Estimates Debate — In Committee 
Estimates Debate — In Committee 
[Volume:656;Page:5612] 
Estimates Debate 
In Committee 
Debate resumed from 6 August on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. 
Vote Climate Change ( 
continued 
)  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The Government has a major challenge on its hands in respect of climate change policy. There are a number of points I wish to make in the approving of the estimates. The first concerns the importance of accurate information. One of the concerns I have had both in Opposition and upon coming into Government was that there have been widely varying estimates on New Zealand’s Kyoto balance—in fact variations of over $1 billion. So a major investment has been made by the Government in the land-use and carbon-analysis system to try to use the latest satellite technology so that we can get some reliable figures around where New Zealand’s carbon balance sits. I am pleased to inform the House that last month we received the first of that satellite data and that has given us far greater confidence about our estimates of New Zealand’s forest area. That shows that New Zealand will be broadly in balance in the Kyoto period. 
Members will be aware that we are progressing towards important negotiations later in the year in Copenhagen in which New Zealand is determined to play a constructive role in securing a post-2012 agreement to succeed Kyoto and that last week we announced a target of a 10 to 20 percent reduction in emissions below 1990 levels. There has been some debate about whether that is the right place for New Zealand to position itself. I would note that it is a more ambitious target than has been set by the United States by Canada and by Japan. It is very similar to the target proposed by our near neighbour Australia. The real thing for New Zealand to understand is that because our emissions are 24 percent above 1990 levels a reduction target by 2020 of between 10 and 20 percent will actually be enormously challenging and as the papers released from Treasury today note incredibly ambitious. New Zealand is actually committing to contribute a greater portion of its GDP to this challenge of climate change than what many other countries are contributing. 
A very important priority in these estimates is finalising and trying to build as broad a consensus as is possible around an emissions trading scheme. My ambition would be for us to be able to go to Copenhagen with emissions trading scheme legislation in New Zealand settled. 
There has been some debate about the events in Australia last week. In the Senate the current Labor Government had its carbon pollution reduction scheme voted down. My view is that that is just one of the humps and bumps that will occur around this difficult and challenging issue. It does not change the desire of the New Zealand Government to work closely with Australia. I note that the Liberal Party in Australia and its leader Malcolm Turnbull are on record as supporting an emissions trading scheme for Australia. I am confident they will get there. I am equally confident that the right thing for New Zealand to do is to align its own emissions trading scheme as closely as is possible with Australia’s given the huge level of trade inter-people contact and the like between New Zealand and Australia. 
The last point I will make concerns the huge number of initiatives that the Government has got going across the board to try to improve our environmental performance and to address those increases in New Zealand’s emissions. Just last week Parliament passed legislation to provide an incentive for full electric cars. We announced in the Budget the $48 million commitment for supporting biofuels and a price incentive for the development of that new technology. The Minister of Energy and Resources Gerry Brownlee has committed $323 million to the home insulation and clean heating initiative. There are important initiatives by the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Forestry David Carter for incentivising new forest planting. There is a very broad package that provides for a common-sense and balanced approach to this challenging area of work. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
: 
 It is interesting to have the opportunity to follow the Minister for Climate Change Issues and to take a call. It is a useful opportunity to make a few points in reply to what the Committee has just heard. The Minister I think ought to be much more careful about trumpeting the new Government’s environmental credentials than he has been because the record reflects that in fact there is nothing to crow about. Since November 2008 we have seen a number of retrograde steps be taken as far as the environment is concerned particularly in climate change policy. 
We have seen by an administrative announcement only—no legislation in the House; no respect for the dignity of Parliament—the emissions trading scheme be put on hold at the cost of significant investment in new planting in the forestry sector as well as potential leadership in the carbon registry business. That scheme was ready to go yet this Government for the sake of a political deal with the ACT Party said it would not put legislation through the House to suspend it as it had said it would but would just act as though it was suspended and stop the officials from undertaking the allocation plans that they should have been undertaking. Of course all of that led us to the situation last month where we had to assist the Government to get some legislation through the House in order to save people from being in blatant breach of the law. 
