Volume 661 Week 36 - Tuesday 16 March 2010 
Volume 661 Week 36 - Tuesday 16 March 2010 
[Volume:661;Page:9441] 
Tuesday 16 March 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Visitors 
Ireland Republic—Minister for Health and Children 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have much pleasure in informing the House that Ms Mary Harney Minister for Health and Children of the Republic of Ireland is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that she be welcomed. 
Colombia—Minister of Foreign Affairs 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I also have pleasure in informing members that Mr Jaime Bermúdez Merizalde Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Colombia is present in the gallery. I am sure that members would wish that he be welcomed. 
Motions 
Earthquake—Chile 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I seek leave to move a motion without notice relating to the recent Chilean earthquake. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I move  
That this Parliament expresses its sympathy and concerns to the people of Chile following the recent earthquake 
. On 27 February Chile was hit by a devastating earthquake measuring 8.8 on the Richter scale that killed hundreds of people damaged hundreds of thousands of homes and affected an estimated 2 million people. Chile continues to suffer significant aftershocks. New Zealand’s deepest sympathy goes out to the Government and the people of Chile as they face the enormous losses and damage caused by this earthquake. 
Our Government has announced a contribution of NZ$500000 to international efforts to support Chile. These efforts have been channelled through the Red Cross which is best placed to purchase the necessary supplies required by Chile from within the region. Although Chile has well-established disaster response systems this earthquake is a major catastrophe for our close friend and partner. New Zealand officials are in touch with Chilean authorities and will look for ways to provide further support to Chile as it focuses on reconstruction. The rebuilding and reparation of damaged homes and infrastructure will be a major focus for President Sebastian Pinera as he begins his presidential term. I wrote to President Pinera as well as to the previous President Michelle Bachelet following the earthquake to express my shock and sadness at this disaster. I also made it clear that New Zealand stood ready to contribute to the international effort to assist Chile. Both of them have expressed their thanks. 
As New Zealanders we know only too well the threat a major earthquake can pose and as New Zealanders we extend our heartfelt sympathy to those Chileans who have made their home in this country. We stand alongside our close friend and partner Chile as it looks to recover from this natural disaster. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 On behalf of the New Zealand Labour Party can I add our concern our support our sympathy and our condolences to the people and to the Government of Chile following the massive 8.8 on the Richter scale earthquake on 27 February. That earthquake left an estimated 700 people dead over half a million homes destroyed and 2 million people affected as well as doing enormous damage to infrastructure like roads bridges and hospitals. In cities like Concepción and Constitución the devastation was overwhelming and the overall cost of the damage is something approaching US$30 billion. To put that in context it is about 15 percent of the annual GDP of Chile. 
Chile of course is our nearest neighbour to the east albeit 11 hours’ flight from New Zealand. Over recent years our friendship and our links our working together on the trade front and our people-to-people arrangements like working holidays schemes—all of those things—have increased and strengthened our relationship with Chile. I welcome the assistance that New Zealand has been able to give—half a million dollars to the international efforts to help Chile—but I wonder whether we might have been able to extend other assistance to Chile given the strong relationship that we have with the people of that country. 
After Haiti and the Samoan tsunami there is again a question of whether we might develop a ready-reaction force utilising the skills of our defence force our police and our civil defence personnel to help with search rescue and recovery. New Zealand’s own vulnerability to earthquakes is well known and the practical experience that our people would get on the ground by assisting in that way as well as the actual assistance that we gave to the country that we were helping would I believe be invaluable. 
Once again to the people of Chile affected by that disaster I add Labour’s voice to the expressions of concern and support from our Parliament today. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party joins with others in expressing condolences to the people of Chile in their time of tragedy. Our thoughts and heartfelt sympathy are with all those families who have lost loved ones in the earthquake and its aftermath. For those of us in New Zealand it is difficult to understand the damage and the human tragedy that Chile has been through. We too have had our disasters but we have had nothing on that scale for a long time. Our geologically young country is also prone to earthquakes and we share in the very human feeling of a common vulnerability to a disaster that is beyond our control. So we extend our deepest sympathy to those in Chile who have suffered loss and are struggling to return to their normal lives. We commend the support that the Government and New Zealanders have given to Chile in its time of need and we wish the Chilean people all the best in recovering from this disaster. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
: 
 On behalf of the ACT Party I join with the rest of Parliament in this time of sorrow for the Chilean people. We remind ourselves of what a wonderful wonderful people the people of Chile are across the water from New Zealand of what great friends they are to the people of New Zealand and of how close we feel as a country particularly in this time of trouble for Chile. Like other parties ACT too supports the Prime Minister and the Government in the efforts they have made to provide assistance. 
TE URUROA FLAVELL (Maori Party—Waiariki):  
Mr Speaker tena koe tena tatau katoa o te Whare. Kai te tu ake au ki te tautoko i nga korero o era i tu i mua i a au. Ko ta te Pati Maori he tautoko ake i nga korero kua korerohia. Ina tatanei i pa mai a aitua otira i haere a mate i tona haere ka pa ano ra ki te tangata. Ko Ruamoko tera i mahi i tana mahi. He aha tona mutunga mai ko mate i ona ahuatanga katoa. Na reira ko ta matau ko te tautoko ake i te tangi o te ngakau mo te hunga kua ngaro atu i te tirohanga kanohi ka mutu kai reira tonu etahi mea hai mea akoako ma te ao katoa kaua o roto o Chile i tona kotahi engari te ao whanui tonu. I puta mai a mataku i roto i te tangata na runga i te ahuatanga o nga mahi a Ruaumoko ka mutu ko tenei ahuatanga o mataku ka pa mai ki te tangata tane mai wahine mai kotiro mai tamaiti mai. Ahakoa pehea ko mataku ka pa mai ki a tatau. 
No reira kai reira tonu etahi mea hei akoako ma Aotearoa ano hoki ahakoa kare tatau i tino rongo nei i te ngau kino penei i a Chile a i puta mai te korero tera pea ka pa mai a ngaru nui ki a Aotearoa nei. A i whakatikatika a Aotearoa mo tera ahuatanga. No reira kai te tu ake me te aroha ano ki tera hunga i rongo nei i te ahuatanga o mate. Ka mutu e ai ki ta te Kaiwhakahaere te Tumuaki o tera whenua a Michelle Bachelet ko tana korero i runga i te pouaka whakaata i roto i te reo Pakeha: “The forces of nature have hurt our country greatly. We are now having to face adversity and stand again.” 
Na ko te wa tuarua pea tenei i pa mai tenei ahuatanga ki a Chile. Koi nei te aroha atu ki a ratau otira ki te ao whanui tonu i te mea ehara ko ratau anake i rongo nei i te mataku i te mamae engari ko te ao whanui tonu. Na runga i tera whakaaro e mihi atu ana ki a ratau me te ki atu Chile kia kaha kia toa kia manawanui. Ahakoa tenei taumahatanga me kaha nei koutou kia puta kia puta kia puta ki te whai ao ki te ao marama. Kia ora tatau. 
[ 
Greetings Mr Speaker and to the House. I rise on behalf of the Maori Party to endorse the speeches of previous speakers. We support all that has been stated. Recently a tragedy occurred that left a nation in a state of catastrophe that impacted on mankind. That was the earthquake god at work and the ultimate result of his actions was death and total devastation. We support the heartfelt sympathies expressed in respect of those who perished. There are some things to learn from that tragedy for the whole world not just for Chile alone. Terror emerged within the people because of what the earthquake did. Terror of this nature impacts on everyone: men women and children. Regardless of circumstances fear will affect us.  
There are things for New Zealand to learn as well even though we did not experience real fear as Chile did. When word came of the likelihood of a tsunami striking New Zealand the country prepared itself for it. I stand here sad at the same time for those who experienced death like that. As well the President of that nation Michelle Bachelet said this in English on television:  
“The forces of nature have hurt our country greatly. We are now having to face adversity and stand again.” 
This is perhaps the second time that Chile has experienced an earthquake of this size and it is why our compassion goes out to Chile and indeed to the world at large as Chile did not experience the fear and pain on its own. The whole world did. With that in mind we commend and urge Chile to be strong brave and stout of heart. And despite this adversity Chile must be resolute in order to emerge into a brighter and more enlightened world. Thank you all 
.] 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Leader—United Future) 
: 
 On behalf of United Future I join with others who have expressed sympathy to the Government and people of Chile for the sad loss of life and destruction of infrastructure that occurred in the wake of the Concepción earthquake on 27 February. It was a timely reminder to all of us in this earthquake-prone country of the devastation that natural forces can wreak and of the consequences of those events for affected populations. The way in which the world responded to those situations reinforced not only our commitment to be a good international citizen and play our part but also the reality that when the time comes and this country is on the receiving end of the disaster—should we ever be so afflicted—we will be similarly grateful for the level of international aid to help our country recover that has been provided in the case of Chile. 
I acknowledge too the work of the New Zealand civil defence authorities in the wake of the tsunami warning. I acknowledge the work of Radio New Zealand which demonstrated the value and worth of having a quality public broadcaster through the work it did in keeping New Zealanders informed of the threat and risks of the tsunami and the steps that needed to be taken to make sure we were well prepared. Although Chile is 11 hours’ flight and many thousands of kilometres of ocean away from New Zealand the fact that the tsunami spread so quickly even though it was not of a great height when it got here reinforced our vulnerability and our link to those people. 
I join with others in expressing condolence and sympathy to those who have lost loved ones in this tragedy but also I acknowledge the work of our emergency services in helping make sure that this country would be able to respond in the event that disaster struck here as well. 
Motion agreed to. 
Points of Order 
Whaling—Arrest of Peter Bethune by Japanese Authorities 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek leave to move a motion without notice about the arrest of the New Zealand anti-whaling activist Peter Bethune by the Japanese authorities. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Questions to Ministers 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
: 
 I acknowledge the Speaker’s success at the Helensville show on the weekend. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: What the gold medal? 
Hon PHIL GOFF 
: The member Gerry Brownlee would have done well there speaking of bull. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Always happy to take a blue ribbon Phil. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is about equal; it is 50-50. 
Mining in Conservation Areas—Prime Minister’s Statements 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his comments with regard to mining in the conservation estate? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; and I too congratulate you Mr Speaker on your win but that is because the stock are Belgian blues and most blue things win actually. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which of the Prime Minister’s own contradictory statements does he stand by: the one where he said last October “it’s not these big opencast wounds on the landscape that results; it’s a surgical incision in the land.” or his comments on breakfast television yesterday where he refused to rule out opencast mining in sensitive protected areas? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: What I stand by is environmentally sensitive mining. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well it is interesting enough that the Leader of the Opposition would laugh because I want to quote something back to him. “I think most New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conservation estate available to environmentally sensitive”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order has been called. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think my point was probably made by the length of time it took the Prime Minister to sit down after you called him to order. The habit he has of turning his back to you instead of addressing the Chair as is a requirement under the Standing Orders is getting worse; some of us are finding it quite offensive. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to members that was a point of order; whether or not they like it it will be heard in silence. I must say that when the Prime Minister does turn away from the Chair it is very difficult to hear and the Speaker must be able to hear what the Prime Minister is saying. I could not hear so I accept the perfectly valid point of order. I ask the Prime Minister not to make quite so much interjection and to speak to the Chair a little more often. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Just to clarify that point then I support environmentally sensitive mining. If the member would take note as I am sure others in the House will I have a quote: “I think most New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conservation estate available to environmentally sensitive mining.” That came from Phil Goff. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which of the other contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister does he now stand by? Does he stand by the statement that the Government is seeking a so-called step change in the economy by massively increasing the amount of mining in conservation areas which is what he says to some audiences. Or does he stand by what he says to other audiences which is that the Government is doing little more than allowing mining in areas where it can legally already occur. Which of those contradictory statements does he stand by? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do is come down to the House and make up statements that are not— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a straightforward question and the Prime Minister cannot answer it by saying: “If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do …”. That is not answering the question as you well know Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think again it is a fair point of order. Although with that kind of question any precise answer cannot be expected to launch straight into something about the Leader of the Opposition is not really to attempt to answer at all. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: My point was that if the best that the Leader of the Opposition— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this speaking to the point of order? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No this is in answer to the question. If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do is make up quotes—[ 
Interruption 
] There was no quote. He did not have a quote. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are getting ourselves into some difficulty. I must say that if Ministers feel they are misquoted there is certainly nothing wrong with them saying that in their answers. I think there has now been a reasonable answer given to that question. I accept that all round. 
Chris Tremain 
: How many mines currently exist on conservation land? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can answer that question. There are currently 82 mines operating on conservation land. Over 9 years the previous Labour Government approved 74 new mining permits on conservation land. That included the Pike River mine which is on conservation land adjacent to and under the Paparoa National Park by the record. When the mine was approved the then Minister of Conservation Chris Carter said—and this is an actual quote not one that we made up; he actually said these words—“This mine does represent an intrusion into an area of high conservation values …”. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If it is already possible to mine in non-sensitive Department of Conservation areas why is he proposing to change the law other than to allow for mining in very sensitive high-quality pristine environmental areas? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That does not require a law change; what it does require is a willingness to explore the opportunities available to New Zealand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Government considered a proposal to mine 7000 hectares on the Coromandel Peninsula on Great Barrier Island and in Paparoa National Park and does it intend to change the law to allow such mining to occur? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Government actually has not seen the final discussion document yet so that is not the case. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister attack the media and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society as being hysterical instead of simply coming out coming clean and telling the country what his Government intends to do in an open and transparent way with regard to those protected areas? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society was being hysterical. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does he not simply rule out mining in national parks and highly sensitive pristine areas of the conservation estate like the Coromandel in line with current law and longstanding practice? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have made it quite clear that it is the Government’s intention to balance both its economic needs and advantages with its environmental responsibilities. I am sure that when the discussion document turns up in Cabinet and then is ultimately released into the public domain it will reflect just that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the real reason that after 4 months he has still not released the discussion paper on mining in sensitive conservation areas that polling has shown him that what National is proposing to do is unacceptable and that he has panicked and withdrawn the discussion paper? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly every poll that I have seen on proposals to increase New Zealand’s mining activities have shown over 50 percent support. Secondly 4 months ago was December and it was not proposed in December. 
Metiria Turei 
: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government is planning a $4 million subsidy for the mining industry to survey Kahurangi National Park Mount Aspiring National Park and Rakiura National Park on Stewart Island? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not in a position to confirm that at this time. What I can say is that when the discussion document is released into the public domain New Zealanders will have an opportunity to assess its merits. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does he believe that the New Zealand public would accept his Government giving away $4 million in subsidies to mining companies to explore mining in the public’s national parks? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think when the discussion document is released New Zealanders will have an opportunity to see how balanced the approach that the Government is taking is—that is the balance between our economic opportunities and our environmental responsibilities. That balance of course is always possible. It reminds me of a quote I saw recently in relation to Solid Energy and the Stockton mine which said: “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy”. That quote of course came from Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has he polled the New Zealand public on whether they would accept his Government giving away a $4 million subsidy to mining companies to explore mining in the public’s national parks? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
Metiria Turei 
: When will he just swallow the dead rat that his schedule 4 mining proposal is and reaffirm that schedule 4 land is iconic land that is simply too precious to mine? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We will go through the process of releasing the discussion document when Cabinet has had an opportunity to consider it and New Zealanders will have an opportunity to have their input. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a document which is a question and answer document from the time the Paparoa decision was made that shows that the only mining activity in the national park is four 1.5-metre diameter emergency exits and tracks to them and that the mine and the roads to it are under or outside of the park— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member indicate to the House the source of this document. He said it is a question and answer document. 
Hon David Parker 
: It is the question and answer document that was released by the then Minister of Conservation Chris Carter. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Economy—Monetary Policy Statement Projections 
2. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any recent reports about the state of the New Zealand economy; if so what do they reveal? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes; last Thursday the Reserve Bank delivered its Monetary Policy Statement. The statement highlights the longstanding structural imbalances in the economy. It highlights the need to move away from an economy based on big increases in Government spending and high levels of household borrowing to an economy based on savings exports business investment and new jobs. 
Craig Foss 
: What does the Monetary Policy Statement project for future growth and how does this compare with the recent past? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Reserve Bank expects solid growth through the next few years. It projects over 10 percent cumulative real growth for the 3 years to March 2013. This compares with anaemic growth in recent years. In the 3 years to September 2008 before the global crisis began growth in New Zealand’s real GDP per capita was actually negative. That is average incomes for New Zealanders were falling at a time when the rest of the world was growing strongly. 
Craig Foss 
: How have reports about the New Zealand economy been received? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is a great deal of interest in these reports about the New Zealand economy particularly when they come from the Government. Just by way of contrast I note that the Prime Minister and I addressed a packed audience of over 200 people at the Invercargill Working Men’s Club. The other day I saw a photo on page 15 of the  
Southland Times 
 showing the Hon David Cunliffe addressing about six people at the same venue. 
Job Summit—Jobs Created 
3. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: How many jobs have resulted from his Job Summit held in February 2009? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 That is impossible to tell. In some cases we can estimate the number of jobs created by a Government initiative. For example over 2000 jobs were created by the home insulation fund. However we have no way of knowing about the jobs that were created or saved in the private sector as a result of the summit. All we know is that it was a success and was welcomed by the parties. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he recall telling New Zealanders that around 30000 jobs would be created or saved from the big ideas generated from his Job Summit when in reality fewer than 3000 have eventuated so can he now tell the House on what basis he made that exaggerated claim; was it to look as though he was doing something about the plight of the unemployed or was it just another kite to be flown? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I would need to see the source document because we know Labour members come into the House and make things up as they did in the first question. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I take exception to that comment from the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that is a fair objection and the Prime Minister should refrain from saying that in an answer. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We know that from time to time things are not necessarily the way that they are presented in the House by Labour members who make things up. What I can say— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think maybe because of the angle of the Prime Minister you did not hear him but I did hear him repeat the comment that you asked him not to make. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I heard the Prime Minister’s comment. He was subject to some interjection and provocation at the time and I think that under such circumstances members invite reactions from other members. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Are you now saying your rulings about what you are— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me clarify my point. In answering the member’s question to me it was unacceptable to make that statement. When provoked by interjection it is a different matter and I saw that as two totally different situations. I maintain that it is unacceptable in answering a question unless the question is highly provocative to launch an attack on the questioner or the questioner’s party and that it why I ruled in favour of the member’s first point of order. The second issue is that the Prime Minister was then faced with a barrage of interjections. I believe that is a different circumstance. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a statement of fact. In question No. 1 the Leader of the Opposition came to the House and he did not have a quote from me. He then paraphrased and said that that was what I had said to people. If he comes to the House and says he will contrast quotes from me he needs to have the quotes; otherwise I can just make up whatever I like that I think the Leader of the Opposition might have said. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not take this matter any further; I have taken it as far as I intend and there is no point in taking it any further. I think both sides have had the opportunity to make points and there is no point in taking this any further. I have made my ruling that Ministers should not attack questioners in answers unless the question is highly provocative. I think the Prime Minister takes that on board. Likewise I think it is in members’ interest when asking questions that are not validated—and supplementary questions are not validated—to be careful not to make claims that are not valid. I think we can all learn from that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he recall telling New Zealanders that around 4000 jobs would be created from the national cycleway a big idea from his summit when in reality around 56 have been generated so far with most of them being jobs that last between 3 weeks and 14 weeks and does he agree that the whole project is increasingly looking like a bureaucrat’s dream—lots of meetings lots of schedules being drawn up lots of writing of reports but little action? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are 18 cycle trails planned. They are being built in conjunction with local government and they will cover over 2000 kilometres of New Zealand’s landscape. They have been welcomed from Kaitaia to Bluff and if Labour members want to campaign on ripping up the cycle trail they can go ahead. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order. The member asked about jobs— 
Hon Annette King 
: I asked whether he can recall telling New Zealanders that around 4000 jobs would be created and then went on to tell him how many have been created so far. He told us about the plans for the cycleway. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member and I think it would be helpful if the Prime Minister could answer with something about jobs. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Over time—well that is very appropriate—when those 18 cycle trails are completed my estimate is that there will be a lot more than that. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he recall telling New Zealanders that the 9-day working fortnight scheme—a big idea from his summit—would be picked up by between 20000 and 25000 people when in reality only around 600 people have been assisted in this way; if so was saying there is no need to extend this scheme which he did this week an admission of the failure of another big idea from his Job Summit? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are a number of things in response to that question. Firstly it is impossible to know how many jobs were saved because of the 9-day fortnight because many companies used it as a backstop. Secondly if fewer people did use the 9-day fortnight then that is to be celebrated because it means fewer people were losing their jobs. Thirdly I remember Opposition members getting up to say the unemployment rate would be 10 or 11 percent. The Government has done a lot better than that and the rate is on the way down which shows the success of the Job Summit. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What was the reason for holding the Job Summit? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I remember at this time last year there were very real possibilities of large-scale redundancies and mass lay-offs around the country. The Job Summit played an important part in galvanising all the different groups who attended behind the issue of preserving jobs. As it turned out none of the worst-case scenarios came to pass and New Zealanders should be very pleased with that. One of the strongest proponents of the Job Summit was no less than the Council of Trade Unions. 
Hon Annette King 
: In light of the Prime Minister’s answer regarding unemployment with the Maori unemployment rate having risen from 9.8 percent to 15.4 percent since he became the Prime Minister what impact does he believe his summit and the $4.5 million spent on a Maori Economic Taskforce are having on these appalling statistics every one of which is a real person? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: There are two things to note. Firstly when a recession occurs unquestionably it often hits the least skilled workers the hardest and a lot of Maori fit within the least skilled category. They have been affected; there is no question about that although the Maori unemployment rate like all unemployment rates is falling at the moment. Secondly one of the strongest things we can do as a country for Maori in order to make sure that they are protected from future recessions is to ensure they have appropriate literacy and numeracy standards. On the back of that I hope Annette King will lead the charge from the Opposition for there to be national standards to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of young Maori New Zealanders. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What are the prospects for employment over the coming year? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We are now facing a different sort of employment challenge than we did a year ago especially regarding young people and new entrants to the labour market. That is why the Government’s focus remains squarely on jobs. It is my estimate that the unemployment rate will drop this year. Businesses have reported being positive about hiring new staff over the coming year and we have already seen the number on the unemployment benefit drop by over 4000 in the last month. This week’s results were a significant improvement on what everyone was expecting. 
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Annual  Temperature Data 
4. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Is NIWA’s principal climate scientist Dr Brett Mullan correct when he says in relation to NIWA’s seven-station temperature series that NIWA “had the original data knew the method of calculations and we have the answers” and will he require NIWA to release the method of calculations and the actual calculations commonly known as a schedule of adjustments which would allow independent scientists to replicate NIWA’s results? 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade) 
: 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Yes we believe that Dr Mullan is correct. The original data is available on the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research website with the exception of data between the years 1907 and 1920 from the Nelson site. But such is our dedication in providing the level of data required by the member that we are digitising that and it will shortly be available. That is the first point. The second point is that the method of calculations is of course freely available from the application of any science to Dr Salinger’s thesis in 1981 which established the methodology used. Finally the answers are given by Dr Mullan in Excel-style of annual mean temperatures in each of the seven locations and in the schedule of adjustments on the institute’s website page entitled “ ‘Seven-station’ series temperature data” which I will shortly table. 
John Boscawen 
: How is it that Dr Brett Mullan is overseeing a review of the seven-station temperature series and taking 3 to 4 months to do it when he is on record in the  
Waikato Times 
 stating that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has the original data and the answers and knows the method of calculations when it should take a competent scientist just a day? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Well we are looking into the matter in even greater detail than before. A study will be completed on all seven locations over the next 4 to 6 months that will involve a large variety of data and a serious number of calculations. This will all be freely available and will allow independent scientists to replicate the experiment. 
John Boscawen 
: How can the people of New Zealand when faced with a $1 billion per annum emissions trading scheme tax have any confidence in the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s claim of anthropogenic global warming when the institute cannot replicate or justify its alarming claims of New Zealand’s warming and its representatives never picked up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s mistakes such as the bizarre claims that the melting of the Himalayan glaciers will lead to half of humanity being starved of water within 25 years and that 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest will be replaced by savannah? 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: First of all this Government welcomes further scientific research into all these questions and any future questions that will no doubt arise. What the public of New Zealand can depend upon is that this Government will take a balanced approach both to its environmental responsibilities and to promoting the further economic growth of New Zealand. 
GST Increase—Effect on Families 
5. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What recent advice if any has he received outlining the effect of an increase in GST on families? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 That effect of course depends on what other tax changes accompany a proposed increase in GST. During the third term of that member’s Government GDP per capita dropped—that is the average income per person fell—which is bad for families. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: How much will a mum and dad both earning $48000 have to pay in additional GST if GST is increased to 15 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot tell the member the answer to that question because people do not pay GST on all their outgoings. Rents and interest payments do not carry GST as other payments do. In any case it makes no sense to make that calculation independent of other aspects of the tax package. I thought that the member would have known not to get excited about this issue given the lack of excitement around his bus tour. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To make it easy for the member assuming— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will just ask his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Assuming that both parents fully spend their income and thus are subject to GST on all of it will this family with both parents earning $48000 benefit from a 5 percent cut to the top tax rate; if so by how much? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Again I cannot answer that question but I say that the member puts the case for axing the tax better than some of his colleagues. For instance in Invercargill he got a crowd of eight whereas in Rotorua Phil Goff got only three. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wish to table the document covering that visit to Rotorua where— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have got no idea what that alleged point of order was about. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. Just because the member may not have agreed with something that was said that is no grounds for a point of order. The junior Opposition whip should know that. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. We had a little bit of back and forth previously about things that were verified and things that were not. I think it is appropriate if the Deputy Prime Minister makes something up in that way for my colleague to offer to provide evidence to show that he is not telling the truth. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have heard enough on this matter. I accept the basis of the point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard that gratuitous comments when answering questions are not helpful. I think anyone can see they are not helpful. At times clever comments can add to the good humour of the House but gratuitous and snide remarks do not help. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the previous two supplementary questions a simple arithmetic and very specific question was asked of the Minister of Finance. The first time he responded he alleged it was impossible to answer for a technical reason. That reason was covered off in the second supplementary question. In both questions as you previously remarked he attempted to avoid answering by making comments on a completely separate matter. I seek leave to re-ask a previous— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answers. He pointed out that no precise answer could be provided to the questions the member asked because assumptions would have to be made about where the supposed family spent their money. Even the second question the member asked if I remember correctly was about two parents earning $48000 each and spending all their income. Assumptions would have to be made about where that income was spent because not all expenditure incurs GST. The Minister gave a perfectly fair answer: he pointed out that there was no precise answer to the question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I concur with your judgment on the first of those supplementary questions but in the second supplementary question the information was provided to the Minister that in the scenario all of the income was spent on GST taxable items and therefore would be subject to the whole rate. The point is that the Minister armed with that assumption made no attempt to even begin to answer the question and then diverted to comments about meetings in Rotorua. You have previously ruled that Ministers given straight questions are obliged to give straight answers. We have made every attempt to get a straight answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the member. Had he lodged that question as a primary question I would have backed him. But I think it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to do a computation in response to a supplementary question over an example plucked out of the air. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Would the Minister compensate the hypothetical family for both the increase in GST and the resulting increase in inflation estimated by Westpac and the Governor of the Reserve Bank to be a further 2 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We will not be compensating hypothetical families; we will be compensating actual families. A range of tools is available including adjustments to benefit levels adjustments to national superannuation adjustments to Working for Families payments and reductions in income tax rates. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I regret to detain the House but the question again was very specific. It was on the consequential effects of inflation on which specific estimates have been given within the last week. The Minister did not refer to inflation in his response which was consequently meaningless. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member is asking too much of the answer to a supplementary question. If he thinks back to the supplementary question he will find that only part of it related to inflation; I think there was a further element to the question. The Minister is not obliged to answer every part of the question. I think the Minister gave a reasonable answer to the question. 
