth the juggernaut trucks will be using. Perhaps they will use diesel. I wonder if the Government is prepared to fast track this proposal for juggernaut trucks to actually start using that dirty diesel that David Bennett is so concerned about why the National Government is so vehemently opposed to the rail passenger transport proposal for Hamilton. It is clearly not about the use of diesel so I want to know what the real reason is.  
I turn back to the bill. When I look at what this definition means I think about it from a local perspective. I understand that the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee went through a very truncated process and I am concerned about that. I have yet to hear any justification from the Government benches as to why this very important legislation was given only 1 hour’s deliberation by the select committee. I am still waiting to hear the justification for that. If the Government had allowed the select committee to delve into this bill more deeply then perhaps it would have thought about what 300 electric vehicles on our roads in the next 5 years might mean. Is this a big move forward or a small move forward? Generally when we look at things from the Waikato’s perspective roughly 10 percent of any initiative can be accounted for in the Waikato. That means that for the entire Waikato region under this interpretation of the definition of a light electric vehicle we are talking about an exemption that might apply for 30 cars. 
David Bennett 
: Excellent! 
SUE MORONEY 
: David Bennett is extremely excited that in 5 years’ time 30 families in the Waikato might benefit from this. I ask that member to reflect on what type of family those are likely to be. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 It is with absolute delight that I stand to make a few comments about the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. 
Simon Bridges 
: We’re delighted to hear from you. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: I thank the member very much. As the honourable Minister observed the motor vehicle is the liberator of New Zealanders. We are in the process of building an extremely fine cycleway that will allow people to go the length and breadth of the country to places of interest and extreme scenic beauty and it will be a huge boost to tourism in our country. We have public transport in small areas of urban concentration but it is the car that is the liberator. It is the great liberator “el libertador” and anyone who has been to South America would have seen the Simón Bolívar of transport on the avenidas. The motor vehicle reigns supreme to this day. 
The exemption from road-user charges as the honourable member on the other side mentioned is for light electric motor vehicles that weigh up to 3.5 tonnes. Some surprise was expressed as to why that should be but I submit that we are in the relatively early days of a resurgence in interest in the development of electric-powered vehicles. We are at a stage where the seed has been planted the research is starting and who knows what the future will bring. 
 So I congratulate the Minister and the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on shaping the bill to take us forward rather than backwards. 
Rather than the dead hand of prescription and decree favoured by the previous administration this Government is encouraging desired behaviour. In this case with this small but perfectly formed bill the Road User Charges Amendment Bill the desired behaviour is an increase in the use of electric vehicles. We want to make that a little bit easier and reduce the carbon footprint of the individual. Reducing our carbon emissions is crucial. We always hear about the cost and this measure certainly addresses the cost but also we have to consider the drivers of a growth business—growth in sales and growth in margins. New Zealand wants to be a growth business. Our future depends as one of the members on the opposite side of the House pointed out upon the perception of our 100 percent clean green image of our purity and of the pristine nature of our environment. This small bill goes a small way to encouraging and rewarding those committed individuals who wish to reduce their personal carbon footprint but need a motor vehicle by dint of where they live poor access to public transport or having too far to travel by bike or by walking. This bill allows them to have the opportunity to buy and use an ecologically friendly motor vehicle. 
The Government is at the same time—as we are wont to do—keeping its election promises. One of our election promises was to reduce road-user charges for electric vehicles. As luck would have it I have recently had the pleasure of riding in an electric vehicle. Where was it? It was in Christchurch. When was it? It was only a few days ago on my way to that celebration known as the National Party conference. 
Paul Quinn 
: When was that? 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: Last week. 
Paul Quinn 
: Very successful. 
Dr CAM CALDER 
: Yes it was very successful. Last week when I came out of the airport there was a green Toyota Prius. A local company had taken advantage of the opportunity and was providing a green alternative for the traveller. This vehicle was extremely impressive. As a number of members have pointed out the first thing one noted was the quietness. It was a very quiet vehicle. The other thing one noted was that when one came to a stop there were no emissions—the electric motor had stopped and the internal combustion engine was not in operation. So this bill is a very clean green initiative and I think it is appropriate that this Government which believes in encouraging the desired behaviour should have put this amendment in the bill. 
As many of us have read and those members on the select committee would have cogitated at length— 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I rise to take a short call in response to a couple of questions raised by earlier speakers. The first question was raised by Mr Lees-Galloway about his constituents in Palmerston North. I am aware of the company he referred to Zero Emissions Vehicles and the work it is doing. It is encouraging and I hope the company succeeds with its project. Certainly we would look at potentially extending that sort of incentive approach once the vehicle becomes ready for use. 
In reference to Ms Moroney’s comments it is appropriate to point out that road-user charges are not paid by trains. Trains do not pay road-user charges and they do not pull up at the weigh stations and get weighed. Her comments were a little bit irrelevant if I may say so. In terms of passenger transport—I am a big enthusiast for its potential ability to reduce congestion in our major centres and I think that is the point—it has to have a priority for reducing congestion in our major centres that have the most congestion. Of course all funding involves choices between one project and another. I think the difficulty that the Waikato to Auckland train will find with the Transport Agency is simply that it will not reduce congestion on the Hamilton to Auckland road. I cannot see that happening. The route is already served by commercial private bus services that pay their way. Huge numbers of private vehicles travel up there and again they fully pay their way. So that I think is the difficulty with the project but we will see whether Hamilton City wants to make a contribution to KiwiRail. If it does I am sure KiwiRail will be very keen to see that happen but again it has to be done on a basis that makes some sort of sense when compared with other potential ways to invest in the transport sector. So those are the points I make in response to earlier speakers. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I rise to speak to the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. It is interesting to follow Mr Cam Calder who was talking about promises. Many of us on this side of the Chamber immediately thought of the sorts of promises that this Government has not kept. One promise that immediately comes to mind is the promise to have tax cuts. Tax cuts for ordinary New Zealanders were of course cancelled while tax cuts for the rich were a priority and were put through the House at a time when there was a real need for Government funding for a range of very important initiatives. 
Let me get back to the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. I rise to speak on Part 1 which is about the exemption for light electric motor vehicles from the requirement to pay road-user charges. As my colleagues have mentioned we are supportive of this provision. But I will comment on some of the points made in the explanatory note of the bill. Although it is true that greater use of electric motor vehicle technology would make a significant contribution to improving the efficiency of the motor vehicle fleet decrease reliance on fossil fuels and improve energy security—and it would be used of course with our comparative advantage in renewable electricity generation—those factors have been somewhat overstated in relation to this particular bill and the current take-up of electric cars. 
There has been a rather grand description of the contribution that will be made by this exemption. I would note that this is in the context of a lot of inaction by the current Government in terms of the environment. Certainly the previous Labour Government did a lot towards preparing for the introduction of electric vehicles and certainly it is fair to recognise that both the previous Government and this Government are hampered somewhat by the cost of electric vehicles and the fact that New Zealand is not a priority market for manufacturers to roll out electric vehicles. That means as others have mentioned that the exemption for light electric motor vehicles is best left for a shortish period of time because we do not want to see what is effectively a subsidy for those who can afford to purchase these cars when people on lower incomes cannot afford to buy such a car. 
I think it is important that we talk about climate change when we talk about electric vehicles. A number of speakers across the Chamber have already done so and I think it is a very important point to make. Michael Woodhouse’s contribution was to acknowledge the Government’s strong commitment to climate change. That is so true! In fact we can see that the Government is very committed to climate change and its terrible consequences by its complete inaction in leadership in this area at the moment. The Government is taking New Zealand from the situation of being a world leader to being an embarrassing laggard. Even worse—because I do not think that was actually what Michael Woodhouse meant—was David Bennett’s contribution. He started to say that Labour does not care about the environment. Frankly that is an unbelievable statement. 
When we compare the record of the previous Labour Government with this Government’s record we see that this Government is moving in the wrong direction on climate change. Since November last year what have we seen? We have seen the emissions trading scheme being put on hold at a significant cost to investment in planting in forestry. 
Paul Quinn 
: Part 1 Carol; Part 1. 
CAROL BEAUMONT 
: I am speaking on Part 1: the environment and electric vehicles. A number of people have mentioned this thing. 
The Government has also repealed the moratorium on the future construction of baseload thermal electricity generation plants. It has rescinded the phase out of energy-inefficient incandescent light bulbs. It has failed to promulgate allocation plans as required by law. We have seen all sorts of things. The home insulation package that Labour put forward was a fully targeted package but it has been replaced with one that is untargeted. It will probably be picked up by those on higher incomes rather than by those who most need it. 
The Government has used every possible excuse for having a delay in setting up a carbon pollution reduction target. It says that was for all sorts of reasons—forestry data and so on—while most other countries have gone on and actually done something. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
: 
 I was a member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee which considered the Road User Charges Amendment Bill and reported it back to the House. It has taken me a long time to get a call but I am now grateful for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on Part 1. This part is one of two distinct amendments that the Government is making to the Road User Charges Act 1977. 
I will take a moment to reflect on some of the things that have been said by Opposition members particularly by Opposition members who were members of the select committee. The committee’s consideration of the bill was careful thoughtful and timely yet members of the Opposition who sat on the committee now come into the House and somehow want to squeal that they did not have an opportunity to discuss matters there that they now want to discuss in the Committee. It is quite legitimate for members opposite to raise some of the things they have raised in this debate but it is not legitimate when they sat in the select committee to now complain that somehow it was the Government’s fault that they did not get around to raising matters in the committee that in retrospect they wanted to raise. 
The purpose of Part 1 is to enable regulations to be made that exempt light electric cars from road-user charges. The intention is that the provision will take effect in October and run on a trial basis until 2013. It is envisaged that 300 vehicles will be affected. That number of 300 is logical sensible and reasonable and for the former member for Otaki to use the word “timid” is totally out of line. How dare any member of what was the previous Government for 9 years describe anything this Government is doing as timid? I humbly suggest to the young member that maybe he should get hold of a thesaurus—such as  
Roget’s Thesaurus 
—and spend a little of his time in this House on widening his vocabulary and learning a few words that may give a fairer more exact description of what he is trying to say. We should not ever let any member on the opposite side of the House describe the actions of this Government as being timid. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Hopeless chairman. 
ALLAN PEACHEY 
: Mr Bennett’s chairing of the select committee was outstanding. The fact that Labour members did not take the opportunity given fairly to them by the chairperson to raise issues in the committee that they now want to raise in this debate is not down to anything but their own lack of competence. 
In this bill two things come together. The first thing is the reality that private vehicles continue to be the most significant mode of transport for most New Zealanders. When one accepts that reality—and it is a reality; there is no point in arguing about it—one sees that it makes sense for the Government to encourage the development of alternative fuel technologies. That is the intention of this amendment to the Act. It is to encourage alternative fuel technologies in the development of road transport. Secondly of course New Zealand has a major competitive advantage from its renewable electricity generation. It therefore makes very very good sense that we use that competitive advantage in our motor vehicle transportation. 
Part 1 agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendments to Part 1 of principal Act 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
: 
 It is a pleasure to be able to take a call on Part 2 of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill which deals with the notice that applies in respect of the road-user charge. I say from the outset that I hope—it is my sincere hope—that during discussion and debate on this part of the bill the contributions from our friends and colleagues on the opposite benches are a bit more thoughtful than we have heard on Part 1 of the bill. Those speeches seemed to meander around everything except focus on the benefits and the job that Part 1 will do. 
In turning to Part 2 I will make a small contribution on it and talk about why the particular part is before us. We do not have to go back very far—to 2008—when with a rush of blood the then Minister of Transport decided that the road-user charges would go up. 
David Bennett 
: Annette King was it? 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yes I think it was Annette King—the former Minister of everything and master of nothing. That decision led to the roads being blocked and traffic being at a standstill throughout the motu. Frustrated motorists were piled up right across the highway networks of New Zealand as drivers of truck after truck instead of being out delivering the people’s goods and moving parcels along the way were so incensed that they were voting with their feet so to speak although in this case they were voting with their trucks. In fact they gridlocked this city of ours Wellington as they drove on Parliament. The sheer disappointment to them was that out of the blue they got a significant increase on their road-user charge with no notice and for a whole month they had to carry that increased fixed cost to their business— 
Jo Goodhew 
: Don’t you mean out of the red? 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yes exactly—not out of the blue; out of the red coming from the red Government of the day the money-grabbers who just slapped another fine and an impost on businesses and said they had to pay it. Businesses had no chance to be able to recover those costs imposed by the nanny State Government of the day. 
As a result the National Government has reacted to make sure that if road-user charge increases are justified then they should be appropriately announced in terms of forewarning so that adjustments can be made particularly for the owner-drivers who are mostly affected by these sorts of imposts that the Government can place on them. They will then have a chance to adjust their business model and be able to continue in a profitable way contributing to the economy of New Zealand in the way they do moving the traffic along the highways getting the containers to the ships and to KiwiRail and being part of the intermodal transport line that Darren Hughes raised in his rather poor contribution on Part 1. His speech was very much below his normal high standard. In fact none of the previous speakers has risen to the dizzy heights of his or her normal standard. That has been most disappointing. It was interesting in Darren’s contribution that he waffled on about an intermodal transport line which would have been more appropriately dealt with in this part of the debate. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 I really hesitate to follow that contribution by Paul Quinn. I am not sure whether anything I have ever heard in this House could possibly match it—apart from David Bennett’s contribution which I know is to come. David Bennett will be as considered as he always is as the excellent chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I know he will make a considered and proper contribution on Part 2 of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. 
Part 2 relates to road-user charges and follows on from Labour’s initiation of a review last year. I will go over some of the things that people have said about what happened last year. Labour announced an increase in road-user charges and we saw a politically motivated and self-interested action by truck drivers at a time when there were unprecedented price rises in the international costs of petrol and diesel. Everybody was hurting; everybody was paying more for petrol at that time. We put up the road-user charges last year without notice because when we increased them the year before notice was given which resulted in a great deal of purchasing of road-user charge certificates. A large amount of Crown revenue was lost through that forward purchasing. 
After the truck driver protest the previous Minister of Transport the Hon Annette King met with the head of the Road Transport Forum the Hon Tony Friedlander who said that the forum would work with the Government to put in place a regime that was fair to the Government but also fair to the forum. So there is no problem with that. 
The objective of Labour’s review was to increase road-user charges without a great loss of revenue to the Crown but with sufficient notice given in particular to truckies who were purchasing the road-user charge certificates. Part 2 of the bill addresses what came out of the inquiry that Minister King set up and it was announced by the Minister of Transport the Hon Steven Joyce in May this year. 
When Labour instigated the review there had not been a review for around 18 years. During that period the ratio of trucks to cars had changed enormously as had the weights being carried by those trucks. That meant that a great inequity had grown between trucking firms and private motorists over who was paying for road maintenance. Motorists were subsidising truckers. Heavy trucks causing substantial damage were not paying their fair share. So the Labour-led Government after announcing the working party to examine the formula for the road-user charges for heavy vehicles also intended to amend the Road User Charges Act for vehicles weighing more than 3.5 tonnes in order to restrict the period of time in which pre-purchased licences could continue to be used after an increase in road-user charges. 