Then we have the restored significant tax breaks for offshore minerals exploration these at a time when that industry is doing very well thank you and where without a price of carbon yet being levied by the consumers of those minerals exports in developing countries we are actually cooperating in the fairly irresponsible action of sending fossil fuels to those nations prior to the time at which they will bear the price of carbon and an obligation to price those emissions. There is nothing environmentally friendly about enhancing our ability to do that. 
Then there is the repeal of the moratorium on the future construction of baseload thermal electricity generation plants. The Minister in the chair smiles but I do not think that is terribly funny because it jeopardises the ability to put in place the New Zealand Energy Strategy target of getting our electricity generation by 2025 to 90 percent renewables on baseload. Achieving that target is very important for getting the emissions down yet the Government takes it out of the law and says it is kind of committed to the New Zealand Energy Strategy. Gerry Brownlee made a speech back in February in which he promised to give the Government’s exact position on that strategy and we are still waiting for it. 
Then there was the phase-out of the old inefficient light bulbs. The cries of “Nanny State!” ring fairly ironic now. Given the legislation that we have seen presaged in the House on issues like the use of hand-held cellphones it seems that what is sauce for the goose is not necessarily sauce for the gander. 
Then there is the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee which the Minister refers to regularly and which I have the pleasure of sitting on. It has relitigated all these issues after last year’s hearing of them and no doubt we will relitigate them again when we get amending legislation through the House on the emissions trading scheme at some point. It is an interesting committee to sit on; let us hope it does not prove to be a total waste of time. 
Then we have had the replacement of Labour’s very carefully targeted home insulation package with a completely untargeted one and with all the nightmares that we knew would emerge from that. There are 4-week waiting lists in order to get a quote from a provider. That will not help families terribly much this winter; I fear we will see more of that. 
Then there is every possible excuse for coming up with a weak carbon pollution target. The first excuse as I recall it was that we had better wait until we got the most recent forestry data. Then suddenly the Minister decided it was absolutely vital to rush through a public consultation round yet it was quite obvious from the statements that were being made by Ministers that the Government had made up its mind on the target prior to that consultation. I think that those who participated in that round felt that very keenly. 
The Government has scrapped the Fast Forward Fund and the research and development targets—the list goes on. This Government does not have a proud record on the environment or on climate change. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Environment agreed to.  
Vote Corrections 
SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): 
 How refreshing it is to be part of a Government committed to real change and showing real leadership at all levels! In speaking to the estimates for Vote Corrections I pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins. In conjunction with the Department of Corrections the Minister has done in 6 months what the previous Government could not do in 9 long years. I also want to say what a great job my colleagues on the Law and Order Committee are doing supported by ACT in spite of the many challenges they face. 
So what is the good news? Well there is plenty of good news and the Minister is doing such a great job it is hard to know where to start. I mention in particular probation funding which has increased to improve community safety. The Government is injecting an extra $255.9 million into the probation service to address issues raised in the critical report by the Auditor-General. As the Minister has said on numerous occasions the safety of the public should be the No. 1 priority when offenders are released on parole. This Government inherited a probation system under extreme stress. The previous Government increased the number and complexity of community-based sentences without providing enough resources or training of probation staff. The extra funding shows that this Government is serious about fixing the probation system and improving the safety of the public. The total extra funding includes $205 million of operating spending over the next 4 years and $50.9 million in capital spending in the next 2 years. 
The Auditor-General said in February that the Community Probation and Psychological Services had 10 percent fewer probation officers than it needed due to increasing numbers of offenders on community sentences. Budget operating funding of $133.8 million over 4 years will enable the Community Probation and Psychological Services to recruit an extra 134 probation officers 26 front-line managers and 20 psychologists which will ensure it can effectively manage almost 100000 sentences and orders a year. That is a magnificent step forward; these are fantastic initiatives by the Minister. This is just a part of the many initiatives that the Minister of Corrections the Hon Judith Collins is undertaking and it has been a fantastic start to this Government’s control of corrections and making sure that the job is done and done well. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I lost count of how many times Sandra Goudie used the word “fantastic” in her speech. The Minister of Corrections has made a very interesting start in the corrections portfolio and given that this is her first Budget as Minister of Corrections she has made much of the fact—as all National Ministers have of course—that she walked into in her case an explosion in terms of prisoner numbers. Well let me just remind the Minister because she is very good at the rhetoric and very good at stomping her feet and acting tough that the rhetoric often does not match the facts. 