Amy Adams 
: How will the Government make the tax system fairer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Fairness is one of the Government’s principal objectives in making any tax changes. We have inherited—[ 
Interruption 
] Members opposite should be careful in their criticism because on their watch they changed tax rates in a way that encouraged people to avoid paying those rates to the extent that for instance the number of wealthy New Zealanders paying tax on $1 million did not change in 9 years under Labour despite the fact that the economy grew. That simply makes the point that for very high-income earners the tax rate was essentially voluntary. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Taking the Minister at his word who would be better off after compensation—a family of two earners on $48000 or a single earner on $1 million—and by roughly how much? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That will depend on the individual circumstances. For instance the Government has made it clear it is going to extend the tax base by lifting the effective tax rates on property. The ownership of property is generally related to people’s level of income. Higher-income New Zealanders will pay more GST if GST goes up are likely to pay less income tax if income tax rates go down and could end up paying more tax on property that they own or sell. 
Broadband—Improvement of Rural Services 
6. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What improvements has the Government announced for rural broadband services? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Today the Government has confirmed its rural broadband plans which will provide much faster broadband services to rural people across the country. As a result of the Rural Broadband Initiative 97 percent of all households will have access to broadband services of at least 5 megabits per second within 6 years with the remainder receiving at least 1 megabit per second. For many remote and not-so-remote rural areas this will be light years ahead of where they are today. 
Shane Ardern 
: What benefits will this bring for rural schools? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Most rural schools will be connected directly to fibre. The rural and urban broadband policies together will mean that 97 percent of schools across the country reaching 99.7 percent of all students will be using a fibre connection. The remaining most remote schools will achieve speeds of at least 10 megabytes per second by other means. 
Clare Curran 
: Why is the Government not investing more money in rural broadband than it is investing in urban broadband so that it ensures that rural consumers receive a comparable service given his own comments that the different population densities and different economics of providing telecommunications in rural areas make it more expensive? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The differences between the urban and rural initiatives that the member points out reflect as I said the differing population densities of those communities which is why we are taking a different approach to improving each one. We cannot directly compare the amounts for the urban and rural policies because the urban amount is for an investment that the Government expects a return on—ultimately it expects to get its money back on behalf of taxpayers—versus the Rural Broadband Initiative which is about providing grants to assist companies in improving broadband coverage. 
Shane Ardern 
: How is the Rural Broadband Initiative being funded? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Rural Broadband Initiative is expected to cost around $300 million over 6 years. It is being funded firstly by a $48 million direct Government grant plus $252 million from a new telecommunications development levy which will replace the telecommunications service obligation levy. The telecommunications service obligations will remain including local free-calling. There will be no extra costs to consumers. 
Clare Curran 
: Why should rural New Zealanders have to wait until next year at the earliest for even the first trench to be dug and the first millimetre of fibre to be laid for broadband despite all the promises from him and the Prime Minister that the broadband roll-out would start last year? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I would have thought that the answer to that question was reasonably obvious: because the previous Government did not get off its collective back legs over its 9-year period and do anything about providing rural broadband. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Council-controlled Organisations 
7. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Kei te whakaae ia ki ta Local Government New Zealand i korero nei ka raru te manapori o Aotearoa mena ka riro ma nga council-controlled organisations e whakapau nga piriona tara neke atu mo nga ratonga Kawanatanga a ka aha tana whakautu i aua whakapae me era hoki a mana whenua mo te whakaturanga o te kaunihera hou super-city i Tamaki Makaurau? 
[ 
Does he agree with Local Government New Zealand that democracy will be threatened by handing over billions of dollars’ worth of services to Government-appointed council-controlled organisations; and how will he address that criticism and criticism by mana whenua in the establishment of the new super-city council in Auckland? 
] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 No. Democracy is not threatened by the Government’s proposals. Council-controlled organisations are service delivery mechanisms. Council-controlled organisations already exist under the local government framework and many councils use that method of service delivery. For example the Wellington City Council has nine council-controlled organisations managing water supply stormwater the waterfront and the stadium as well as the city’s economic and tourism development. Council-controlled organisations are controlled by councils; that is what the name means and that is what the Local Government Act 2002 provides for. 
Hone Harawira 
: He aha to te Minita whakaaro e pa ana ki te rangatiratanga i roto i te manapori o te mana whenua ara ko ratou nga kaitiaki o te whenua me te wai no mua noa atu? 
[ 
What is the Minister’s view in respect of the democracy of mana whenua who have been viewed as the traditional guardians of lands and water since the beginning? 
] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: They will be recognised in terms of local democracy by the Auckland Council and indeed by the local boards that will be elected across Auckland by the people of Auckland. If the member had attended the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee on the third bill he would understand how they would operate and indeed would be encouraging Maori to stand for the local boards and for the Auckland Council. 
Hone Harawira 
: He aha tana whakautu ki nga manukanuka o te Kaiwhakawhanaunga-a-Iwi e pa ana ki te kore whakaae ki nga turu motuhake Maori me te whakaaro ki te whakakore i nga ropu tautoko mo iwi ke hei te paunga o te toru tau; e ai ki a ia ko te hua e penei ana “the Auckland council will be less diverse than its predecessors community boards will have little or no decision-making power and this will lead to continued disaffection by rather than inclusion of Auckland’s growing diverse communities”? 
[ 
What response does he have to the concerns from the Race Relations Conciliator that the rejection of designated seats for Maori and the proposed 3-year sunset clause for Pacific and other ethnic advisory boards will mean that  
“the Auckland council will be less diverse than its predecessors community boards will have little or no decision-making power and this will lead to continued disaffection by rather than inclusion of Auckland’s growing diverse communities”?] 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I have already commented as the leader of the ACT Party on the surprising comments made by the Race Relations Conciliator. I said that I was surprised that a person advocating human rights would be advocating separate seats on a democratically elected council because the idea that we would deny people an opportunity to stand for certain seats because of the tribe to which they belong or indeed because of the colour of their skin is anathema to the ACT Party. 
Phil Twyford 
: Why did the Minster say that the Auckland Council could meet and sack one or all of the directors of the council-controlled organisations—people whom he will have appointed—when he knows that the council would be opened up to massive damages if it sacked directors without reasonable cause? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Because it is true. Council-controlled organisation directors will be appointed by and be accountable to the Auckland Council. They are not employees of the council. The directors can be removed by the council. The new council-controlled organisations are likely to be set up as companies and subject to section 156 of the Companies Act 1993 to which I refer the member. There is also provision in the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill for the council to remove directors from Auckland Transport. If any of the council-controlled organisations are trusts then I would expect the trust deed to set out provisions for the removal of trustees because they will be existing trusts. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he agree with media commentator Russell Brown who said this morning in relation to council-controlled organisations that the Minister is telling “flat-out lies about this stuff”? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: No but I do not believe that I have ever agreed with the so-called media commentator Russell Brown so that should not be a surprise. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does he still think that this is the change Aucklanders want when his bill is opposed by Len Brown John Banks Andrew Williams Mike Lee Local Government New Zealand Michael Barnett the  
New Zealand Herald 
  
The Aucklander 
 suburban newspapers and a majority of the Aucklanders recently polled by the  
New Zealand Herald 
 who said they did not want to be part of his super-city? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes indeed. I remind the member of what he said about Auckland and about the failure of the previous Government over 9 years to fix it up. I know that Aucklanders are appreciating a Government that takes Auckland seriously and that is addressing the issues of local government. I can tell the member that Aucklanders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the answer is leading to more disorder. We have heard a reasonable answer from the Minister already I think. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was just getting started. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Maybe I should explain myself. I accept that the question that was asked was a political question and that the Minister was perfectly entitled to give a political answer but political answers should not go on for ever. When I heard the Minister start to add that he could tell the member further stuff I felt the House had heard enough. 
Keith Locke 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. An interjection made several times from behind me was “Take your pills Phil.” I think that sort of interjection is not something we should hear in this House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: When questions and answers become highly political interjections become more political. If I were to rule out every little interjection like that the place would become pretty sterile. Although I accept that the member makes a good point and that members should not be unnecessarily unkind to each other the reality of life is that at times we are less than perfect. 
Health Services—Minister’s Statements 
8. 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he stand by all his statements regarding health services? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: Yes. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When the Minister answered my written question No. 00219 by stating that Nelson Marlborough District Health Board was not cutting any services was he aware that at the same time nurses at Nelson Hospital were publicly raising serious concerns about nursing positions remaining unfilled in order to save money and that they were saying patient safety at Nelson Hospital was now being put at risk as a result of staff shortages? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I think that member should note that the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board has had a funding increase of $13.6 million under this Government over the last year. Frankly we inherited a massive problem from the last Government which means that yes some changes have to be made to services because we have to make sure that the funding goes to the places where the public gets the best possible outcomes of health spending. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Why are some district health boards looking at making changes to some of their services? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: We inherited a situation where the last Government had made $155 million of unfunded health promises so despite difficult economic times and despite this Government injecting $536 million of new money into district health boards this year those boards still face significant challenges. That is why some changes to services have to be made in order to ensure that health funding produces the best possible outcomes for New Zealanders. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When he answered my written question No. 00215 by stating that the MidCentral District Health Board was not cutting any services was he not aware of its plan to cut 24 patient beds from the Horowhenua Health Centre? 
Hon Annette King 
: Is that a cut or a change?  
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: It is a change actually and the fact is that MidCentral District Health Board—and I can give you the figure here—has had another $26 million increase in funding over the last year. Once again I say district health boards face a difficult situation and they have to redirect funding to where it has the greatest effect for the public. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Does the Minister support the statements of Ministers Wong and Coleman respectively that “The National-led Government is committed to ensuring that people with mental illness … have support services to help them.” and “Early intervention is vital when people are experiencing mental health problems.”; if so how do those comments square with the imminent closure of the 198 Youth Health Centre which provides those very services to 4000 young Christchurch citizens at a very low cost to the health system? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Yes of course the Minister supports those statements. I am advised that 198 Youth Health Centre is contracted to the Canterbury District Health Board and that the Minister has personally been in touch with the chair of that board who is taking an intense interest in the issue. Mr James who is the chair advises us that the district health board still has $410000 earmarked to assist with this service and discussions are ongoing. So there may be changes but services are being provided as that member well knows. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: When the Minister answered written question No. 00220 by stating that the West Coast District Health Board was not cutting any services was he aware of any proposed cuts in the plan being developed by the board and his office; if not will he now release that plan to the people of the West Coast so they can see what he really is going to do? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I cannot answer the question specifically. I can tell you that the West Coast has had a $4.5 million increase in funding over the last year. It is very interesting that when you talk about what this Government is doing you like to frame it as “cuts” but when the previous Government was taking $30 million out of its health budget those were “changes”. So it seems that when you guys are talking about it it is fine but it is different when we are. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I just remind the Minister that the Speaker was not involved in any of those actions. Right at the end the Minister said “when you guys” were doing something and said “you” several times in his answer. I remind Ministers that that is not within the Standing Orders. 
Tasers—Issue to Police 
9. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has she received any progress reports on the roll-out of Tasers to New Zealand police officers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I am very pleased to report excellent progress since the Government’s decision in the last Budget to fund this $10 million project. The police now have 733 Tasers which have been distributed to police districts throughout the country. Training is under way and by June 3500 of our officers will know how to use Tasers. Trials carried out by the police over the past year are already proving the worth of Tasers. In most cases just the prospect of receiving a 50000 volt electric shock has been enough to bring volatile situations quickly under control therefore saving lives. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What steps will be taken to ensure that Tasers are used appropriately? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Since the trial began last year the police have introduced and maintained a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme. This involves the reporting of all use of force regular audit processes the conducting of a medical examination of any person who has been Tasered and an independent review of those medical reports. I am very pleased that the police have another non-lethal option in their tool kit. My Government is serious about making sure that the police have the right tools to do their job safely and effectively. 
Conservation Department—Strategic Approach 
10. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Conservation 
: Does she support the Department of Conservation’s first stated strategic approach “to promote the benefits and value of conservation in New Zealand”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did she recently tell the Christchurch  
Press 
 that she was reviewing whether the Department of Conservation should even have an advocacy role before resiling from that extraordinary position a week later; and does her first statement to the Christchurch  
Press  
not indicate her Government’s true intention? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member is making mischief about the advocacy role. There is no suggestion at all that the department’s advocacy role will be eliminated. I am simply looking at whether to improve it. Some out there will say there is not enough advocacy on the part of the department; some say there is too much. I am looking at it. 
Hon David Parker 
: Does the Minister agree with the statements about the schedule 4 prohibition on mining that it “at long last puts some pegs in the sand in some very significant areas of New Zealand and says to the mining industries of New Zealand: ‘These are no-go areas.’ ” and that “national parks are not appropriate areas for mining” as stated in a proclamation to this very House by her colleague the current Minister for the Environment Nick Smith. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I say to that member again that that is a mischievous attempt. I quote from our Prime Minister and say that we do need to balance economic benefits we stand to gain from some increased mining activity and the obvious environmental responsibilities that we have. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What recent examples are there of mining companies making a positive contribution to conservation? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Just last week I accepted a gift on behalf of the people of New Zealand of 80 hectares of land on the West Coast from Rio Tinto. It has also entered into a partnership agreement with conservation volunteers including a 5-year funding commitment to restore that land from the sea to the mountain to help protect the Westland petrel. As another example Pike River Coal which is mining in or under the Paparoa National Park has sponsored a programme to support the recovery of the blue duck in addition to paying for a full-time Department of Conservation liaison officer. It also pays a couple to map the kiwi population and it has a comprehensive pest and predator programme. 
Hon David Parker 
: Will the Minister release the changed terms of reference for possible mining in national parks and other conservation areas which the Prime Minister said yesterday were widened 3 weeks ago; or are there no extended terms of reference and was that just an excuse to save face? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As the member is well aware there is a discussion document pending. When that discussion document is finalised it will be available for the member to read. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Agricultural Sector Research 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently made to progress domestic agriculture greenhouse gas research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Earlier this month the Prime Minister officially opened the Government’s Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre based in Palmerston North. The opening of the centre marks a new era for agricultural emissions research and it will be a key part of New Zealand’s efforts to find practical ways to curb emissions from agriculture. It is a clear demonstration of this Government’s commitment to responding sensibly to climate change. 
Colin King 
: Why has the Government committed $50 million to funding the research centre? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Reducing agricultural emissions while improving the productivity and profitability of our farmers and growers is one of the biggest challenges New Zealand faces. The centre will support New Zealand in taking a significant step forward in meeting this challenge. Another major aspect of New Zealand’s efforts in this area is of course the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases which is going from strength to strength; 26 countries have now signed up. My colleague Tim Groser and I will host the first full meeting of the alliance here in Wellington next month. The alliance is something for which New Zealand is now receiving considerable praise internationally. The Global Research Alliance is an initiative that all New Zealanders should be proud of. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Apart from the $5 million paid to the national centre for agricultural greenhouse gas research—which of course is a continuation of the previous Government’s policy—how much of the $25 million available to the Primary Growth Partnership for primary production research projects has been invested since the last election in November 2008 nearly 18 months ago? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: A total of $50 million has been dedicated to the domestic centre. For the Primary Growth Partnership we now have some hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of applications before us and they are being processed as we speak. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I kept that question very simple. The Minister was asked to say how much had been invested in the Primary Growth Partnership which has had $25 million available in the 18 months since the last election. He did not answer that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me; I thought I heard the Minister give an answer in which he cited an amount of money. I invite the Minister to clarify the situation. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I cannot give the actual amount here today— 
Hon Members 
: Zero! 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: —no it is not zero at all—because as we speak the investment advisory panel is continually reviewing projects. So as to how much exactly has been spent as of this moment I would have to come back with an accurate figure for the member. 
Whaling—Arrest of Peter Bethune by Japanese Authorities 
12. 
GARETH HUGHES (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: Will he call on the Japanese Government to release New Zealand citizen Peter Bethune of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 When Mr Bethune stepped aboard the  
Shonan Maru 2 
 he rendered himself liable to Japanese legal jurisdiction as a consequence of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That convention recognises that vessels on the high seas are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State of the vessel. The New Zealand Government naturally hopes the Japanese authorities will release Mr Bethune. However we accept that he has been charged with trespass and this matter needs to be resolved by the Japanese judicial system. The New Zealand Embassy in Tokyo is giving Mr Bethune the consular assistance that any New Zealand citizen can expect in such circumstances. But just as New Zealand’s judicial system operates independently of all outside direction we cannot seek to interfere in the judicial processes of another country. 
Gareth Hughes 
: If diplomacy is this Government’s preferred tool of engagement on the whaling issue why does he not use it to assist the release of New Zealander Peter Bethune? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I have made it very clear on behalf of the Government that the New Zealand Government will provide all consular assistance to Mr Bethune that is appropriate in the circumstances. I tell the member that I have taken up the matter directly with the Japanese ambassador and I am satisfied that as a consequence the Japanese authorities are providing every cooperation with our embassy staff in Tokyo. 
Hon Chris Carter 
: Why has he not considered this issue important enough to contact personally the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs Katsuya Okada to try to resolve it? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I advise that member that I have in fact had a telephone discussion with Minister Okada and I have arranged to have such further telephone conversations with Minister Okada as are required to try to resolve these matters. 
Gareth Hughes 
: What political action would the Government support New Zealanders taking to uphold the ban on commercial whaling? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: That is a question for the judgment of individuals but the New Zealand Government has made it very clear that it expects its citizens and New Zealand - flagged vessels to uphold the laws of the sea and to ensure that they have proper regard for the safety of others in the vicinity. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the Maritime Crimes Act 1999 particularly section 8 of that Act which imports the Rome Convention into New Zealand law suggesting that Peter Bethune was acting lawfully in boarding the Japanese ship to arrest the captain— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought— 
Metiria Turei 
: —because of the destruction of the— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume her seat immediately. She cannot raise a point of order to seek leave to table a document and then use it to argue a case which she was just doing. That is totally outside the Standing Orders. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Urgent Debates Declined 
Immigration—New Immigration Retirement Package 
Whaling—Arrest of Peter Bethune by Japanese Authorities 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have received a letter from the Hon Pete Hodgson seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the Government’s new immigration retirement package announced by the Minister of Immigration on 10 March 2010. This is a particular case of recent occurrence involving ministerial responsibility. However as Speaker’s ruling 175/6 makes clear not every ministerial announcement even an important one will give grounds for an urgent debate. There must be such an element of urgency that the matter must take precedence over other business. This application for urgent debate is declined. 
I have also received a letter from Metiria Turei seeking an urgent debate on the “Government’s decision” of 12 March 2010 not to denounce the arrest in Japan of Pete Bethune of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. This is a particular case of recent occurrence. The Government though has no responsibility for the actions of a private citizen or for the actions of the Japanese authorities and there is a legal process being followed in Japan. An oral question on this matter was lodged and answered today. I am not persuaded that this matter requires the immediate attention of the House to take precedence over other business. This application is also declined. 
Financial Review Debate 
In Committee 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The House is in Committee on the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill. The financial review debate is the Committee stage of the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill. The time allocated for this debate is 4 hours and comprises two distinct elements. The first is the debate on the annual financial statements of the Government as reported on by the Finance and Expenditure Committee. Once this has concluded the Committee debates individual financial reviews of departments Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations as reported on by select committees. The debate on the Government’s financial position may be a fairly wide-ranging one but the debates on the individual financial reviews of departments Offices of Parliament and non-departmental appropriations should be relevant to their performance in the 2008-09 financial year and their current operations. 
The compendium of financial reviews and non-departmental appropriations available for debate are on the Table. A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. At the conclusion of the debate a single question is put on the provisions of the bill. There is no amendment to or debate on this question. The Chairperson then reports the bill to the House and it is set down for third reading forthwith. There is no debate on the third reading. 
Treasury 
Financial Statements of the Government of New Zealand for the year ended 30 June 2009 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
: 
 Thank you for that introduction and in keeping with past practice the Opposition would like to begin by commenting on the general state of the Crown accounts reflecting on several of the important macro-aggregates and then proceeding to look at individual departments. 
New Zealanders are asking themselves three key questions in respect of the Crown accounts and the Government’s economic performance. Why is there no coherent plan for growth and jobs? Why is the Government talking down the recovery rather than boosting confidence in it? Why is the Government raising GST after the election when National certainly did not tell New Zealanders that was its plan before the election? 
Let me talk first about the Crown accounts themselves. There is no doubt that these accounts show that the impact of the recession on New Zealand’s books was serious. But as economic conditions start to improve the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister need to ensure that all New Zealanders will benefit from the recovery. It is time that the Minister of Finance was frank with New Zealanders that the books are improving to ensure that he does not talk down the recovery as cover for delivering a tough Budget that New Zealanders will not want to hear. 
The recent Crown accounts show that New Zealand is doing much better than forecast. Gross debt was $2.9 billion lower than forecast and continues Labour’s legacy of trajectory towards lower debt with gross Crown debt the third-lowest in the entire OECD. The operating deficit was $1.4 billion lower than forecast and is now only $630 million negative and that closes the operating gap by around 70 percent. Net worth is $1.3 billion higher than forecast. The Labour Opposition does not pretend New Zealand’s economy is out of the woods yet. To do so would be irresponsible. But when the gap between the forecast deficit and the actual deficit has been closed by approximately three-quarters we believe it is time the Government was frank with New Zealanders about the progress that is being made. New Zealand does not need to face a decade of deficits or anything like it. New Zealand does not need to forget about pre-funding superannuation thereby risking the future of the scheme. New Zealand does not need to starve much-needed social services in health and education of the necessary funding to offset cost growth. 
It is very notable that some of the most successful of the Crown’s investments were in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the Accident Compensation Corporation both of which tracked above forecast. With those improved forecasts Labour challenges the Government to resume payments into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund noting that the Crown accounts would now be much better if they had not been suspended. New Zealanders have gone without during the recession. The Minister of Finance was kind enough to draw attention to some of the activities of the Labour Party’s tax tour of the country during the parliamentary adjournment. I can reassure the Minister that in the small towns up and down New Zealand people are very clear about the tax package. They did not vote for an increase in GST because National did not tell them it was going to do it. It told them the opposite. They are feeling shafted I think is the word in the mining communities by this Government. What they really cannot get their heads around is that even if they could believe the rhetoric from the Minister of Finance that they would be “no worse off after compensation”—leaving aside inflation of course which he would not discuss today—they cannot understand why it is OK for the middle class to stand still at best while the wealthiest New Zealanders get a major windfall gain from a tax reduction from 38c to 33c in the dollar or perhaps as low as 30c in the dollar. That is a one-way street towards redistribution from the middle of our society and the bottom towards the top. It is Robin Hood in reverse. It makes no sense in terms of social equity and even less in terms of good economics. 
As we were going around during the adjournment New Zealanders up and down the country were also asking what the game plan is for growth. What is the Government’s strategy for recovery from this recession? In advance of the May Budget which the Minister of Finance knows well will compress new Government spending to the lowest levels in many years he is trying to convince New Zealanders that the crisis is still as bad as it looked 18 months ago and it patently is not because the gap has been closed by three-quarters of those original forecasts as revealed in these Crown accounts. The risk in trying to keep New Zealanders gloomy so they will accept his harsh medicine is that he is not telling them the full story and he will talk down the prospects of recovery. It is no surprise that commentators and journalists—even those at perhaps the more conservative end of the media spectrum people like Fran O’Sullivan—are increasingly saying they are frustrated with this Government that seems incapable of making decisions and incapable of laying out a plan for New Zealanders that business can understand and investment can get behind. 
We have a duality. Business says it wants to see a game plan and ordinary New Zealanders say that the game plan the Government is showing them so far looks absolutely rotten to them. That is why this Government is stuck in a cold hard place between the focus groups that the Prime Minister cannot take his eyes off and the reality of the Crown accounts which is that the books are improving. They are improving because we are moving out of a cyclical recession. It is a recession we went into with some of the lowest debt and lowest unemployment in the OECD thanks to the previous Government. 
Just this morning Statistics New Zealand released productivity data that shows that for the years 2000 to 2008 labour productivity grew by a little over 1.5 percent per annum but it declined when the recession hit in 2008 through 2009 and it has not shown the slightest hint of improving according to the Government’s programme. I ask members what the Government has done. It has a cycleway to nowhere and a 9-day fortnight scheme that was good as far as it went but did not go far which the Government has now cancelled removing the sporran from the Scotsman—the fig leaf of activism—that it never had. New Zealanders are left wondering whether the Government has been doing any thinking at all about how to take the country forward or any thinking about how to get growth back in the economy. Businesses are asking why the Government will not get behind their efforts rather than staying on the sideline or worse talking the recovery down. Why is the Minister ignoring the fact that in these Crown accounts the operating deficit gap has been closed by three-quarters yet still using the rhetoric of the dark early days of the global financial crisis? 
I challenge the Minister to take a call and explain to New Zealanders exactly why it is that when the operating deficit forecasts have reduced by three-quarters he has not changed his song at all and he is talking New Zealand into a funk. New Zealanders are still waiting for the answers to their three key questions: how will we get growth and protect jobs; why is the Minister talking down recovery; and why is this Government raising GST on ordinary people just to fund a massive tax cut for the few? Thank you. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 The Green Party’s vision for Aotearoa New Zealand is one of prosperity without growth in resource use or waste. In fact it is a vision of prosperity with declining resource use and waste and declining inequality. We believe the Government should approach the raising and the spending of money with this aim in mind. On the revenue side taxes should be structured to not only raise the money the Government needs but also move our economy in a green direction by taxing resources and waste. The Government’s books would be in a much healthier position by potentially billions of dollars if there were a levy on the commercial use of water and a levy on the production of greenhouse gases. At the same time by increasing the price of water and carbon the market would direct our economy to use water and carbon more efficiently. A country that uses water wisely will prosper in the 21st century as water becomes scarce globally—likewise for carbon. Sadly the Government is doing neither of those things. There is no price on water for irrigation which is the biggest user and there is a scant price on carbon as the emissions trading scheme is too weak. We miss out on the revenue that resource rentals could raise and we lock in our economy to investments that use water and carbon inefficiently. 
The one bright spot on the revenue side in the Government’s accounts is catching the banks’ attempt to steal $2.2 billion from the taxpayer. The banks got caught but suffered no penalties. I ask members to think about that. It is possibly the biggest theft of public money in New Zealand history. The banks got caught and had to pay it back which helped the revenue side of the Government’s accounts but there were no penalties. No one was sent to jail. In fact some of the people who advised the banks were appointed to the Tax Working Group. 
On the spending side our accounts are weighed down by the ghosts of years past. The dramatic increase in inequality in the 1980s and 1990s has left our budget with huge legacy spending due to high crime and violence a high prison population high spending on social services and preventable illness and an education system that is struggling to teach kids who are dragged back by poverty. Inequality is really really expensive on the public purse and we are living with that legacy and paying taxes through the nose to pay for the downstream effects of the Rogernomics experiment. 
Also on the spending side we are throwing vast amounts of treasure at new motorways—literally tens of billions of dollars. It makes the spending on buses trains cycling and walking look like peanuts. It is Joyce’s think big project with the inevitable production of white elephants. Clearly Labour and National do not read the reports from the International Energy Agency that warns Governments that the era of cheap oil is over. I suggest that one way for the Government to save money is to stop paying for the International Energy Agency reports because clearly no one in the Government is reading them. 
Then there is the small question of our accounting framework for those accounts. When we consume natural capital by mining minerals to buy consumer goods are we really richer? Our national accounts certainly say so as GDP increases but if we start selling off parts of our house in order to buy flat-screen TVs are we actually richer? Of course not; we are simply consuming our capital. That is exactly what we are doing with our minerals. We are simply consuming the natural capital today that we will never have again. I ask members how much better our books would be today if we had invested a good proportion of the returns of the Maui gas field in a gas fund whose dividends would now be helping our chronic current account deficit and the Budget deficit. Norway turned a good chunk of its North Sea oil—its natural capital—into financial capital in the form of the giant half-trillion-dollar Norway Pension Fund while New Zealand and the United Kingdom simply consumed their mineral resources and now we have nothing to show for it except a few mothballed Think Big plants. Thinking long term to ensure prosperity is the Green way and we encourage all parties in this House to steal our ideas instead of stealing the next generation’s inheritance. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am not sure who it was but someone famous said that he or she changed his or her mind when the facts changed— 
Craig Foss 
: Maharey? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No Steve Maharey changed his mind regardless of the facts; it was not him—and I suppose that is my response to the Hon David Cunliffe. When the Government is in a much stronger fiscal position the Government will change how it describes New Zealand’s fiscal position but that has not happened. This idea that somehow most of the pressures on the Government’s books have evaporated because of small improvements in economic forecasts tells us more abut Labour’s attitude to the hard-won PAYE income that comes in every week from hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who could use that money for different purposes themselves than it does about any kind of analysis of the Government’s books. 