The purpose of the proposed amendment was to allow the Government to give reasonable notice of increases and that is exactly what the bill does. The bill is the outcome of everything Labour planned to do after we had been through a very reasonable review and a proper collaborative process. The truth is that Labour did the work on the bill. We took a lot of flack on the bill as always but we did the work on it and here we are passing it. 
The bottom line for Labour in this whole thing is that a fair share of all road-user charges must go towards maintaining our roads building new roads and improving public transport. As I said a working party reported back to Steven Joyce. Guess what? The key recommendation was that the current road-user charges system which is unique in the world be retained with some suggested changes around the edges. The working party recommended that 6 weeks’ notice be given for any increases in road-user charge rates. The result is the bill as I have said which provides for 42 days’ notice. It also provides a mechanism to minimise the impact of pre-purchasing. 
I do not want to dwell on the past but I know that some speakers on the other side of the Chamber want to talk about what happened last year. We are interested in the bill and in the solution that Labour worked for along with the Road Transport Forum. I observe that when National is in the driving seat there are plenty of protests. Hey we had one yesterday outside Parliament did we not? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What was that about? 
DARIEN FENTON 
: It was about adult and community education funding. Where was the Minister for Tertiary Education? She was inside. A couple of weeks ago there was another protest outside Parliament which was about the Government ditching pay and employment equity. There will be another protest about school support staff who have been offered a zero percent pay rise on Friday this week in Auckland. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 When we look at the Road User Charges Amendment Bill we see that Part 2 will amend the principal Act in regard to road-user charges. A number of speakers have touched on some of the history that went into the situation this bill tries to address. I think that the previous speaker Darien Fenton and also National member Paul Quinn pretty well summed it up in the sense that this is a bit of a historical legacy issue that comes from what happened last year. 
Last year the Minister at that time arbitrarily changed the road-user charges without giving the trucking fraternity enough notice. Its members were deeply aggrieved at that because they saw it as being an action of a Government that was heavy handed that did not take into account the nature of their business and that did not want to negotiate. They felt that it was a breach of trust by the previous Government so they created a great protest that went on throughout this country. Many many politicians got involved and some members would have seen themselves photographed in trucks as they protested against the previous Government’s arbitrary use of its power. In fact that Government took advantage of its power when the industry did not have the ability to respond. But industry members did respond in their own way of protesting as the previous member talked about. They protested in a way that was constructive and they worked to have a dialogue with the Government to produce what we have here today. 
But only National has actually implemented legislation and worked out a process for the future that will deliver a solution to this issue so that those in the industry can feel they will no longer be at the whim of Government decisions when they need some security in decision making. They need to know they have some time frames in which they can be advised of price increases and that they have some certainty that the Government will keep to its word and will deliver in a timely but effective manner. That is what the National Government does and is doing in this case. We are taking on board the concerns of the industry. We are working towards a solution that will be constructive for all parties involved so that it will negate the situation where there are protests. We will have a situation in fact where all parties can work together in the best interests of getting the right value for our road transport sector. 
The Road User Charges Amendment Bill has a very big significance for the trucking industry. It shows the industry that there is a Government that will not take such an industry at its peril and make willy-nilly decisions. It will be a Government that listens and that tries to give the industry time frames so that the industry can reflect the changes there may be in road-user charges. That is an important consequence and there is a brief Supplementary Order Paper in this area that basically clarifies a drafting issue. I think we need to give credit to Amy Adams who did a fine job in working out that potential drafting problem. I give credit to her because she stepped in at the select committee and made that change. 
 When we look at this legislation in its wider context we are looking at road-user charges but we have also debated the light electric motor vehicle portion of the bill for a significant period of time. This bill reflects a Government being willing to listen to those in the transport sector a Government wishing to show leadership in the transport sector and a Government having a good understanding of the transport sector. We can see that those things come through all the transport initiatives that this fine Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce has undertaken. He is in direct contrast to previous Ministers who have not engaged with the industry with the sector or with the people who are on the ground and who know what is best for their industry. That point of difference has made the National Government and this Minister very successful in this portfolio. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
: 
 We are on Part 2 and it is probably useful to go back and explain to people what we are talking about. This is the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. It is kind of the “Carrot and Stick Bill” really with the first part of it being the carrot—that is we will incentivise people to buy electric cars by offering $400 a year for 300 buyers of electric cars. That is the carrot part. Now comes the stick in Part 2 which is that if one does not use all one’s road-user charges within 42 days they lapse. Why would this happen? Well probably the only person in this Chamber today who can remember back as far as that is Mr Peachey. He will remember what would happen on Budget day when the Minister of Finance would get up and announce new charges. They would usually come into force at midnight so everyone would rush down to the petrol station or liquor store and buy up large to try to get around the increasing charges. The fact that people spent more money to get there was probably irrelevant; it was the principle of the matter that was important. 
There is a desire in New Zealanders in each and every one of us to pay as little tax as we possibly can and to spend huge amounts of money in trying to avoid tax as the road transport industry has done on occasions. When increases in road-user charges have been announced transport operators up and down the country have rushed to buy forward their road-user charges thereby undermining the potential revenue for the Crown and not really playing a fair game. To be fair to the Government it has come up with I think an astute solution to this problem by saying that if there are any increases in road-user charges—and there will be—there will be a time limit. I ask the Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce to take a call. He could get up and explain when he is likely to increase the road-user charges next because he knows full well— 
Hon Steven Joyce 
: We’ve told you. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR 
: The Minister can take a call. He knows full well that the cost of roading and the lack of investment in infrastructure under the previous National Government through the 1990s means that we have to invest more money. Road-user charges are a big source of income and it is inevitable that he will increase the road-user charges in this country. What Part 2 does is to say that when an increase is announced those people who rush out and buy up road-user charges will have only 42 days in which to use them. I think it is a fair solution and it is not very often that I acknowledge in this Chamber that anything put in place by this Government is fair. 
But I go back to Part 1 as the carrot part of this legislation. The incentive to get people into electric vehicles is rather pathetic rather minimal. The question I ask in relation to Part 2 is why we have not got the same exemption in the same provisions for light diesel vehicles as we have seen in Part 1—that is an exemption for light diesel vehicles with the objective being to reduce emissions up and down this country in the future. The Government omitted to include them. It did not take the opportunity to make a significant change and it has left the owners of light vehicles which are those under 3.5 tonnes to still pay road-user charges when arguably they should be incentivised even if it is just for smaller cars as the Minister knows. 
Part 2 is the good part of the legislation. Part 1 as I have stated before is rather pathetic and rather small. It is not even a germ of a good idea. It is a token gesture towards climate change issues in this country from this Government. 
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
: 
 I will take a quick call on Part 2 of the Road User Charges Amendment Bill because try as I might I cannot resist talking about the Opposition’s attempts to rewrite history from last year. It is consistent with a theme that we have had basically since this Parliament started. But I am a bit disappointed in some of the members of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee complaining today and in the bill’s second reading that they did not have an opportunity to consider issues such as those raised by Mr Lees-Galloway. Yes the committee’s consideration time for the bill was tight but those members are no shrinking violets. They can speak up and they do. If they had those concerns then they would have raised them and I think there is a bit of wisdom now being shown after the fact. If that is all they can come up with to complain about in this legislation that is I think a credit to the fine Minister in the chair the Hon Steven Joyce. 
But despite the Minister’s considerable cerebral capacity it would not have taken much to come up with a very fair compromise arrangement to keep members of the road transport lobby satisfied that they are able to have sufficient notice to be able to put increases in road-user charges into their prices without arbitraging the system by taking millions of kilometres’ worth of charges in advance. Even if that was happening the Crown had the benefit of those payments with regard to the 2007 increases. The industry certainly did not get that opportunity on 30 June 2008 because absolutely no notice was given to it notwithstanding the undertaking given by the then Minister of Transport to do so. In fact Labour is rewriting history to quite reverse that. We are being asked to believe that members of the road transport industry came along and asked the then Minister to please do something different. She gave them notice in 2007 she said so she did not do so in 2008. I think that is a really big stretch. The road transport lobby protested last year because it was given an undertaking that something would happen and it did not. 
So I am really supportive of this particular part. I think it reflects a very common-sense response to the situation. Thank you. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. I rise to make a very brief intervention on the Road User Charges Amendment Bill. We support the specific changes provided for in Part 2 to enable notice to be given of a road-user charges increase and put the expiry of pre-purchased road-user charges at 1 month after that. I acknowledge that this measure is a consequence of the work of the Hon Annette King and the inquiry that she set up. My colleague the Hon Damien O’Connor outlined a bit of the history of that so I will not relitigate it. This measure is a fair solution so we agree on it. 
I will continue with the theme I was speaking on a little earlier about the environment. The reason for the road-user charges as we know is so that truck operators can contribute to the costs they place on our road network. We have had to have increases in the charges because truck operators were not paying their fair share up to the previous increases. But one of the areas of concern we have is about the very real prospect of heavier trucks being allowed on our roads. The Rail and Maritime Transport Union made some very well-informed remarks about that which I think are important to note while we are considering road-user charges. There is a range of reasons why allowing heavier trucks on our roads would be a problem. There are of course public safety issues related to slow trucks being on our roads. There is also the fact that the size increase we are talking about would make a significant difference to the difficulties on our roads not only in terms of road safety but also in terms of the damage done to our roads and it is unreasonable to expect other road users to pay for those additional costs. 
There is also talk of replacing road-user charges—the matter we are talking about here—with a flat diesel tax which would exacerbate the already un-level playing field between road transport rail transport and coastal shipping. In fact it would be another subsidy to the road transport industry. In this document before me Minister Joyce has been called the “Minister of Road Transport” and I think that is quite appropriate when we see some of the changes that were announced recently such as changing the funding balance by shifting money out of public transport and into roads whereas of course the previous Labour Government was very much committed to having a balanced transport policy. As others have mentioned that policy was about a multimodal transport provision. 
I think the lack of that vision by the Minister of Transport and by the Government is very important when we consider the impact on our environment. We have options regarding the movement of freight. We can move freight by means of coastal shipping. We can move freight by rail. The use of larger and larger trucks is not necessarily best for the environment; in fact we know it is worse for the environment. 
I want to go back to what I was saying. I was part-way through giving an important list of backtracking by the Government in the area of the environment and was saying we are indeed moving in the wrong direction. Members who were present at the time will recall that I was talking about the fact that the Government has used every possible excuse to delay the setting of a carbon pollution reduction target. It has scrapped the Fast Forward Fund and the research and development tax credits that would have funded agriculture’s transition to lower-polluting technologies. The Government repealed the biofuels obligation failed to come up with any sustainability-related stimulus measures and has generally dragged its heels. 
I conclude by saying of course we support the very sensible changes in this bill but we will continue to hold this Government to account for its lack of leadership in the area of the environment. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I am taking a short call so I do not have enough time at this point to go into a great discussion with Carol Beaumont on the wider issues she raised but four words cover them: cost-effective and productivity improvement. They are not words familiar to that member of the Labour Party but I am sure we will have time on another day to discuss them. 
I will respond to the Hon Damien O’Connor in relation to his request. He obviously was on holiday earlier in the year when the Government announced when the expensive and administratively complex regional fuel taxes were being canned that there would indeed be a partially compensatory increase in petrol taxes and road-user charges on 1 October this year. That was announced around 16 March. It is 1.5c a litre of new increase alongside the 1.5c a litre previously scheduled by the previous Government and that will be taking place this year. As at 1 October 3c a litre has been scheduled and the idea of getting this bill passed is to ensure that the notice period can be given. Thank you Mr Chair. 
The question was put that the amendment set out on Supplementary Order Paper 33 in the name of the Hon Steven Joyce to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendment agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
Clause 3 agreed to.  
Bill to be reported with amendment presently. 
House resumed. 
Maiden Statements 
DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) 
: 
 Te Whare e tu nei te Whare Paremata o Aotearoa e tu e tu. Ki nga mema o tenei Whare tena koutou katoa. Ki nga manuhiri kei te Whare tena koutou katoa. E te iwi whanui o Aotearoa tena koutou tena koutou tena tatou katoa. Tena koe Mr Deputy Speaker. 
[ 
To the House the Parliament House of New Zealand standing before me stand for ever. Greetings to the members of this House and visitors present greetings to us all. To the general public of New Zealand greetings greetings and greetings to you all and to you Mr Deputy Speaker 
.] 
I begin by saying thank you to the people of Mt Albert. It is my honour to represent and serve you all as your member of Parliament. Maiden speeches by members representing Mt Albert are rare events. In 62 years Mt Albert has had only two MPs. I follow illustrious predecessors. Helen Clark will be remembered as one of New Zealand’s great Prime Ministers. But on the campaign trail I became aware of another side of her political life: 28 years serving as a devoted electorate MP respected by Mt Albert residents across the political spectrum. Before her was Warren Freer a Cabinet Minister and steadfast MP who served Mt Albert for 34 years. 
I thank the many supporters Labour Party members and particularly the longstanding and dedicated electorate committee workers who have stood with me and worked so tirelessly. This result is a credit to your efforts. I see it as a portent of 2011. To the other candidates thank you for a clean and fair contest. The Mt Albert electorate is both young and old. Forty percent of its people were born outside of New Zealand and it has been an entry point for many new New Zealanders and home to an extraordinary diversity of people—Pacific Islanders Indians Chinese Somalis Sri Lankans and many others. 
One of those was a teenager who introduced himself to me as a  
Tampa 
 boy. He was a refugee off the freighter the  
Tampa 
 which was stopped from landing in Australia and was stranded in the Indian Ocean until the Labour Government in the face of negative opinion polls opened the door for those refugees to come to New Zealand. We did what was right and now we can feel very justified. His English is fluent he is studying at the Auckland University of Technology and he is so very proud to be a New Zealander. He and so many others are shaping the future face of New Zealand. They were attracted here by hope and opportunity as were our ancestors. They are emblematic of our country’s history. 
Mt Albert is also made up of longstanding residents who can trace their roots back for generations often within the same neighbourhoods. They are the soul of the strong and caring communities of Point Chevalier Kingsland Waterview Owairaka Sandringham and Mt Albert itself. Cohesive communities with strong identities are safer. They are the places where people watch over each other their kids their elders and their neighbours. Unfortunately today in many of those communities they feel alienated from political decision-making. They are rallying against issues that many feel have been foisted upon them: the super-city the new motorway and new projects that undermine their environment. It is clear to me that my job is to listen to protect and to promote the communities that the people want in Mt Albert and elsewhere. 
I am a passionate New Zealander with deep roots in Auckland and this country but I have also lived and worked in some of the countries that our migrants have come from so I see New Zealand through a slightly different lens. What we have is all too rare in this world. It feels very right to be here. Just a few weeks ago I was sitting in a sandbagged room in Baghdad agonising about whether to put my name forward to stand in Mt Albert. It was a tough decision. I was overseeing the UN’s effort to reconstruct Iraq and supporting people who had suffered terribly for over 30 years. So I did what I have often done I spoke at length with my wife my family and my close friends—people whose love and support I have depended on all my life. I am proud that my wife Anuschka and my children Vetya and Anastasia can be here with me today. Some argued against it. “What are you thinking?” they asked. “You’ve got a family a successful career why jettison all that for a life in politics?”. Their view reflects the same frustration I hear in Mt Albert that our politics is not listening or responsive to people. My decision ultimately came down to believing that I can make a real and positive difference—something that has motivated my life; and something that I have done elsewhere. 
Most of my life has been spent in war zones and famines in other parts of the world. In those jobs I have been bombed shelled and shot at. I have been told that that is probably quite good training for Parliament. I have worked for the United Nations and Save the Children in Iraq Gaza Rwanda Somalia Sri Lanka and other places. These are the places where one confronts the very worst of the world and I have sat and negotiated with people who orchestrated destruction and misery. But it is also where you meet the best. I have had the great fortune and privilege to work alongside people whose daily lives are routinely heroic. People such as Hamada who has been unable to leave Gaza for over 3 years because of the Israeli blockade yet still reports reliably and objectively to the UN about the death and bombardment around him; or Abdi a Somali nurse who twice a day fed more than 2000 starving under-fives in an area of Mogadishu that was continually under shellfire. Or people such as my staff in Baghdad who take two to three taxis a day to avoid being followed knowing that if they were identified as working with the UN their families risk kidnapping or worse. 
I am proud to say that these people—and there are dozens hundreds of others—have been part of my life. They have inspired me each in their own way fighting to make a difference in their family and their community against injustice and against a system weighted to deny people a fair go. They are a reminder to me that we can all make a difference. I see that same spirit in New Zealand. Those values of justice fairness and opportunity are ingrained within our collective DNA. It is demonstrated in the many many people who contribute selflessly to their communities heading the sports clubs historical societies and environmental groups and who help our new arrivals into our communities or advocate for the rights of workers and the dispossessed contributing in some way to make our community our country a better a place. 
This is a great country of wondrous landscapes of proud achievements. We have had significant moments of nation-building. Our stand on nuclear ships has been called “New Zealand’s war of independence”. It was personal to me because it was my political awakening. We took a brave decision on the Iraq war and the right one. We should exalt in this independence and be proud to project our values. We should be confident then to become an independent country and reject the need for another nation’s flag in the corner of our own. My experiences convince me that New Zealand can be a leader can make a difference in the world and can influence powerful countries. Norway with a similar population has been at the forefront of international peace efforts—we can do the same. 
I have seen our armed forces and police overseas and they are without equal not just for their professionalism but more important for the values and attitude they hold and for their ingrained sense of fair play and justice which is part of our New Zealand character. We have the can-do attitude; we need the vision. Let us be bold; let us see what is possible. 
Many times when I was in far-flung places I was sustained by the thoughts of our beaches our bush our mountains and our lakes. Our deep love of the landscape is part of our shared cultural identity as New Zealanders no matter where we came from. It motivated me to study environmental management. It led me to work for the Tainui Trust Board where I had the privilege to work for Sir Robert Mahuta—the father of my fellow MP Nanaia—in his pioneering work on Maori development. That experience forced me to confront raupatu—the confiscation of Maori land and taonga. It is an injustice just as real in the hearts of those I met on Waikato marae as what I later encountered in conflicts throughout the world. Through the Waitangi Tribunal we are redressing this legacy and recasting the story but we still have a way to go. Addressing tribal rights has yet to fully translate into better education health and prison statistics for Maori. This is perhaps our biggest challenge as a country. It is a responsibility that belongs to us all but mostly for Maori to chart and shape their own destiny. 
Are we environmental leaders? We do OK. We have made good progress protecting our endangered species parks and fisheries. We are famed for our landscape; we trade on our clean green image. My worry is that our actions are falling short of our talk. Our environmental policy is hesitant and lags behind other Western nations where our main consumers live. We can be leaders. It is not only good for New Zealand business it is good for our children and essential for the planet. We must be bold. 
New Zealand was built on individual initiative hard work strong businesses a farming backbone and the efficiency of a free market. But we are not a collection of individuals. We are all in it together and everybody needs a fair go at opportunity. We do need to look after one another; our country was also built on that. Individual aspirations and collective responsibility—these are two faces of the same coin. Personally I have never been able to separate them to put one above the other. Each improves the lives of our citizens and unlocks our potential as a nation. 
Let us take education as an example. A few years ago I transported exam papers across the frontlines during the Sri Lankan civil war. I saw from the look on the faces of those who received them just how important that mission was. Because in the midst of destruction and hunger those papers represented the future hopes of our young people for a better life. It was their opportunity; their fair go. We provided a hand they took the step. It was a chance to take control of their lives and to reach for something better. That is what all parents want for their children wherever they are. It is what I want and value for mine. 
We depend on our Government to guarantee our educational opportunities opportunities that are not simply as good as elsewhere in the world but better so we can compete in the world. In this fast-changing world our learning needs to be lifelong not just in school. We need an ethos of learning continual training upskilling and community education. We cannot allow our kids and unemployed to drop out and then shut the door on their opportunities to re-engage. That is not only a tragic waste for the individuals concerned it is a collective failing and ultimately we all lose. We also depend on our Government for a public health system that is not only world-class but is there when we most need it and one that understands that preventing ill health is a whole lot better and a whole lot cheaper than curing it. 
We face tough times: poverty unemployment and uncertainty are on the rise. Now is not the time to allow our ambitions to stagnate either as a people or as a nation. Let us take research and development as another example. New Zealanders are natural innovators. Our scientists and entrepreneurs are the people who will chart our future prosperity; we cannot afford to be stingy with them. 
Now is the time to boost opportunities and to be bold. I am a proud member of the Labour Party a party of opportunity. It is a party responsible for most of the key milestones in our country’s development and a party for our future. I have spoken about where I have come from and what I stand for. I am here to listen to make a difference to create opportunity and to reach out to what is possible. I am told that what you say here will come back to haunt you. I hope it does. Tena koutou tena koutou tena koutou katoa. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate in Committee on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. As each vote is reached a question will be put that the vote stand part. Should it be the wish of the Committee a question may be proposed on two or more of the related votes for the purpose of debating them together. At the conclusion of the 8 hours of debate any remaining votes and the remaining provisions of the bill will be put as one question. The Government indicates which votes are available for debate. I understand all votes are available and will be called in order of seniority of Ministers commencing with the Speaker’s votes. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes to be considered is available on the Table. 
Vote Office of the Clerk agreed to.  
Vote Parliamentary Service agreed to.  
Vote Audit agreed to.  
Vote Ombudsmen agreed to.  
Vote Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment agreed to.  
Vote Communications Security and Intelligence agreed to.  
Vote Ministerial Services agreed to.  
Vote Prime Minister and Cabinet agreed to.  
Vote Security Intelligence agreed to.  
Vote Tourism 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
: 
 I am most anxious to make a contribution to this estimates debate on Vote Tourism. I am most anxious to make a contribution to this debate because of the good news that is contained within the tourism estimates appropriation for 2009-10. I will talk about two aspects and the first one has to be the great decision of the Minister of Tourism to seek an appropriation of $50 million over 3 years towards the development of a national cycleway. What good news this is. I know there have been and still are doubters on the other side of the Chamber. They cannot see the value to regional tourism of the cycleway but I can. I will tell members why. It is because we have the Otago Central Rail Trail in my electorate of Waitaki and I tell members that it brings $7.5 million per annum into the local economy. That is good news. But more than that it brings in some 300 jobs per annum. There are many people in Central Otago who have been looking at bleak times particularly under the 9 years of the previous Labour Government but we are not here to talk about that this evening. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Kelvin agrees with it. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Yes a number of members acknowledge that 9 years of a Labour Government meant stagnation for regional tourism. Luckily the National Government is prepared to invest in cycleways. 
The good news goes on because this year a number of cycleways look set to benefit from this appropriation. I think it is worth saying where they are. They are spread around New Zealand. There is the Waikato River Trail and I know that my excellent colleague David Bennett is very excited and involved in that project. There is the Central North Island Rail Trail and if it models itself on the Otago Central Rail Trail then it will be doing very well indeed for the local economy. There is the Mountain to the Sea—the Mount Ruapehu to Wanganui trail—and the St James Great Trail in the South Island. What good news for people in that part of the country! That will indeed be beautiful. There is also the Hokianga to Opua/Russell trail the Hauraki Plains Trails and not forgetting the Southland/Queenstown Lakes Around the Mountain Rail Trail. All these initiatives will bring benefits to their local communities and the wider New Zealand economy thanks to our excellent Minister of Tourism and I congratulate the Hon John Key and the Hon Jonathan Coleman on their foresight and preparedness to invest in regional tourism economies throughout New Zealand. 
A number of people have spoken well of this proposal. The Labour members across the Chamber do not understand or appreciate the benefit to New Zealand of these proposals but a number of people do. I will talk about just a couple of them. The President of Local Government New Zealand Lawrence Yule said the “plan is a welcome boost for local communities.” He said: “This is an exciting initiative coming out of the Prime Minister’s February Job Summit …”. What an excellent initiative that was in the economy we are facing as out of the Job Summit came benefits to regional tourism in New Zealand. Mr Yule goes on to say “our member councils are delighted to play a part in it.” This is a welcome initiative on behalf of the National Government investing $50 million over 3 years into regional tourism. The major benefit is that the local communities throughout New Zealand are energised by this initiative. I and my fellow members in their constituency seats have had a number of community groups saying they are working on cycleways and have been working on them for a wee while now and asking where they can go. I am very happy to direct them to the Minister of Tourism’s office where they will find encouragement. That I suggest is exactly what we need in New Zealand. 
I will touch on one more aspect of this tourism appropriation and that is the funding towards the Winter Games NZ. I am so pleased that this Government has had the foresight to invest $1 million in this year’s inaugural Winter Games to be held in the South Island. How exciting this will be. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: You need to get out more. 
JACQUI DEAN 
: Oh yes the short-sighted member on the other side of the Chamber says I need to get out more. That is David Cunliffe. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 Today I was down in Nelson at a tourism conference where the issue of the cycleway was raised by a number of highly respectable people within the tourism industry. No one was really saying that the cycleway is a bad idea but certainly no one at the tourism conference was saying it is a good idea. They were saying that OK jobs will be created over the course of 10 or maybe 15 years but right now we are in the middle of a recession that is demanding jobs be created now not 280 jobs created over 10 or 15 years. 
I am not opposed to anything that over time will allow people to lose weight to get out and cycle and exercise. The cycleway will help with obesity diabetes and all those health issues. It will help people to get out and about and see our beautiful country. I am not opposed to anything like that but I am opposed to an idea that was dreamt up on the back of a napkin with a price tag of $50 million. Absolutely no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever went into this wonderful cycleway idea. We are in the middle of a recession; jobs are hard to come by. We are told there will be something like 3700 to 4000 jobs created out of the cycleway. That would be wonderful if it were actually going to— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: How many? 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: From 3700 to 4000 jobs. That is a lot of jobs except that that will not happen. We have seen only about 280 jobs created so far and 280 jobs is about one-fifth of the number of jobs that are being lost every week—one-fifth of the number of jobs that are being lost every week. This cycleway idea came out of the Job Summit. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: One of the three bigs. 
KELVIN DAVIS 
: It was one of the big ideas that was going to create jobs and bust us out of this recession. It is not a bad idea in itself and I do not want anyone to think I am standing here criticising a cycleway that will allow people to get out and exercise as I have already said. But this is not a recession-buster and we have to admit that it is not a recession-buster. 
In the select committee when I asked the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman how many cycleways we were talking about and how many miles of cycleways the answer was that the Government does not know. The cycleway is about creating jobs but the Government does not know how many cycleways there will be how far they will go or where they will be. There is no detail and that is what I am opposed to. I am opposed to pretending there is a plan and pretending the Government has a solution for jobs when there is not any plan and not any solution. 
If we look at the Greens’ press release from a few weeks back we see that it said that in 1995 £43 million was assigned by the Government in the United Kingdom to build a cycleway in the United Kingdom and £43 million equates to about NZ$150 million now. We have to ask the question whether we are getting value for money at only $50 million or whether we are just being fed a line. We do not yet know how much the cycleway will cost. As I have said nobody is really disputing the fact that a cycleway with all the health benefits and with all the tourism benefits and spin-offs over time—over 10 to 15 years—will be a good thing. But right now we need a recession-buster. We do not know how many jobs this cycleway will create before the recession ends. So I am opposed to a half-baked idea that was born on the back of a napkin and then put out as if it were the next best thing for New Zealand. 
I have questions for the Prime Minister. First of all does he still agree that the purpose of the Job Summit was to create jobs to beat the recession? It does not appear that he does because we have only about 280 jobs formed out of this cycleway idea. How many jobs will this cycleway create before the recession is over? We do not know the answer to that question either. I wonder whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement that when it comes to the cycleway it is difficult to quantify the number of jobs it will create. If that is the case why does he not spend the taxpayers’ money on projects that will create a certain number of jobs? 
If the National Government was looking for an out-of-the-box idea why does it not just divide that $50 million by 2000 and give those amounts to entrepreneurs who would get about $25000 each? They could use that money to seed an entrepreneurial enterprising idea as long as they created a business or enterprise that created jobs for two other people. In that way for that $50 million we would have 6000 people employed immediately. But that is thinking outside the square and not thinking on the back of a paper napkin. 
I have a final question for the Prime Minister. I see that in the  
Dominion Post  
of Saturday 1 August there is a position for a project manager for the New Zealand Cycleway Project. The question is: is that position a front-line position or a backroom position? It is hard to know. I congratulate the person who will get that job. That person is one person who will benefit from the cycleway project before this recession is over. Thank you. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Tourism) 
: 
 Well I think that that contribution from Kelvin Davis really shows where the Labour Party is at. He started off his speech by saying he was in favour of the cycleway but by the end of it he was not quite sure. I think that is pretty indicative of a party that does not have any ideas of its own. It is a bit like what happened with the super-city. Labour started off by saying it was opposed to the super-city but now we have got to the point where Labour is in favour of it. So we can see who has the ball and is running with the play in the wider political debate. 
That situation is a bit like the situation on Saturday when we announced funding of $152 million for Job Ops. Labour said that it was OK but that it did not go far enough— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: It doesn’t. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: You see—she says it does not go far enough. Of course part of that funding is the $5.3 million that will go into jobs for youth—created by the cycleway. I assume Labour members think that does not go far enough. There is a certain illogical thinking going on here because they are saying that Job Ops does not go far enough but the cycleway is part of Job Ops and they are saying that the cycleway goes too far. There is completely muddled thinking on that side of the Chamber. 
Those members do not have an idea between them. All they can do is rather flaccidly oppose anything that the National Government puts up. Quite frankly those guys are over a barrel and in deep trouble. If we look at this estimates debate we can see that the $50 million the Prime Minister has appropriated for the cycleway will contribute very positively to the economy. Those guys said today that they do not actually oppose the cycleway. They can see that it is popular out there. It is popular in a pan-political sense: it is popular with the left it is very popular with the Greens and it is popular with National supporters. Even Trevor Mallard loves it although I do not know whether that is actually a recommendation for anything. It will create jobs; there is no question about that. It will have a number of benefits. 