The Government has followed a pretty straightforward plan in a year when the economy was contracting fairly strongly. It maintained what were previously high levels of spending under the previous administration. Now that the economy is recovering the Government has outlined a plan to lower the growth of Government spending starting from 1 July this year. The new discretionary spending will be about $1.1 billion on average when over the last 3 or 4 years it has been somewhere around $2.8 billion. The new spending has funded a lot more new activity than the current Government will be able to. 
Small improvements have not changed that picture. At the moment these books that Parliament is looking at today show that if we take the forecasts ahead it will take another 6 years before the Government is back in surplus. Even then it will have accumulated a very significant increase in public debt. That matters because as those who have been around the House for a while will understand public debt cycles are quite long. New Zealand’s public debt started lifting in the early 1970s and it was about 35 years before it had gone through the full cycle of rising strongly into the mid-1980s and then successive Governments brought that debt back down as a proportion of GDP through to about 2006—roughly 35 years. That was a somewhat difficult political time. In that period from the mid-1980s through to the mid-1990s at various times New Zealand faced threats of downgrades and a lot of difficult politics around containing Government expenditure and changing the mind-sets that go with the view that money grows on trees and it does not matter where it comes from. We do not want to do all that again. It would amount to a betrayal of many ordinary New Zealanders to allow our public debt to get out of control. That would be as the co-leader of the Greens Russel Norman used the term “stealing from the next generation”. He applies that analysis to any use of natural resources. I am applying it to monetary resources. 
If the current generation believes that we have a right to leave a burden on people who have not left school yet and to make them pay for things that we believe we want now even if we do not really need them then the Government disagrees with them. So that is why despite the member’s optimism about the improvements in the Government’s books I would describe them as marginal. I hope we keep making marginal improvements; that would be good. I would like to see us getting to surpluses sooner because then we have a few more choices. We would not have all the choices that he would like us to believe we would have but we would have a few more. Even when we get to surpluses we will then have this large stock of public debt and even when it stops rising we then have to start getting that stock of public debt down because we incurred it. We incurred it trying to maintain our standard of living through these times. We have an obligation to the next generation not to leave them with the burden of paying for what we wanted to have. 
So the Government is working through a fairly measured process. We have said that over the next 3 to 5 years the Public Service should get used to having no new money. It needs to rethink how it delivers services and learn to do more with less. 
BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) 
: 
 I am pleased to speak following the Minister of Finance as we debate the Crown accounts this afternoon. I will pick up on some of the comments from my colleague the Hon David Cunliffe about GST. I address to the Minister some questions about the Government’s proposals for GST and ask exactly what increasing the GST rate will do to advance the rate of increase in jobs in New Zealand. What would an increase in the GST rate do to improve economic growth the economic recovery or indeed the Crown’s financial balance? The indications thus far from the Government are strongly that for every extra dollar it takes in from the GST increase it will compensate New Zealanders. If one believes that difficult though it may be it begs the question of why the Government would bother to introduce a tax increase that was certainly not judged by our GST bus tour as being by any means popular—absolutely the contrary of that. 
I think the answer to that question is simply this: it is payback time for the Government in terms of cutting the top tax rate again. We saw that in the rushed legislation prior to Christmas of 2008 where the tax changes were such that about 3 percent of taxpayers received a third of the gains from them. One suspects from the newspaper projections of a cut in the current top tax rate from 38c in the dollar to 33c in the dollar that we know which end of town that cut will fall in. On behalf of my electorate of Christchurch Central which although it has its leafy suburbs is certainly not a wealthy electorate I have to say I know where the impact will fall. The figures for my electorate show that 76 percent of people earn less than $40000 a year. They spend every dollar they receive on the basics of life. They do not have discretionary income. They do not have overseas holidays and they do not have much capacity to save. So they will be whammied by an increase in GST effectively of 20 percent. That is why people are concerned about that and that is why they were turning out in large numbers in support of the bus tour that Labour recently took around the country. They know what that tax increase will mean for them and their families. 
I say to the Minister that OECD statistics show that in terms of consumption taxes already New Zealand has the fifth-highest rate of consumption tax with GST. We do not have the highest rate itself at the current 12.5 percent but we have virtually no exemptions. So currently we have the fifth-highest rate of consumption tax in the whole of the Western World. Where does the Minister want to take us to? Do we want to go to second or third in terms of the consumption tax? What benefit will that bring to ordinary people? 
I will touch upon the financial review of Radio New Zealand. During the course of the Commerce Committee hearing into Radio New Zealand’s financial year we were given a letter from the Minister of Broadcasting Jonathan Coleman to the Radio New Zealand board in which he said the board needed to change its mind-set— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are concentrating on the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report not on Radio New Zealand. The member will have an opportunity to debate that later if he wishes. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I think what has happened across the whole spectrum of the Cabinet spend is the Minister of Finance has remonstrated with some of his Ministers and the positions they have taken in the past are now contrary to where they are at today. In the case of that particular entity it had a charter introduced to the Parliament only last year which said it would not go into the commercial sponsorship of programmes. But that is now specifically what the Minister is proposing to that entity. I think we are seeing that happen not just in Radio New Zealand but across the spectrum of Government departments. We also see in the broadcasting portfolio that the broadcasting Minister suggested to Television New Zealand that it now needs to look at funding— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have said to the member this is a debate on the Finance and Expenditure Committee’s report not on Radio New Zealand. He will have the opportunity to debate that matter later on so I ask the member to come back to the debate. He has 30 seconds remaining. 
BRENDON BURNS 
: I pick up on comments today from the Prime Minister in relation to the funding of literacy as funded through the Crown accounts and as reflected on in the financial statements of the Government. The suggestion today was that the funding of literacy has been improving. I know again in my electorate that the YMCA has lost its funding for programmes for literacy for the worst-off young people—for those youths who are at the bottom end. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I rise in support of the comments by my colleague Dr Russel Norman. The purpose of the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill before us today is to confirm expenses incurred for the 2008-09 financial year that are in excess but within the scope of an existing appropriation in accordance with the Public Finance Act. 
I begin by recognising the Minister of Finance for his cautious custodianship of the country’s public purse for the period in review. I am aware that he is responsible for only 7 of the 12 months involved and that his Government would claim that was an insufficient time to make the mark it intended in battling the economic recession that it had inherited. But we have already had an additional 8 months since the end of the period under review. So our judgments are inevitably coloured by the passage of time since then in which his Government has had sole responsibility for macroeconomic policy and financial management of this country. 
This is no simple responsibility. I count as constituting the Government reporting entity in Part 3 of the Public Finance Act for which he and his colleagues are responsible some 41 departments 19 State-owned enterprises 70 Crown entities and 23 other organisations including the New Zealand Superannuation Fund and the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. We are talking of some $55 billion of revenue and $64 billion of expenses a net operating deficit of $11 billion a gross debt of $43 billion and a net Crown worth of $100 billion. It is a major challenge to ensure that the economy is prudently managed and the financial statements are well prepared. As the Minister said in his covering statement: “By taking the shock on its balance sheet the Government has helped to cushion New Zealanders from the worst of the recession”. 
Given all this why then does the Green Party oppose adoption of the appropriation review? Why will we be voting against the Government on this bill which is essentially a serious annual exercise? It is because of the philosophical divide that separates this House. There is a numerical divide and there is a philosophical divide in this House. Numerically the House is divided between the two largest parties between National and Labour; 69 votes square off though not always against 53. But philosophically the House is divided 113 to nine. 
What is the nature of this divide? It has to do with the fundamentals of economic and financial management which go to the heart of government and on which this financial debate rests. All other parties embrace the concept of unlimited economic growth. We heard that from the Minister of Finance from Mr Cunliffe and from Mr Burns just recently. In contrast the Green Party alone repudiates this concept. The Green Party embraces the concept of a steady-state economy: economic development yes; economic growth no. There can be no more fundamental party divide in a political democracy than over underlying macroeconomic belief. This House and in a more general sense this country is divided between those who believe that human technology has freed us from the primitive grasp of nature and those who believe that indefinite economic growth on a finite planet is a logical impossibility even allowing for technological growth. 
It is important therefore that we explain even in a technical debate of this kind the theoretical tenets on which the Green philosophy rests and which prompt us to vote against the Government while acknowledging to some degree its financial stewardship. This has to do with the relationship between the biosphere and the economy. The Earth’s biosphere continues as a whole in an approximately steady state. Contrary to what the opponents of steady-state theory say this does not mean that the Earth is static. Much qualitative development can happen inside a steady state. This has happened on Earth and it can happen inside today’s modern global economy. But after millennia of relatively harmonious living on the planet human society has changed within just the last 200 years with the enormous growth of the economy relative to the encompassing ecosystem. It is as if the aggressive child is killing off its nurturing parent. 
The distinction has to be made between growth and development. Growth is simply more of the same stuff. Development is the same amount of better stuff. The natural world is no longer able to provide the sources and sinks for the metabolic throughput necessary to sustain the oversized and overheated global economy. Yet with the global population growing from 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion and every country determined to increase its per capita GDP the economic managers of our times call none the less for the mindless pursuit of more growth. We are locked in an economic asylum of circular logic that is incapable of accounting for the externalities beyond the perimeter’s limits. Those externalities in the 21st century will prove to be lethal to most if not all societies. Economic growth has in fact become uneconomic in the sense that it cannot be sustained indefinitely which is of course its primary objective. We in the Greens advanced this critique of orthodox neo-liberal economic policy in our address in reply to the Prime Minister’s statement in February. We reiterate that critique today and we will continue to do so up to and into the next election. 
The financial statements contain the audited results for the 2008-09 year in comparison with two sets of forecasts. The first is the original Budget as published in the 2008 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update and the second is the estimated actual forecast as published in the 2009 Budget Economic and Fiscal Update. There is an obvious intimate relationship between the budgetary planning of the Government and the final financial forecasts. It is therefore consistent with Green Party philosophy that governmental approaches to macroeconomic planning and evaluation adopt a broader set of indices than the purely economic and financial ones that we currently use which are before us today. The Green Party has been prescribing this for at least a decade now and it is finally becoming mainstream. 
Last year President Sarkozy of France established the eminent commission led by Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen. The commission was asked by the President what was the best way to measure economic health. It concluded that GDP was inadequate as the principal measure. Perhaps concluded the commission: “Had there been more awareness of the limitations of standard metrics like GDP there would have been less euphoria over economic performance in the years prior to the crisis; metrics which incorporated assessments of sustainability … would have provided a more cautious view of economic performance but many countries lack a timely and complete set of wealth accounts the true natural balance sheets of the economy that could give a comprehensive picture of assets debts and liabilities of the main actors of the economy.” President Sarkozy has embraced the commission’s findings. He said with his usual candour: “The world over citizens think we are lying to them that the figures are wrong that they are manipulated. And they have reason to think like that.” Behind the cult of figures behind all the statistical and accounting structures there is also the cult of the market—that it is always right. 
We have reached a stage where we must incorporate environmental and social indicators into our macroeconomic management and our national financial accounts. To that end I have been working with colleagues recently to develop a member’s bill that could amend the Public Finance Act to ensure that our budgetary planning and our financial reviews take these indicators into account. It is my hope that I can submit this bill into the ballot within a month or two and that we can engage in a constructive dialogue on the best way to improve matters. 
RAYMOND HUO (Labour) 
: 
 Debates like this are primarily about the Crown accounts. When we are talking about accounts the most effective way is to show the actual numbers or to show them by way of graphics. In that vein I would like to offer my contribution by showing two cartoons from the Auckland Chinese media to illustrate the point. The point that the artist and the ethnic media are trying to make is that although Prime Minister John Key has maintained his beaming smile since taking office his standing within the Kiwi Asian community has changed dramatically. Coincidentally these cartoons accurately illustrate the points I want to make in relation to this debate. 
This is cartoon No. 1 which was published shortly after the 2008 general election as members can tell from the scoreboard which shows National 1 Labour nil. This cartoon shows the approachable energetic and triumphant Mr John Key becoming New Zealand’s Prime Minister with an array of the promises that he will fulfil. Prime Minister John Key laps up the rounds of applause from the majority of the Kiwis—good on them! 
The second cartoon was published early in 2010. This cartoon shows the same approachable energetic and triumphant Prime Minister John Key. However the weight of his promises are becoming unbalanced. Tax cuts for the top income earners outweigh the gains made by lower-income earners. The rounds of applause now echo out only from the privileged few—as the cartoon shows—who can afford giant diamond rings. The title the artist gave to the cartoon was “Step forward for the super rich; or tiptoe for the low to middle income earners”. 
That explains why Labour’s “Axe the Tax” campaign has struck a chord with the general public. I was at the campaign’s launch in Auckland and also in Christchurch last week engaging with ordinary Kiwis. One cannot help but ask what on earth this National-led Government has been doing to help ordinary New Zealanders. More GST means higher prices and no one voted for an increase in GST. Increasing GST to 15 percent means 20 percent more tax on the basics. The cost of living is already an issue and having a higher rate of GST will just make it worse. 
The Governor of the Reserve Bank Dr Alan Bollard indicated to Parliament’s Finance and Expenditure Committee recently that he agreed that an increase in GST to 15 percent would add 2 percent to inflation and living costs. Based on the Reserve Bank’s own forecasts in the recent Monetary Policy Statement this means that with the introduction of an increase in GST inflation is likely to outstrip wage growth while the labour cost index currently looks to just remain steady without any additional inflationary pressures such as a rise in GST. It is not just the impact of GST and National’s money-go-round: most people get a rise in GST and small change while the big cuts go to a few at the top. This will certainly raise a huge issue of equity. 
The second issue I picked up while campaigning is the uncertainty in relation to the possible change to other aspects of the tax system. National has indicated that it may remove depreciation from buildings. This reduction in income to landlords will flow roughly as an increase in rent possibly as high as $45 a week. That is on top of GST increases inflation minimal wage growth job insecurity and rising power prices. 
With regard to another issue of how to catch up with Australia as I argued in the House before focusing on the bottom 50 percent not on the top 5 percent is more sensible. I borrowed the idea from my friend Keith Ng whose research shows that New Zealand’s tax system is less progressive than Australia’s. That is high-income earners in Australia pay more tax both proportionally and in absolute terms. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
: 
 This session is certainly off to a scintillating start. I look forward to seeing a translation of whatever the speaker from the Green Party was talking about earlier because with respect to that member I had absolutely no idea what he meant. I would like to thank the members and officials who helped and assisted us to prepare the various financial reviews that we have in the report before us today. I think it goes for all members that we thank the people who produced these reports. I also join with the spokesperson on finance from the Opposition David Cunliffe in congratulating Mr English the Minister of Finance on the improvement in the accounts and in the forecasts which the Opposition spokesperson alluded to earlier. It is true that there is no longer a forecast of a decade of deficits; in fact it is 6.5 to 7 years at the moment. I will come back to that matter later. 
The accounts clearly demonstrate the need for accountability responsibility and transparency and to have a line-by-line expenditure review because if the accounts had continued to straight-line in the way that they had been doing in the previous 5 years or so this country would be in dire dire straits. I again congratulate the Minister for at least putting the brakes on some of the negative impacts of the accounts such as a potential blowout of the debt to GDP ratio. Budget 2009 began that clean-up process and Budget 2010 will start to bring some fairness and equity back into the economic system of New Zealand particularly with regard to the taxation field. If I have time I will touch base on that matter because some of the comments of previous speakers with perhaps just one eye open were totally and patently wrong. 
These accounts show a deficit of $10.5 billion from a positive $2.5 billion balance in the year before. Much of that deterioration comes from the recession and the global financial crisis to be fair but also much of it was locked in stepped up expenditure booked up by the previous administration. For example many Public Service salaries had been locked into 5 percent annual increases over 5 years which is 25 percent. That is before compounding the increases so they are obviously higher than 25 percent. So much of the problem with the accounts comes from having straight-lined expenditure increases yet variable or decreasing revenue as members have alluded to to be fair. 
If we run a deficit it means having debt. It means we have to borrow funds. It means we have to fund that borrowing. That money is quite simply not available for other services within the economy. It is not available to pay for health or education. It really surprises me that the Opposition goes on about more and more spending increases—I think of up to about $7 billion which would actually mean $7 billion worth of more borrowing. Well as other members have said that is a theft from or a tax on future generations which is simply not fair. To listen to earlier speakers one would think the problem was all over. It is not as bad as it had looked to be; that bit is dead right. But the issue is all about confidence and eliminating the deficits; it is not about pretending they are all over with a bit of a snapshot. 
One point to note is that the commentary says the previous administration did not pay off 1c of debt. The ratio of debt to GDP improved somewhat but that Government did not actually pay off 1c of debt. I invite members to look at the numbers. 
I would like to point members to page 13 of the transcript because the Opposition spokesperson on finance had a bit of difficulty with some of the issues there. He questioned the Minister about the percentage changes. If we want to show a percentage change between year 1 to year 2 we need to have two columns. We compare the two and we get one percentage change over 1 year. The Opposition spokesperson kept questioning the Minister of Finance who had produced a press release. It had six columns in it that produced percentage changes over 5 years. The media that were present were flabbergasted. Everyone around the table was flabbergasted because the most important issue for that member at the time during the review was how many columns the Minister of Finance had produced in a press release and even then the Opposition spokesperson got it round the wrong way. As I said if we want to show the difference between 1 and 2 years we need two columns of data. Again that may to be seem trivial but that is what the Opposition spokesperson on finance said; it is on page 13 of the report. 
One further thing I will say is in respect of superannuation. Basically the Opposition spokesperson on finance was essentially saying the more one borrows the more one makes. Supposedly we should have borrowed more funds in order to put more money into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund. I think we put in $250 million not the $2 billion that we would have needed to borrow in order to put into that fund. Members should look at the returns. They will see the returns are still not above the water. But the more one borrows the more one makes according to the Opposition member. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
Ministry of Economic Development 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I will refer to the collapse of financial markets and the importance of restoring confidence in financial markets and particularly to page 107 of the Commerce Committee’s report on financial markets. The committee outlined the progress that the Government has been making to restore confidence in financial markets. But this afternoon I want to talk about one specific finance company Strategic Finance. Sadly it was placed in receivership last Friday with no doubt the loss of many hundreds of millions of dollars. I believe that if the Government wants to restore confidence to the financial markets it needs to put Strategic Finance into statutory management. I wrote to the Minister of Justice Simon Power on 14 December outlining the reasons why I believe he should do just that. I believe that some of the investors who voted in the moratorium in late 2008 did so without knowing the full situation surrounding Strategic Finance’s financial affairs. 
In setting out those reasons I will come back to a speech I gave on the last sitting day of last year. In particular I referred to the fact that in the June 2008 accounts Strategic Finance showed $300 million worth of second mortgages. Twelve months later in the June 2009 accounts rather than showing $300 million worth of second mortgages it showed $232 million of second mortgages— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: If I can pause the member for a minute this is a financial review of the Ministry of Economic Development. Although the member has some interesting material it should have some connection to that matter. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I am making those points because the theme that comes through from the Commerce Committee is a need to restore confidence. We have had a situation arise where accounts have been presented that in substance are showing mortgages that although classified as second mortgages are in effect third mortgages. The people who have invested in those second mortgages bondholders in Strategic Finance are told more than 12 months after the end of the financial year that the second mortgages they think they hold—some $68 million worth—are second mortgages with subordinated position. A second mortgage with subordinated position is a mortgage where Strategic Finance has participated with other lenders and investors where the company’s position is subordinated to those people. 
In my letter to the Minister of Justice on 14 December I gave an example of the Hilton Fiji project where some $80 million $90 million or $100 million was advanced on second mortgage but of that mortgage approximately $30 million was a preferred position. So when it comes to paying back that second mortgage those preferred investors those at the top half of that second mortgage get paid in advance. I believe that the people who voted in the Strategic moratorium did not have the full facts at their disposal; I believe that they may not have voted for that moratorium and in terms of restoring confidence— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: There are two issues here that trouble me a little bit. The first which I have raised earlier is that this is the financial review of the Ministry of Economic Development. The second is that I believe that this matter is before the courts so under the Standing Orders some elements of what the member is talking about are matters that are sub judice and cannot be referred to in the Chamber. I tell the member he should move on from the material and refer to matters on the Ministry of Economic Development financial reviews. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I have only a couple of minutes left. I guess the Commerce Committee was concerned about restoring confidence to financial markets and we have had a receiver appointed to a company that can hardly be called an independent receiver; PricewaterhouseCoopers wrote an expert opinion that appeared in the moratorium. And no this matter is not before the courts I believe but it should be before the courts. If the Government is serious about restoring confidence to financial markets it can pass all the laws that it wants but it may as well start by enforcing the laws it already has. To restore confidence in the financial markets I believe we need an independent statutory manager appointed to this company. I do not believe it is appropriate to have PricewaterhouseCoopers appointed as a receiver when it was that party’s expert opinion that may well have led the company going into the moratorium in the first place and when the losses the bondholders will incur—and they will be substantial—will be even greater than they may have been had the company been put into receivership in December 2008. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
Ministry of Justice 
RAHUI KATENE (Maori Party—Te Tai Tonga) 
: 
 Members of the Maori Party were fascinated by the five pages that formed the substance of the report of the Justice and Electoral Committee on the Ministry of Justice. There has been a series of damning reports into the situation for Maori across the justice sector so it was our expectation that the financial review would make at least a cursory mention in passing of these reports and the ministry’s response. 
First off there was the report of March 2009—a 60-month follow-up analysis of the reconviction patterns of released prisoners. That report highlighted that the relatively high rates of re-imprisonment for Maori and for young offenders are particularly concerning. The re-imprisonment rate over 60 months for Maori offenders at 58 percent is over 10 percentage points higher than for European offenders and nearly 20 percentage points higher than for Pacific Island offenders. Yet the only mention of reconviction in the report was the reference to the decision to limit parole for the worst repeat offenders. 
The second report we thought would be entirely relevant for this report was the  
Offender Volumes Report 
 of 2009. The data in this report is depressingly familiar: the graphs reveal as at 30 June 2009 the preponderance of Maori males in the prison population especially in the younger age groups. As an example approximately twice as many Maori 25-year-old males are in prison as European males of the same age. Data upon data demonstrate that Maori offender volumes have increased at given snapshot dates. A quick glance at the evidence and advice received however tells us that such vital information about offender volumes was somehow not considered relevant. 
I turn to what we thought would have been a critical report for this ministry in terms of the emphasis on youth justice. We looked at the report presented by the Ministry of Social Development titled  
Effectiveness of Youth Court Supervision Orders: Measures of Re-offending 
. A key statement stands out in this report: “Currently in New Zealand there is no research on the effectiveness of Youth Court supervision orders in reducing the frequency and seriousness of re-offending.” There is reference in the financial review to the Youth Court and there is also reference to the involvement of the Ministry of Social Development. But this is where more questions are raised than resolved. Instead of drawing on this very significant finding the financial review suggests that the primary focus for the Ministry of Social Development was to ensure that the policy information was accurate “as distinct from advising on the appropriateness of expanding the jurisdiction of the Youth Court in this way.” I am sorry but this just does not add up. The Ministry of Social Development’s own research tells us that there is no research on the effectiveness of Youth Court supervision orders yet that information appears to have been ignored by the ministry in coming before the select committee. 
Some other major findings in that research have failed to make it to the financial review. One is the fact that Maori are overrepresented in the profile of youth offenders at 55 percent—a disproportionate figure relative to their proportion in the New Zealand population of 14 to 16-year-olds at 22 percent. Another is the extremely high recidivism rate: four out of five of the 1800 young people in the cohort committed at least one other offence within the follow-up period consistent across the three supervision orders. One would have thought an 80 percent reoffending rate would be worthy of comment. 
Finally I turn to another major report undertaken in the justice sector during the period of review. I suggest every member of Parliament look at this report; its title is  
Identifying and Responding to Bias in the Criminal Justice System: A Review of International and New Zealand Research 
. What is so useful about this report is not that it finally points out the well-known fact that certain groups are disproportionately represented in adverse criminal justice outcomes at successive stages of the criminal justice system; its key value is that it reports on the factors likely to bring about success in addressing ethnic disparities. It recommends that indigenous peoples should have a central role in programme design implementation and governance; that there should be a holistic approach to addressing structural inequalities more broadly; and that it should be appropriately monitored. 
I have bothered to go through these four different reports because it is our view that current New Zealand analysis and research on the key issues confronting the justice system should form a specific context to any financial review of the sector. These reports have told us that the current evidence depicts high and unchanging recidivism rates and continued overrepresentation of Maori at every level of the criminal justice system from apprehension through to recidivism. 
Yet what do we find when we look at the 2008-09 financial review? On the first page we find a whole paragraph dedicated to the large number of departmental officials who attended the hearing as if too many people at a hearing or meeting is one of the critical issues cutting through the sector. We fully appreciate the extra load that has landed on the Ministry of Justice in responding to not only the demands of electoral work following the general election in November 2008 but also the heavy focus on justice and law issues in the 100-day legislative programme of the new Government. But it is not as if the information is not on hand; these reports are all generated by various arms of Government: the Ministry of Justice the Ministry of Social Development and the Department of Corrections. The facts and figures are there for all to see—all except for the members of the Justice and Electoral Committee it seems. 
In one case even when the facts are explicit the review manages to slide past them in a way that downplays the reality. The youth justice sector of the report describes a question from the select committee as to whether the youth justice system continues to aim to take a diversionary approach to young offenders. The Ministry of Justice confirmed that this is still the intention yet the statistics tell us that prosecutions of youth offenders have increased while there has been an associated decrease in the numbers of alternative actions available. Indeed the report into child and youth offending describes youth prosecutions as trending upwards with the proportion of apprehensions resolved in this way increasing from 13.2 percent in 1995 to 28.1 percent in 2007. 
I have no pleasure at all in bringing to the Committee this up-to-date information about the performance of the justice sector. I do so reluctantly with two clear aims. The first is to enable a far more solid context in which to understand performance issues than is provided in the financial review and the second is to ensure that we have all information on hand in order that we do what is needed to create the solutions we so urgently desire. 
I believe the section on drivers of crime offers the one glimmer of hope we need in order to move forward. The financial review reports that the Minister of Maori Affairs and the Minister of Justice co-hosted a ministerial meeting on the drivers of crime in April 2009. That meeting was distinctive in its ambit as it sought to address the underlying causes of crime rather than just the criminal justice sector’s response to it. These causal factors included early childhood trauma disconnection from society and deterioration of family community and cultural support structures. So it is heartening to read in the report that addressing the drivers of crime would be established as a whole-of-Government priority. We certainly feel confident that with the work that Dr Sharples is leading in the drivers of crime policy and the work that Tariana Turia is leading in Whanau Ora we are embarking on pathways that can help to address these disproportionate and persistent statistics by drawing on the strength of whanau as our greatest resource. Thank you. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) 
: 
 I seek leave to lodge with the Committee a copy of my letter to the Minister of Justice dated 14 December 2009 requesting that Strategic Finance be put into statutory management. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
JOHN BOSCAWEN 
: I seek leave to lodge with the Committee a copy of the Minister of Justice’s reply to my letter dated 21 January 2010. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is anyone opposed to that course of action? It appears not. Leave is granted. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 It is good to be able to take the opportunity to review the year in this financial review of the Ministry of Justice and to review the work of the Justice and Electoral Committee and the officials from the justice ministry who have appeared before the committee. The previous speaker commented on the work of the committee and on the proportion of justice legislation that formed part of the Government’s 100-day plan and has been transacted through the select committee and the House over the past 12 months. I take this opportunity to thank those justice officials who have worked with the select committee and to thank the members of the committee who have worked very collegially over the last 12 months to transact that legislation. Although there have been some significant points of difference largely there has been a great deal of consensus within the committee which is the way that things should be with regard to legislation that we would like to think was relatively apolitical and was certainly needed. 