In respect of the cycleway seven Quick Start projects have been announced. They will be started over the summer and my colleague Jacqui Dean outlined where those projects will be. They will create immediate jobs for young New Zealanders and some of those New Zealanders will be on this Job Ops programme. But all those Labour guys can do now is argue over the detail because they have lost the substantive political argument. They have no alternatives. They want us to do something about jobs; here is $50 million that is doing something about jobs. It is producing jobs for young New Zealanders but all Labour members can do is quibble about the detail. It is either too much or it is not enough. They cannot make up their minds. 
I would very much like to hear from David Cunliffe. He has a lot to say about this stuff but I have not heard Labour’s shadow spokesperson on finance say one single thing—not one single thing—about what Labour would do to create jobs for New Zealanders. 
Nikki Kaye 
: Who is it? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Well who is it—exactly! Labour members had 9 years managing this economy and they left us with a real hospital pass. We are now in the situation where someone who knows what he is talking about is managing the country—John Key. We have a finance Minister who knows what the demands are in terms of getting an economy back on the track and they are getting on with the job. 
The fact that John Key has take on the tourism portfolio is a sign of the importance of tourism to the New Zealand economy and I can tell members that that is an extremely popular move across the industry. It recognises how important this industry is for New Zealand’s economic development. Tourism earns 9.2 percent of GDP and 18 percent of our export income. It is right up there with the dairy industry. [ 
Interruption 
] Most important I tell Mr Davis tourism accounts for one in 10 New Zealand jobs. So down at the Viaduct Basin or down at Courtenay Place the people serving us our lattes the people driving cabs and the ushers working in theatres all have jobs that are tied to tourism. Unless we get this industry going and unless we make sure it has the right support those jobs will go. 
If we look at what the Government is doing with tourism—the $96 million that has been appropriated to tourism—we can see that it is all about job creation. Essentially the tourism industry is all about jobs. We have a great Minister of Tourism in the Prime Minister John Key; it is good for the industry. The $50 million that is going into the cycleway will be great for regional economies. The project is popular with the public and it is the right way ahead. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Tourism be agreed to. 
Ayes 64 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Vote Tourism agreed to. 
Vote Finance 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
: 
 I am pleased to be able to take a call on Vote Finance in this year’s estimates debate. The reason is that there can be no more essential vote in the current economic conditions than Vote Finance. I think we all agree that this country and the world are facing the greatest economic slow-down since the 1930s. We have seen up to $50 trillion wiped off world balance sheets. Management through tough times is why New Zealand elected this Government because New Zealanders knew that National had the skills the people and the plan to deliver economic recovery. The reason that Labour members are on that side of the Chamber is that they patently have no plan. New Zealanders knew that; they knew that all Labour would do is spend money so they turned to a party with economic know-how and economic muscle. They have banked on us to deliver them a way out of the recession. 
Let me tell members what we did in Vote Finance to deliver that sort of recovery. The first thing this Government did was set three new priorities for Treasury. We made it clear to Treasury that we were interested in managing New Zealand’s path through the downturn making New Zealand Government expenditure and investment productive reflective and effective which quite frankly is something that has been missing from this House for the last 9 years. We were focused on improving the productivity of this economy because without productivity growth New Zealand will not recover from the slump it has been in for 9 years with anyone who is making a living and creating wealth getting kicked. Improving productivity is fundamental to our plans. We will be working very hard on that. 
We have laid out six key elements that will help do that and the first is productive infrastructure. We will not continue the infrastructure drought that this country has suffered under 9 years of Labour. There are bottlenecks all over this country in roading electricity health prisons and in schools. We are seeing a lack of fundamental infrastructure that stops businesses from getting ahead so we will address that. We will address our Public Service. If there is one thing that we hear from the people of New Zealand it is that they are sick of the Public Service getting in the way of business and not helping business. When we came into office our excellent Minister of Finance very quickly sat down with the chief executives and made it very clear to them that he wanted a line-by-line review not only of their expenditure but also of their productivity and what they would do to play their part in lifting growth in the private sector. Public services are a huge part of this economy. If they are not working well and if they are slow or ineffective it will slow down our economy and that is what we have seen continuously. We will see a better smarter Public Service delivered under this National Government. 
We will improve education standards so that we have highly skilled people driving our companies. We will build a world-class tax system to encourage investment in New Zealand. And importantly we will improve the regulatory environment for business. [ 
Interruption 
] The reason that members opposite do not want to listen is they have no clue how the regulatory environment affects business. They spent 9 years putting roadblocks in the path of business through more and more nanny State rules designed to do nothing more than clog the arteries of this country. Members opposite clogged the arteries of this country; this Government will focus on improving the regulatory framework. We have started with the Resource Management Act we are working on the Building Act and we are completing a full review of the Overseas Investment Act because we know that we have to have regulation that serves New Zealand and that does not hinder it. If Labour members had learnt that lesson then perhaps they would not be where they are. 
We will put money into innovation and business growth because innovation development and technology will help this country reach its potential—the potential that we aspire to that John Key stood up for and that New Zealand backed. We know that New Zealand is heading into its fourth quarter of recession but in fact it is much worse than that. Our tradable sector which has to be the backbone of our economy has been in recession for 5 years. What did Labour do about that? It did nothing. It relied on domestic consumption and on spending public money to keep the economy going. The backbone of this economy the productive sector was in free fall and what did the previous Labour Government do about it? Nothing. We now have a plan to do something about that. 
Let us address the issue of debt. One thing that this Government is not going to do is burden future generations of New Zealanders with a debt millstone around their necks that will cripple them for years to come. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 One of the pivotal moments for me this year was Budget day. I was privileged to be in the Opposition lock-up which is a fairly scant and tawdry affair lasting about 50 minutes. I was thumbing through the Budget documents and at about 10 minutes to 2 I had a sudden panic attack because I thought I must have missed a couple of chapters and it was almost 2 o’clock. I thumbed through the documents and to my relief and then to my concern I realised that I had not missed any chapters and that a chunk was missing. The chunk that was missing was the action plan for recovery—the action plan for growth for jobs and for giving New Zealanders a clear sense of how to get through this time of challenge. 
Amy Adams 
: Oh what nonsense. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: No it is not a rolling maul that we need; we need a game plan and any rugby player can tell the difference. The member is from the South Island; she should know. 
The mystery was explained to me this week when it was my privilege to meet with a very senior non-parliamentary member of the National Party hierarchy. After a couple of drinks he leaned across and said: “That John Key is quite a nice guy isn’t he.” I said: “Yes he is quite a nice guy actually.” He said: “He’s a good tactician isn’t he.” I said: “Yes he is a good tactician.” He said: “He’s not much of a strategist though in truth and that’ll probably be his undoing.” I said: “Sir I believe that you’ve hit the nail on the head.” John Key can read a map but he has no compass. There is no compass in the Budget. 
At the end of the day Vote Finance is not about us; it is about them: the New Zealand people. Let me read a few stories about the New Zealand people. In recent months we have heard that we can expect another 60000 to 79000 job losses. We have been told that over 1000 New Zealanders are joining the dole queue every week. In the last few weeks we have seen 60 fellmongery workers in Dunedin lose their jobs through redundancy 190 workers in Gisborne 17 workers in my old town of Timaru at Duncan Ag 33 at Unilever 50 at Formway Furniture 40 at Freightways and 20 at South Canterbury dairy shed builder Anderson and Rooney Engineering. And the Public Service Association says 2000 civil servants have lost their jobs. 
As unemployment grows and job prospects shrink we expect to see coherent action from the Government but we have not seen it. The reason the cycleway was emblematic in Vote Tourism was not as Mr Coleman would have us believe because we are trying to spin that it is a bad idea; it is just an insufficient idea. Anybody who says that a cycleway that reduces 1 day’s worth of job losses for $50 million is an answer to the recession has to think again. 
Budget 2009 the subject of these estimates proves that the Government has no ideas. National was in Opposition for 9 years. One would have thought that it had used that time to set direction. But as people unfortunately said of the Labour Government in the mid-1980s why do they not cut out the middle man and vote for Treasury? The only ideas we have seen came from the distinguished officials themselves. Leadership at the political layer has been so thin that National has had to rely upon officials to at least ask the hard questions. We may or may not agree with the prescription but we sure as heck agree that the problem is real. 
The Government member who just resumed her seat Amy Adams asked why the Opposition does not solve the recession. Excuse me! National was elected. New Zealanders are fair-minded people. They will give the Government a chance to lead and govern and if it is done well then they will give it another chance. Kiwis are fair and decent people. But if National blows it like it is doing by omission then they will let the Government know at the ballot box. 
Budget 2009 did precisely nothing to protect jobs. It failed to invest in people. It failed to develop research science and technology and training. Members on both sides of the House have come from humble beginnings. They are the hard-working children of working-class or challenged families— 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Like you mate. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Mr Gilmore is one. But the difference between this side of the House—and I include the Greens—and the Government side as has been amply demonstrated in the area of social development is that when we climb the ladder of social mobility we do not pull it up after ourselves. We are here to make sure that the next generation benefits from the opportunities we have had. That is what we believe—not that we should sell State housing. 
Above all the Government has fundamentally undermined the well-being of our future by deferring New Zealand superannuation for a decade. The superannuation scandal was the big story of Budget 2009 and it is at the heart of Vote Finance today. The solution the Government came up with for the $10 billion problem was to simply kick for touch suspend and put on to future generations—Generation X and Generation Y—the burden of superannuation in the future. Right now one in 7.2 people is drawing that benefit or 7.2 workers for every superannuitant. When the scheme resumes the number will be one in 3.7. If we cannot afford the tax now we will not be able to afford the tax burden then. 
A decade of deferrals has left what will be nearly a $38 billion hole by 2030 and a $60 billion hole by 2050. It cuts in half—by 50 percent according to Treasury figures—the total ability at its worst of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to pay into the benefit stream required. It cuts the ability to pay by 50 percent. The truth is that superannuation was always going to be difficult. It will now be extremely difficult unless the Government takes the lead and says we have to start it earlier otherwise the problems will come home to roost for our young. 
Labour’s position is clear. We should continue to pre-fund because through pre-funding we continue to invest dollar cost averaging in markets when they are low. As they build up we will ride the benefit of that investment. Here is the acid test for the Government: it allowed a boat to be floated 2 weeks ago about using the Superannuation Fund capital for investing in social infrastructure. If the Superannuation Fund is such a good idea why does the Government not keep paying into it so it stays strong? National cannot have its cake and eat it too. 
Do members not love the pledge card? The pledge card was the signed promise from Mr Key that he guaranteed 3 years of tax cuts. That promise was made 6 weeks after Lehman Brothers folded. It was after Merrill Lynch the Prime Minister’s old firm got in trouble but he kept the charade going. National threw Parliament into urgency before Christmas to deliver a third of the benefits to the top 3 percent of income earners and to pass a law that stated that 71 percent of New Zealanders get nothing. I repeat: if people did not earn over $40000 they did not get a penny out of the incoming Government. It was all to be in the next 2 years but that suddenly melted away. I believe that in their heart of hearts the incoming National Government knew that it could not deliver those tax cuts hence the urgency to get the charade bedded in before Christmas. 
Budget 2009 lifted the veil of ignorance from the eyes of New Zealanders and most Kiwis being decent people said that the tax cuts were a bad idea at the start and good riddance to them. They realised the pledge card promise was a con but now they ask themselves how if that promise was a con they can believe anything the Government says. If its credibility looked a bit shaky after the broken tax promise and superannuation promise it was not looking too crash-hot by the middle of this week for reasons we do not need to go into today. The Government’s credibility does not look too crash-hot this week does it? 
New Zealanders are starting to lose trust in the integrity of a Government that came in promising them that nothing much they liked would change except KiwiSaver. National thought KiwiSaver was a good idea but it gutted it in half. It liked economic development but it cut the vote. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 Following that speech from Opposition member David Cunliffe who attempts to know about finance and tell the world how things should be done let us just have a look at what Labour left the New Zealand economy after 9 long years. It left us with some of the highest interest rates that we could find and what has National done? We have reduced interest rates for New Zealanders. Labour left the New Zealand public with negative growth but we will go into the next election with an economy that is growing through the toughest economic times we have seen in this generation. Labour had the commodity boom of a generation but it delivered our country negative economic growth. Labour squandered the perfect chance for New Zealand to go up the next level of the OECD even though that was its promise. We went down. Labour did not deliver for the New Zealand public or the New Zealand economy and it gave us Budget deficits into the future to pay for its election promises. 
National on the other hand will work towards a strong economy that will give us the ability to fund our social services and deliver a future for New Zealanders. That is what Bill English did in the Budget. He delivered a Budget that brought certainty and security to a public that needed it at the most uncertain time in our history. He brought in a Budget that will give New Zealanders confidence in their future. It gives them direction and lets them know they have a Government that is competent when it comes to financial matters. This is a Government that wanted to see the best for them and maintained social spending at the same time as delivering an economic future. That is a very difficult balance to get and no other country has managed to get that. We got an upgrade from Standard and Poor’s the afternoon of the Budget. No other country in the world was able to do that at that time. That shows great economic management and that we are willing to look after our people not only by delivering them consistency but also by showing them a future. That future is bright and strong. It is one that New Zealanders voted for and are happy with. The public has shown their acceptance of and support for the Budget and their support for this Government through the polls. The Labour Party needs to look at what the people are saying because they love the Budget they understand it and they support it. 
The interesting part is that the Labour Party is going around and saying that we should be spending more. Those members come into this House and say with regard to some of our initiatives that we should be spending more because in the words of Mr Cunliffe this is “an insufficient idea”. So he wants to spend more money at a time when we have not got any money. Where will he get this money from? Before members tell me where he will get this money from I have a question for them. I want to know how much more money he will spend. If he is the economic genius he purports to be he needs to put some numbers on the table. He will not do that; he is not putting any numbers down and he is not saying where he will get the numbers from anyway. He does not know. He has no idea. Labour members have no strategy. Labour’s strategy is to spend more and do more. Well Labour members do not show us what they will do and they do not show us how they will fund it. They do not know what they are doing and they would not be able to deliver anything more. 
The National Government has delivered key infrastructure for this country and a productive region like the Waikato is getting the biggest payback we have ever had from a Government and it is from the National Government. It is the building of the Waikato Expressway something that the Labour Government would not do. It had 9 long years and would not do it. We made a commitment to do it and we will deliver on it. That will be one of the biggest infrastructure spends in our region and it will deliver economic growth in the heartland of New Zealand for our export economy. It will provide the incentive for people to invest in those regions. It will link us with Auckland and take advantage of our economic reforms. That is the opportunity. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 It is with pleasure that I take a call on Vote Finance in the estimates debate. There are a number of issues that I could talk about in this particular debate: the chronic current account deficit the trade balance and overseas debt which is now at about 100 percent of GDP. But I want to focus on the relationship between climate change and New Zealand finances and the New Zealand economy. I think this is one of the most pressing issues we face. 
Today we have a climate change Minister who has tried to obscure the debate by talking about a $15 billion cost to the New Zealand economy of meeting a 40 percent responsibility target under the Kyoto Protocol based on a whole bunch of crazy assumptions. But I will put that to one side because regardless of the exact outcome of the Copenhagen meeting and regardless of the exact reduction target for which New Zealand ultimately takes responsibility one thing is for certain as a result of this ongoing debate and the international agreement that is coming our way. We will need either to reduce our domestic emissions increase our domestic greenhouse sinks or we will have to purchase credits from overseas. They are the only three options New Zealand has. All of those three options have significant impacts on the New Zealand economy and New Zealand finances. 
Those who think there is some magical way out of this that somehow New Zealand can put its head in the sand that somehow through politics we can make this whole greenhouse problem go away are kidding themselves. It will not go away. We have only three choices. We can reduce domestic emissions we can increase sinks in New Zealand or we can buy overseas credits. All three of those options will have significant impacts on the New Zealand economy. 
If our objective is for the New Zealand economy and society to prosper in the world then we need to reduce our greenhouse emissions domestically or increase our sinks domestically. That has to be the first option because every tonne of emissions we cut in New Zealand and every tonne of sinks we have in New Zealand is a tonne of carbon dioxide we do not have to purchase overseas at great cost to the New Zealand Government and/or the New Zealand economy. Every time we reduce emissions in New Zealand it is an advantage for the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand Government. For a country with a persistent trade deficit in goods and services for a country with a net international investment position that is now approaching a 100 percent negative position—100 percent of GDP—it is incredibly important that we do not add to our international obligations by having to purchase more and more carbon credits from overseas. 
There is no way we can fudge and weave and pay lip-service to this issue. There is no way we can go to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and pay lip-service without it costing us. There is a way of thinking in New Zealand which has been promoted by National and by the ACT Party in particular that somehow we can dodge and weave our way out of this. There is a reason why New Zealand farmers are going around saying: “This is all bunkum. We don’t have to do this.” and it is in part because National and ACT are telling New Zealand farmers that this thing is all bunkum. Well it is not bunkum. There is no way out of it. The only question for New Zealand now is whether we reduce emissions domestically and save ourselves some money or whether we will have to purchase emission reductions from overseas and have to pay for it. 
If we want to have a prosperous economy in the future we have no option but to go down a low-carbon route. The sooner we get our heads around that and stop prevaricating and trying to avoid it and saying we will try to have a low target or whatever and the sooner we get our heads around the fact that we have to have a low-carbon economy if we wish to be a wealthy society the sooner we will start going down that path and actually put ourselves on a path to having a prosperous economy. Currently we are hoping this thing will go away but it will not. 
A few days ago the Green Party put out a study that showed the ways in which New Zealand can have a low-carbon economy reduce domestic emissions and increase domestic sinks. Roughly speaking the way we said we could have a 40 percent target was that a quarter of it would come from overseas—we acknowledge that—a quarter of it would come from forestry a quarter of it would come from the better management of the Department of Conservation estate and a quarter of it would come from a whole bunch of other measures. If we implement those measures we will put our economy on a low-carbon direction which means having a prosperous economy. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I am reminded of some words said by John McCain the senator who ran against Mr Obama in the presidential election. He said many years ago—I think it was during Ronald Reagan’s election campaign—that elections have consequences. The summary of his words was that the winner gets to pick and he is right. Elections do indeed have consequences and the winning side gets to pick. But it is very interesting to look at what is going on around the world in respect of the global recession and at Mr Obama Mr Rudd in Australia and Mr Brown in the UK. They have a thing called a plan and a strategy. It is very interesting that each of those leaders especially Mr Obama is using the recession as a tool to motivate their populace to make some structural change and some positive reforms within their economies and those reforms are needed. Whether they are in the banking industry or the environmental field they are needed. This recession which is the worst in our lifetime serves—because it is here with us—as a tool that they can use to promote positive reforms in their economies. 
Then we come to the economic outliers one of which is this country. I have to say that the National Government is consistent in using the recession but not as a tool to motivate. National uses it as an alibi to put forward and boot around the most vulnerable. Let us look at National’s great set of achievements which the member David Bennett who is from Hamilton I think waxed eloquently about. He talked about the uplifting of our rating by Standard and Poor’s but 24 or 48 hours later he had forgotten about the word Fitch. Fitch dropped our rating but the member had selective memory about that. He forgot that the employment platform his Government inherited from Labour was around the 3.4 percent to 3.6 percent mark. It will be very interesting tomorrow to see whether the unemployment figures move past 5.3 percent 5.5 percent or 5.7 percent. We wait and we hope that they will be more positive than others suggest. 
This Government uses the recession as an alibi to make deep cuts for the most vulnerable. I talked this afternoon about special needs funding and Government members rolled their eyes. Mr Quinn said “Rubbish!” when I talked about a 12-year-old constituent in my area who has cerebral palsy and who will be on the scrap heap because of a $2.5 million cut in the Budget. Mr Quinn rolled his eyes and said “Rubbish!”. I invite him to lose his arrogance and to go and see Brittany Graham. I invite him to look that 12-year-old and Julie Baker her mum in the eye and tell them that they are rubbish. Oh no there is a bit of silence over there. There is a bit of reflection perhaps. Oh no I do not think I will see that. I will be dead before I see that member retract what he said about that family. 
Then the Government is making other cuts using the recession as an alibi. If there ever was a need for training in this country second-chance opportunities for older folk and for those on scrap heap and down the road it was a thing called adult and community education. But oh no Anne Tolley gets up and wears it as a badge of honour that in her Budget she has slashed 80 percent of the funding. She almost says it with pride with a robustness. She is proud of the fact and she belittles people like those in Oxford in my electorate—for example a man who was made redundant some years ago who did what she would term a “hobby course”. It was a DIY course. That gentleman today has a home handyman business and is surviving. He is not on the scrap heap. And by the way the taxpayer is not paying him a benefit. 
Another example is a woman in Kaiapoi who did another Tolley special “hobby course”. She did cake decorating. She is now employed in one of the biggest bakeries in New Zealand which is involved in producing bakery products that are sent all around this country and the bakery is looking to export to Australia. She has got a job out of that course.  
Another example is a woman in Rangiora who did another Anne Tolley special “hobby course” quilt making. The member over there Mr Gilmore has done more in his short lifetime than three or four people have. He has conquered Mount Everest and invented rugby. He has done everything that boy. The woman from Rangiora did a quilting course—a hobby the National members would say—and is now working full time making quilts and selling them in her own business.  
National is using the recession for an alibi to make cuts. We have the example of 2800 apprentices. When the Labour Government left office 14000 young people were in trade training. Back in 1995 the previous National Government abolished the Apprenticeship Act. Thanks to National 2800 young people are on the scrap heap midstream in their apprenticeship.  
Then we get to the jobs package. I am in favour of any resource being put in place especially for young people to try to keep them in jobs or to get them in jobs. But here is the rub: with the money that was put up 9000 young people may be lucky to get a job for 6 months out of that jobs package. If we look at the statistics information and data we see that that leaves another 49000 people between the ages of 16 and 24 who will be in exactly the same position as they are in today: down the road.  
I say to the Government that there is goodwill on this side to join with National with appropriate policies to assist the young the aged those out of work and those who need support. But I say to that side that they should not con the public. A jobs package of $152 million that will eventually help 9000 young people to get a job for 6 months—maybe if they are lucky—is trumpeted as being a huge great event and a silver bullet but nothing changes for those other 49000 people aged 16 to 24. I am after a policy I am after a solution and I am after an answer from National.  
Then we get to the great lie and the great con. Again the recession is being used as an alibi to rip the guts out of the Cullen fund. I have said in a speech before with regard to that crew over there that over the last 40 years the biggest con was Muldoon when he pulled out the rug and bribed people with their own money in the 1970s. Then we had the Bolger Government which said it would not raise the age of eligibility from 60 to 65—“no ifs no buts no maybes”—and then what did it do? It did it. Then we had Mrs Shipley in the late 1990s aided and abetted by Bill English her Treasurer who cut the pension three times did not inflation-proof it and ripped the guts out of support for pensioners. National members sit there today congratulating themselves that National has not altered the age or entitlement for superannuation—yet—but what it did was to nip round to the back door and suspend payments into the Cullen fund for 11 years.  
We had Dr Bollard saying last Tuesday that we need to encourage a culture of saving in this country in order to offset our reliance on foreign funds. Of course we will always need foreign capital but he said that we need to try to provide some balance. What is the Government’s response to that statement? National does not need superannuation. National will never need superannuation and its core constituency will never be reliant on national superannuation in the years to come will it? But the core constituency the vast majority of Kiwis themselves—a quarter of a million of them—had 10 years of certainty and knew the rules. Those people were generous and stepped up through KiwiSaver and were prepared to put up their dough and make their contribution. But now after a decade of certainty of people knowing what their retirement plan would be and what the Government would come to the party with we are having debates in National about age and with commentators. Now we have people in their late 40s and early 50s saying “Hey! What about me? What do I do?”. The Government has changed the rules. Will there be a superannuation scheme for people when they retire?  
I say to that crew over there that there is no reason to do what National has done. It has used the recession as an alibi to put the boot into future generations. In fact some could say that this is privatisation of superannuation by stealth because we know what the debate will be. The debate will be whether we tax future generations. National members will ask: “Do you want us to tax you to reinforce the fund and repay the money we did not put in? Or shall we just forget about it?”. We know what the populace will say in those circumstances.  
The Government should not be so smug after 9 months in office. People are listening to the Government and they are not particularly happy with some of the things they are now learning about it. I have seen polls going up and down; they are all over the show. But I tell the Government that it is not about Standard and Poor’s and it is not about the polls. It is about the people aged 50-plus who are worried about superannuation. It is about Brittany Graham a 12-year-old whose mother Julie Baker is worried about how the hell she will look after her daughter when the special needs funding gets ripped out from under them. It is about people actually. It is not about crowing about numbers and Standard and Poor’s; it is about people. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
: 
 I rise to take a call on Vote Finance. I am calm; I am not going to get angry like the previous speaker Clayton Cosgrove. I am not going to comb my hair during my speech but I am going to talk about the legacy that that mob over there left this country. The previous Labour Government left behind falling economic growth. We are in a recession but that gentleman over there did not hear that we are in a recession and that we have to be prudent in our finances not tax and spend. We are not going to borrow extravagant amounts of money in order to fund a superannuation fund or social programmes that do not work. 
From that party over there we were left with rising unemployment some of the highest inflation rates in the world and a promise to take us to the top 10 of the OECD countries. After 9 years where did we languish? Clayton Cosgrove is silent now. We are 22nd on the list of OECD countries. The legacy that that mob left us was 5 consecutive years of tradable sector contraction. That is right. The Labour Party does not realise that it is about both the public and private sectors leading us out of the recession. 
I am not here to talk about Labour and its $1.5 billion hole in the Accident Compensation Corporation but I will talk about the programme that this National Government—this Government of action—is proposing and putting in place. After 9 months we are quite proud of the fact that we can boost health spending by $3 billion over the next 4 years. We are focusing on education which is the critical plank to productivity in the future and on upskilling people. 
Paul Quinn 
: They can’t take it. 
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA 
: No they cannot; that is right. What makes me sad is that that lot who profess to speak for working people have totally neglected working people. They have turned their backs on them as Mr Cosgrove has turned his back on me. That shows what little respect he has for other members of the House. 
What is National focusing on? We are focusing on infrastructure spending that will increase the likelihood of productivity in this country. We have transport programmes and roading programmes that will enable our businesses to operate in more effective ways. We also released over the weekend a package aimed at reducing youth unemployment because we care about those youths who are underprivileged and underskilled and we want to fund them to get into jobs. It is about jobs. 
I am proud of the fact that this Government has put an investment into the Tamaki Transformation Programme. We did not talk about it for 6 years writing business cases and holding false consultations with the community. The community just said: “Give us some action!”. So what did we do? Three weeks ago the Prime Minister the Minister of Housing the Minister of Maori Affairs and myself were at Ruapotaka Marae saying to the people of Tamaki: “We support you. We believe in you. We will give you jobs we will give you opportunities and we will give you the standard of housing you deserve as New Zealanders.” 
It is not about hot air and promising things that Labour did not deliver on over its 9 years. It is about the fact that we made promises and undertakings around entitlements. We made promises and undertakings around benefits. And we have kept our promises. We are happy to keep our promises because we are a Government of integrity and honesty. We will not set up false inquiries bringing in QCs in order to give bogus decisions. We will not do that. We are a Government that keeps its integrity and its honesty in what we do every day. 
It is about demanding much from our public services. It is about saying that we cannot increase prices and decrease return on investment and expect to get away with it. We will hold the Public Service to account. We will demand of the Public Service the same rigours as would be demanded in the private sector. We are a Government that cares. We are a Government that listens. We are a Government that is out in the community hearing what the people of New Zealand have to say. We are not about bagging other people. We are not about accusing other parties of making false promises. We are about keeping our own promises. Thank you Mr Chairperson. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I was very pleased to hear Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga say that we are a Government that listens. Well I say that we should listen to the 91 percent of people who tell the pollsters that they are National supporters that they will be voting in the referendum and that they will be voting “No”. I say that if the National Government does not listen to those people then it does not listen at its peril. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I do not think the member needs to tell me. When we began this debate I prefaced it quite clearly with what the rules of the debate would be—that the debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. I think the member has strayed well beyond that. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: Thank you Mr Chair. I actually intend to continue. It was interesting that Mr Cosgrove should have a point of order— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The member cannot refer to a point of order once I have ruled on it. We just need to keep these things tidy. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I was going to congratulate Mr Cosgrove and the Labour Party because earlier this afternoon we heard from David Shearer. He said that the Labour Party was a bold party and that it was a party of reform. He said that most major reforms had taken place under a Labour Government. I do not totally agree with that but I certainly support what the Labour Government did in reforms from 1984 to 1990. In particular I support the reform of introducing KiwiSaver. 
I will address my comments on this discussion to pages 213 and 214 of the Estimates. Those pages relate to savings and the contribution to Government superannuation or the Cullen fund as Mr Cosgrove called it. The Finance and Expenditure Committee of which I am a member questioned Mr English at length on the issue of savings and I found it very interesting that Mr English said the Government had made a commitment to reduce its contribution to KiwiSaver from 4c in the dollar to 2c in the dollar. The reason Mr English gave for reducing that contribution was that the Government should not have been borrowing large sums to fund New Zealanders’ savings. The Government should not have been borrowing large sums of money to fund New Zealanders’ savings. Well I say there is a far more important reason to reduce that subsidy because that subsidy is a subsidy from the have-nots to the haves. It is a subsidy by way of tax from people who cannot afford to save but who are still required to pay taxes. Those people cannot afford to contribute what was 4 percent and is now 2 percent to KiwiSaver. Previously we had a massive subsidy to save from those who could not afford to save. But I give full credit to the Labour Government for introducing KiwiSaver; it has laid the foundation. But the subsidies were far too generous. They have been reduced. But the foundation has been laid of over a million people who have joined that scheme. 