I take issue with a number of comments made by the previous speaker as to the work of the select committee and those things that appear to have slid past the committee. It seems a little difficult for a member of a party that is not represented on the committee to be able to make those sorts of comments not having been within the room. The point is that the issues raised in terms of youth offending are covered across a number of committees. They have been traversed within the Justice and Electoral Committee and the Social Services Committee and it is important to point out a couple of points. One point is in respect of the number of prosecutions of youth appearing before the Youth Court. Actually the proportion of youth who appear before the Youth Court as a proportion of all youth who come to the attention of the police is staying about the same as it was previously. About 20 percent of those who come to the notice of the police are dealt with by way of a family group conference along the Youth Court track and only about 20 percent of that group actually appear before the Youth Court. The reason that more young people have been appearing before the Youth Court is due to the scale and severity of the crimes they have committed particularly crimes against the person. The ability to deal with those crimes through ways other than prosecution is very very limited. 
It is important though to point to the work that the committee and the justice ministry have done over the last 12 months in respect of the legislation that has come before the House. They have worked on legislation that has clamped down on criminal gangs and their ability to work within the P trade. They have been tackling the problems of violent youth crime which is what we were talking about a moment ago. Not long after the National Government came in after the 2008 election one of the first pieces of legislation it introduced strengthened the bail laws in order to make it harder for violent criminals to get bail rescinding a move by the previous Government. Then the National Government removed the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole. We introduced legislation to enable the police to take DNA from all people who are arrested for an offence punishable by imprisonment and that is probably the single piece of legislation with the ability to protect more people than any other single piece of legislation that this House is likely to look at enacting. We need to bear in mind that securing a DNA profile from somebody who is arrested for a relatively minor offence is likely to prevent an increase in the number of victims because identifying such offenders means that if they ever escalate their offending they can be identified. That is especially so in respect of crimes against the person where bodily secretions or hair is left at the scene of a crime. Those offenders will be able to be identified and will not be able to go on to commit the level of offending that has been seen as abhorrent in our community. 
The justice ministry gave advice on the setting up of the victims’ compensation scheme. That scheme involved the introduction of a $50 offender levy for any person who is convicted of an offence before the court. That money is put into a victims’ fund to assist in the education of victims as to their rights and the resources available to them to be able to attend for instance parole hearings or to obtain childcare while they are giving evidence in court. It will enable them to attend trials involving family members or trials at which they are to give evidence. The Legal Services Agency helps victims of crime and the families of victims of crime to attend parole hearings and coronial inquests at no expense but we had had instances in respect of that that we needed to address. We were pleased to receive support across the House in respect of that measure. Thank you. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 The financial review of the Ministry of Justice proceeded without great moment this year. That really has been the measure of the Justice and Electoral Committee throughout this year: it has been an uncontentious committee. There have not been a lot of headlines about it and—as the chairman Chester Borrows has said—members have on the whole worked collegially and cooperatively. I think that probably has something to do with the fact that we are seeing a Government that is implementing its election promises in the areas of law and order and justice. Alongside our pledges to make a difference in the economy those were the single biggest things upon which the National Party and John Key were elected. 
The review process has been good and uncontentious. Together with the Law and Order Committee this select committee has put through a large volume of legislation. My recollection off the top of my head is that it has considered about 11 substantial bills in the last year. That is not to say that it has been some sort of supermarket conveyor belt just pushing bills through. In fact—as again Chester Borrows has said—a lot of thought has been put in by the committee. There has been a huge amount of deliberation and of course a large amount of work by the Ministry of Justice officials who have done an excellent job particularly—as I think Rahui Katene said—in that 100-day period at the start of this Parliament. They had a huge amount to do and did it with aplomb. 
I do not want to go through all the legislation that has had impact in this area but I want to single out one bill. My view as a former criminal lawyer is that this bill along with one that was before the Law and Order Committee—the legislation on the proceeds of crime—will have the single most important impact and a large effect for the good of victims ultimately creating less victims in our society. The bill I am talking about is one that Chester Borrows talked about: the Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Amendment Act 2009. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Fewer. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: What did I say? Was it bad English? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: You said “less”; it should have been “fewer”. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Thank you. Less victims— 
Hon Members 
: Fewer. 
SIMON BRIDGES 
: Fewer victims—that is a product of the school I went to. Chris Carter was my English teacher. That may have had something to do with it; I do not know. 
The legislation will create fewer victims—let us get that right—in a couple of ways. Firstly more criminals will be convicted because there will be more DNA on that database. Also important is the fact that if we take for example the David Dougherty case which I think everybody will remember—I think a DNA trace on his underpants saw him vindicated and cleared of a rape despite having been in prison for some time—we will see that not only are the guilty convicted but also the innocent are acquitted and as in his case the innocent going free after spending some time wrongfully behind bars. I think this is powerful legislation that will make a large difference along with the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act which has already seen in only a 2-month period many millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains taken from criminals—actually from just a small number of wealthy thugs. 
The Ministry of Justice officials are doing a great job for the Justice and Electoral Committee and for justice. If there is a golden thread that runs through everything we and the Law and Order Committee have done it is about victims. It is about getting a better deal for victims so that they see justice in the process but also so that there are ultimately less victims of crime. 
Report noted. 
Ministry of Health 
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
: 
 I am delighted to be able to speak in the debate on the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill on the financial review of the Ministry of Health. I will mention in this debate the new language that has come to the fore when we consider what is happening in the health system. When we look at the services that people are currently receiving that are being cut when we look at the impact of the budget restraints that the Minister of Health is personally imposing on district health boards and when we look at the lack of support that the Minister is giving to the key sector leaders throughout the health system we see there really is a big change. 
The new language of health which the Associate Minister Jonathon Coleman repeated today is extraordinary. We do not have cuts in health services; we just have “changes” in health services. Well he should tell that to the older people in Otago and Southland who are currently receiving 1 or 2 hours’ home support a week which enables them to have quality of life and to be able to stay safely in their own homes in Dunedin or Southland. I say the Associate Minister should tell them that the letter they have just received which says they will no longer receive that home support is not about a cut in health service but is just about a change. A big change for them is that if they want to have that home support any more if they want to have help with their laundry meal preparation or house cleaning they will have to pay for it themselves. That is the change for them but from their point of view they know what the Minister and the Associate Minister have really been saying which is that this is not a change but a cut. 
In the same way the nurses at Nelson Hospital know that the cuts in staff numbers in Nelson’s public hospital are not a change but a cut. The chief executive has been directed personally by the Minister of Health to stop filling any vacancies in nursing positions. What did the Minister promise New Zealand before the 2008 election? He promised that there would be no cuts to front-line services. We cannot get someone who is more front-line than a nurse in a public hospital. The nurses are now speaking out publicly saying patient safety is being put at risk. Patient safety is being put at risk in Nelson Hospital because the Minister of Health has told the chief executive to leave vacancies unfilled. So we have fewer staff but the same number of patients is in the hospital. Nurses are now calling on overworked doctors to help them out and this is all about cutting costs and services which puts patients’ safety at risk. 
The good people of Horowhenua will be very interested to hear Jonathon Coleman the Associate Minister say the cut of 24 patient beds at the Horowhenua Health Centre is not a cut in health services. The centre has only 24 patient beds and 24 beds are being cut. Taking away 24 patient beds is being called just a change. 
This is the new language of health that Tony Ryall and Jonathon Coleman are trying to ram down the throats of the public of New Zealand but they are not having a bar of it. We know particularly as we look through the details in this financial review that those are not changes in health. They are cuts to front-line services and are hurting hard-working New Zealanders. Frankly the most upsetting are the cuts to the services for older people. They have given their lives in the service of our country either in paid employment or in raising their families often serving our country overseas and literally putting their lives on the line for the good of the country. When older people need just 1 or 2 hours a week of home support to keep them safe and living with that little bit of support in their own homes they are told that they will just have to pay for it themselves. That is not good enough and it is certainly not what the older people of New Zealand deserve. Just to cap it off though the older people who live in Southland which is the Minister of Finance’s own electorate have been told that not only is their home support being cut but also there will be a 6-month waiting list for their rest home. That is not good enough for older New Zealanders. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
: 
 It is quite clear that one of the reasons the last Government was thrown out of office was that the public no longer trusted it to manage the health service. That is absolutely true. That is what happened. Over 9 years the previous Government failed to deliver elective surgery and failed to make a difference overall to service provision for New Zealanders and it was found out. 
You know it is very interesting; that member just got up and talked about the new language of the health sector. Well I have a document here published under the previous Labour Government that talks about programmes being reprioritised during the Vote Health October 2008 reprioritisation. Of course that was not a cut; it was a reprioritisation! So when that Government took $10 million from the interim funding pool for people with disabling chronic medical conditions oh no that was not a cut; that was a reprioritisation! I think that it is very very difficult for that member there Ruth Dyson to speak with any credibility in this Chamber on matters of health when she is so badly— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: We didn’t cut services. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: She says they did not cut services. They took— 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: And that Minister brought in changes in immigration policy— 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: And now this member wants to talk about immigration and not health; it has got too hot for them. Quite frankly I tell members there is no credibility. Ruth Dyson brought up the matter of the old people of Invercargill. We inherited a massive problem left behind by that previous Government but we have put a lot of new money into Otago and Southland—$28 million. The fact is that because of that previous Government’s mismanagement we are in the situation where we have to make some real changes. This is not a new problem because I can tell members that when Minister Hodgson was faced with this very issue back in 2006 I note that he took pretty similar action. He wrote at that time to Chester Borrows when faced with making changes to the household management services for 304 elderly people under Whanganui District Health Board and said “DHBs are expected to provide services within the limits of their budgets. Whanganui DHB as well as other DHBs must prioritise which services to fund. As a consequence 304 people assessed as low-need will no longer receive household management services funded by Whanganui DHB.” So that is exactly what the previous Government did. Apparently it was absolutely— 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Every one of them had an assessment. Tell the truth for a change—tell the truth. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: You see she is saying now that I am not telling the truth. We cannot get any more truthful than this letter from Pete Hodgson. That member there Ruth Dyson is having to resort to unparliamentary language because she has been completely caught out. She has had to get personal on this stuff; she has no credibility on health. Labour members had 9 years to handle it and they failed. So if all they can do is come in here at question time or in debate and say “Oh you guys are doing exactly what we did but now it is a cut and when we did it it was a reprioritisation.” it is no wonder they lost the last election. I think personally that they need new people here. They need a new spokesperson on health— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. It is a relatively simple point of order. This is I understand a narrow debate unless there has been a reinterpretation of it to talk about things that are general political issues and not related. I think I have been in the Chamber for probably 3 minutes but have not heard reference to a particular item under review. It seems to me that the debate seems to be certainly outside what used to be allowed in it. If we are allowed to have something very general the Opposition would support that. But if that were the new ruling from here on in I am not entirely sure that the Minister of Education would support it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: In response to that I tell members that it is a somewhat difficult issue for me to contain everybody exactly inside the rails. But I think that by and large the debate has been pretty much on track. Although the Minister did not often refer to the financial reviews regarding health he did spend some time responding to some comments made by the Hon Ruth Dyson. But I think the reminder is timely. I wish we could keep this debate tightly constrained but both sides have erred somewhat—well it is more than sides; the whole spectrum of the Committee has been involved. But it is a timely reminder. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Of course it is an old technique that if one is losing the debate one tries to break it up. But we are used to that sort of thing. That member Trevor Mallard is one who should be leaving as well. If members would like to discuss the financial review aspects— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Put a cigar in your hand. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: You see he is getting personal. They are losing; these guys are losing: they are losing with the public they are losing in the Chamber. Mr Mallard is another who definitely should be going. But we are quite happy to have him here because the more he talks the better it gets for us. 
I tell members that $536 million of new money is going into health. There is more money going into health than ever before. There is more elective surgery being done— 
Hon Members 
: Oh rubbish. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: There is; those members cannot deny it. We have put more money into health than any other Government in the past and we are delivering services: 12 months’ treatment with Herceptin and more elective surgery than ever before. Quite frankly I tell members the public wanted a focus on the services they needed and they are getting that. The public are happy. The big reasons for which this Government was elected were to manage the economy to make people feel safer at home to get the health service right and of course to deliver on national standards in education. We have made some promises; we are firmly delivering on them. When we look at what else has happened we can see that we have firmly tackled the workforce crisis which is probably the biggest single aspect of the health care system that needs fixing. We are making more places available. We have introduced a voluntary bonding scheme. We are focusing on getting the money directed to the services that the public need and that will be our overwhelming emphasis. 
Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) 
: 
 Kia ora talofa lava and warm Pacific greetings. I stand to speak on the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill with a heavy heart and with sadness as I reflect on this National Government which continually uses rhetoric and nonsense over logic and common sense and which labels cuts as changes. 
Let me prepare a snapshot of some of the changes; we are talking about the impacts on our families our communities and our elders out there in the community. In March 2009 the Taranaki District Health Board publicly signalled that its hospital was preparing for cut-backs. In April 2009 the Southland District Health Board and the Otago District Health Board confirmed they were cutting home-based services in order to reduce costs. The boards were looking to make savings of up to $10 million by reducing home-based support for the elderly. In May 2009 their anti-obesity oral health and mental health targets were cut. National took $2.3 million out of cancer controls in Budget 2009. It has slashed the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa budget by $4.8 million each year. It has cut $3 million from the cardiovascular disease budget and mental health services have also had their funding cut. 
In June 2009 the Whanganui District Health Board said that it would be closing hospital wards at weekends to save money on nursing overtime. The Fruit in Schools programme which currently provides 100000 children with fresh fruit each day is under threat. In July 2009 the South Canterbury District Health Board said that it would be reducing the number of patients seen in its emergency department by up to 5000 people a year. In August 2009 there were cuts to elderly care in South Canterbury. Rest home care limits have annoyed general practitioners and Dunstan Hospital has reduced community physiotherapy and disability home support. In September 2009 $2 million was cut from mental health services in Nelson’s mental health funding. In October 2009 there were home support cuts for the elderly in Canterbury. I quote from the Christchurch  
Press 
: “Man 83 offers to clean shower with foot”. 
In November 2009 a total of 12.5 nursing positions were chopped across Palmerston North Hospital’s main surgical medical and child health wards. In December 2009 a survey showed that spending was down on general practitioner visits and on surgery. Research commissioned by Southern Cross Healthcare found that the number of people who visited their general practitioner when they felt unwell fell from 64 percent in 2008 to 56 percent in the following year and senior doctors voted overwhelmingly to focus on achieving a pathway to try to better conditions. In January this year Mary Bourke a district health board member was candid about the accident compensation squeeze. She said “So effectively madam chair what we are talking about here is that ACC is trying to cut down on its costs by shoving its responsibilities on to someone else?”. More than 1200 Canterbury elderly have had their home help hours cut or reduced since the new assessment service and we have numerous stories in part of my electorate the Mana electorate where home-based support cuts are being assessed via the telephone. We have heard these stories all over the country. What is really disturbing is the anxiety and stress that is caused. For example in my electorate of Mana 24 percent of Kapiti are over 65 years old and people are worried. If we look in terms of the elder example we see that we are actually talking about over 28000 people in rest home care and over 60000 people who receive home-based care. It is cheaper and much more cost-effective to continue to give that little bit of support to enable our elders to continue to live independently and in their own homes. 
At the end of the day this particular group is very important to our society because they hit us at a personal and intimate level. They are our parents they are our grandparents and they have contributed to and built society. Is that the sort of reciprocity we want? At the end of the day it is sad to see a lot of programmes that Labour embedded and which needed more time to continually produce the achievement levels they were already showing— 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this very important financial review. I must say that I am very proud to be able to speak of National’s record in health. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Really? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: We see the Labour Opposition and we look at its record. Labour members were the very ones who when in Government culled tens of thousands of patients off the waiting lists—tens of thousands of patients. That was a bad record and that record is very well evidenced. In sharp contrast in this financial year over 129000 elective operations have been carried out. That is 11800 more than in the previous year. 
Hon Member 
: How many? 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON 
: It was 11800 more than in the previous year and many thousands more than in any of the previous 8 years under the previous Labour Government. One of the things that distinguished the Labour Government was the dismal productivity in the health sector. That was borne out very clearly by a series of papers written by Treasury. After all Labour injected money into it but there was no evidence of an increase of output clearly shown in the area of elective surgery and clearly shown when Labour culled—not reprioritised; it culled—tens of thousands of patients off the waiting list. So when we have this Labour Opposition talking about cuts it just has to look back at its record which was a particularly dismal one when it came to health. 
One of the things I think is important to emphasise is that the health system that Labour had put in place was totally inappropriate in terms of the duplication and the poor local regional and national planning and performance right around the country. That is one of the great achievements that occurred with the formation of the new National Health Board. It is indeed providing the leadership required to manage that $9.7 billion that funds the 21 district health boards. It is indeed extraordinarily timely. 
It is important also to comment on the significant report called “In Good Hands” to guide district health boards in introducing greater clinical leadership into the public health system. Clinicians doctors and nurses throughout the country have absolutely unanimously considered that this is the very sort of thing that should happen after 9 years of being shunted out of front line services in the New Zealand health service. 
One of the other very interesting things that happened recently was the publication of a simplified health target system. Under Labour we had target after target we had strategy on strategy and Labour members just did not know where they were going. I note in the  
Dominion Post  
just this morning that the editorial “Public comparisons boost performance” said “One thing is for sure in the wake of the publication of Health Ministry statistics comparing the performance of 80 primary health organisations. Total Healthcare Otara the PHO with the poorest record of immunising two-year-olds will be taking immediate steps to improve its performance. Public ignominy is a powerful motivating tool. So it should be. The release of the data highlights yet again the benefits of comparing the performance of organisations doing essentially the same job whether they operate in the health sector the education sector or any other area.” 
That was one of the problems of the previous Labour Government. It was not transparent it created huge bureaucracy and it failed to bring evidence out into the public. Here we are seeing before us one of our major papers saying that this is good. In education they have baulked at it but the health fraternity is saying: “Yes this is great.” The district health boards have lauded it and so have the primary health organisations. 
Report noted. 
State Services Commission 
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
: 
 What the financial review of the State Services Commission tells us is that the Government actually does not have a coherent plan for how to establish public services that are relevant and proper for the 21st century. It has made a series of moves that are nothing more than smoke and mirrors. 
At the Government Administration Committee we looked into the question of what front-line staff are. One of the big centrepieces of the National Government’s public-sector policy is moving more people to the front line—out of the back room on to the front line—delivering services to New Zealand. We discovered in the financial review process that there was no definition of front-line staff. There is no definition whatsoever of what front-line staff in the public service are or what they do. In fact as we look across the financial reviews we can see that there are a variety of definitions of front-line staff. 
Archives New Zealand is a Government agency that I think does an excellent job. It is a very very good and efficient outfit. It told the select committee that it had 80 percent of its staff on the front line. Not even I as a great supporter of Archives New Zealand believe that it can really be saying that 80 percent of its staff is front-line. But the reality is that there is no definition of front-line and it is the centrepiece of the National Government’s policy. We asked a number of other agencies; some of them told us that the State Services Commission was developing a definition and some told us that it had given them a definition. There was absolutely no clarity about one of the most central points in this Government’s policy the idea that there will be more people on the front line. 
Perhaps it is not too surprising that National wants to mask some of that. One thing became clear when the Ministry of Education told us that the percentage of people working as front-line staff in 2008 was 57 percent and in 2009 it had gone down to 53 percent. So the number of front-line staff in the Ministry of Education actually declined in this National Government’s first year in office. So much for a policy to move staff to the front-line and give the New Zealand public the services it deserves! We can actually see in these financial reviews that the percentage of staff working in the Ministry of Education on the front line went down. 
It is all smoke and mirrors when it comes to the public sector; there is no coherent plan. That became very evident on radio last week when the Minister of Education Anne Tolley was asked about the $25 million dollar cut to the Ministry of Education. She was asked what programmes and what activities would be cut. She told Radio New Zealand that she did not know. We know it will be $25 million but we do not know what the programmes and the services are. That is completely the wrong approach to take towards State services. New Zealanders deserve a Government that looks to see what outcomes we want from the public sector and what kinds of services New Zealanders need and deserve and then builds the ministries to deliver on those outcomes. But instead we hear from Anne Tolley that she does not know. It is $25 million; it is just a dollar figure. That is the problem with the National Government’s approach to the State sector. It is penny-pinching and it is not prepared to invest. The Government is not prepared to ask questions about the outcomes. It just wants to cut into it. 
There is a complete farce in this policy. The National started at the beginning of this term with a cap on the public sector—no cuts; just a cap. We know that is wrong; more than 1500 jobs have gone out of the public sector. It is the front-line services that are going that matter such as Child Youth and Family staff and at the border biosecurity staff. What could be more important as a public service provided to New Zealanders than protecting our borders? The National Government has made indiscriminate cuts. It is not about what the best services could be for New Zealanders; it is about putting in place ideological funding cuts right across the board. That will not deliver us the public sector that New Zealanders want. 
When we look overall at the performance of the State Services Commission there have to be questions asked about its future. The work of e-government is being done by the Department of Internal Affairs the work on Government procurement is being done by the Ministry of Economic Development and the work on productivity in the State sector is being done by Treasury. There is very little left for the State Services Commission to be doing. Its future must be in question. But once again what we are seeing coming out from the State Services Commission is seemingly random restructuring. It wants to bring Archives New Zealand back inside the Department of Internal Affairs. It went out in the 1990s because we realised that it was time to give Archives New Zealand its own mandate and the ability to get other Public Service departments to deposit their records. That is why it was done yet it has now been put back in the Department of Internal Affairs. 
There is no coherent plan. Why is the National Government not going back and looking at the State Sector Act for instance and asking how we can organise public services to be delivered in a coordinated manner? That is what New Zealanders want and it is not coming from this Government. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 The financial review of the State Services Commission was undertaken by the Government Administration Committee. One of the main aims of the National-led Government is to provide services to the public. In February 2009 the Government released its  
Expectations for Pay and Employment Conditions in the State Sector 
. These new expectations reflect the Government’s priority in economic and fiscal situations. 
The key points were that any changes to pay must not lead to private sector movements and must take into account the total cost and value of employment conditions. State sector agencies that were required to consult the State Services Commission regarding changes to the conditions of employment are expected to demonstrate that the outcomes are fiscally sustainable within the baseline responsible and demonstrate value for money. This was not a wage freeze. It was about moderating wage expectations in the public sector which has continued through the financial year. 
The National-led Government is not about growing the Public Service but about growing services to the public. This means more front-line service delivery and more efficient back-office services. 
The National-led Government has halted the growth in Public Service bureaucracy. The human resource capability strategy of 2009 shows that the Public Service is heeding the Government’s call for wages restraint and small core Government administration. The summary reports a decline in the number of public servants since December 2008 and labour force index data show that growth in Public Service wages has slowed. It is not the numbers; it is the service that this Government has committed to the public and we are providing that. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
Ministry for the Environment 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 I welcome this opportunity to speak to the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill on the financial review of the Ministry for the Environment. I was not a member of the Local Government and Environment Committee. That committee is incredibly important to the Green Party and my colleague Sue Kedgley was a member of it. 
Hon Member 
: And still is. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY 
: She still is a member. As I said there was an issue discussed that I want to describe today. Instead of having a broad-brush approach to a range of issues I will talk about the serious nature of cutting funding for what may seem to be an obscure issue. Last year the Ministry for the Environment suffered a number of cuts because we were in a recession and because the Government did not seem to have the same commitment to the Ministry for the Environment that we would like to have seen. One of the cuts that was discussed at that select committee that has had a serious effect was the cut to the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. The Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund is administered by the Ministry for the Environment to assist regional councils to investigate plan and remediate contaminated sites in their regions. It is an incredibly important fund because it seeks to assist communities and councils to clean up the mess concerning contaminated sites that has not been addressed for many many years. The Ministry for the Environment fund was cut from its 2008 level of $5 million to $1.78 million in 2009. That might seem like very small beer but in reality we need a lot more than $5 million to deal with the legacy of toxic sites across this country. 
Only this week the Mapua community had a very serious report into the ongoing health effects of the failure of the Ministry for the Environment to properly clean up a site at Mapua. It was very unfortunate that the Government decided to cut the fund from $5 million which barely covers several major contaminated site clean-ups—if indeed it would cover those—to $1.78 million for 2009 and 2010. The Green Party is very concerned about that for a number of reasons. One of the reasons is that it is in the context of councils having just been forced to create registers of contaminated sites thanks to a proactive journalist who went to the Ombudsman. We are hearing that it is not a matter of each region having just a few sites. Many regions have hundreds of sites that need the assistance of the Ministry for the Environment to help clean them up. We could argue that the polluters should pay and in fact I will be arguing that point through a liability bill. But right now it is the responsibility of the Ministry for the Environment to make sure that there is sufficient funding to assist communities to clean up contaminated sites. So we see it as a very retrograde step that in the last financial year that funding was cut. 
Another reason why it is a bad time to cut that funding is that the Government has not yet even finalised the soil standards for toxic sites. Those standards have not been set and they will set the real cost of clean-up. Until we know what the standards are we do not know what those costs will be. We can guarantee that the clean-up of toxic sites is not getting cheaper. 
What is the history of this issue in terms of the Ministry for the Environment? It is important to recognise why I am concerned about that cut in 2009 and why I am talking about it during a financial review. It is because the Ministry for the Environment has serious responsibilities for a number of toxic sites around the country. There are hundreds of them. We have some information about the real cost of cleaning up contaminated sites. For example the Waipa sawmill at Rotorua was contaminated by pentachlorophenol and $28 million will still be spent over the next 35 years to try to treat the water that comes out of the sawmill. The water goes through the Puarenga Stream into Whakarewarewa—where children dived for money—and into Lake Rotorua. That is an ongoing cost of $28 million over 35 years. So clearly that is the kind of money we are talking about for one contaminated site. Another example is the Kopeopeo Canal in Whakatane. It is estimated by the local people who have been very active in looking at a positive way of dealing with the issue that $3 million to $6 million will be needed to clean up that one canal. That is only one of 28 orphan sites around Whakatane that will need a clean-up even if the trialling of the bio-remediation model which is being worked on at the moment is successful. 
The last one I want to refer to is of course Mapua. The Ministry for the Environment estimated that it would cost $7 million to clean it up. The costs have since doubled and it is still a mess. Some clean-up took place but the off-site impact of the experimental mechanism used to clean up Mapua has created more risks and thus more costs. The people of Mapua found out yesterday that there were many chemicals that they were exposed to at that site that were not monitored for such as polychlorinated biphenyls and dioxin etc. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to speak in the financial review debate and to refer to the report of the Local Government and Environment Committee on the 2008-09 financial review of the Ministry for the Environment. As the chair of that committee I must say that I am very pleased with what has been delivered. The committee itself is a hard-working and diligent committee with a high level of commitment to quality outcomes a little like the example given by the National-led Government. 
In the 2008-09 financial year we have seen a new Government with new priorities significant changes to the ministry’s structure and governance systems and a reduction in baseline funding. The new priorities included the reform of the Resource Management Act and developing new policy on the roles and functions of agencies operating in the environmental sector including establishing an Environmental Protection Authority under the Resource Management Act. The amended Resource Management Act reduces the time for processing consents and reduces the paperwork required without forfeiting obligations to New Zealand’s unique environmental heritage. As part of the commitment to environment management an Environmental Protection Authority has been established and it will become effective on 1 October. It has been a pleasure to be involved with the first phase of the Resource Management Act reforms and certainly those reforms clean up an awful lot of rubbish. It was mentioned on the other side of the House and that is where the rubbish emanated from. I look forward to the critical phase of two reforms later this year. Two call-ins have been completed—Te Mihi geothermal and Te Waka wind farm—and two new proposals have been called in. 