I also find it interesting that Mr English in his evidence to the select committee went on to say that New Zealanders should increase their savings by reducing consumption. They should increase their savings by reducing consumption. I say to Mr English that a very simple way to increase savings in this country is to look at the experience overseas. We have to look no further than our near neighbour Australia which has a compulsory savings scheme that stands at 9c in the dollar for every dollar earned that is paid into a savings scheme. The scheme is compulsory. It was interesting to hear from Mr Ralph Norris when he was speaking at a function on Monday night. He told me that he was previously opposed to compulsory savings. Having been the chief executive of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for the last 4 years he talked about flexibility. He has seen so many people retire from the Commonwealth Bank in the last 4 years and he talked about the flexibility with which they left. So I say to Mr English and the National Government that they can reduce that subsidy further. They can reduce it from 2c to zero cents. They can cut it out. The Government can cut out the subsidy from taxpayers who cannot afford to save who are subsidising taxpayers who can afford to save. In my view we should cut that subsidy to zero and we should make KiwiSaver compulsory. 
That is an issue that I intend to talk about into the short medium and possibly long-term future. I see Mr David Carter looking at me but I need to convince him and his Cabinet colleagues that we need to go down the route that was taken in Australia. We can also look at Singapore which has had compulsory savings since 1952. Those savings laid the foundation for the redevelopment of Singapore following the Second World War. 
Mr Cosgrove talked about cuts in the contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund dubbed the Cullen fund. Some members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee have said to National members that now is the wrong time to cut those contributions—now is the wrong time; the market is at an all-time low. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I am glad of the opportunity to make some comments on what should be a very important debate. It would have been a golden opportunity I think for the Committee to hear some sensible criticism some constructive ideas from the Labour Opposition but on this occasion we did not. I can offer some advice to Mr Cosgrove and to Mr Cunliffe: when members have very little to say it is silly to take a second consecutive 5-minute call and continue the shrill. 
I congratulate our members—Amy Adams David Bennett and Sam Lotu-Iiga—on brilliant contributions to the debate. I also pick up on the contribution from Dr Russel Norman. He correctly pointed out that one of the biggest challenges we have to face in the near future is around climate change. He correctly analysed the three things the Government must consider: ways to reduce our emissions ways to increase the sinks in New Zealand—in other words the planting of trees—and our preparedness as a Government to buy credits from overseas. Dr Russel Norman is quite right. 
But I take exception to his comment suggesting that ACT and National MPs are going around the agricultural sector saying that climate change is “bunkum”. The ACT Party can speak for itself but under no circumstances is any National member of Parliament I know of going around the country telling farmers that they have nothing to worry about with climate change. That is simply not fact I say to Mr Norman. I probably have more contact with farmers than any other member in the National caucus simply because I am the Minister of Agriculture and I can tell members that farmers are on board and prepared to face the challenges. They know that the climate is worsening. They know that they face challenges. What they are looking for is solutions. At this stage we can cut emissions in agriculture in one way and in one way only I say to Dr Norman and that is to cut the number of stock we run in New Zealand. I do not advocate that which is why this Budget seriously addressed the amount of money we are putting into research. We are putting money into this area through the Budget. Funding the Primary Growth Partnership was one of the most important things we faced in the Budget. We need time to find solutions. They are not available now but in no circumstances can that member argue that the National Government does not accept climate change as being one of the most important challenges we face. 
We had Mr Cosgrove saying that National was using the recession as an alibi. I say to Mr Cosgrove that he needs to wake up smell the roses and realise where we are. Whether or not the member wants to recognise it we are facing the most incredibly challenging economic conditions the world has faced for 80 years; I tell Mr Cosgrove that there is no way—no way—that New Zealand is immune from that. In fact the situation for New Zealand is worse in that after a decade of mismanagement and lost opportunities by the previous Labour Government we were in a recession even before the rest of the world had caught up. We do face challenges and this Budget was a very balanced Budget in order to accept those challenges and to face them. So for Mr Cosgrove to come into the Chamber and suggest that the current Government thinks that the recession is an alibi shows how out of touch the Labour caucus is. He suggests that we are being smug on this side of the Chamber but I suggest that he will remain in Opposition for many many decades yet if he remains as arrogant as he was in his contribution tonight. 
We must deal with reality. What Dr Michael Cullen presented to the nation in the pre-election fiscal update was the revelation that we faced 10 years of deficit. That was the legacy of the management of the economy by Dr Cullen and the Labour caucus. So it was important that we balanced this Budget carefully and that is why it was balanced. It still increased borrowing but it did it with care to make sure that we were not downgraded by Standard and Poor’s because that would have affected every business in New Zealand. It would have affected every homeowner with a mortgage. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: That’s who it was for—not the people of New Zealand. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Steve Chadwick may not care about that but I as a member of the National caucus care about it deeply. There are a large number of measures. Those members opposite who are interjecting are also critical of superannuation. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Finance be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Vote Finance agreed to. 
Vote Economic Development agreed to.  
Vote Energy agreed to.  
Vote Commerce agreed to.  
Vote Justice 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is great to talk about the mighty achievements and the great story that we have to tell in Vote Justice and to say what a great Minister of Justice we have in Simon Power who has been working indefatigably hard—I think that is a word I can use—in this area. Over a period of months now he has been delivering and he will continue to deliver in a number of ways. As a junior member I am very proud to be part of this Government because of the way it is delivering on justice. It is very clear to me that this is an area where the people of New Zealand wanted to see a change an area they believed in and an area where they did not think they were getting results from the previous Labour Government. Ordinary Kiwis felt very strongly that safety on the streets needed to be improved and that violent crime needed to be dealt with and they felt that Labour was not providing the answers. 
The money involved in Vote Justice is serious. The total appropriation was $400.85 million. That is more money than even Chris Carter would know how to spend. It is a lot of money. It is a serious amount of money. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Be very careful. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Oh I am being careful I say to Mr Cosgrove because this is a serious matter that requires care. I am proud of what has happened and I am proud of what is coming. 
In talking about what we have done I think a lot has already been achieved. In the first 100 days a huge amount was achieved. Sentencing for offences involving children was beefed up and that is important. In many communities around this country unfortunately child abuse is still with us. We have taken action on that issue quickly. We have reversed the 2007 changes to the bail laws where Labour—and those members do not like to hear this—had liberalised the laws making it easier for those accused of crimes to get out on bail. We have tipped the balance back in favour of public safety in borderline cases and that is significant. We have introduced police-issued safety orders to protect victims of domestic violence by removing those people who pose an immediate threat to them. That is a significant change and it will have a good effect on the streets. We have introduced the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill to clamp down and to get tougher on gangs. Again that is something that the public very much wanted to see happen. They asked for an effective response during the election campaign and we have been delivering on that. We have introduced the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill which limits parole for the worst repeat offenders. I ask Grant Robertson how good that is; I think it is very good. We have made wider use of DNA sampling in a bill that will come back to the House shortly. We recognise the power of DNA and the need to use it more efficiently and effectively and in a broader way than used by the previous Labour administration including Clayton Cosgrove when he was in Government. 
What else will we do? We have already held a thoughtful thought-provoking conference on the drivers of crime. One thing that came out of that conference quite clearly was that we need to take a new approach to reducing crime and victimisation. Through the work of Minister Simon Power and Dr Pita Sharples we have already seen some very good work being done on that. There was a remarkable degree of unity at that conference and it has been very good to see things coming out of it. In the coming months the Government will consider a number of the priorities coming out of that conference and that is exciting to see. 
The sale and supply of liquor is another key front that the Ministry of Justice will need to be working on and that will be good to see. I think that members on all sides of the Chamber would agree that that is a significant issue. There has been abuse for a long period in the area of the sale and supply of liquor and solutions are needed. The Law Commission has produced a significant work on it and change is coming. 
Legal aid reform is coming. Again that is significant because it is not just about the actors; it is also about victims of crime. 
PAUL QUINN (National) 
:  
Mr Chair— 
Chris Hipkins 
: The real heavy-hitters are up tonight. 
PAUL QUINN 
: Yes it is a heavy-hitter because this is a very heavy subject. I say to Mr Hipkins in case he is unaware that it is a very important subject that the community and society of New Zealand takes very seriously in terms of equal justice for all. It is an area in which the previous administration failed miserably. In terms of our election promises that is one of the very key reasons why the people voted for this Government. 
We set out a number of targets in terms of our justice policy and we have achieved all of them. Let me remind members on the other side of the Chamber what some of those targets were. We said we would remove the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole and that was achieved. We said we would introduce legislation to clamp down on criminal gangs—achieved. We said we would introduce legislation to toughen the bail laws to make it harder for criminals awaiting trial to get bail—achieved. All of those things have been achieved. My friend and colleague Simon Bridges covered other things. Our policies were all laid out before the community and the electorate prior to the election. We said that we would achieve those things and that is exactly what we have done. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Check your  
Hansard 
. 
PAUL QUINN 
: We have kept our promises I say to Mr Cosgrove as we will continue to do throughout our term of office. Whether those promises concern superannuation or anything else we will keep them. We will be able to stand at the next election and say that with our hand on our hearts and those members will have nowhere to go. 
A number of other exciting Budget announcements are contained in these estimates. Increasing police numbers was a magnificent policy that the people really responded to. There are 600 new police officers on the streets. There are 300 extra police in Manukau City who are bringing order to the streets. They are working amongst the community. The previous administration failed in that area. In fact the previous Minister of Justice and Minister of Police Annette King had no idea about the answer to crime. We laid out our platform and as promised we are delivering with the estimates that are now before us. 
Let us talk about providing new instruments to the police to the law and enforcement sector to enable them to carry out their jobs better than they were able to do under the previous administration. I refer to the use of Tasers. We are addressing a very serious issue. We are instituting more security at the courts. These are very important issues. We need to provide security and confidence to judges to other court staff and to witnesses who go to court. We have a rolling programme going out in terms of enhancing the security of the courts. These are all practical easy-to-implement measures that the previous administration had the opportunity to undertake over 9 years. What did it do? It did nothing. Crime continued to rise waiting lists at the courts continued to lengthen justice was stretched out and people did not know what they were doing. Justice delayed is justice not done and this Government is attempting to do something about it. 
Another area we are boosting is the probation service with $153 million to provide better probation services and psychological services to the community. We are increasing prison capacity under the magnificent leadership of the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins. She is doing a magnificent job. The law and order spokesman on the other side of the Chamber Clayton Cosgrove was flummoxed during question time today. He had nowhere to go because of the outstanding leadership of the Minister of Corrections. It is all because our policies are reducing the number of prison escapes. He had no answer for members on the other side because of the leadership being shown by this Government. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I congratulate the previous speaker Paul Quinn who personified the way that debates on justice must be carried out—with dignity and coherence and in a very planned and logical manner. It is very important that some forethought is given to justice and that there is some understanding of the causes of crime and the way to approach those causes. It has been very good to have been part of a National Government with a Minister of Justice who has taken a cautious and programmed approach towards bringing legislation before the House the manner in which it is debated and the procedures that address it. 
When the National Government was first elected on 8 November we set about a 100-day plan. We got a lot of flak from members on the other side in respect of that 100-day plan. The reason that it was so unpopular with those members was that it set about in a cautious and determined way to achieve the things that we had campaigned on and that we had received a lot of support from the public for. They were not headbanging knee-jerk reactions. They took a considered approach and we aimed at achieving various things including the justice sector. They were outlined very well by the previous speaker Mr Quinn. 
The Minister of Justice talked about four stages to the justice legislative programme. That was the first stage The second stage was to convene a Drivers of Crime seminar with the Hon Pita Sharples the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Associate Minister of Corrections. A number of us in the House were there and a number of members of the public working within the sector were also there. What a wide-ranging debate it was. The report on that seminar is due out any day. It looked at what those drivers of crime are how we could address them in a logical and determined way—the way we should address them in a civilised society—and picked them off one by one. 
The next programme stage 3 was speeding up the court process. We heard the Minister of Justice announce and set about introducing processes that will speed up the delays. As my friend Paul Quinn said just a few moments ago justice delayed is justice denied. 
Hon Member 
: That is not what he said. 
CHESTER BORROWS 
: There have been a number of hiccups. Well he said “justice not done” but I picked up exactly where he was heading. 
We are taking out some of those little hiccups within the system that delay those processes and are seeking to penalise those people who for their own gain would tend to slow them down in order to milk the legal aid system. I think the point has to be made that lawyers have to eat. I am very disappointed when I hear people say that the only people making money out of this are the lawyers. Well lawyers have to eat. I think that is a fair enough comment to make. 
The fourth stage will be to look at some of the defences we have—for instance provocation. We have had some discussion about that in the last week or so and we will be addressing it shortly as well. 
The work in the justice area is wide and has taken some creative initiatives over the last little while. Some of them were implemented by the previous Government. They require evaluation. It is particularly difficult to get hold of those evaluations while the funding stream is running if those evaluations that are already set down are not being run in a parallel way. Across the portfolios we have found that a lack of forethought and planning on the part of the last Government has seen that the evaluation of some of the pilot schemes—for instance the one doing very well in my electorate on early childhood low-decile education—did not start until after the funding had run out for the pilot. It is very difficult to maintain that pilot especially in tough times because the evaluation has not been running in a parallel way. We are concerned about the way that it has been set up. That is what we have found in opening up the cookie jar that is justice delivery within this country. 
But I can say that the justice initiatives taken by the Hon Simon Power show a lot of forethought and a lot of understanding of the justice sector and it is a pleasure to be working alongside him in this area. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote Justice be agreed to.  
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Vote Justice agreed to. 
Vote State Owned Enterprises 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 This is a very interesting section of the estimates. Before I talk about the Government’s proposals for State-owned enterprises I want to look at page 507 of the Reports of Select Committees on the 2009/10 Estimates. 
It is interesting to note that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises Simon Power embarked on his new career—as we will recall—by hauling in all the chairs and possibly chief executives of all the State-owned enterprises. He jumped up and down and stamped his little feet saying that the Government wanted more money. At the same time as Simon Power—I am sure he will take a call tonight diligent Minister that he is—was calling for more money and higher dividend performance from State-owned enterprises especially the energy State-owned enterprises Meridian Energy had lifted its prices over a short period of time by about 16 percent. 
The Minister of Energy and Resources the Hon Gerry Brownlee—according to the Christchurch  
Press 
 the third most powerful man in New Zealand—was described by his best mate Dave Henderson as absolutely “useless”. It is very interesting that at the same time as Mr Power was demanding more dividends especially from energy State-owned enterprises the Minister of Energy and Resources was attempting to jawbone down prices and stamping his larger feet saying that it was terrible that consumers had to put up with high energy prices. He cited Meridian Energy. In fact I think—he will correct me if I am incorrect and in that case I will concede—that he changed his personal arrangements in respect of his own power company from Meridian Energy to Mercury Energy. [ 
Interruption 
] No that is not correct; well I stand corrected. But as he tried to jawbone down prices and said that it was outrageous and that the energy State-owned enterprises especially Meridian Energy Ltd should consider the recession we were in his counterpart was hauling in chairpeople from State-owned enterprises and demanding more dough. 