The way we handle resources is very very important. The Ministry for the Environment produced some excellent work in preparation for changes to the Resource Management Act. Indeed it is possibly worth mentioning that it made an exceptional commitment at a staff level to making those changes and bringing recommendations forward. We could not have asked for more assistance than we got. It was exemplary. 
I note the comments of the Green Party member who has just spoken and I certainly would not lessen the gravity of the toxic waste clean-ups. They have occurred but I am not quite sure I agree with the member about the success or otherwise of the Mapua one. We had a report just yesterday that indicated that the situation is hopefully not as serious as could have been imagined initially. That work is being done and the report is out there for 6 weeks during which time members of the public particularly those with any concerns are encouraged to make contact with the Ministry of Health. I encourage them to do so and indeed people in Mapua where I was on Friday are encouraged to get in touch with me if they think I can be of assistance with their inquiries. I would be happy to do so. It has been a long journey for them. It is not over yet but again the way the Ministry for the Environment has worked through this has been an exemplary indication of commitment to getting things right even though they were wrong. I congratulate the ministry on the way it has done that work. 
The emissions trading scheme has been an important priority during the reporting period. We have seen the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill implemented. This was drafted to tight time frames and was introduced in September 2009. The Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee reported back to the House on 31 August 2009 with recommendations and the Act was passed on 25 November 2009. Features of the amended Act include: revised entry dates of 1 July 2010 for transport energy and industrial sectors and 1 January 2015 for agriculture; a transitional phase until 1 January 2013 with a 50 percent obligation and a $25 fixed option for the transport energy and industrial sectors and incentives for afforestation created by a domestic and international market for carbon credits. 
Another important step that has been made is the investment of $36 million in a bio-diesel grants programme. This will promote bio-diesel production to kick-start the biofuels industry. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
New Zealand Police 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 In the brief time we have available I want to make a couple of remarks concerning the funding of the New Zealand Police. I am pleased that the Minister of Police is in the chair because it was and still is that Minister who makes a great play of talking tough and saying she will back the police. [ 
Interruption 
] However those members do not like this debate because unlike a select committee they cannot shut this debate down which the chair of the Law and Order Committee sitting over there has tried to do in that committee. 
There is a worrying trend within the New Zealand Police and it is not about the police officers themselves. The trend is that this Minister after talking tough making a large amount of promises grinning like a Cheshire cat and having a wee giggle as she does has embarked on a series of cuts that are evidenced in the documentation that is before us—[ 
Interruption 
]—and they do not like it. It was this Minister who said she would put 600 new police on the streets by the end of 2011 when we know that although that sounds good in theory in practice approximately 380 of those 600 officers were already promised. Before she says that one has to follow promises with funding I say that those officers were already funded and being trained under the previous Labour Government. 
We know the obsession the Minister has with her own patch of Counties-Manukau and she and her Prime Minister celebrated the 200th graduate police officer to go into Counties-Manukau. OK that is fair enough because we know that Counties-Manukau has some unique crime and violence problems but here is the rub: we found out courtesy of an Official Information Act request and one district commander Mike Bush that the Minister has according to her own departmental papers provided only 25—she now says it is 43—police cars for the so-called 300 police she is putting into Counties-Manukau. District commander Bush made a very interesting point. He said that that is one vehicle for every 12 officers. The Minister says it is now 43 but let us not quibble. Even if it is 43 it is far less than the normal ratio. Of course district commander Mike Bush comments in the Official Information Act memo this ratio of 1:12 is “considerably lower” than the current ratio which ranges from 1:4 to 1:6. This is not a bureaucrat; this is a senior police officer who is probably the first at district commander level to question the rationale for this policy. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: We get our policemen out on the job. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: Those members interject and fluff about over there but the member for West Coast - Tasman who has lost cars in his patch will not stand up and protest that in this Chamber. That member will not stand up for his local police force on the West Coast; he hides away. 
I also say to the Minister that she is a Minister who—according to district commander Cliff in Canterbury who has verified it publicly in documentation that has been tabled—along with this Government required a $21 million cut in police resources. Firstly it manifested in 340 cars or 10 percent of the vehicle fleet going. The Minister said: “It won’t be front-line vehicles. It’ll be things like vans.” Even in my patch the community cop now has to drive the police prison van around because the van did not go but his squad car has gone. The youth aid officer in Kaiapoi has to get a pool car when she can get it to chase down young offenders. 
So what we have— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Oh rubbish! 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: The member says it is rubbish. I invite that member who chairs the Law and Order Committee to go to the West Coast to go to the Kaiapoi Police Station to go to the Rangiora Police Station and to go up and talk to district commander Mike Bush in Counties-Manukau and ask him why he said what he said. I do not think district commander Bush is a liar. I think he is a man of his word I think he is an honourable person and unlike the Minister of Police and the politicians in this Chamber he is a front-line trained professional crime-fighting police officer. If anybody knows about the resources that police need it would be that district commander. The Minister laughs and looks likes the political version of a Cheshire cat; she is good at that. She stands up to say “Oh Mr Chairman” but she does not match her rhetoric with resources. The question I have for this Minister is why if the police had all these resources did they not come to us and ask us— 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 It is really great to be the Minister of Police and to remind members that in the last Budget the police were huge winners getting almost $300 million extra. But there was not a word from the Opposition on that point. I say to the member who just resumed his seat Clayton Cosgrove that one thing our front-line police officers do not like is having their names used in this Chamber and brought into political debate. I ask him to kindly respect the fact that those officers are embarrassed by his using their names and they would rather he did not do that. And quite frankly they also dispute many of the things he says about them. 
One of the points we can note is that the New Zealand Police is the best police force in the world. There was not a word from the Opposition about the fact that a UMR Research poll shows that for the first time 78 percent of people polled thought that the police were fantastic and that they do a good job. That is the highest rating ever; a 7-point increase in 1 year. The Government had something to do with it in terms of funding leadership and direction and backing for the New Zealand police. But the majority of the credit should go to our police officers who everyday put their lives on the line for us. I would like to give them that credit and I want to tell members about some of the very good stories from the New Zealand police during the last financial year. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Tell us! 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I thank Mr Auchinvole; I certainly will. 
For a start we recognise that there is a problem with organised crime. Police have achieved the best results in 10 years for the National Cannabis and Crime Operation. Over 800 searches led to 1175 offenders being identified and over 140000 plants being destroyed and New Zealanders were protected from some $379 million worth of socio-economic harm. 
Three major operations—Operation Viper Operation Vito and Operation Web—smashed serious drug operations. In September 2008 Operation Viper led to more than 70 people being arrested for serious drug-dealing offending. Operation Vito led to 10 arrests in relation to the manufacture and supply of methamphetamine and three clandestine laboratories were dismantled. 
The whole-of-Government approach is the only way to fight organised crime and it was very satisfying to see the Organised and Financial Crime Agency New Zealand or OFCANZ carry out its first operation last year. This signalled that New Zealand has become a more hostile environment for organised crime groups. This Government was very pleased to be able to get through the House and put in place legislation such as the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act and the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act which empower police to hit crime bosses where it hurts. 
Police have continued to invest in staff and equipment that reflects international best practice. New digital radios in the Wellington region were the culmination of 4 years’ work and the safety of officers has been greatly improved. [ 
Interruption 
] The Opposition may think that is nothing to get excited about but this Government does. Auckland and Canterbury are on track to have digital radio this year. 
The national Taser roll-out is under way thank goodness following the Government’s decision to back the police and give them an extra $10 million in the last Budget. Early data shows that in 90 percent of violent instances the situations are resolved when Tasers are presented without any physical force or even the use of the Taser. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Really? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes—amazingly! This Government is serious about giving the police the right tools to do their job safely. 
In late 2008 police started training staff in world-leading investigative interviewing techniques. More than 3700 staff have now been trained. The electronic crime laboratory has led internationally ground-breaking work on the remote examination of electronic devices. This allows police anywhere in the country to examine seized computers without those computers being forensically compromised. 
We look forward to the effects of the innovative approaches to crime and crime reporting such as the Crimestoppers service which was launched in October last year. Results have already shown that in the first 4 months the service took nearly 2200 calls and police have advised me that around 40 percent of those calls led to the detection of a crime. 
There was also success with road policing in the first part of 2009. Operation Tahi targeted driver behaviour in the South Island on State Highway 1 for 5 months. High levels of cooperation between the various districts led to an estimated 38 fewer fatal-injury crashes. This is a good-news story for New Zealand police but there has not been a word from the Opposition. Unfortunately it is left to the Government to say that we are very pleased about the wonderful work of the New Zealand police. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 I will take a fairly short call in the debate on the financial review of the New Zealand Police. When the Commissioner of Police appeared before the Law and Order Committee it was very gratifying to hear him acknowledge that using sworn police personnel to run speed cameras was a waste of resources. The commissioner came close to suggesting that traffic enforcement should be separated back out from what I would refer to as true policing. But he later issued a statement making it clear that that was not his intent. However the commissioner agreed at that hearing that having six police running a checkpoint at 9 a.m. looking for warrants and registrations in the village near where I live was not a good use of resources. The commissioner noted that they must have been doing something other than that. Well only they would know but I doubt it. 
I note that the speed camera van that is regularly parked in the village outside the school—and no one disagrees that it should be there—is manned by a man who looks like a retired policeman but who in fact told me he is an active sworn policeman. Surely he could be better deployed somewhere other than sitting in a van outside the Kaukapakapa School making sure that no one smashes the camera. I encourage the Commissioner of Police to look further at deploying resources better to fight crime rather than to look after speed cameras. 
Policing in rural areas is a major problem. There must be a balance between the low population density and therefore relatively lower crime rate and the shortage of resources. Obviously the police must be concentrated where most of the crime takes place. However there is an old saying: “Build it and they will come.” In my view that works the opposite way and I will alter that truism slightly and say: “If they know they are not there they will come also.” In the 4 years or so that I have lived in the country I have noted a marked increase in wheel skids all over the road every morning in and around our area. That is because the hoons know that the nearest manned police station at night is in Orewa which is 15 kilometres away. So because the police are not there they come and make mayhem. 
I have spoken in this Chamber before of our local general store and liquor store owner Willie and his family who are hard-working New Zealand Chinese. The shop opens at 7 a.m. this time of year and does not close until 7.30 p.m. One would think Willie and his family deserve their rest but he has to be out on the street at 2 a.m. most nights especially on weekends to deter the hoons who are doing doughnuts all over the road. The hoons do that because they know there is no policeman within 15 kilometres. What would happen if the little swine were to confront him? If Willie and his family were beaten up it would take half an hour or more for an ambulance to reach him. In my view the very successful community constable experiment should be extended more into rural areas. If money needs to be found then we say it should be taken from the highway patrol car that is regularly to be found sitting at the Silverdale on-ramp looking for the dangerous speedster doing 120 kilometres an hour up a brand new motorway which has presumably been built to the highest standards; from the highway policeman whom I used to encounter lying in wait at 5 a.m. on the straights north of Ngatea for some unsuspecting motorist doing 120 kilometres an hour on a deserted straight section of highway; or from the two policemen who once apprehended me on the southern motorway in Manakau City at 4 a.m. It is simply not credible that the best use of police time at 4 a.m. in Manukau City is for the police to sit on the side of the motorway hoping to catch someone driving an old Jag at 120 kilometres an hour. 
The Commissioner of Police has said that the public are in favour by a large margin of having the traffic function remain with the police. Well I would be interested in the evidence for that. “Rebalancing” is the current buzzword. In rural areas at least the residents believe that there should be a rebalancing away from handing out traffic tickets on country roads and towards establishing a police presence in rural areas. 
Report noted. 
Ministry of Education 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 This is a case of our being more in sadness than in anger as far as the Opposition is concerned. I think that we have gone through the point with this Minister of Education where we were angry with the Prime Minister for her appointment when her inadequacies were shown. I think it is important to know that as Heatley has gone and as Worth has gone it is our expectation that this Minister will at some stage join that group of former Ministers. I think that the Prime Minister has to make up his mind relatively soon as to when he will hand out the Not Achieved to this Minister. 
As we focus on the different parts of this vote we would have expected this Minister to be in charge of both parts of this vote as Minister of Education. But we note that effectively half her workload has been stripped from her because of the inadequacies that have been shown and that half of the workload has been given to Mr Steven Joyce. It is sad that a Prime Minister has had to take half the workload from a front-bench Minister in the way that the Prime Minister has had to do by taking away from this Minister her responsibility for reporting on a very significant part of this vote. 
We saw the Minister at the Education and Science Committee answering on this particular topic and I think it is fair to say that there has been a previous Minister who had a worse performance at the select committee: Nick Smith I can remember. I can remember Wyatt Creech and Dr Smith appearing before the select committee and both of those people knew their subject. They did their homework; they understood. They knew what a vice-chancellor was they knew what a vote was and they knew how the system was put together. They knew what group special education was because they were responsible for it and they did their homework in the way that this Minister just does not. 
They would never have put $62 million into national standards in a way that strips money out from making actual change in education. They would never have cut the money from professional development in the way that this Minister has. She has taken $45.6 million out of professional development. 
Hon Member 
: Let’s list literacy and numeracy. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No she has not transferred it to literacy and numeracy; she has taken it out of the total money available for professional development for teachers—$45.6 million over 4 years. 
Katrina Shanks 
: 9 years and you couldn’t do it. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: No—9 long years of money going up but under this Minister the money for professional development has gone down. That is because we have such a lightweight on the front bench. Again she is someone who is clearly not coping with her job. She is clearly not coping with her job in the way that people should cope. 
I am sure that my colleague will talk about adult and community education but I am going to schools now that used to have adult and community education. I have been to two schools in the last 2 weeks and I have talked to three schools if we count a meeting with a principal who came to see me. They all say that adult and community education used to make a real difference to their schools. It was something that bonded them with their community. It got adults into their schools at night and that meant that vandals did not turn up. But what has this Minister done? She has cut the funding and said to schools that there is no more money for anti-vandalism there is no more money to fix up the schools and there is no more money for the overheads that have been lost as a result of doing that—and by the way she is taking $62 million out of the Education vote for her national standards. 
Hon Anne Tolley 
: That’s just not true. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Well I do not know; when I went to school 36 and 26 were 62. I know there is a new approach to numeracy on the part of Anne Tolley but that is still $62 million that could have been helping kids learn and she has stolen it. 
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
: 
 It is an absolute delight to speak about the financial review of the Ministry of Education. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to deliver a brighter future to every New Zealand child and I am proud to be working with a Minister of Education who has the courage to take the steps needed to do that. Before the election National promised to deliver national standards. In December 2008 just before Christmas we passed legislation that would see national standards in every school and legislation to make sure that more of our young students attend school. 
I will focus on the issues. They are the important things that are being delivered in education by the Ministry of Education. This Government is determined to do better for the one in five children who currently leave school after 10 years unable to read write and do maths. That is a disgrace and members on that side of the Chamber are unwilling to own that failure—one in five. Those members do not like it and they will not listen. We recognise that a strong foundation in literacy and numeracy is vital. That is the one priority and that is what the Ministry of Education has been delivering. It is fantastic news. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think she believes it. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: We need our children to be able to read write and do maths but unfortunately Mr Mallard does not believe that which is a great disappointment to members on this side of the Chamber. 
Our priority is national standards. They are simply signposts. They describe what children in years 1 to 8 should be able to achieve and by when. Teachers will assess—[ 
Interruption 
] 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I am sorry to interrupt the member. I am having difficulty hearing. Interjections are fine but running commentaries are not. I cannot hear the member so I ask members to tone it down. I am happy with interjections but not with running commentaries. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I wish you had done that during the previous speech. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member was speaking then and I know that there were interjections but the member was able to be heard and I could hear what the member was saying. I do— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: They were constant. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I hear where the member is coming from. I am having difficulty hearing this member. I ask members to please be quiet. I am having difficulty hearing this member and I am asking to be able to hear her so that I know what is being said. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Are you saying that there are two standards in this House: one for members who have strong voices and one for weak members? 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have made my ruling. I am asking members to tone it down. Interjections are fine but not running commentaries. It is such that I cannot hear the member. 
LOUISE UPSTON 
: Just to reiterate the national standards are quite simple; they are signposts for years 1 to 8. I have three children in years 1 to 8 so this is really important to me as a parent. It is important as a parent to be able to know and receive information back from the school on exactly how children are doing and that is what the parents I talk to at school every week are telling me. We are investing $26 million to train and support teachers as they implement national standards. Another $36 million is being invested to help students who are identified as needing additional assistance. 
National does not believe that excellent schools are created by the Ministry of Education; they are created by excellent teachers and excellent principals. I want to give members an example of an excellent local school in my electorate. It is a decile 1—[ 
Interruption 
] Members should listen. If they cannot stand the truth they should listen up. The school is a decile 1 Maori immersion school. It does not have to have national standards but it recognises how fantastic national standards are and it will implement its own this year. It knows the values that national standards will deliver to the students in the school. It is fantastic news and I am really proud of that school for taking leadership and ensuring that its pupils learn how to read write and do maths. 
The other thing we have to crack down on—unfortunately in 9 years the previous Government it did not tackle this at all—is truancy. We know that we need to have students at school in order to teach them. It is not rocket science. Unfortunately for 9 years Labour did not tackle it or address it. Look at the report  
Attendance Absence and Truancy in New Zealand Schools in 2006 
: Labour failed miserably at keeping kids at school. Well we are not going to say that that is acceptable. We are taking action on truancy and we will put in an extra $4 million a year. I have visited schools recently to look at the data that each school is able to use with their electronic systems. It is fantastic. Teachers get to see exactly where the problem is they get to see where students are struggling and they can support those students to make sure that they are at school. 
National standards is about the future of every New Zealand child. It does not matter what race students are or what their family circumstances are. This Government aspires for those kids to do well. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
: 
 I differ from my colleague Trevor Mallard in one respect: I rise to speak to the financial review of the Ministry of Education both in sadness and in anger. When I look at tertiary education I see that the characterisation of this Government’s work in tertiary education has been cuts cuts and more cuts. Yes I am sad about it but also I am angry. It is an ignorant approach to education to continually and routinely under-invest and cut just at the moment when other countries around the world are increasing their investment in tertiary education because they know that the way to sustained economic recovery is through investment in tertiary education and not through cutting it. 
Worse than that level of ignorance which is almost unfathomable is the deliberate policy that this Government is demonstrating in tertiary education of narrowing access to tertiary education opportunities. The Government is not broadening the access but narrowing it. We are talking about the period of appropriation when the Hon Anne Tolley was in charge of the tertiary education portfolio. We saw from the outset a Government beginning the way it meant to go on. It cut adult and community education funding by some 80 percent taking out $13 million from a $16 million budget and leaving $3 million behind. It reduced the number of high schools around New Zealand that ran adult and community education classes from 212 to 24 with a few others added on as clusters of schools led by one lead school out of those 24. 
That was the first effort at narrowing the basis of access to post - compulsory education opportunities for New Zealanders. It is one area where New Zealanders have been able to step back into education in an accessible non-threatening low-cost environment that allows them to revisit what may have been a previously unsuccessful educational career and to begin to build the foundations that they need in order to excel. 
Last year I went to about 17 or 18 public meetings. Sometimes there were 60 people at those public meetings protesting against the cuts to adult and community education; sometimes there were 500 people. Time and again I saw at each of those meetings the level of anger and the level of loss that people felt for not only those things that the Minister does not count as necessary such as social cohesion and strong communities but also a loss of opportunity to learn which those cuts represented. It was felt very acutely by people right across every community even communities that one would imagine that the National Government would be keen to protect such as rural communities where post - compulsory education opportunities are few and far between. The National Government took no notice because the hallmark of the previous Minister’s tenure in the tertiary education portfolio was obstinacy ignorance and just plain stubbornness. 
That was the first of the cuts but let us see what else happened under that Minister’s tenure. I have to say that the new Minister for Tertiary Education Steven Joyce is not proving to be any better in that his approach to tertiary education is evidencing even more cuts. We will come to that shortly. In the year under consideration the Government cut $98 million from tertiary scholarships with the bonded merit scholarship scheme the Step Up Scholarships and the Top Achiever Doctoral Scholarship ceasing from June 2009. So the efforts that the previous Labour Government put in place during its 9 years in office to allow people to access advanced tertiary education have been cut by this Government; $98 million was taken out. 
Let us look at the CPI adjustments from 2009. For industry training Modern Apprenticeships and adult and community education elsewhere the CPI adjustments were cut. That is another $172 million shortfall in funding to those programmes over the next 4 years. Cuts cuts and more cuts. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 It is a bit rich is it not? It is easy for the previous speaker Maryan Street to come to the Chamber and talk about cuts but she was a Minister in the previous Government and was responsible for leaving half a billion dollars’ worth—half a billion dollars—of promises that were made during an election campaign with no funding in place to deliver on them. Someone else had to come in and clean up the mess. It is all very well for her to get holier than thou but someone else had to come in and clean up the mess. 
I want to talk in this Chamber about student engagement because that is what this Government has been focused on and the previous Government ignored it. In fact one could almost say that it was Labour’s dirty little secret. Let us talk about truancy. In 2006 a survey was done on truants and it found that almost 30000 kids were absent from school at any one time. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: How many? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Almost 30000. Do members know what Labour members said? They said that it could not be accurate. They said that the report could not be true. There was a big tangi in the week when the survey was done so they said that it could not be true. What did Labour do next? The survey was due to happen again in 2008 and what did the Minister of Education do? He cancelled it because if one does not— 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I struggle to understand why the Minister brings up connotations of tangi as being relevant to her delivery. I think it is obnoxious and appalling. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member. These are debating points. But I refer all speakers as we did right at the beginning to the fact that we are debating the appropriations. It would be good if we could focus on the appropriations. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: What has this Government done? The first thing I did as Minister was to say that we needed to define the problem and to have a report. In 2009 we carried out a truancy report and guess what? We found that 30000 kids were missing school on any one day. The problem was there; the previous Government just hid it and hoped that it would go away. What has our Government done? We have doubled the funding. Over the next 4 years we will put in an extra $4 million a year to address truancy. 
Hon Member 
: Oh that’ll make a huge difference! 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It will make a hang of a lot more difference than was made under the previous Government. It could make twice as much difference because there is twice the amount. 
We have reviewed the district truancy services. We will pay more to the district truancy services. There is that wonderful electronic system with automatic texts to parents which has been so effective and we are putting in the incentives for schools. I give credit to the previous Government for setting up that system but it never did anything more. We are saying to schools that we will help them to get that. 
In addition to that though this is not just about attacking truancy. The other thing we have done is to develop our Youth Guarantee. Let us compare that with what the previous Government did. Do members know what the previous Government’s answer was to students leaving school without qualifications? It was to change the law to keep students at school until they were 18 so that they could not leave. It was called Schools Plus. When we came into Government we asked where the money was in the appropriations for Schools Plus. That money did not exist. It did not exist. Where was the policy work around the big announcement that the previous Prime Minister made? Where was it? It did not exist; it was just another flimflam from the previous Government. 
What have we done? At the beginning of this year with the money that used to go to support people learning Moroccan cooking Spanish and concrete mosaics 2000 young people got fees-free places at polytech—2000 people. Those 2000 young people had left school without qualifications and could have been on an unemployment benefit and there will be another 2000 next year. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: Another 2000. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Another 2000 next year. That is what has happened to that money. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: She’s not managing. She needs more support. Come on guys you can do it. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is like a screaming skull over there is it not? The Manukau Institute of Technology opened New Zealand’s first tertiary high school. We put a couple of million dollars into New Zealand’s first tertiary high school because that is an innovative way of keeping young people engaged at school. 
Then of course there are our trades academies. We asked for expressions of interest. We got 112 from around the country—112 people put forward propositions. They were delighted that a Government had asked them how they could help keep young people at school. We have taken 11 propositions from that and from the beginning of next year within 2 years of becoming Government we will have six or maybe seven or eight trades academies opening to provide good pathways. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I was not going to take another call—I have spoken with the Labour whips and I may be in a little bit of trouble—but I think that that speech by the Hon Anne Tolley cannot go unanswered. The first thing we should focus on is the comments the member made about standards and her suggestion which has been made here and around the country that every single student will when standards are properly implemented leave with a National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. There are hundreds if not thousands of students in every cohort in New Zealand who are not capable of getting NCEA level 2 unless the standards are dropped enormously. It is inappropriate for a Minister of Education to be so out of touch that she is going around the country promising parents—promising parents—that their children will achieve at that level when she if she has a modicum of intelligence will know that that is absolutely impossible. She has a system that she is putting $62 million into— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: What? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: She is putting $62 million which was stripped out of professional development and a number of other areas into an objective that is absolutely and utterly impossible. 
Next I will make a comment about the academies to which she referred. I tell her that as I move around the country in the areas with academies I am discovering absolute chaos. No one has bothered to tell the schools which of their kids are at the academies. The schools have pastoral care responsibilities for those students; they are meant to be on school rolls—[ 
Interruption 
] Well truant officers will not be looking for them because they are not on school rolls but no one has told the schools. At the start of the year apparently there were thousands of kids all around the country at the academies but no one had told the schools which kids had gone to the academies. What a shambles in implementation! 
What about qualifications? What shambles is this Minister putting into secondary qualifications now? She is taking out a number of unit standards—quite a large number of unit standards—and what is the result of that? The result of that is that if people want to run a sports academy for example at a school they now have to have moderation from one two or three different industry training organisations. Instead of the New Zealand Qualifications Authority doing the moderation if a school is running a series of academies under the implementation of the policy started by this Minister in the financial year under review that school has to have one two or three different industry training organisations doing that work. If a school is running six seven or eight different types of non-traditional programmes it might have up to 20 different organisations coming in— 
Hon Member 
: Get on the planet member—get on the planet. Don’t insult us with such stupidity. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: —no no; absolutely—to that school to moderate because of the abolition of unit standards under the direction of that Minister. Some people do not understand how our system works; some of us have been working with it now for about 20 years and we know that we make haste slowly. That Minister is someone who with her changes is making an enormous difference but it is negative. 
There is a very easy way of doing what she should have done. I agree with her basic thesis that differentiating an equation for calculus and making a cappuccino should not have equality for university entrance. For people going to university they are not the same thing. There was an easy way of fixing it which was to say that unit standards did not count for university entrance but that Minister was too slow to pick that up. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I understand that the next financial review that members wish to debate is the financial review of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. Will members please turn to the Primary Production Committee’s report— 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Rather than starting with half a minute to go might we take leave to take the dinner adjournment now? I have seen 5.59 p.m. on the clock for about half a minute now. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The time has come for me to leave the Chair. I shall resume the Chair at 7.30 p.m. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
: 
 The question for the Government to answer is this: where in this appropriation has it made decisions that will achieve a step change in this country’s economic performance? The answer is: nowhere. There are two hugely contrasting approaches to the New Zealand economy in this House. Both sides know that our economy has to do much better. Over on that side of the House the Government’s entire programme for transforming New Zealand is to increase GST drop the top tax rate for the most affluent New Zealanders and—oh yes—build a cycleway. That is it—that is the Government’s one shot. On this side of the House we have a long list of ideas to foster innovation create jobs and increase incomes: research and development investment in science and skills and partnerships with the sectors the businesses the institutions and the people who can bring great New Zealand ideas to market. National says it supports them but this appropriation tells a different story. 
Where is the research and development investment here? The Government cut $700 million from the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund. That is a total cut of $2 billion in New Zealand innovation made up of $700 million from the Government matched dollar for dollar by industry and interest earned over 10 years—$2 billion. The Government abolished that and replaced it with a primary partnership which has so far completely failed. Eighteen months have been wasted. Not a single project has been funded and not one cent has been invested. Those are months we will never get back. 
I thought that when the Government axed the Fast Forward Fund it was coasting in neutral but it is much worse than that. It is actually going backwards. It is overseeing the axing of 40 jobs in AgResearch. Fifty jobs have already been lost in biosecurity. How will that help innovation and science in the most productive and innovative part of our economy? It will reduce growth further. Our future prosperity and jobs depend on science and innovation and the sector where innovation and science make the most difference in New Zealand is the primary industry sector. It makes no sense to hack off the jobs of 40 scientists. What does the Prime Minister say about that? He says that the Government is “not inclined to step in to save the jobs.” He is relaxed about it. The Prime Minister calls it “a necessary adjustment to deal with the structure of AgResearch as it currently finds itself” because it has “too much capacity in certain areas”. That is nothing less than double-speak. In the 1980s we heard quotes like: “We have rising unemployment around a falling trend.” or when we closed post offices and post banks it became not closure but “transferring their resources” and we are getting the same kind of double-speak now. 
I will tell members why AgResearch has too much capacity. It was meant to be working in partnership on research projects that would have been funded by the New Zealand Fast Forward Fund. The Government has chopped science funding and now of course we are losing scientists. The farmers themselves are not inclined to stump up for research in areas like wool because they know the Government has sawn them off. They are not going out there alone when the rug is being pulled out from under them. 
So the Prime Minister says AgResearch has “too much capacity”. That can only be possible if the Government thinks that too much science is already being done in New Zealand. What has this Government got against science anyway? It seems to be on a crusade to smash every limb of science research and innovation in New Zealand. The very first policy that the Government brought to this House after the last election was to impose the largest increase in company tax in New Zealand’s history. It targeted very carefully our most innovative companies. By removing research and development tax credits $700 million was gone over just 3 years for that purpose. Is it any wonder then that we are lagging behind in ways that we never envisaged? What was supposed to happen was that we were to come out of this recession—which of course has been worldwide—with our wheels running really fast. 
I look through this appropriation to try to find the pro-science policies that have replaced the research and development tax credits. Where are they? Tragically they do not exist. John Key still says we will catch up with Australia. Yeah right! We will catch up with them all right. I am waiting for the next speaker to make my day. This is a disaster. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 One often wonders where Mr Anderton has been over the last 18 months when he suggests that there has not been a substantial step change in the way that agriculture is now recognised in this country. We had a decade of absolute ignorance by the previous Government of the importance of agriculture to this economy. The farmers were treated like dirt by Mr Anderton. He completely ignored them but now they have a Government that cares about the farming industry and responds to its needs and it is time that Mr Anderton woke up to that. 
Let me deal with research and development. Every time that Mr Anderton gets on his feet he talks about the Fast Forward fund. Let us analyse the Fast Forward fund. The previous Labour Government borrowed $700 million put it into a fund and said industry would support it with dollar for dollar. Not one industry player put a dollar into Fast Forward. Those players knew it was ridiculous from day one. I say to Mr Anderton that we campaigned on research and development. National campaigned to the farmers of New Zealand on the Primary Growth Partnership and who won? The Primary Growth Partnership now has $175 million worth of bids before it. 
Last week I was down in Otago in the Ben Nevis range a beautiful part of the country. There were 500 high country farmers there and they are delighted with the performance of this Government. [ 
Interruption 
] I say to Mr Parker that this Government respects the fact that farmers have a property right and this Government will not trample on their property rights. This Government will give them a reason to farm the high country and a reason to farm it sustainably and carefully. We are not talking about a 600 percent or a 6000 percent increase in rents in an attempt to force farmers off their land. We actually respect the job that those high country farmers do. 
The other thing we did immediately upon becoming the Government was to modify the emissions trading scheme. The previous Labour Government had put in place an emissions trading scheme that would have completed gazumped the agricultural sector. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Oh yeah. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Mr Anderton laughs. He thinks that is funny. That shows how out of touch he was with the sector. 
Hon Nathan Guy 
: Tell them about Jim’s chainsaw. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Well I do not think that Mr Anderton would have ever operated a chainsaw. He certainly never owned a pair of gumboots; we know that. 
Mr Anderton suggests that the Government has cut the AgResearch budget. That is wrong again I say to Mr Anderton. We have not cut the budget of AgResearch. The farmers voted not to support their own wool levy. That has meant less funding going into AgResearch and AgResearch has responded to that. But it is absolutely incorrect for the former Minister of Agriculture to stand here and suggest that this Government has cut expenditure to AgResearch because we have not. In actual fact this Government has put an absolute emphasis on science. As we face the challenges of climate change science will provide the solutions. 
Mr Anderton spent 10 years talking about agriculture but he never delivered anything to it. This Government will not make that mistake. We are well and truly on board with our farmers and all around the country farmers are saying there has been a step change in the way that this National-led Government relates to this important constituency. This constituency is the backbone of the New Zealand economy and Mr Anderton should have realised that when he spent so many years as the Minister of Agriculture. He was a disgrace and farmers are pleased to be rid of him. 
Report noted. 
Ministry of Research Science and Technology 
Report noted. 
Ministry of Transport 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
: 
 One of the promises National made before the last election was to continue to fund the SuperGold card. This comes within the responsibility of the Ministry of Transport in the appropriation period and indeed of the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce. In fact a year ago John Key went further when he said he supported the scheme and would be funding any increase if it became more popular than was budgeted for. Unfortunately someone forgot to tell the Minister of Transport—and it is good to see the Minister here—and the ministry and a week ago there was a big “Oops!” when the Minister announced a review of the SuperGold card. 
The ministry’s discussion document is still on its website. It was released on the website and by the media and it states: “After the first 12 months of operation it has become clear that in its present form the scheme will not be financially sustainable with the funding available.” So the scheme is not financially sustainable with the funding available. What did we see in the next 24 hours? We saw a huge U-turn a huge flip-flop from the Minister. The  
Dominion Post 
 got it right on Monday 15 March when it stated that Minister of Transport Steven Joyce had been acting strangely before he did “a screaming U-turn” and reversed his decision to review the SuperGold scheme for the over 65s. 
Now we have to wonder why this happened. It was pretty strange of Mr Joyce to alarm more than 500000 SuperGold card holders by even suggesting he wanted a review. As the public knows and is increasingly learning a review by this National Government really means a cut. We need only ask all the public servants this Government has sent down the road. They thought they were having a review but it turned into a cut. I have to ask the Minister why he would make such a mistake. Could it be that for just one moment he let his true colours show? 
Everyone knows that National does not agree with the SuperGold card policy. Secondly we know that it can never say that publicly because that would be so unpopular. But if we unpack what National believes we find that it thinks everyone over 65 should have been so successful with their investments that no special arrangements such as a SuperGold card should even be necessary. National also believes that because the scheme is not means-tested plenty of over-65s who could afford the price of a bus fare are riding the bus for free. 
Then we had the spectacle of the discussion about older New Zealanders in Auckland where I and some National MPs live who have the cheek to get on the train and then get on the ferry to go to Waiheke Island. That has meant a lot to those people. It has meant that they get out of their homes and have an outing and why should they not? As I have said that is the whole point and that is why Labour and New Zealand First worked together to establish the SuperGold card. We believed that the SuperGold card should be available to everyone who was 65 and older irrespective of income. 
The policy was about respecting the older generation and the contribution they have made to the standard of living we all enjoy today. It honours the contribution older New Zealanders have made and continue to make to New Zealand. It is an acknowledgement of the respect they deserve. It is a physical reminder—and maybe this is the reason why the Minister does not like it—of Labour’s commitment to seniors and veterans and it improves their standard of living through the discounts it provides. 
But the Minister of Transport slipped up. He showed older New Zealanders his real agenda. It was obvious that the Prime Minister got involved—probably when he remembered that in March 2009 he described the SuperGold card as a successful programme and said that the Government would provide any necessary increase in funding. What we saw after that was the bizarre behaviour of Minister Joyce at the opening of the Bell Block Bypass in New Plymouth. He was seen hiding behind a bush and texting and then getting on a truck and texting there as well. Now we know what really happened. John Key remembered that he had said he would fund any extra costs for the SuperGold card and he was on the phone texting the Minister and embarrassing him. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 It is a tremendous yarn that the member opposite has been running. It is an interesting one because there are a range of things in transport that she could talk about. There are some very big issues. Road safety is an important issue. The Government is making major investments in roading which we know members of the Opposition sometimes do not like. There is also the big job in turning round KiwiRail for which way way too much money was paid by the previous Government. There are other issues that we have to clean up including the shortfalls the previous Government left in the driver-licensing and driver-testing accounts which we are now trying to settle and solve. But of course none of those things are all that important to members of the Opposition. They are focusing on one particular issue. I think it would be wise to have a look at that issue because it points to something about Labour. I think it is a physical reminder of Labour’s lack of fiscal concern for anything. 
What we decided last week to do which we are now doing is to test whether the providers of transport services to SuperGold Card recipients are being paid the right amount for the services they provide. That is the purpose of the review. The people who run the ferry out to Waiheke Island are paid around $2 million a year to carry those with SuperGold Cards free of charge. Nobody is arguing about whether they should be going out there. As we have said all the way through we have accepted the policy but the question we have to ask in testing everything from a fiscal point of view is whether that is value for money in terms of what is being paid to the operator. It is not about the people who are using the cards; it is about what is being paid to the operator. 
I think that Labour members are telling us that we should never test those things; that once we have voted money for something we should never look at it again. Of course we have stacks of examples of that. We have examples in my own portfolios of transport and communications where they have said write the cheque and whatever we do later do not look. In fact we should never test whether the money is being spent well because we do not really care. Money just comes from the taxpayers—just bring some more money in and it will be fine. Fortunately we now have a fiscally responsible Government that does care and that is prepared to test the assumptions and to maintain the services but to constantly test whether we are getting value for money from the people who are providing the services. That is what this Government does and this issue is another example of that. That was what this thing was about last week. It showed once again the Government’s concern for the money that belongs to taxpayers of this country. 
I would have thought that Labour members would be very interested to find out what is happening with KiwiRail. After all the Labour Government spent about a billion bucks on it but Labour members do not seem to have any concern about where that money went. They have not raised it tonight. They have no concern about where the money for KiwiRail has gone or whether the business is in good shape. They could have taken calls and popped up to say that it is a big issue that this was $1 billion that they threw away in the dying months of their administration. I thought they might have a little bit of an interest as to whether that money is going well but there was no interest whatsoever. 
There was also no interest in the rest of the rather large transport portfolio in terms of expenditure as to what is going on with it. That is fine. That is their approach and I am sure they will criticise everything we as a Government do to check whether expenditure is at the appropriate level for the service that is being provided. We are happy for them to do that because I can tell members that taxpayers and in fact Grey Power want us to do that. Grey Power endorsed our approach on Friday— 
Hon Annette King 
: Ha! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: They did. They endorsed our approach and said that they supported the Minister in his attempts to ensure value for money from the passenger transport operators so that the scheme could be kept sustainable and continued into the future. That is what they said on Friday. So the Grey Power people are in favour and every other taxpayer is in favour and all members opposite can say is that they like to write the cheques and that once the cheque is gone they do not care any more. Well I do not think that will be an approach for this Government as long as it occupies these benches. Thank you. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
: 
 I will touch on a few things. This review is looking at the Ministry of Transport and we have just heard from the Minister of Transport some of the wonderful things he has done in the last 12 months. 
I will touch on one thing in particular. We heard from Darien Fenton who talked about what I would call the cents but we are interested in the dollars and in particular the $1 billion that has been put into funding for new State highways over the next few years. I will talk about one special project: the new Christchurch Southern Motorway. It is a $730 million project—$730 million. It is the single biggest roading project that has been built in the South Island since anyone can remember. It is a wonderful project. I had the absolute pleasure of sitting there on the first sod-turning day with the Minister of Transport and with a large number of the community who were ecstatic that they would have the ability to get to their homes businesses and schools just that little bit faster because of the roads of national significance. The Christchurch Southern Motorway is one of the lynchpin projects of the roads of national significance. 
On that opening day with that first sod-turning ceremony a large group of people were there. There were National MPs and a few National Ministers but I ask members how many Labour MPs were there to celebrate the most significant roading project in the South Island’s history. 
Colin King 
: I don’t know. You tell me. 
AARON GILMORE 
: Zero. There were zero Labour MPs were there to celebrate. That just shows us what little they see of the importance of roading to unclog the clogged arteries we have in New Zealand. 
You see we have a problem in Christchurch. People think that the only roading projects to solve a problem are in Auckland but I can tell them that if they drive down either of the major current entries into Christchurch from the north or from the south they will wonder what they have run into in terms of congestion. We have that in Christchurch. This is not just about the Christchurch Southern Motorway; it is the first project in a collection of roading projects. We will have an upgrade of the western bypass which will go around the outskirts of the city to the west. In time we will have the new northern motorway which will come through to my community in northern Christchurch. Our people are screaming out for those projects and they will be possible only with the extra billion dollars that we have put into the State highway network for the next 3 years. What a wonderful thing that is. The important thing is getting mums and dads and people to work and school faster. 
We should not be worrying about some small issues around a $10 million SuperGold card; this is a billion dollars that the Minister has here. I tell members to put it into context. I have touched on my favourite pet project the Christchurch Southern Motorway but I know that my colleagues have others like the Waikato Expressway and the Caversham Bypass. There is a collection of projects up and down the country. People want the arteries unclogged and to have the ability to get to home work and school much faster. These are wonderful projects but what do Labour members want to talk about? They do not want to talk about those. They could talk about public transport but they do not want to talk about that either. They want to talk about the SuperGold Card and that is remarkable. 
We can talk for hours on this whole issue of the roads of national significance and the importance of it for the Christchurch community the Dunedin community and the Hamilton and wider Waikato community. But what do we hear from Opposition members? This is the typical thing about Opposition members. They do not care about the big dollars they do not care about the big picture and they do not care about the economy. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: They can’t count that high basically. 
AARON GILMORE 
: That may be the case but I would not possibly want to comment. I could not possibly stand up here and not talk about the other major project in our roads of national significance. It is the great big project that has occurred of bringing forward the Victoria Park roading project by 1 year—that is a year sooner for people in Auckland to have the ability to access that roading and be able to get to where they want to go better faster and sooner. 
Hon Member 
: More conveniently. 
AARON GILMORE 
: More conveniently. 
But the jewel in the crown is the announcement for the long-suffering people in Wellington of the $2.2 billion strategic upgrade of State Highway 1 into Wellington Airport including Transmission Gully. When I was a long-suffering public servant this project was on the books 15 years ago. However this Minister has brought forward the Transmission Gully project. He has taken it from the ether in the distance and brought it on to the paperwork of progress. What a wonderful thing that is. There is $2.2 billion so that people from Wellington can get to Porirua and others can come into Wellington in a much faster way. What a wonderful thing that is. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
Ministry of Social Development 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I begin this evening by congratulating the Minister for Social Development and Employment the Hon Paula Bennett on her selection for an Eisenhower Fellowship and I tell the Minister that I genuinely mean that. It is a great honour to have been chosen to go and have 6 weeks’ study in the United States. Many years ago I had the opportunity to go for 3 weeks and I studied assistance for dependent families in the United States. One of the things I learnt—and I suspect that the Minister will learn it—was that it is a very different country from New Zealand with very different values particularly in terms of the way it treats families. So I will be interested in what the Minister comes back with after her study there. 
I will raise one particular issue with the Minister tonight and I am seeking answers around the whole area of Whanau Ora. I think it is time that we had some answers. Whanau Ora is a flagship policy of this Government we are being told over and over again. But every time we have questioned on this issue we have not been able to find out first of all what it means. Members of the Social Services Committee who were there on the same day that I was were astounded when we had Government departments tell us that they did not know what Whanau Ora was and could not give us a definition of what it was. I think that the Minister in terms of blocking any information on this and refusing all information requests—and not only this Minister but also all other Ministers with portfolios related to it—is not doing a service to New Zealand. Now we have commentators writing about Whanau Ora and defining it as they would like to define it. 
I will put on record that Labour is not opposed to the concept of Whanau Ora. After all Tariana Turia was my Associate Minister of Health back when we were in Government and I very much understand where she comes from and what she wants to achieve. Tariana Turia has not changed what she believes Whanau Ora is but we have been getting conflicting and confusing messages from this Government depending on which audience its members are talking to. Tariana was very upfront and forward about this policy. She said that this policy was for Maori by Maori. But after a period of time and obviously some polling Mr Key then decided that he needed to say: “No no. It is for all New Zealanders.” After several weeks of that Tariana Turia said that if all New Zealanders wanted to access it they could. That was said on one medium but when Mr Key was interviewed on Maori media—and perhaps he thought that no one was listening—he said: “No no. It really is for Maori and it will run in the same way as kohanga reo. If other New Zealanders want to access it through Maori then that is how we will do it.” But that is two messages; people do not know who will be able to access it. 
Tonight I tell the Minister for Social Development and Employment that I would really like her to answer a number of questions for this Committee. Where will the funding come from? Will it come from the Pathways to Partnership money—the over $100 million that was parked in the Minister of Finance’s contingency fund? How will the service to providers be decided? How will taxpayers’ funding for Whanau Ora be monitored? How will the outcomes from Whanau Ora be measured? Can the Minister also tell us whether there will be a “Minister of Whanau Ora”? Will Te Puni Kokiri be the lead agency for this programme? Will there be regional Whanau Ora committees? Will there be a separate appropriation for Whanau Ora? 
All those recommendations were in the task force report given to the Government which it has refused to release even though it has now had the report for weeks. The Government has had the report for weeks. It just so happened that a departmental report with the recommendations in it made its way to other members of this House. I say to the Minister that I think it is time that those questions were answered. We already have funding being allocated under the label of Whanau Ora funding—$415000 has been allocated to five women’s refuges. I do not have any problem with that but I ask where the money is coming from for the Government to be able to provide it to those five refuges. 
I tell the Minister for Social Development and Employment that I think it is time there was a clear description of Whanau Ora. When I asked the Minister in the House for a description and actually gave her a description and asked whether it was Whanau Ora the Minister said yes. But that was the same description as for Strengthening Families a programme that already exists. I ask the Minister to take this opportunity to put on the record what this programme is all about because people are seeking answers. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I am grateful for the opportunity to stand up and talk a bit in the financial review debate about what the Ministry of Social Development has been doing and how it goes about that. The Ministry has departmental appropriations of $1.1 billion a year of which $950 million is in running costs. The Ministry has met $168 million in cost increases up to June 2009 through efficiency gains and cost-reduction activities. It has plans for a further $272 million in gains over the next 3 years. Its value-for-money programme looks at the potential for those sorts of efficiency gains through measures such as self-service online tools and options that reduce the level of administration. 
It has been quite a focus for us that we get back to people. We are back to how we work with people how we are actually managing them in their lives and helping them by working alongside them. If one asked me in all honesty how we were going to make the biggest difference for those who are dependent on welfare both short-term and long-term I would say that it comes down to the relationship they have with their case managers how they work together how we give them the right sort of incentives with the right sort of obligations and how we are able to back that up with that people contact. 
A big part of this past year and a big part of the financial review has been about cutting down on some of the administration side so that we free up people to spend money on the stuff that really matters. Goodness knows there is a lot of efficiency to be made in there and I wanted to share some of it with the Committee because I think that that is the way forward particularly for Work and Income and for the Ministry of Social Development. 
Let me give members a couple of real examples because at the end of the day that is what matters. Study Link made 400000 transactions online via MyStudyLink—that is 400000 transactions were made online via MyStudyLink. Ninety-seven percent of student loan and student allowance applications were made online. A mail online service was implemented on 1 November 2009 and since then 168919 letters have been viewed online. So something as simple as saying to young people that they can view their mail online instead of having it posted to them has meant that the cost savings and the efficiency gains have been substantial. It means that there are people actually working with people which I think is what will make a difference. 
Let me talk about the payment card. In 2009 food grants made up half of hardship assistance payments. There were 501000 payments totalling $52 million—501000 payments totalling $52 million. That is big big bucks. Introduced in November again was a payment card for food special need grants. Between November 2009 and January 2010 the time saved by the use of payment cards was approximately 7 minutes per application. That does not sound very interesting—7 minutes. What is that? How is that going to go? But that translates to approximately 11700 case management hours. So once we add up the volume we are dealing with and cut that time down to 7 minutes 11700 case management hours on pure administration have been taken away. It means that those people can be spending that time with people and on stuff that really does matter. 
Approximately $350000 was saved as well due to the unspent amounts on those cards. What happened was that when people had the amount on letters it stayed on the letters; it stayed with whomever they spent the money with—with the supermarket. Now that that money is not being withdrawn from the Government’s bank account it means that it is being saved and that we can invest it back into people. It is that stuff that will make the ultimate difference. 
What we have also done which we have been really fast-tracking over the last few months is bring in high-trust contracts. In the past under Labour we heard a lot about integrated contracts and what they were—and this one really gets me! With integrated contracts Labour would have an organisation that had 7 contracts. It would have those seven add another one on top and call it an integrated contract. But none of those seven would be changed; none of those seven would be taken away. Instead Labour would just add another one and say that that was integrated. What we have done instead is bring in a high-trust contract. That means that all of those seven are taken away. They are replaced by a 3-page document that says “We actually work together in this. We are focused on the people that we want to help.” instead of it being about who has the power and what the relationship looks like and the constant partnership stuff that we used to hear about under the previous Government. We say that instead of actually focusing on each other and what that relationship looks like how about we focus outwardly and on to people—the people we all agree we want to work with. The results have been outstanding. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
: 
 It is my pleasure to take a call tonight as the chair of the Social Services Committee. We have a very good ministry in the Ministry of Social Development. Peter Hughes and Ray Smith make a wonderful contribution. I believe the Ministry of Social Development is most probably one of the strongest ministries we have in New Zealand with the strongest leadership we have as well. Not only that but it does many many things that pre-empt what is happening. In fact when we heard a recession was coming—after the first quarter we knew a recession was coming; Labour was in Government then—it already started putting things in place to face those changes. It is very proactive. It knew that when times were getting tough when the economy was going to shrink and more people would be unemployed it would have to focus on getting those people into jobs. It looked at changing the way it was set up and helping people in their Work and Income New Zealand offices. It knew that it would have a lot of people in transition who were not going to end up getting a benefit because they would transition quickly into another job. It had to treat those people a little bit differently from the normal client base that it treats. It had to treat them so that they would not be scared to come in to say they were looking for a job and could be moved on quickly. 
I want to acknowledge the ministry in how it moved quickly in the environment that we faced. It did not wait for it to build up and get out of control; it moved quickly. It moved its resources. The ministry is a very very big ship. It is very hard to change direction but it did it quickly and swiftly and without fuss. So I acknowledge the hard work that it has put in to ensure that our vulnerable those down on their luck and those who are just unlucky to lose their jobs in a recession have been looked after as well as they possibly can be in these hard times. 
I also acknowledge the hard work that the Minister for Social Development and Employment has done. This is a Minister who has no fear this is a Minister who addresses the issues and this is a Minister who says exactly how it is. She has done many things—many things indeed—to help the people of New Zealand in this recession. She came in as a Minister when there was a recession. That was not in the good times when unemployment was low when we had high employment. It was not the good times; it was the tough times when this Minister came in. She comes into this House day after day and gives straight honest answers to questions. I acknowledge the hard work that she has put into this ministry as well into the people of New Zealand and into our most vulnerable. 
So what has she done? Well where do we start? She has done a Student Job Search summer jobs campaign which is the most relevant thing she has done just immediately because university students have just gone back. So it is important that we identified that they needed a little bit of assistance over the summer break. That was put in place. Never Ever Shake a Baby—what a fantastic campaign that is. How powerful that is. The Minister recognised that the message has not been out there for a very long time. We have had some terrible horrific cases of child abuse in New Zealand so she took that issue head on. Never Ever Shake a Baby—what a powerful message that has sent to New Zealanders. 
Then there is the Break Away package for school holidays. Thirty-thousand young people did activities during the school holidays. There are 500 places in respite camps and 100 places in the Prime Minister’s Youth Programme. How relevant is that to our youth in New Zealand? It is totally relevant and so effective. 
Fresh Start for young offenders has 3000 places and programmes designed to address the causes of young offenders’ behaviour. How relevant is that coming off a review that has just been done on youth and youth offending and the new bill that was introduced into the House at the beginning of this year to address that problem? There is $152 million for the Youth Opportunities package and there are 17000 places for people aged between 16 and 24. This Government is committed and focused and so is the Minister. 
I will end by addressing a question that Annette King asked during her speech in this debate. She asked where the money is coming from. I can say that the money will be there because we are watching the money; we are very focused on the economy unlike Labour which seems to be able to waste money. Imagine if Labour had not spent the money on the tax bus. Imagine if Labour had not spent the money on the national standards bus. How much did that cost? Imagine how many children could be helped with that amount of money. 
Report noted. 
Department of Conservation 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I think most people will be surprised when they reflect on the year under review ask which was the most significant thing that the Department of Conservation did this year and find out that it was not anything to help with conservation but was actually the antithesis of conservation. It was mining in inappropriate areas. The Government through the Department of Conservation and the Ministry of Economic Development last year and this year has been investigating opening up more of the conservation estate to mining. I am not someone who says mining is always wrong. I wear a gold ring and I drive a metal car. There is a place for mining; it would be hypocritical for us to say there is not. Indeed there can be times when it is appropriate to mine parts of the land that is in the conservation estate. It happens not infrequently already. But just as it can be appropriate to mine in some parts of the conservation estate it is completely inappropriate to mine in some other parts of it. 
The most notable of the areas that ought not to be mined are of course the national parks. It is many many years since anyone in New Zealand thought it was sensible to mine in national parks. That is until the previous Minister of Conservation Tim Groser got into the portfolio. What was his first act as Minister of Conservation? His first act within days of the election was to amend the boundaries of the Oteake Conservation Park that was being created to exclude an area where there is a lignite resource. We are not talking about gold we are not talking about copper and we are not talking about diamonds. We are talking about brown coal. The Minister altered the boundaries of a conservation park so as to exclude that area from it. Then the next things that the Government did were to start the so-called stocktake of mineral resources in the conservation estate and to look at how it could free up the mining of other parts of the conservation estate. 
There are some parts of the conservation estate which are listed in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act where mining is prohibited. They are largely national parks. Other than the national parks mining is not prohibited in most conservation areas. But there are some notable exceptions to that. I think the most notable exception to most people is the Coromandel. The Coromandel is close to Auckland. Auckland has a third of the population of New Zealand and it does not have its fair share of national parks. The conservation areas close to Auckland like those in the Coromandel area really do need to have protection. That is why some years ago this Parliament decided that an area north of what is called the green line in the Coromandel should not be opened for mining. This Government is reconsidering that decision. But having done that it found itself in a bit of a muddle so it has tried to obfuscate and say it is doing nothing different from what the previous Labour Government did. 
National says people should look at what happened in Paparoa National Park. The Government says mining by Pike River Coal adjacent to the park is an instance of mining on the national park. Of course when we look at the detail of that mining we see the Government is wrong. The only things in the national park are four emergency exits for the miners each of which has a diameter of 1.5 metres. Mr Key’s saying that that was a precedent for mining in national parks is not correct. It is a precedent for mining in non - national park conservation areas and that can be appropriate if they are not schedule 4 - listed lands. But the Government has been caught misrepresenting that. 
What else is the Government up to? Of course the Minister has already overseen the taking away of ministerial responsibility in respect of decisions on developments in the marine space. There were problems with the timing within which that discretion could be exercised. I think members on both sides of the House would have been very happy to tidy up the timing of it so that people had not spent their money on their resource management applications before the Minister’s decision was made. But that was the law as it stood. That could have been tidied up but instead the Government has removed any political accountability in respect of decisions that there ought to be ministerial accountability for. The Minister is the guardian of public spaces on behalf of the public and the Minister ought to be willing to be judged on the basis of his or her decisions. Instead we see that the Government is trying to avoid political responsibility by taking lands out of schedule 4 and making it easier to develop those areas and others. I think that is wrong. I think it is consistent with what the Government is doing in terms of taking the assets of Auckland City away from the direct control of elected councillors. That is wrong. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
: 
 David Parker might like to talk about mining and focus on mining but I am much more interested in conservation and the work that the Department of Conservation does in that area. The Department of Conservation has huge responsibilities. It manages and oversees the conservation of New Zealand’s natural and heritage assets on land and sea and it actively encourages all New Zealanders to enjoy them. It directly manages almost one-third of our land mass and our marine reserves and it facilitates agreements to protect public land. The department is also responsible for managing protected wildlife and marine mammals. It is a huge job but the department seems to do it very well. It seems to have a presence in every nook and cranny across the country and it works actively with hundreds of volunteers to do this job and to do it well. 