It is interesting because I remember before the election Gerry Brownlee used to get up and give a stock speech. Every time the previous Labour Government announced an initiative or a review he would say: “Oh another review.” “Oh another task force.” or “Oh another study.” There is a very interesting passage on page 507 of the estimates reports about what the Minister for State-Owned Enterprises was asked: “We asked the Minister whether in view of the concerns about electricity pricing he had considered using his power as the Minister for State-Owned Enterprises to signal to boards that he shared these concerns. The Minister responded that the Government had made some broad statements in that area and he did not think any further step would be appropriate.” That is interesting. He had said that it would be nice if they pulled their heads in and helped the old consumer out but that is about all they would do. Then it is interesting: “The Minister told us that the Minister of Energy”—the Hon Gerry Brownlee—“has signalled a review of the electricity market.” This was from the man who said that he would take action in this area and look after the consumer. 
It is interesting to note that the task force that the Minister set up was due to report last week. It did not quite know what to report on so we have no report today. I am told that it received no direction. It is very interesting is it not? I say to the Minister of Energy and Resources that he should get his story straight and that the Cabinet Ministers should meet. I invite him to talk to Simon Power and get the plan for energy State-owned enterprises right. On the one hand he said to pull the prices down and then on the other hand Simon Power said that the Crown wants more money. I say to Simon Power that if he is really serious—as Gerry Brownlee appears to be at least in print—about giving consumers a fair go in the electricity sector through the State-owned enterprise dividend process he could do one very simple thing. He could say quite clearly to the energy State-owned enterprise that we do not want any more done. We will take the status quo in dividend and we do not require the State-owned enterprises to give us a higher dividend this year. He could inject money immediately into the pockets of consumers. If Simon Power as he has done demanded more of a dividend— 
Sandra Goudie 
: This from a man who couldn’t manage a piggy bank! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Sandra Goudie might understand what a business does. A business will respond like this if the shareholder demands a higher dividend. It will either cut costs through staff or it will raise prices to increase revenue thereby increasing dividends. So it would be good if the Minister of Energy and Resources could take a call and have a chat with the Minister for State Owned Enterprises beforehand so they can get their stories straight. 
Now we get to the other matter that is in the minds of the public which is that of privatisation. It is very interesting that the National Party’s stated position prior to the election was that it would not flog anything off until after the next election. That position started to wobble a bit because Mark Weldon came out and effectively said that State-owned enterprises should think like a business and act as if they face part-privatisation in 2 to 5 years. Then we had the appointment of Don Brash to the productivity task force. Don Brash has believed in selling off State-owned enterprises his entire career but at least he is up front about it. Then we had the speech from the Secretary to the Treasury who signalled a similar thing. Well it is interesting because there is another inherent contradiction. On the one hand the Government said that it wants to preserve jobs. That is an admirable and laudable aim. On the other hand of course it is demanding a greater dividend stream from a State-owned enterprise which will force two actions as it did at Meridian Energy: it upped the price and now appears to be restructuring to shed over 100 staff in Christchurch alone. 
A business has to cut cost or raise price in order to deliver back a greater dividend stream to the shareholder in this case the Crown. We see that State-owned enterprises are indeed cutting jobs. Ninety jobs are to be cut from Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ); 52 jobs from Quotable Value. There are nearly 400 redundancies at New Zealand Post and at Meridian Energy there are more on the way. It has been called the Meridian Energy strategic review of its core operations which is double Dutch for shedding staff and shedding cost. This was all because it had been given the message that the Government wants more dough. Then other Ministers like Paula Bennett get up wring their hands and say that they actually want to preserve and save jobs. Well one cannot speak out of both sides of one’s mouth. 
It might be appropriate for the Minister of Energy and Resources the Minister for State Owned Enterprises and the Minister for Social Development and Employment to get together in a very large corner of the building and have a wee chat. We know of course what the agenda is: if these State-owned enterprises are raising prices and driving consumers to the brink of pain then the argument will be put up sooner or later asking what the difference is. It is a bit like private prisons. The Government could not get it right and will not instruct the department to do what it wants on outcomes so it asks why it does not flog them off to the private sector. That would have to be better! That is the sort of simplistic argument that is put up. 
I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Gerry Brownlee that the Government plays a very dangerous game. He would be better as commentators and editorial writers have said throughout the country to front up and be honest about what the Government will do. The signals are all there; they were in Mr Whitehead’s speech and in Mr Weldon’s comments. We know Mr Weldon is now the contemporary version of the acolytes of the Business Roundtable. He is the kinder gentler face. He has the ear of the Prime Minister he ran the Job Summit—the talkfest—and he is now waxing eloquent about his view on what State-owned enterprises should do. He says to bang them on the stock exchange—the NZX. Perhaps that is the agenda. I say to Mr Brownlee in the chair that there is a mass of contradictions between his position as Minister of Energy and Resources Simon Power’s position as Minister for State Owned Enterprises and Paula Bennett’s position in respect of saving jobs. It would be nice if they could reconcile those contradictions. It would be nice if Mr Brownlee could get up and utterly rule out the sale of State-owned enterprises but I suspect he will not. 
If the Government wants a State-owned enterprise such as Meridian Energy to be sold in year 1—if it wins the next election—it has to ready that State-owned enterprise now. It cannot go to an election announce that the enterprise is sold and then start readying it. It takes about 1 year or 18 months to ready a State-owned enterprise for sale so the Government has to start now and that is what it is doing. The way it readies a State-owned enterprise for sale is to try to ramp up the dividend stream cut a lot of the costs out and call the 100 people who are being gutted from Meridian Energy “fat”. That is something that—no I will not go there. That is how the Government could restructure a State-owned enterprise under a sort of operational strategic plan. The enterprise would be readied for sale. If the unthinkable happens and Mr Brownlee gets on to the Treasury benches next time round we can imagine the scuttling of announcements of which State-owned enterprises will go on the block. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Well Ms Goudie might yawn and make other anatomical noises but as for the 100 people who are being bucketed out of Meridian Energy the 400 people who got bucketed out of New Zealand Post and the 90 who have been bucketed out of TVNZ I do not think they would respond well to Ms Goudie’s noises and aberrations. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I think I should make a few responses to the comments made by Clayton Cosgrove as we discuss Vote State Owned Enterprises. Mr Cosgrove’s frustration was evident in his speech. I guess it was his frustration that caused him to be so confused. 
Very few people in this country who know anything about business would automatically confuse the price paid for a product with the overall performance of the business. Yes it is an important factor but no one should assume that simply because the price is high the performance is as optimal as it could be. That is the very point that the Government has been making to the State-owned enterprises: make sure performance is at its optimal level before the price goes up for consumers. I ask what is wrong with that. 
Do members know what the amazing thing is? Since the Government has embarked on this course of action and since for example we have put in place the review of the electricity sector there has not been a price rise that was not planned under the previous Labour Government. That is the hard cold fact of it. That is what the board minutes will show. The Labour Government thought a price rise meant that the State-owned enterprises were doing well. So for 9 long years of suffering by consumers the retail price of electricity went up by 86 percent and Steve Chadwick Clayton Cosgrove Winnie Laban Ruth Dyson and all the rest of them were absolutely chuffed because they thought that meant the State-owned enterprises were performing well. Well a price rise does not mean that. The attitude of those members shows a terrible blindness on their part. 
I will also speak about Mr Cosgrove’s fixation with the idea that our demanding that the State-owned enterprises perform well for the people who own them means that they are being prepared to be sold off. I can only assume that he is going on the experience of a former Labour Government that managed to sell off 21 Crown-owned companies in one afternoon which was an extraordinary effort on that Government’s part. For him to come into the Chamber today and start talking about job losses in the State-owned enterprise sector is utterly laughable when measured against that sort of record. 
National has made it very clear that no State assets no State-owned enterprises are for sale until the people of New Zealand say it is OK—if they are ever asked. That is the hard part for Labour members because asking New Zealanders what they want asking New Zealanders what they think and asking New Zealanders how they feel about things is not the way they operate. Their 9 years in Government were 9 years of saying “You must do this.”—not you Mr Chairperson Barker; well they probably did tell you what to do; in fact there is no doubt about it. They told New Zealanders what they had to do how they should do it and how they should feel about it. That is why they got slung out of Government last November. That is why Labour is so down in the dumps in the polls at the present time and the speech tonight from Mr Cosgrove typifies the problem that Labour has. All that Labour members are doing is going from one end of the country to the other pouring out their paranoia. They are driven by a huge frustration: they were so good according to them but so very bad according to the voters. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Hundreds are turning up to those meetings. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Ha! One does not normally recognise an interjection in a debate like this but the Labour junior whip Steve Chadwick said that hundreds of people turn up to Labour Party meetings to hear Labour speakers. Well I know of a meeting that was held in that member’s electorate where the Hon Phil Goff was due to speak. Great advertisements were put in the paper billboards were erected all over the town and radio advertisements were aired to say “Phil Goff is coming.” Guess what? Phil Goff turned up and Steve Chadwick bought a ticket. One ticket! There we have it: Labour members talk about the performance and value of the State-owned enterprises and Steve Chadwick tells us that she does not know how many noughts should go after a number when measuring crowds. Rather than one she tells us there were 100. That is utter rubbish. 
Let us get back to the purpose of this debate which is to ask how the State-owned enterprises are performing. There are 27 State-owned enterprises. They have a big task to play in lifting performance and productivity in the New Zealand economy and we have asked them to do that. There is nothing unusual about that. Rather than telling them what they have to do and how they have to operate rather than controlling them by putting all one’s manky mates on the board and rather than leaving them in a position where they do not know whether they are coming or going— or as Clayton Cosgrove would say not knowing whether they were “Willy” or “Nilly”—this Government has decided to work with those boards in very very difficult economic times. I predict that the results will be very very positive for the taxpayer’s income base. 
I will highlight one State-owned enterprise that I think is doing a really good job in the energy sector. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: One of how many? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The member over there after 9 years in Parliament after promoting herself as an expert on State-owned enterprises and after chipping into the debate all night asks how many of the 27 State-owned enterprises are energy companies. Well I suggest to Ms Chadwick that she look at the Estimates book in front of her and counts them for herself. Mind you when she has confused one and 100 I doubt whether she will come to the answer very easily. 
The company is Mighty River Power which is worth thinking about. It is a company that without any direction from the Government and without getting excited about things has decided to invest heavily in the renewable energy technology of geothermal production. One of the good things about that is that in the 1950s this country was recognised internationally as being the world’s leader in geothermal electricity production. Mighty River Power is putting us back into that space day by day. I think that is extremely good for a country like New Zealand because the flow of technology from it is extraordinary. We should be congratulating that company on that rather than the Opposition when Ministers highlight the success of a company like that saying that Ministers are talking the company up so that they can get a bigger price when they hock it off. Those Opposition members should say congratulations to all the people in those companies which are doing a great job. 
Steve Chadwick 
: Oh we’ll see. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is what one gets from Labour members. They have an abhorrence of the idea that anyone should be thanked for working. That is why for 9 years they concentrated on making ordinary New Zealanders such extraordinary beneficiaries of the State. Well this Government is not taking incomes away from people but by gosh we are going to make sure that the economy grows even in these difficult times in a way that gives New Zealanders an opportunity to earn a living in the natural way that New Zealanders like to do with a high degree of pride. 
As this debate progresses tonight we will hear more and more Labour speakers running the same theme—privatisation etc. They know that it is utter rubbish. They know that they are fearful of their own record in this area. I will say it again: they sold off 21 Crown companies in one afternoon. They cut a quiet swathe through the balance sheet of the Government under the guise of Labour doing the right thing for the ordinary people of New Zealand. 
I will make one other comment. I have noted tonight that as we have gone through these estimates party votes are being called on each one of them. The extraordinary thing about that is a party vote takes up time; it soaks it up. This debate is time-weighted so that tells me that the Labour Party does not have enough speakers to fill up the time it has been allocated in this debate. That is utterly tragic. This is a Committee stage debate and Labour is failing miserably. 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That Vote State Owned Enterprises be agreed to. 
Ayes 68 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 4; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Vote State Owned Enterprises agreed to. 
Vote Health 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 The National Party’s election slogan of “Better Sooner More Convenient” health care is turning into a Tui billboard and a lot of people are looking at Tony Ryall’s and National’s election promises and are saying “Yeah right!”. He said that resources would be moved to the front line of health. Time and time again that has been shown to be completely untrue. All over the country there are now cuts to front-line health services and front-line health staff. 
In Otago as we heard in the House today there are cuts to the number of staff of community health services for the rural elderly. Those people ensure that when elderly people who live on their own out in the country—maybe in Clutha or maybe just outside of Dunedin—are discharged from hospital all the support is set up before they leave hospital. They make sure that those elderly people are discharged to a safe environment but they are going to lose their jobs. When the Minister of Health was asked today how that would benefit him he did his old washing of his hands trick—he can twitter and wash at the same time; he is a real multitasker—and said that it was nothing to do with the Minister of Health. He said that he was there to make only good positive announcements and it was all the fault of that bad district health board. The district health boards make the bad announcements about health cuts while the Minister washes his hands of all responsibilities and just gets on with announcing yet another new positive initiative in health. 
The Whanganui District Health Board has announced that it is going to deliver the Minister’s “Better Sooner More Convenient” health services by closing hospital wards on the weekends. I am sure Chester Borrows is just delighted at that news! Michael Laws will be celebrating up and down the main street of Wanganui— 
Hon Member 
: Without a patch. 
Hon RUTH DYSON 
: —without a patch—and that must be great news for the people of Wanganui. In order to provide “Better Sooner More Convenient” health services in their town their hospital will close wards on weekends. The Taranaki District Health Board has announced cuts in future mental health services and cuts in the provision of health services for Maori. I have not yet heard Maori Party members raising concerns about that but given their representation in Parliament and their close proximity to the National Party I look forward to one of them taking a call tonight. 
This is not about moving resources to the front line or having better support for health staff; this is just about cuts to front-line services and front-line staff. When I asked the Minister of Health whether he no longer thought that doctors and nurses were front-line staff and whether he did not think that home support workers community services for the elderly X-rays mental health services and emergency departments were front-line services the Minister said “What an odd question.” But X-rays are being cut by 10 percent at Timaru Hospital. That fact was denied by the Minister this afternoon proving yet again how poorly he is keeping on top of his portfolio. Hospital wards are being closed on weekends mental health services are being cut and the emergency department at Timaru Hospital has decided to see 5000 fewer patients. I asked that question because I want it to be on the public record that the commitment given by Mr Ryall and the National Party prior to the election—that there would be no cuts in front-line health staff or in front-line health services—is a lie. It has been demonstrated to be a lie by the cuts that have been signed off by the Minister himself. At Timaru Hospital there will be 5000 fewer patients at the accident and emergency department 200 fewer operations every year and a 10 percent cut in the number of X-rays. The Minister of Health wrote to that district health board and said he was strongly supportive of those plans to cut front-line health services and staff. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important estimates debate. The John Key - led National Government can be absolutely justifiably proud of these estimates in the way that this Government has regarded health as a priority and cemented in funding of $3 billion over the next 4 years. That is an absolutely clear example of how the National Government has regarded health as a priority and stuck to its election commitments. 