We are all aware that New Zealand is a country of unique animals birds and insects. Over 25 percent of our birds and 90 percent of our insects are indigenous. But New Zealand’s native wildlife faces a continuous battle for survival. Landcare Research scientists estimate that over 25 million native birds are killed every year. That is 25 million birds killed every year by imported predators such as stoats rats cats and possums so one of the Department of Conservation’s most important responsibilities is pest control. 
Today I would like to talk a little about 1080 poison and why it is critical to use toxins like 1080 to protect our native forests and fauna. The department told us at its review that it feels there is a lot of misinformation about 1080. We know that there is much controversy about its use. But the active ingredient in 1080 is a naturally occurring substance that is found in plants and interestingly enough in plants like tea and puha. The 1080 poison is biodegradable. It dilutes and breaks down in water and plants and animals naturally excrete non-lethal quantities of 1080. The Department of Conservation has monitored over 200 kiwi through 1080 operations and no birds have ever been lost. On the other hand without its protection nine out of 10 North Island brown kiwi born in the wild were killed in their first year. But after an aerial 1080 operation that targeted stoats and rats in Tongariro forest seven out of 10 kiwi chicks made it past their first birthday. 
The Environmental Risk Management Authority the independent environmental watchdog put 1080 under intensive expert examination 2 years ago. It concluded that the continued use of 1080 has significant benefits for New Zealand’s environment. The Department of Conservation uses 1080 according to guidelines imposed by the Environmental Risk Management Authority and health authorities and there have been more than 2000 tests of water supplies. None of the results have identified any risk to public health. Safety standards for reticulated water have never been breached. 
There has been a refinement in the use of 1080 over the last decade and the amount of toxin per hectare has been cut down by about 90 percent. This means that there is only a teaspoon of toxin on each hectare. The Department of Conservation does about 560000 hectares of pest control annually most of which is ground based. One hundred and fifty thousand hectares are aerially sprayed with 1080 and that method is used in country that is challenging and when other options are not available. The Department of Conservation’s aerial 1080 operations cover less than 2 percent of public conservation land. The department also spends hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on alternative pest control methods. Alternatives have to be cost-effective have comprehensive coverage be humane and pose little risk to human health. At least 30 research projects are under way to find improvements in the use of 1080 or alternatives to its use. Other methods such as innovative self-setting stoat and rat traps have recently been developed by the department in conjunction with private enterprise. A possum trap is due shortly. These innovations should boost the cost-effectiveness of ground control. 
JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) 
: 
 I am delighted that in her contribution Nicky Wagner said she wanted to talk about conservation. That is absolutely what we on this side of the Chamber wish to talk about and that is why we are being forced to discuss mining. The most controversial issue that the Department of Conservation and this country are currently facing in this subject area is the fact that the National Government wishes to open up our national parks and other areas of strategic and sacred importance to this country for mining. Members on the Government side of the Chamber may shake their heads at me and claim that I am acting as a scaremonger but let me take those members through the rational reasons why we would not need to touch schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act unless we wished to mine the lands listed in it. There is absolutely no alternative reason why we would remove land from schedule 4. 
Before we begin I think it is probably useful to look at the true role of the Department of Conservation which is helpfully raised in the financial review. It states: “The Department of Conservation manages and oversees the conservation of New Zealand’s natural and heritage assets … for the benefit and enjoyment of all New Zealanders. The department directly manages public protected lands”. We have already spoken about the fact that roughly 30 percent of New Zealand’s land area is locked into the conservation estate. But there are two categories of conservation land and I think it is important that we draw out the distinctions between the two. When we talk about schedule 4 we are not talking about everything. We are talking about those areas that a National Government in the first instance decided after much discussion and debate were important enough to be given a special place in our legislation. That is the schedule that is now being questioned by that very same Government. 
We see in the financial review that some members rightfully put to the department the question of whether it felt that its role was being compromised by the fact that it was involved in this review of schedule 4 in the first place. I understand that the Director-General of Conservation said the department was advising on the conservation values of the areas under review and he did not regard its involvement as contrary to the objectives of the legislation. Well I question whether he was allowed to speak out against the department’s role in this particular review. I think that it compromises the role of the department as an advocate on behalf of the conservation estate. 
Before we go any further let us look at why this issue has been muddied. I personally blame the National Government if there is any lack of clarity about what is going on in this debate. I have some previous history in this area. Some years ago I was a private secretary for an Associate Minister of Energy who had responsibility for mining. I worked directly on schedule 4 and variations when mining companies wished to make applications for mining on conservation land. I understand the distinction between the two situations. If the National Government wishes to remove land from schedule 4 that is a very different thing from whether someone is granted a variation to mine on the conservation estate. Those are two different things. 
Probably the best reasons we can find as to why schedule 4 was created in the first place are given in the  
Hansard 
 of the third reading debate on the Crown Minerals Amendment Bill (No. 3) on 20 November 1997 by Nick Smith himself. He was the Minister who ushered in this important schedule at the time. If we go back to some of the rationale that he provided at that time we see that he said: “This Bill at long last puts some pegs in the sand in some very significant areas of New Zealand and says to the mining industries of New Zealand: ‘These are no-go areas.’” The irony is the reference to “pegs in the sand” given that half of the Coromandel is back up in question as well. Nick Smith continued: “This legislation says to the mining industries that those areas set aside as national parks are not appropriate areas for mining.” Ten years on I would like to ask the Minister whether perhaps at some point he would like to share with us what has changed. Does he think that those national parks are any less significant to New Zealand now than he did then? As far as I am concerned everything that is listed on schedule 4 has remained the same in terms of its conservation value. 
Nick Smith went on to say “This is landmark legislation for the conservation movement in New Zealand.” Those who were involved—the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in particular—were heralded by him for their role in developing such important legislation but now that they speak up against it being reviewed they are being labelled as scaremongers by this Government even though they were the ones who helped to usher it in in partnership with that National Government at the time. Nick Smith conclude his speech by saying: “I welcome the Bill’s progress and as Minister of Conservation look forward to not having to consider mining applications in those areas where nature should be able to rule the roost.” 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
: 
 “Why a stocktake?” I hear the call from members on the other side of the Chamber. I tell those members that it is pertinent to consider the prescience and thoughtfulness of those people who 30 40 or 50 years ago did a stocktake of the resources that lay in the north and south Taranaki bights and also on the land area of north and south Taranaki. Last year $2.8 billion worth of oil and gas was exported by this country. It was our third-biggest export earner. As we have heard the Department of Conservation manages and oversees the conservation of New Zealand’s natural heritage assets the length and breadth of New Zealand covering about a third of New Zealand’s land area our marine reserves and our wonderful freshwater resources. 
The Department of Conservation administers a conservation estate in which flourish the towering tawa the stately kauri the glossy green-leaved karaka the ravishing rhododendron and the tree that cause our foreshores to blaze with crimson fire every summer and captures the spirit of a New Zealand Christmas. I am referring of course to the beautiful pohutukawa. The Department of Conservation has a role in fostering recreation in areas under its management. It is thanks to the Department of Conservation that we can all go up the Panekiri Bluff on those sturdy aluminium ladders to gasp our way into the hut and get a refreshing draft from the tank that exists up there at the top of the Panekiri Bluff in the Ureweras which embrace the jewel of Lake Waikaremoana. 
It is thanks to the Department of Conservation that a weary tramper has a superb hut right alongside the Welcome Flat hot springs. It is a perfect spot to rest after making the journey up the Copland River or a traverse across the Southern Alps east to west through the Copland Pass. We owe a great debt to the Department of Conservation’s programme of vermin eradication that a marked track runs down the true left of the Joes River in Fiordland. It is a huge advantage as I found to my cost a little bit over the Christmas holidays that the true right is virtually impossible owing to the density of the undergrowth in this seldom-visited area of Fiordland. We have a lot to thank the Department of Conservation for. 
The department is funded mainly through Vote Conservation and in 2008-09 it was in the order of $312 million. It spent all but $2 million of that. However one of the interesting things is that the department worked closely with various agencies—not just Government departments but community trusts commercial operators and volunteer organisations. In the department’s 2009-12 statement of intent the Minister of Conservation adopted the term “conservation economy” and I think it is an important concept to understand in order to highlight the importance of conservation to New Zealand’s economy. 
The central premise is that conservation is an economic investment not simply a social good. This premise builds on the already well-accepted social values of conservation that are reflected in the Conservation Act 1987 and in particular the intrinsic worth of natural and historic heritage. It takes this further by showing the interdependence between nature’s systems social systems and the economy. In its totality conservation plays a critical role in validating the “clean green” brand that is the market advantage on which our producers rely. 
The benefits of conservation include carbon sequestration and storage mitigation of flood risk better freshwater quality and flows soil retention pollination and bioprospecting opportunities. In 2008-09 the department began to develop a commercial framework and to review its processing of concessions. It is also developing relationships with the tourism industry and the Ministry of Tourism and collaborates on projects such as the cycle track which we heard about earlier today in the Chamber. The department also acknowledges that public conservation land affords opportunities for economic development such as electricity generation and transmission. I am particularly interested in the opportunities that private people can have from land adjoining conservation estates through which a river flows so that they may undertake for themselves the micro-generation of power from renewables. Thank you. 
Report noted. 
Department of Labour 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
: 
 I will focus particularly on a couple of key issues in the financial review of the Department of Labour. I will look at the whole area of productive employment relations and I will look at the area of skills. I hope that during the course of this debate perhaps the Minister of Labour Kate Wilkinson will comment on these matters—I certainly hope so. 
One of the stated objectives of this Government is to reduce the gap between people’s incomes in Australia and New Zealand by 2025. One of the much talked about ways that we are to do this is by improving productivity. In my view productive employment relations are absolutely fundamental to doing that. What do we mean by productive employment relations? In my book it is about getting standards across industries. It is about having economic development that involves the workforce. It is about a recognition of the need to lift the quality of our workplaces. That includes the wage rates the work conditions and the quality of interaction within our workplaces—that is what I call productive employment relations. Unfortunately I believe that this Government sees workers and their rights as costs that need to be reduced. I say that with some sadness really but when I think about the Prime Minister’s statement I remember that he talked about the need for better regulation and then went on to talk about labour laws imposing excessive costs on this country and holding us back in taking advantage of opportunities to create jobs. 
When we look at what has been going on in the labour portfolio and look at the time line of the erosion of worker’s rights we can see a pattern. One of the first things that this Government did was to bring in the 90-day “no rights at work” provision so workers could not challenge unfair practices by their employers for the first 3 months. That was followed closely by the minimum wage increase in 2009 of 50c an hour although I do recall that the Minister of Labour was opposed to that. She was much keener on having a zero percent increase but I think she succumbed to what was understood to be the view of the population of New Zealand which was that perhaps that would not be very fair. I think we are starting to see an increasing clamour for a real lift to the minimum wage. There is a strong move now to see the minimum wage lifted to something more like $15 an hour. I think that would be a good step towards moving to close the income gap between Australia and New Zealand. But certainly lifting the minimum wage by 50c an hour in 2009 was not quite there. 
Then we saw the pay and employment equity unit disestablished and a number of pay equity reviews cancelled. That was done ignoring the fact that those were important mechanisms to lift the wages of predominantly women in industries where their very important work is undervalued. So that was another step in the erosion of worker’s rights. It was followed by the introduction in October 2009 of the Employment Relations (Rest Breaks and Meal Breaks) Amendment Bill. This bill will be one that members on the Labour side of the Chamber will be voting against. It will deny vulnerable workers basic rights to minimum breaks during their working day and is yet another backward step. So much for productive employment relations! Then there will be the changes to the Holidays Act which will get rid of people automatically having 4 weeks’ annual leave. Again that is another step in the wrong direction. This year we have seen the announcement of the very significant 25c an hour lift in the minimum wage which takes it to the grand sum of $12.75 per hour. Of course there are some members in this Chamber who would like to see that reduced—members like Roger Douglas from the ACT Party. The previous National Party leader Don Brash felt that was part of his productivity prescription to ensure that we closed the gap between Australia and New Zealand. I think those people have it all wrong. 
I will go on to look at the issue of skills. But just before I go off the topic of Don Brash’s task force I note that in the financial review of the Department of Labour we did talk about that. It was fair to say that it was acknowledged by the departmental officials that they were not once consulted on this matter. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
: 
 I want to follow on from the speech made by Carol Beaumont who is an effective member of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I am disappointed that the Labour Party gave her the job of trying to say nothing for 5 minutes. The Labour Party is a party that has been based on labour relations. That is its core support—the unions are its support base. There was nothing in that previous speech and National has done nothing to compromise workers’ rights in New Zealand over the last year and a half. In fact National has stood up for workers and delivered for them when Labour did not. 
Tim Macindoe 
: 75c. 
DAVID BENNETT 
: As Mr Macindoe that great member from Hamilton West said 75c was added by the National Government during a recession to the minimum wage. Labour was nowhere to be seen in terms of looking after workers during the 9 years it was in Government. That is sad. It is sad when the Labour Party goes for its core constituency and cannot even make any arguments that would be of consequence to the punters and the voters out there. 
The Labour Party knows that the Government has delivered as much as can be given in these economic times. The Labour Party says that according to National workers are costs that need to be reduced—that is its perception of National’s view but it is simply not the case. New Zealanders and the National Government value the work that all New Zealanders do. We want to see a stronger country where workers across the board get a fair return for their day’s work and we will deliver that to them through measures like tax cuts through measures in relation to the working environment and by keeping their jobs. We will not have a situation where we will compromise workers’ employment for political expediency. 
National wants to see New Zealanders keep their jobs and we want to see New Zealand develop so that we can pay workers what they deserve and give them the opportunities they seek in life. It is a shame that Labour members cannot find anything to argue in terms of labour relations from their point of view. They know that we have delivered for the workers better than the previous Labour Government did in 9 years. 
Report noted. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: Members we are getting close to the end of the time for this debate. The situation as I understand it is that the Labour Party has exhausted its calls. My advice from the Government whip is that members now wish to debate the report on the Ministry of Maori Development. 
Ministry of Maori Development (Te Puni Kokiri) 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 I would like to— 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Tena koe Mr Chairperson. Can I just confirm that the Labour Party has no further calls? I thought I heard you say that but I ask whether you could confirm it. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Rick Barker) 
: The member is correct. I will just make the point to the member that if in the event that no other party takes a call and there is time available members can take a call. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I am happy to take a call on the financial review of Te Puni Kokiri for the last financial year. I acknowledge the work of the Hon Tau Henare and the Maori Affairs Committee in its examination of the performance of Te Puni Kokiri. It is pleasing to read that in its judgment the ministry has increased its focus on working with other agencies in the State sector to benefit Maori. The committee’s report particularly acknowledges the complexity of the environment that Te Puni Kokiri provides its advice in and the work of the ministry to improve its performance across a range of areas. 
Since I became the Minister of Maori Affairs in 2008 Te Puni Kokiri has supported me well in delivering on this Government’s priorities. Three things stand out for me in the 2008-09 year. Firstly the Maori economic summit that I convened on 28 January 2009 stands out. This summit brought together Maori leaders and thinkers to devise responses from Maori to the recession. On 18 March I announced the appointment of the Maori Economic Taskforce to progress responses to the economic downturn. That task force is nearing a year in existence and we will have a full report on those activities next time. That task force has had a busy year and it has commenced a number of initiatives that will enhance the Maori economy. 
Secondly I was able to announce my whanau social assistance programmes during the year. We now have Kaitoko Whanau a network of whanau advocates in communities to liaise with whanau and community groups working with our families experiencing hardship in order to empower those families out there. This is a forerunner of course to Whanau Ora. Following on from that is our Maara Kai programme our gardens programme; $1 million has gone out for our gardens all over New Zealand—to marae and to Maori organisations. And there is the Oranga Whanau programme—our elders working among the community. 
Thirdly 2008-2009 was a milestone year for the Maori Trustee. It was the last year that that office was part of the core Public Service. From 1 July 2010 the Maori Trustee will be a fully independent sustainable entity with ongoing funding for enhanced services for Maori beneficial owners. [ 
Interruption 
] I agree with the member Te Ururoa Flavell that it has been a really good year for Te Puni Kokiri. Once again I thank the Hon Tau Henare and the select committee for their performance review. All in all it is not too bad for 7 months in office and this year is even busier. Thank you. 
Hon TAU HENARE (National) 
: 
 I congratulate the Minister of Maori Affairs on a job well done but it is a job that is only half complete. I think it is wonderful news that we have seen an increase in community assistance whereby the Government or the Crown—call it what you will—is telling the community: “Here is some money you know the problem you know the issues and you should go and sort it out.” without the interference of every policy maker who is employed by the Government. 
I congratulate the Minister I congratulate the Prime Minister and I also congratulate the Maori Party and National on being able to see through the last 9 years of what has been nothing short of a Fabian conspiracy. It is time to stop treating the indigenous people of this land as some sort of basket case and to realise that they can do things for themselves. With a bit of leadership from our Minister of Maori Affairs our Prime Minister and the two parties involved in the coalition agreement that is what we can achieve. 
I will take just a couple more minutes to concentrate on national standards. I believe that this policy underpins the next 20 to 30 years of this nation’s development. It is undoubtedly—undoubtedly—the most important policy that we have been able to achieve in our short short time on the Treasury benches. I congratulate Anne Tolley on her kaha her strength in the midst of some old-style left-wing union politics. 
I will finish by saying—well not “finish”; I think I will go for my full 5 minutes—that driving around in a red bus with “Axe the Tax” on it which has been paid for mind you by the New Zealand public and not by the Labour Party is embarrassing. It is embarrassing to take all that money which could have gone into national standards or into Whanau Ora but did not and have only six or seven people turn up to hear those Labour members speak. I just thought that I would get that off my chest. 
I think that these are important times for Maori. I tell members that we have seen much over the last few years in terms of Maori development. I must take off my hat to the previous Minister of Maori Affairs Parekura Horomia. At least he tried. At least he gave it a bash. He was in the job for 8 years. There were some significant movements and I take off my hat to the previous Minister. But as a people we cannot wait any longer. The clarion call that has gone out to our Minister of Maori Affairs is that he should get on with the job. He should not worry about what the Opposition says; he should get on with the job. 
Without our development the country does not go anywhere. Without our input the country does not go anywhere. We can take any department we like be tourism or education and we see that Maori input is essential for the growth of this nation. Once we realise that then we will be a better nation for it. The leadership is already out there in our communities. The Maori community has done it before and we will do it again. This is not something new. I wish the Minister well in his next 12 months and for however long he is in the job. 
Clauses 1 to 11 and schedules 1 to 4 
A party vote was called for on the question  
That clauses 1 to 11 and schedules 1 to 4 be agreed to. 
Ayes 69 
New Zealand National 58; ACT New Zealand 5; Maori Party 5; United Future 1. 
Noes 53 
New Zealand Labour 43; Green Party 9; Progressive 1. 
Clauses 1 to 11 and schedules 1 to 4 agreed to. 
Bill reported without amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill 
Third Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Finance 
: I move  
That the Appropriation (2008/09 Financial Review) Bill be now read a third time 
. 
Bill read a third time. 
Judicial Matters Bill 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 23 February. 
New Part 1A Amendments to District Courts Act 1947 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 We come now to a new Part 1A. As required by Standing Order 299 I seek leave of the Committee to move the amendment to the District Courts Act 1947 which is set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108. Leave is required because the amendment is a substantive one to an Act not amended by the bill as introduced. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: Leave is sought for this course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I thank honourable members for their cooperation on this matter. This is a relatively short amendment to the District Courts Act to increase the number of District Court judges from 140 which is the current statutory cap to 156. It will be the first increase since 2004 and it will apply to judges of the District Court holding jury warrants as well as to those acting in their criminal and civil jurisdictions. It will also include the specialist divisions: the Family Court the Youth Court and the Environment Court. 
In a couple of months the Immigration Act 2009 will come into force and the chairperson of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal will be a District Court judge. Furthermore at the present time two judges of the Employment Court also hold warrants as part-time judges of the District Court. The chief coroner and the outgoing Principal Disputes Referee also hold warrants as District Court judges. Given the increase in the workload particularly in Auckland and Manukau City and the desirability of appointing further judges in those courts and in other courts in the north of the North Island it is necessary to increase the cap. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 I will begin by putting on record a mistake that I made when this debate was last called. It was during urgency—I think it was the third day in urgency. I had been delayed at a select committee meeting that had overlapped with the start of the day and I had not briefed my colleague Charles Chauvel on the agreement that I had made on behalf of the Labour Party to support leave being granted for including this matter in the Judicial Matters Bill by way of Supplementary Order Paper 108. I think that I caused some understandable consternation on the part of the Attorney-General. I would like to put on record that that was my responsibility and no reflection should be made upon other members of the Opposition including Mr Chauvel. 
The Labour Party will be supporting Supplementary Order Paper 108. We support the increase in the number of judges. On reflection having agreed to it—and we are honouring our agreement—Charles Chauvel made a good point as to whether I should have made that agreement and whether we should have sent this sort of proposal to the select committee to have it discussed. My judgment at the time was that it did not need to go to the select committee. We stand by that decision but perhaps if I was asked again I would think again about that. 
I agree with the reasons that the Attorney-General has outlined; there is a need to increase the number of District Court judges. In reality I know that if the number of District Court judges was not increased then the Attorney-General would be increasingly reliant on retired judges—I do not know whether we call them retired—or semi-retired judges to come back under temporary warrants and act as judges. It is undesirable to be reliant on too many temporary warranted judges. It is better to have a greater number of permanent judges. Apart from anything else I think that the public looks somewhat askance at having too many judges drawing superannuation and also being paid as current judges. For those reasons I am happy on behalf of the Labour Party to express our support for the changes. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I will make two comments in response. The first point is to thank the honourable member David Parker for his very generous remarks. I had not intended to deal with that matter; I though it was water under the bridge but I am very grateful for his comments. 
The second point is I think he hit the nail on the head when he talked about the undesirability of too many retired judges having temporary warrants. In fact at one stage the number was up to about 45 to 50. I became very concerned about that. An important concomitant of the changes that we are talking about tonight is that they will mean that judges holding temporary warrants will not receive any further warrants once they reach the age of 72. That will enable this potentially unconstitutional and troubling practice to slowly diminish. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I will take a brief call on the Judicial Matters Bill because I too made some comments in relation to the matters being dealt with in Supplementary Order Paper 108. I am of the view that they should have been referred to a select committee but I appreciate the comments that my colleague the Hon David Parker made and I accept that that occurred. We will stand by those agreements and I think it is important to do so. 
I wish that the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General had referred a little bit to the decision that is being addressed in the other part of the Supplementary Order Paper. I think the number of judges is important but the  
Kane Wikio and Bunny Beckham v the Attorney-General  
decision is an important one. I want to get a sense of why the Minister wants to deal with that in the context of this legislation rather than having it considered in a more in-depth way by a select committee. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are actually on new Part 1A. You are referring to Part 2 and the Supplementary Order Paper is under Part 2. At the moment we are debating just new Part 1A. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am sorry. It was under the heading of Part 1A in the Supplementary Order Paper. It states: “Amendment to District Courts Act 1947” and it has clauses 15A 15B and then 16A “Salaries and allowances of Judges”. I thought that was precisely the point that was being dealt with. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: My understanding is that the only parts we are looking at at the moment under new Part 1A are clauses 15A and 15B. Those are the only two debatable points. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: So clause 16A is under a different part. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is correct. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: I am sorry. I apologise for that. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is Part 2. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: The way the Supplementary Order Paper is structured means that it is not clear. Perhaps we should have a conversation about the way Supplementary Order Papers are structured because the way it is set out shows Part 1A “Amendment to District Courts Act 1947” and clauses 15A and 15B and then it moves on to clause 16A; there is no indication in the way the Supplementary Order Paper is published that clause 16A is in another part of the legislation. I apologise. 
I will talk about the number of judges because I think it is important that as a matter of principle—and I am not in any way resiling from the agreement that has been reached—when we are considering issues like this there is an opportunity for others to have input. The way they have input is through the select committee process. The advantage of doing so is that there is a proper consideration of all of the issues involved. 
I understand the point that the Minister in the chair makes in respect of retired judges and I think that is useful. However I have been in this House long enough to have heard the opposite argued by members of the Minister’s party when Labour was in Opposition before—that is how long I have been here—and the point has been made that these sorts of changes should not be made in a way that detracts from outside input into the debate. I think it is important as a general matter of principle that if these things are to be addressed then the proper way to do that—and it could have been done in this particular case rather than seeking this opportunity for them to be dealt with by the way that has ultimately been resolved—is to table a Supplementary Order Paper in the House and have it referred to a select committee. That is a perfectly appropriate methodology for resolving these things. I recommend that process to the Minister and I apologise for not being a little bit more on the ball as far as the actual wording of the Supplementary Order Paper is concerned. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 This will be a very brief call to echo the comments that my colleague Lianne Dalziel has just made on the Judicial Matters Bill. As Lianne Dalziel said we stand by the arrangement that has been made between the Attorney-General and the Labour shadow Minister on this matter and we will support the incorporation of the Supplementary Order Paper108 at this point. Given that it would be good for members to hear from the Attorney-General just how the change to be made by this Supplementary Order Paper to new Part 1A will increase judicial throughput in the District Courts. 
We have heard that a number of acting warrants have been issued—the number was quoted—and that is somehow thought to be a bad thing. It would be good to hear why that is. One view is that at least it might be cheaper to have acting judges on a warrant backfilling in the District Courts rather than new warrants being made up and having all the costs associated with tenured judges sitting on an indefinite basis. The famous quotation about dukes and dreadnoughts comes to mind. 
If we are not to have a select committee process where we can get a properly ventilated argument about the changes proposed then 16 new judges being paid a significant salary each being paid significant amounts by way of a charge against the Crown for their support staff and for all the other accoutrements of office that will be required for them is a significant thing to commit to. As we are not to have committee scrutiny of whether that will result in better justice in the District Courts it would be good to hear why the Minister in the chair thinks that will be the case. The alternatives could be for example resorting to some variation of the current solution which is the warranting of acting judges or perhaps discussing with the judiciary via the appropriate authorities ways in which at least in the lower courts we might get more efficient outcomes. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I thank Charles Chauvel for those comments. I begin by expressing my concern on his behalf for the unfortunate flight he had. I must confess that my sympathies actually were with him; I was flying recently and I had some urchin kicking my seat but rather than turn round and upbraid him I was frightened that what happened to the honourable member would happen to me. So there we have it. 
But the point the member makes is a fair one. On the question of temporary judges of course one is not opposed to them on principle because the system could not operate unless they were there. The question is really the number. When one becomes utterly dependent on them then I think of the judgment of a Scottish court where the very issue arose and it was referred to as a very cheap and shabby form of justice. So what I am trying to do is address that as best I can. The other point that needs to be made is that there has been a growth in the work of the Environment Court. Because of the particular circumstances of the Employment Court—and the member is a respected practitioner in that area and knows about that area of the law—we have two temporary judges of the Employment Court and they also hold warrants as District Court judges. So there has been growth in work since the last time the number went up and it is a matter that is going to have to be addressed on a regular basis I imagine. 
The member did not raise it but one concern if the number gets too much bigger is that we will be dealing with the largest court in Australasia and that is something to be borne in mind before we increase it any further because the administration involved in running such a large court is an important question. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I have already expressed the Green Party’s support for the Judicial Matters Bill generally and in this intervention in the Committee I will address one matter only. It relates of course to Supplementary Order Paper 108 submitted by the Attorney-General. 
I recognise the apparent confusion in the earlier debate and I say at the outset that the Green Party had independently resolved to oppose Supplementary Order Paper 108 but in light of subsequent explanations we are certainly prepared to support it; I want to allay from the outset any concern on that matter. 
That said I want to explore some specific issues on the matter of Supplementary Order Paper 108 because I understood— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We are not on Supplementary Order Paper 108 only the two clauses 15A and 15B. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM 
: I think my comments probably pertain to 16— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: You are one step ahead. We are on clauses 15A and 15B. You will get the chance if you wish to discuss clause 16 and Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the debate on Part 2. I just bring your attention to that. 
New Part 1A agreed to. 
Part 2 Amendment to Judicature Act 1908 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I want to address a couple of matters raised—and I know that Dr Kennedy Graham wants to say something about them—in relation to clauses 16A and 16B as set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108. These clauses set out the determination of the additional remuneration of High Court judges when they serve in the Court of Appeal. High Court judges either can join the permanent judges of the Court of Appeal in the full court of the Court of Appeal or can sit with Court of Appeal judges in either the civil or criminal division of that court. 
Apparently there was always broad agreement about the remuneration that High Court judges would receive when they were sitting as judges of the Court of Appeal. It results from an arrangement that was entered into by the then Chief Justice and the then Secretary for Justice. It was resolved that High Court judges should receive the same salary as Court of Appeal judges as determined by the Remuneration Authority for their service in the Court of Appeal. That might be for 2 or 3 weeks or it might even be for a couple of months. But that was the arrangement that was reached. 
Some years ago a case came before Justice MacKenzie in the High Court at Wellington called  
Wikio v Attorney-General.  
I refer the member to the judgment dated 11 July. It was a broad-ranging attack on behalf of those applicants on the way in which certain judges were sitting on particular cases be they retired judges with a temporary warrant or judges of the High Court sitting in the Court of Appeal. Questions were raised and Justice MacKenzie looked at this issue. He said that “given the constitutional importance of judicial salaries I consider that the payment of an allowance to a High Court judge sitting on the Court of Appeal should rest on a more secure constitutional foundation than is apparent on the evidence before me.” He did not express a final view but he made that comment. So it was thought that the sooner this matter could be cleared up the better. The judgment was given on 11 July 2008 and this Judicature Matters Bill was simply seen as a good opportunity given the relative infrequency of legislation affecting the Judicature Act coming before the House for us to try to sort out the matter. 
The question that I believe that the member Dr Kennedy Graham may raise is of retrospectivity and admittedly clause 16B adopts a belt and braces approach. I suggest to the honourable member that it is not like cases of retrospectivity that validate for example an unlawful taking but it is a declaration in a belt and braces way. It is dealt with in this way simply because the issue was raised but was not finally determined before that learned High Court judge. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 As was said earlier the Labour Party will respect the agreement reached to support Supplementary Order Paper 108 but I ask the Committee to reflect on whether it is an entirely satisfactory state of affairs to have a matter of constitutional importance as this is come before the Committee by way of a Supplementary Order Paper. 
One of the important constitutional issues that we deal with in this place is the issue of judicial remuneration. Clearly it should not rest on an improper foundation; clearly we should not in any way threaten judicial independence by intimating to the judiciary that the remuneration that they are entitled to receive might by executive or legislative whim be reduced. So this is obviously the right thing to do as the reasons for judgment of Justice MacKenzie made it clear that the evidence before him indicated that this higher duties allowance if you like was paid on a very flimsy basis. 
Let us recall the basis that is set out in the judgment. It was an agreement between former Chief Justice Eichelbaum and the former Secretary for Justice. It was a memorandum initialled by the two of them made necessary because of the increasingly common practice at the time of using a member of the High Court on a substituted basis in what has become known as the Court of Criminal Appeal. Most members would agree that it is proper for a judge of the High Court to be paid some form of “higher duties allowance”—I will again use that colloquial expression—when discharging the duties of a judge of the Court of Appeal. Permanent judges of the Court of Appeal earn considerably more than a High Court judge even though the two share the High Court warrant as the basis for the exercise of their jurisdiction. The fact that this practice could go on for so many years based on simply an initialled piece of paper between the senior judge in the High Court and the administrative head of the Ministry of Justice is a matter for wonder. It is a matter that we all ought to reflect on in this Committee because it shows how flimsy and how shaky our arrangements concerning the constitution are. 
I well recall the rousing speeches made by the Minister in the chair the Attorney-General only a year or so ago when he was in Opposition. He talked about the urgent need for reform of the civil justice system. Well here we have obvious evidence of one of the principal reasons for that reform: the fact that for many years we could not even get put on to a sound constitutional footing the basis on which a High Court judge sitting in the Court of Appeal should be paid more for doing that. 
I record my gratitude that Justice MacKenzie set out the matter the way he did. It is a delicately worded judgment given the broad nature of the challenges that were put before the High Court and it is appropriate that this Committee address the matter. I would have preferred to see it addressed not by way of a Supplementary Order Paper but by way of a proper hearing before a select committee but as I say agreement has been made that that will not happen and we will deal with it in the Committee of the whole House without any public scrutiny. Let us though reflect on just how flimsy are the foundations some of these fundamental arrangements rest on. Let us resolve if we can to do something about that issue as we go forward. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 I pick up where I was before. My comments are essentially very much concurrent with those expressed by Mr Chauvel but I must say that they were arrived at independently in terms even of our initial approach to Supplementary Order Paper 108. I take on board all the points made by the honourable Attorney-General and in light of his explanations the Green Party has resolved to support Supplementary Order Paper 108. 
But for the reason that was just cited—namely that this issue will not go before a select committee but will be dealt with here in the Committee of the whole House—I think it is very important given the fundamental nature of what we are about here that we explore it a little. I draw to the Committee’s attention the fact that the Supplementary Order Paper would in effect specify that a higher duties allowance is payable only to a judge who—and this is a drafting point—“is or was not a Judge of the Court of Appeal holding office” under the Act. The purpose of this provision is that such allowances will be payable only to judges from the High Court who are serving temporarily on the Court of Appeal. 
I make two points. One is essentially a drafting point I guess and one is of substance. On the first I may stand corrected but if I am right the Government can convey its appreciation later. It is just a point of syntax. A strict reading of the Supplementary Order Paper would have the allowance paid only to judges who either are currently judges of the Court of Appeal or who never were. That surely is not the intention. I repeat the phrase: a judge who “is or was not a Judge of the Court of Appeal”. Surely that is not the intention. Surely it is better to have it read: “payable only to a judge who is not or was not a Judge of the Court of Appeal.” But enough of that; I will leave that to the drafters. 
The point of substance concerns the reason for the amendment; it is because of an administrative error that was recently uncovered as has been noted. At present the relevant Act refers only to permanent judges and High Court judges who are temporarily seconded to the Court of Appeal do not qualify as permanent judges of that court. They are therefore under the current legislation not eligible for any higher salary when they serve in that court. For the past 11 years from 1998 to this day they have been paid what is called a higher duties allowance. The problem is that under existing legislation what they are being paid is not strictly an allowance either. The Ministry of Justice largely unfazed by the constitutional niceties got around the vexing problem back in 1998 by bureaucratic decree. To quote the Ministry: “Although the difference between the two salaries is labelled an ‘allowance’ it is not actually an allowance in the sense that term is used in the Judicature Act. The payment of seconded Judges’ salaries in this manner (ie using the administrative tool of a ‘higher duties allowance’) is done for administrative convenience as it enables seconded High Court Judges to be paid the salary of a Judge of the Court of Appeal while sitting as a Judge of the Court of Appeal without having to alter the payroll system. The term ‘allowance’ is used because it is one that is recognised by the automated payroll system.” 
Fantastic: this is just an administrative sleight of hand to solve a day-to-day problem. But is it? Well no it is not. In fact the payment of this allowance has become an issue in the courts where it has been argued it has constituted an unlawful payment by the executive branch of Government directly to the judge in breach of the ancient constitutional principle of non-interference in judicial salaries. The High Court as the Attorney-General noted ruled on this matter in July 2008. In that ruling the judge held that “The constitutional importance of arrangements concerning judicial salaries is such that there must be a clear statutory basis for all amounts paid to Judges by way of salary and allowances.” Given the constitutional importance of judicial salaries he considered that payment of an allowance to a High Court judge sitting on the Court of Appeal should rest on a more secure constitutional foundation than was apparent in the evidence before him. The Attorney-General has essentially explained that to all our satisfaction. The issue said the judge was the effect that the making of the payment if it were unconstitutional might have on the independence and impartiality of the courts. Such concern related to the constitutional position of the judiciary as a whole. 
So we are not dealing with administrative trivia here; we are talking about fundamental issues of our constitution as Mr Chauvel has pointed out—namely the independence of the judiciary from the executive. It seems that for the past decade New Zealand’s constitutional stability has basically been held hostage to the whims of a computer programmer or to put it another way the payroll system of the Ministry of Justice was unable to accommodate our constitution. The effect of all this is that the legislature is asked to retrospectively validate financial payments to the judiciary which the executive through administrative convenience has made if not unlawfully then certainly on an insecure constitutional foundation. That is the judgment of the Supreme Court. Clearly the Government concurs because if it did not it would not be submitting the Supplementary Order Paper to make payments rest on a secure foundation. 
The outcome is that this Committee is being asked to retrospectively validate payments over the last 11 years. I have to say that I do not enjoy being asked to retrospectively validate anything certainly not financial payments to the judiciary and certainly not when I am being assured that those payments have rested on a shaky constitutional foundation. Given that concern the Green Party gave consideration to opposing Supplementary Order Paper 108 not because we oppose the payment to judges and not because we seek to keep the constitutional foundations or the separation of powers insecure but because of a reluctance to endorse retrospective legislation. 
The Attorney-General has recently been good enough to provide us with the authoritative work on retrospective legislation: Burrows and Carter’s work  
Statute Law in New Zealand 
. The essential point in that work is that in essence retrospective legislation is objectionable only in three situations: if it takes away existing rights or defences if it makes things unlawful that were lawful when they were done or if it attaches a tax or liability to something done in the past. It seems that the higher duties provision in this Supplementary Order Paper does none of those things. In deference to the authoritative judgment we shall therefore support the Supplementary Order Paper. 
This is not intended as a rebuke of this Government or of the previous Government for that matter; it is more a call for greater acuity on the part of the executive essentially which was where the problem arose. Let us simply hope that we are not frequently asked to undertake this kind of retrospective wave of the legislative hand to cast a veil over the accumulated shortcomings of a harassed executive for the sake of a resource-constrained judiciary. It is an unedifying action for all three branches of Government and the less we have to resort to this kind of thing the better off we all are. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to endorse the comments of my colleague from the Green Party and of my colleague Charles Chauvel. I think both have indicated the seriousness of the issue that we are addressing tonight. The point I make and that I would have made before is that the key for me is that this is an issue the Government knew it would have to address last year and we are now in March. Instead of referring the Supplementary Order Paper to the debate here in the Committee stage now that Supplementary Order Paper could have been referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee by leave. That would have allowed the select committee the opportunity to call for submissions and to develop an in-depth understanding of the issues that are involved without doing so on the floor of the Chamber. 
I do not have the case in front of me so I have not refreshed myself in terms of the detail of it but my recollection—and this is from the dim dark distant past—is that arguments were mounted on behalf of those applications for judicial review by a couple of people who were convicted following a criminal trial. The arguments that were mounted on their behalf were quite offensive on a lot of levels certainly to me in terms of what they indicated might motivate judges in terms of the decisions they would be making based on this “acting-up” allowance and their being beholden to the executive. 
As I say I really would appreciate the Attorney-General giving us an oversight for the record so that we have it on the record here in the Committee what the arguments were and why the Government has chosen now to address this problem in the way it has. I think the Attorney-General has a very clear understanding that the only concerns we are expressing at this point are now around process and that there really is not an argument about the need for addressing the issues. As we say it is very important that these matters are placed on a secure constitutional foundation because no one would want to risk allowing a challenge by way of judicial review to succeed certainly on the grounds on which I recall this case was undertaken. Some time in the future somebody will be looking at this issue and at the debate that we held tonight and he or she will be looking to see what the motivation was in terms of the Government’s position on this particular bill to make sure that these issues were fully debated and addressed in this Chamber given that they were not able to be addressed at select committee level. 
The other thing I would really like from the Attorney-General—because I think a lot of goodwill has been expressed in this Chamber tonight—is an indication as to whether perhaps in future we could look at the option of referring the Supplementary Order Paper to the select committee by way of leave rather than seeking leave to have it debated outside the scope of a particular bill. I feel that if that had been achieved we would all have had a much better understanding of what the issues were. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I hear what the three members have said and I appreciate their comments. I think we are all at one as was said by Justice MacKenzie. But the constitutional importance of arrangements concerning judicial salaries is such that there must be a clear statutory basis for all amounts paid to judges by way of salaries and allowances. I acknowledge and I think I am on record as saying that the Judicature Act is a bit of a dog’s breakfast and needs a complete rewrite. I hear what members have said and I will be taking it further. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
: 
 There is remaining just the other issue that Kennedy Graham referred to which is the drafting issue in respect of new subclause 16A(2) which inserts new subparagraph (1A)(a)(i) with the wording “is or was not …”. I would like to have an assurance from the Attorney-General that he has checked the wording with officials and that they are happy with it. Thank you. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We will just get clarification on that point. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I can so advise. 
The question was put that the amendments set out on Supplementary Order Paper 108 in the name of the Hon Christopher Finlayson to Part 2 be agreed to. 
Amendments agreed to. 
Part 2 as amended agreed to. 
Schedule 1 agreed to.  
Schedule 2 agreed to.  
Clause 1 agreed to.  
Clause 2 agreed to.  
The Committee divided the bill into the Judicial Conduct Commissioner and Judicial Conduct Panel (Deputy Commissioner and Disposal of Complaints) Amendment Bill the District Courts (District Court Judges) Amendment Bill and the Judicature (Judicial Matters) Amendment Bill pursuant to Supplementary Order Paper109. 
Bill reported with amendment. 
Report adopted. 
Courts (Remote Participation) Bill 
First Reading 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Justice 
: I move  
That the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill be now read a first time. 
 At the appropriate time I intend to move that the bill be referred to the Justice and Electoral Committee for consideration that the committee report finally to the House on or before 31 May 2010 and that the committee have the authority to meet at any time while the House is sitting except during oral questions during any evening on a day on which there has been a sitting of the House and on a Friday in a week in which there has been a sitting of the House despite Standing Orders 187 and 190(1)(b) and (c). 
This is a very important bill and it will enable the courts to make greater use of videoconferencing technology in both civil and criminal proceedings. It is the first piece of legislation introduced by this Government to reform criminal procedure. Currently witnesses can appear in court by video link in some circumstances but usually defendants cannot. New Zealand law currently requires defendants physically to attend court even for many minor procedural hearings. 
The use of video links in the courtroom is commonplace in many types of court proceeding in other countries including the United Kingdom Australia Canada and the United States of America. The Australian jurisdictions in particular are internationally recognised for the effective use of videoconferencing in legal proceedings. The bill before the House today provides a legal framework for any participant in a proceeding to appear by video link in any judicial proceeding provided that certain criteria are met. Clauses 5 and 6 set out the decision-making criteria to be referred to by any registrar or judicial officer making decisions about the use of video links. Those criteria include the nature of the proceeding the availability and quality of the technology to be used and the potential impact of the use of the technology on the effective maintenance of the rights of other parties to the proceeding. The criteria are designed to protect defendants’ right to a fair trial and to ensure that the rights and interests of other participants as well as the interests of the court itself are taken into account. 
In civil matters video links can be used where both parties consent. To prevent one party from putting the other to unnecessary expense by unreasonably withholding consent a judicial officer can order that a video link be used. In criminal procedural matters there is a presumption in favour of the use of video links. That means that where no evidence is being presented a registrar or judicial officer may require that a person appear by video link. A person may object to appearing by video link and then the judicial officer will have to decide on the objection based on the relevant criteria. For appearances where evidence is being presented any party can apply to the judicial officer to use video links and the judicial officer will determine applications by reference to the criteria. 
There are a number of benefits from increased use of video links and these include improved efficiency increased safety and security increased access to justice and improvements in the quality of the evidence being heard. 
For routine appearances like pre-trial matters in which no evidence is to be presented a defendant on remand could appear by video link from a prison instead of having to be transported from prison to court and then back again. This will not only help speed up the trial and hearing processes but also reduce the need for transporting prisoners with the potential to save quite significant sums of money. 
This bill and the technology it enables holds much promise for the modernisation of the court system. The Government is committed to a more efficient system delivering justice to victims witnesses defendants and to the community. So this bill is one of the first steps in a package of reforms that aims to do just that. I commend the bill to the House. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
: 
 I rise to support the first reading of the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill and to advise the House that the Opposition will be supporting its referral to select committee. 
I want to make a significant point about this legislation: it has a regulatory impact statement. I do not understand why the Government which says that it is interested in regulatory reform has decided not to have regulatory impact statements in its bills from here on in. It has decided as a Government to make sure that the regulatory impact statements are available online but not where we need to see them at the time we are debating the bill. I want to commend the Government on this bill and I ask it to rethink its position on regulatory impact statements because I find those parts of the bill the most important when we are having debates such as this. 
Paul Quinn 
: Be quiet. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Now I know that the individual who is interjecting on me knows more about this than anyone else but the problem is that unless he has actually read the regulatory impact statement what he will not understand is whether the analysis stands up. I think that it is quite interesting that on this particular one it certainly stacks up in my view. 
I thought that members of the Government would be quite pleased to find out that when we look at the benefit-cost ratio we see that this one stacks up very well. 
Simon Bridges 
: Excellent. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: What I think is very interesting and I will be interested in hearing the member who just interjected on me—members can obviously tell that I cannot remember any of those members’ names— 
Simon Bridges 
: New Zealand can’t remember your name. 
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL 
: Oh no that is right; I do remember his name. The point I was going to make was that when we look at the benefit-cost ratio on this particular legislation we see that the Government has accepted a benefit-cost ratio that looks at future benefit. which I have never seen in any benefit-cost ratio that has been signed off by Treasury. That is because this one has not been signed off by Treasury; it has been signed off by the Ministry of Justice but it is a good step in the right direction. I will give credit where it is due. I think it ought to be given. 
This particular benefit-cost ratio talks about a monetary value assigned to the future reductions in costs for participants in the court process improved efficiency for justice-sector agencies improved safety and security increased access to justice and improved quality of evidence. I say that that is a very good signal in terms of the monetary value which cannot be assigned specifically but is obviously relevant. That is why I think that this legislation has a lot going for it. 
The other thing is that in a regulatory impact analysis it is important to look at whether there are alternative options. The Government has looked at alternative options. Again I think that this is a very positive document and it is very useful in looking at what the alternatives were. In this particular case the Government looked at whether there were non-legislative options. I think that is a good thing to do. I think one should look at whether there are issues that could be dealt with by way of for example guidelines and that was precisely what it looked at. However it said that non-legislative options were not an option in this case because guidelines cannot override or adequately clarify the legal status of the video links in all proceedings. Guidance on the use of audiovisual links has already been promulgated and it is appropriate that guidance such as this clarifies operational procedures for the use of audiovisual links. The preferred legislative approach is outlined in the explanatory note. 
I think that the point the Government is trying to make—in fact it is very much like the debate we have just had—is that when one is dealing with such matters that relate to our court processes it is absolutely vital that we have a strong legislative framework to back it up. This legislation has created the option of specifying when audiovisual links can be used but it also specifies when they cannot be used. I am looking as to whether there is a preferred outcome. If there are a particular set of circumstances it will to lead to the use of audiovisual links. It will be automatic. It is kind of like having a default provision to audiovisual links but in other circumstances not having that applied so it will depend on the particular circumstances of the case. I guess that the legislation has been designed to be future-looking and that means that there may be advances in the quality of the audiovisual links options available in the future. That may mean that rather than looking just at the procedural matters they will look at other matters as well. I think that the legislation itself has been designed pretty well. It has been looked at in terms of its obligations to match the requirements of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act and it is important to ensure that those options are there. 
There are enormous costs involved in having participants physically present at every single element of the process and obviously this proposal will reduce those costs over time. It is not just in relation to the costs of witnesses when they are required to appear in court; it is also in relation to the costs of transporting prisoners housing them at court providing security and the average unit cost to transport and escort a prisoner. All of those features of the current system are able to be addressed with respect to this particular proposition. When we look at the number of prisoners on remand and the expected growth we see that there is a flow-on demand for court appearances and associated prisoner transports. At the same time we then have pressure on defence counsel arising from the increased numbers of people entering the system which has the potential to have an impact on consultation and preparation times. All of these things add to the costs of the criminal process. Therefore this audiovisual system will create significant benefit over the long term. 
In Australia a couple of approaches have been taken to the legislation in this area. The preferred option that was chosen for New Zealand was to have an overarching statute to apply across New Zealand legislation. The alternative option was to amend existing legislation. The reason the alternative option was not chosen was that varying terminology concerning participants in proceedings is used in a range of statutes and all of them would have to be amended to clarify whether participants could appear by audiovisual link. When we looked at the range of legislation the numbers of statutes that would have to be amended the number of regulations and then the number of rules as well we saw that it simply did not stack up as an option. I think that is why the Government has quite rightly chosen the option of an overarching statute to apply across all New Zealand legislation thus creating this presumption around the appropriate use of an audiovisual link that will apply to every part of the New Zealand law. 
I am very pleased that the Government is taking these steps. I think it is appropriate that we look at the overarching costs and whether there are presumptions that could apply around the use of an audiovisual link to the benefit of all those involved. I commend the Government for undertaking this particular work but I make this point: representatives of the judiciary in their consultation expressed support for the proposals but they have emphasised that they see the audiovisual link being used predominantly in the procedural elements of courtroom proceedings and less so for the substantive components of proceedings where evidence is being physically presented. I think it is important that we stay in touch with the judiciary on this important matter. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) 
: 
 I relish the opportunity to speak on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. To translate what the previous speaker Lianne Dalziel said this measure is a really good idea because it is cheap and it fits the criteria for safety. People like Liam Ashley will not be beaten up and killed when being transported to court. If the prisoner who killed Liam Ashley had been able to stay at the prison if evidence had been able to be given by way of an audiovisual link then lives would not have been put at risk; the safety of prison officers and other prisoners would not have been put at risk. 
Lianne Dalziel also said that it is pretty important to check that no laws are broken when we do this sort of stuff. We need to check whether any regulations need to be changed to allow this much simpler really good idea to be implemented. I think everyone across the House will support the legislation because it is a good idea. It will save time and money and it will have benefits in terms of expediting justice. I commend the bill to the House. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 The Courts (Remote Participation) Bill does a number of significant things. It sets out the framework by which decisions on whether to use an audiovisual link in court proceedings can be made. It stipulates a default position—and I am speaking further to a point made by Lianne Dalziel—that a decision should be made in favour of using an audiovisual link in any criminal procedural matter unless the judicial officer feels that there is sufficient reason not to or there is an objection from another party. In a criminal substantive matter an audiovisual link is allowed by application as long as the judicial officer is satisfied that the criteria for the use of an audiovisual link would be met. And an audiovisual link can be used in civil matters; in those cases it can be used even if a party objects as long as the judicial officer considers that the criteria can be met so that an audiovisual link is appropriate under the circumstances. 
There are five clear benefits which other speakers have mentioned in the use of an audiovisual link. First is reduced costs through not needing to pay for transport for participants from one location to another improving court efficiency by not having to wait for the transportation of the parties. Anyone who has sat through a criminal call-over in the District Court will know how inefficient that process is in terms of judge or judicial officer time lawyer time and the time of potential witnesses as well as the parties. As Chester Borrows indicated there could be if this system is administered properly increased safety and security. There ought to be the facility for increased access to justice. It is wrong that people who live in centres where there are many courtrooms and many judges have the expectation of speedier justice than those who for example live in rural areas and rely on circuit judges or have to travel to larger centres for the administration of justice and it ought to be able to improve the quality of evidence heard in courtrooms assuming we get the technology right. 
The main concerns with extending the facility for an audiovisual link will be the difficulty of participants to truly interact with a judge with counsel and with witnesses. Any lawyer in the House and many other members will know that in cross-examination in the giving of evidence-in-chief and in re-examination the reactions and the emotions expressed by a witness or any other participant in civil proceedings let alone criminal proceedings are vital to a judicial officer or a jury making decisions or assessments of fact. It will be essential to make sure that the technology that is deployed in this area does not compromise that facility. 
It has been said that similar steps have been taken in Australia particularly I think in New South Wales. Clearly this is an idea whose time has come. As Lianne Dalziel said the Labour Party supports the legislation to select committee but we will be looking very closely at the question of how this system will be rolled out what sort of technology will be made available and those practical deployment issues so we do not lose the essential fairness that we need in the justice system when we are making assessments about whether a witness in particular is telling the truth. 
SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) 
: 
 It is good to speak on the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. It will result in greater efficiencies cost savings and safety in our court system. I know that it is something a lot of people are interested in. I know that the Eaves family in Tauranga for example are watching and will be interested in what I am about to say. 
The process for this video link started some time ago. In my time as a lawyer I was involved in a couple of cases. In one a police officer had moved overseas and was from memory in the outback of Australia and we had him give evidence by video link for a voir dire. In the second case an attempted murder one of the witnesses to a gang brawl in Opotiki had cancer and only a matter of weeks to live so her evidence was taken by this method. But the process was far from certain. There certainly were not any presumptions and it was hard work and fraught to get evidence—and it still is I imagine—into court by video link. 
So this measure is a real procedural step forward. I think it is excellent. As I said it will result in efficiencies cost reductions and increased safety. I agree with what Charles Chauvel said which was that any lawyer who has been involved in a criminal call-over in a District Court or a High Court will be aware of the hassle of getting prisoners particularly but also witnesses and so on into court. There will be many savings and efficiencies as a result of doing this not to mention as I said greater safety. Certainly a colleague of mine in the Tauranga District Court was—it made the news I recall—assaulted at a call-over by a prisoner who had decided that he did not want to be in custody any more. These things do happen and by going to video link we cut all of that down and hopefully should speed things up. 
I want to finish with what is perhaps a radical thought. We see in the bill that video links will be used by default for procedural hearings but not for substantive hearings. I personally question whether that will necessarily be the end of the story. I take Charles Chauvel’s point that we see the body language of witnesses and the whites of their eyes when they are at close quarters. However all the research tends to suggest that twitchy witnesses are often honest and dishonest witnesses often come across as far from twitchy. 
So I question whether there are any real advantages to having a witness in court physically rather than remotely by video link. It may be that in time—and I know it is a radical thought—video links could be extended to all witnesses whether in procedural or substantive hearings. But perhaps that is for another bill in another year. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
: 
 The Green Party simply endorses what has been said tonight with regard to the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill. Technology has allowed us to consider this now. It “is an idea whose time has come.” to quote a colleague. There are clearly some implications to the bill that we will need to explore further in the select committee. We look forward to doing so constructively with the Government. Thank you. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
: 
 I stand to support the Courts (Remote Participation) Bill 2009. The purpose of the bill is to introduce the criteria aimed at using audiovisual links in court. It covers the link of a person to a courtroom or a conference room from a remote location for the purpose of giving evidence or attending a hearing or conference. This bill’s intention is to provide a presumption in favour of audiovisual links for use in criminal procedural matters primarily to use in the reform of the criminal process. The audiovisual system will be installed in court and used to its full capacity. It will be applied in civil matters where the parties consent or where there is disagreement on that. 
There is a real need to enhance the efficiency of the court system. There has been a 10 percent increase in the number of crimes that our courts have to deal with. Although our police force has undoubtedly made a marked improvement in bringing offenders to justice and increasing the number of prosecutions that increase has also been a real burden on the courts to deal with. With our ever-advancing technology the audiovisual system will be seen as a real advantage in streamlining the efficiency of the justice system. 
Debate interrupted. 
The House adjourned at 10 p.m.