We have just heard a rant from the Hon Ruth Dyson. There is something I will never forget prior to my coming into this Parliament and that is the spectre of none other than a former health Minister the Hon Annette King saying that it was criminal to have a waiting list of 89000 people. That was before the dismal legacy of 9 years of the previous Labour Government. She said that a waiting list of 89000 was criminal yet waiting lists almost doubled under Labour. The lists almost doubled and when they got as large as that Labour scurrilously culled them by devious methods thinking that it could fool the people of New Zealand. However that certainly did not happen. 
The legacy of the Labour Government in health is even worse because we all know that it spent and it squandered. It spent more and it squandered more and it built up a bureaucracy that enmeshed it in an ever-increasing tangle of inefficiency. The work that has been done on health productivity clearly showed that under Labour there was minimal or no growth in productivity. Labour’s legacy is dismal and it is inappropriate for the Hon Ruth Dyson to suggest that the National Government has not committed itself to efficiency in the area of health and to prioritising health services to ordinary New Zealanders as being absolutely important. 
There is a tremendous amount of good news when it comes to the health sector and I want to speak for a moment or two about some of the areas that have not been talked about so often that were announced in these estimates. First of all I refer to the maternity area which is an area that in many respects was neglected under the previous Labour Government. There is $40 million extra in resources for increased birth rates and $38.5 million for longer stays in birthing facilities. For the last 10 years women up and down the country have said to me that they were being forced out of hospital when they were not ready. There has been little choice for women who desperately want to stay in hospital or at least to have the choice to stay in so the National Government has committed to an extra $38.5 million in that area. 
Then in terms of support services for parents there is $14 million for a 24/7 PlunketLine telephone advice service and for other advisory and information services to support the Well Child Framework. Who was it who stopped PlunketLine? It was none other than the previous Labour Government. It is an iconic service that New Zealanders trust and none other than the previous Government cut its funding. So it is great that the new National Government has restored funding for PlunketLine. 
There is also funding of $9.9 million for an extra visit to the general practitioner or lead maternity carer in each trimester for mothers or babies at risk. This is a classic example of putting in money where it is desperately needed to ensure that early intervention takes place. If ever there was a basic law in obstetrics it is to ensure that early intervention is secured. 
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
: 
 This year 54c in every dollar of personal tax goes towards health care. The growth is scary. Two years ago only 41c in every dollar of personal tax was required to pay for health care. In other words in 2 years the figure has increased by 13c in the dollar of what we pay in personal tax. 
Saying that the figure is 54c in every dollar of personal tax can hide what it really means. Let me explain. Someone who earns the minimum wage pays about $2500 every year for health care. Someone who earns the average wage pays about $6000 every year for health care. People say that health care in this country is free. It is not free. To me it seems that health care has never been more expensive. Health care is not free; it costs each of us. When health care costs a person on the average wage $6000 every year one would hope that it would at least deliver. Yet it does not deliver and I want to know what the Minister intends to do about it. 
Despite the enormous cost of health care we ration it. Sick people are placed on a waiting list. While they are on the waiting list their health gets worse and in some cases they even die. The suffering that takes place while people are on waiting lists is rationalised away especially under a Labour Government and by the Greens in particular as if the goal of equality justifies denying health care to people who are in desperate need of it. 
The most pernicious effect of socialised medicine in this country is the creation of a group of second-class citizens. It does that firstly by having a bizarre mixture of subsidies; some things are fully subsidised and others are not subsidised at all. Secondly it allows pressure to be applied to the system in order to get treatments performed. For example if people can appear on television—on a programme like  
Holmes— 
no doubt they will get their treatment. But if people are not in a group that can bring special pressure to bear then they will suffer on the waiting list. The third way that we create second-class citizens is due to the fact that the wealthy can afford to pay twice via health insurance. So we have a situation in this country whereby the very people who miss out on health care are the very people whom universal health-care is supposed to help. While the poor die on the waiting list the rich and the influential get treatment. No one would seriously say that the system treats people equally. 
The solution offered to the problem by every party in this House other than ACT is the same. That solution is to throw more money at the problem. In 2 years we have increased the amount of money that goes into health care from 41c in every dollar we pay in personal tax to 54c in the dollar. Where will it be in another 2 years? Will it be 67c in the dollar? Is that really a system that is sustainable? Of course it is not. People say we can solve the problem by allocating more money but that is nothing more than snake oil. 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 The great poet and philosopher Virgil expressed one of those universal truths that reminds us that health is a basic human right. He said “The greatest wealth is health”. For the Maori Party that wealth will be demonstrated in our people being healthy and living longer. It will be seen in the evidence that whanau Maori have access to quality health-care within a culturally competent health sector. Progress in health will also be evident in the strength of relationships between health professionals and whanau. It is about realising whanau health needs and about enabling whanau to take control of their own health and well-being. 
We come therefore to the estimates for Vote Health with a focus on whanau ora one of the seven priority areas for action identified by this Government. That in itself is a great start. We want to commend the Government on its approach to Influenza AH1N1. The health sector responded swiftly to the threat of swine flu and that was due in many ways to the fact that as a nation we were already well down the track about how to respond to a pandemic as a result of the strategy developed for avian influenza. We want to make particular note on the way in which Maori health providers have responded to the challenge. I am told that Maori providers have accessed Maori resources at a higher rate than general resources which indicates to me that those providers are out there doing the mahi and getting information to our whanau. We endorse the positive comments of the Health Committee on this area and would add only that it will be a great day when we see this same level of commitment and responsibility taken for other areas approaching pandemic proportions such as obesity diabetes management TB or chlamydia. 
The report then drills down into health sector priorities. I want to make it quite clear from the outset that we are concerned at the possible insecurity around future funding. The indication from the Minister of Health that funding may not increase in out-years is concerning as it could cause a significant reduction in outcomes right across the health sector. Although we support the injection of new funds into areas such as hospice care maternity care and Healthy Homes we want to encourage a whole-system approach in which primary health care remains of utmost importance. 
It is our firm belief that high-quality comprehensive primary care makes a significant contribution to whanau ora. We know that improving the physical well-being of an individual will be less effective if it takes place in isolation from his or her whanau. Social cultural economic and spiritual wellness must have equal importance if whanau ora is the goal. Every family must be given the right support to achieve their full potential and to restore their confidence and competence to take back responsibility for achieving whanau ora. Within this we would expect that an integrated approach across the health sector will be the most effective in creating enduring outcomes. 
I want to refer to one of the district health boards within my electorate Capital and Coast District Health Board to demonstrate the local evidence of the importance of an integrated strategy to improve health outcomes. The June 2009 report of  
Primary Health Care in C&C DHB 
 reports that this district health board has some of the lowest avoidable admission rates in the country. The emergency department attendance trends for the primary health organisation - enrolled population including those in most deprived areas have continued to decline since 2005. What is obvious throughout the report is that improved access to primary health care leads directly to lower avoidable hospitalisation reduced emergency department use and improved health outcomes. It does not get much clearer than that. Primary health care works. 
When I look at the select committee report I have to say we share very keenly the concerns around the proposed fee increase and the likely consequence that cost will become a barrier to access. The best information we have comes from the  
RAND Health Insurance Experiment 
. The RAND study was a randomised controlled trial that compared health sector utilisation amongst different groups. It revealed some key findings—namely that fees matter especially at the low end. The study demonstrated that the majority of patients’ responses to user charges occur with small changes. For instance when free health-care was introduced in Britain access increased between 10 and 16 percent. A similar move in Montreal led to a 21.8 percent increase in utilisation. In effect the number of doctor visits increased just over 50 percent more when care was subsidised than for those who paid for all their care. By far the most important finding was that children and low-income earners were more responsive to price changes than adults and higher-income earners. The reduction of the cost barrier has a marked difference in improving access for Maori Pasifika and high-deprivation populations and will remain a key policy principle. Fees matter and what we know already is that even small increases in fees have a disproportionate impact in reducing access for those who need it most. 
Another key area of concern for the Maori Party is around the changes to the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme. I want to challenge the misconception that the Fruit in Schools programmes is all about apples and pears. Of course the fruit itself is a vital component of change but the fundamental difference is the energy required to create an integrated healthy school environment. All the fruit in the world will rot if there is not due attention given to health promotion to teaching knowledge and skills to support attitudinal change to improving the social environment of the school and to developing meaningful links throughout the community. A health-promoting school sees the school as part of the wider community. It reaches out to promote the view that being healthy and being able to learn are closely linked. Interventions to promote healthy eating and physical activity to prevent injury and to promote mental health are effective when adopted in the context of a whole-school approach. 
I am aware of some amazing things being done by schools in my electorate to make the difference. A typical example is Te Wharekura o Arowhenua which is part of the Fruit in Schools programme and is a health-promoting school. They run an annual auahi kore iwi challenge which is all about iwi getting together on Waitangi Day celebrating healthy eating physical activity and being Maori. Port Chalmers School has created an edible garden to promote healthy eating while also drawing in the community to focus on their environment. So we were disappointed at the decision to focus on sport and physical activity at the expense of healthy eating and health promotion. 
Finally I want to draw attention to the very positive progress which is described in the select committee report in the work that my colleague Tariana Turia is advancing in whanau ora. Whanau ora is best described as supporting a whanau-centred approach that focuses firmly on the aspirations and priorities as determined by that whanau. It is about being strengths-based enabling whanau to take the lead in managing their own futures. 
In many ways what we are seeking to achieve in whanau ora responds to some of the challenges I have laid out about the decisions made around the allocation of funding priorities in the health sector. A recurrent theme in the discussion of the most effective health investment is the need to sustain support for prevention and public health. Earlier this year Dr Margaret Chan the Director-General of the World Health Organization warned that we must protect health funding during the period of recession realising that in the past social sectors have often been robbed during times of economic downturn. Primary health care must remain a priority if we are serious about health outcomes. We need to protect life and well-being to maintain safety-net programmes to reach the most needy to boost productivity and to remain committed to the view that people are the ultimate target of economic recovery. It makes plain good sense—“The greatest wealth is health”. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Warm Pacific greetings. I stand to say how proud I am to have been part of a Labour Government that moved to reduce disparities particularly for Maori Pacific and low-income people in our country. It was responsible for a number of very positive programmes in schools including Healthy Eating - Healthy Action and Fruit in Schools. 
I will continue the theme I touched on in the general debate this afternoon and that is care for the elderly. I quote a headline in the  
Southland Times 
: “Home support faces razor”. We all know that Tony Ryall’s razor is not blunt. That media release also pointed to the local regional manager’s response to try to meet deficits. He said that “reductions were most likely to be where the board funded domestic home help to elderly …”. 
It is very important that actions follow the rhetoric. The Government said that it will move health services to the front line yet some district health boards state they will make cuts to home-based services for the elderly. It is very clear that these cut-backs will be disastrous particularly when so many elderly rely on these services to maintain a measure of independence in their own homes. The Minister of Health Tony Ryall promised to improve front-line services but it has become increasingly clear that the current Government does not see home support services as being front-line or essential. Our senior citizens deserve to be treated with dignity and respect—not as a drain on resources which is clearly the message being sent by these district health boards and the Minister of Health. 
Financial arguments for reducing home-based support services are critically flawed. Providing support for people to stay in their own homes will always be a less expensive option than providing residential accommodation 24 hours a day 7 days a week. Our elderly deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Sixty thousand of them receive home-based support and 28000 are in residential care. 
I sought the support of my Labour colleagues last month and this morning to request a Health Committee inquiry into the quality of care for older people to ensure that older New Zealanders receive appropriate access to health services both in the community and in residential care. The inquiry would have also encouraged greater public participation by families medical professionals churches and faith organisations caregivers and the wider community. The inquiry would have also ensured that there was greater transparency it would have taken a good look at the costs and benefits of different models and more important it would have ensured that we in society can collectively address the present and future care of our elderly. 
No one is immune from accountability; we are all accountable. We like our elders are human beings. We all want to be assured of the facts and the right information. The bottom line is that our elders are safe are well cared for and are supported in the community or in residential care. It is really important that we ensure we do everything possible to meet the needs of our elders. We all understand resource constraints. Our elders have contributed—and they still do—and our job is to reciprocate. 
The inquiry would have ensured that Government funding which is in excess of $700 million targets the right services and that our elderly receive the most appropriate health services at the right time. Why did National members of the Health Committee vote down my two motions to conduct an inquiry into the quality of health care for older people? What have they got to hide? Where is the transparency? 
As I said earlier it is the responsibility of the Government to look after the welfare and well-being of our citizens. Our elders are a major vulnerable group. It is only right that their contribution be reciprocated and that they be supported and thanked for their contribution to building our society and economy and to defending our nation. For the Government to say it is shifting resources to the front line only to then cut home-based services is wrong. Our elders and senior citizens deserve better and we as a nation are better off as a result of their contribution. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
: 
 I congratulate John Key and Tony Ryall on making a real difference to people’s lives. There is much I could talk about in Vote Health. I could talk about Labour’s legacy of the health of the district health boards and their projected deficits. I could talk about elective surgery under Labour which did not keep up with population growth. Or I could talk about the severe workforce crisis in the health sector with critical shortages of doctors nurses midwives and some specialists. I could also talk about National’s announcements in health and what we are doing in the eating disorders area. I could talk about how the Government has asked the Nursing Council to work with district health boards and the Ministry of Health to expand the training role of enrolled nurses in New Zealand which is one way that that very important group can play a stronger role in nursing care. 
Rather than that I will focus on National’s policy to fund 12 months of Herceptin. To briefly recap over the last term of Parliament the debate around Herceptin had a high profile. In early 2006 New Zealand was first out of the blocks becoming the first country to provisionally register 12 months as a treatment but then progress stalled. Although 12 months’ Herceptin treatment became the international standard of care with well over 30 countries funding it for their women Pharmac became focused on a Finnish trial that looked at only a very small number of women and a 9-week treatment regime. Subsequently in early 2007 Pharmac committed to the Synergy or Long Duration trial an international trial comparing 9 weeks with 12 months of Herceptin. Later in July that year 9 weeks became publicly funded. In mid-2007 eight women sought a High Court judicial review of Pharmac’s Herceptin decision with the result that in April 2008 the High Court directed Pharmac to consult again on its decision not to fund 12 months of Herceptin. Pharmac declined to change its decision. In October 2008 National announced its policy to fund 12 months of Herceptin. The decision was not made lightly. 
Progress to be reported presently. 
House resumed. 
The Chairperson reported the Road User Charges Amendment Bill with amendment and progress on the Appropriation (2009/10) Estimates Bill. 
Report adopted. 
The House adjourned at 9.56 p.m.