Judith Collins said she was going to sort out the Department of Corrections from the top—the chief executive—down. Heads were going to roll all over the place. But no one has been sacked no one has been held accountable and in theory no one is responsible. 
We remember the slogan that the National Party campaigned on: “Tough on crime”. Apparently when we were in Government we did not lock enough people up. National said prisons were all hotels with flat-screen TVs. I think I have been into 10 prisons now and I have not been able to sight one of those flat-screen TVs. Then we had the myth about underfloor heating and all those things. It was as if we were going to walk into a Hilton hotel. 
The Minister also fails to recall her own election promises around parole. The estimates were that those promises would double the bulging prison population but she walked in read the briefing to incoming Minister and—in theory—the scales fell from her eyes and this was all news to her. Judith Collins knew what she was getting into. She was reminded of that in fact in 2007 by David Carruthers who gave figures to that effect. 
The Minister said she was going to sort out the hierarchy in the Department of Corrections. People were going to be made accountable; heads were to roll. No one has gone no one is accountable and now it is all an operational matter unless she wants to take the credit for something—for instance for the drug-testing figures most of which happened under the previous Government. 
But let us get past that issue. Let us look at the big issues. One of the big issues of course is private prisons. The Minister came before the Law and Order Committee which asked her to please tell it what the costs would be of the private prisons. I noted her answer this afternoon because we will be checking those reports. Her department has provided information on a number of occasions and it has provided figures that show that mark-to-mark in the case of the Auckland Central Remand Prison—the only example in New Zealand of a private versus public contest if you will to run a prison—the public system was cheaper if the cost is all that one is interested in. Corrections officers came before the select committee and told us about some of the nefarious activity that had occurred in the private prison because those officers have worked under the private and the public system. But again we have no real information on costs. I note with great interest that this Minister refuses to put the whole issue of private versus public prison management out to an independent agency such as PricewaterhouseCoopers KPMG or whoever else—somebody who does not have an axe to grind—so that we can get some facts around which system is more cost-effective efficient and effective at rehabilitation—all of those things. She will not do that. 
Then we come to the other issue which is using shipping containers as cells. This is a cracker. I remember being on the radio with the Minister and in the space of fewer than 24 hours both she and her department produced four different figures on what the containers would cost. At the select committee she produced another set of figures. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not think the chair of the select committee was present during the visit we made to Rimutaka Prison. That was a pity; we were all in mourning about that outcome. We asked the prison officials as we viewed two very classy looking shipping containers what the costs were. The reply from one of the officials who will remain nameless—because I think it was a bit of a slip—was that that was the best-kept secret. The officials did not know the costs. Again there was a lack of detail around that. 
Then of course we have the issue of double-bunking. Beven Hanlon head of the Corrections Association of New Zealand whom I know the Minister holds in contempt given some of the comments she has made about him in the House has said it is not double-bunking but overcrowding. He says it is overcrowding and it is dangerous. I note that Ms Goudie has said our No. 1 priority as a Parliament should be to keep people safe and I think we all share that sentiment. It is a pity the Minister does not share that view with regard to prison officers. She has described a broken collarbone or humerus—or a broken bone; I am not a doctor—as “a minor injury”. When she was caught out on that then she said any injury should be taken very seriously. 
I say to the Minister that I have been around in politics and I have observed politics. I know that greater minds than mine have been inside this place but as an observer of politics I note the level of her rhetoric and promises and the foot-stomping tub-thumping and fist-thumping routine that she carries on with. Judith Collins is possibly the most macho Minister of Corrections we have had since John Banks. If she can live up to the expectations she has raised in the community she may well indeed be beatified by the electorate. I suspect though that she will not be able to do so once we pick away at the double-bunking issue—and she cannot come up with a cost for the shipping containers—and at the lack of logic around private prisons. 
The worry around private prisons—and the Minister will not answer these questions—is that the Auditor-General Parliament the select committee and even the genius who is the chair of our select committee along with members of Parliament and the media under the Official Information Act and other mechanisms provided through our constitutional framework have the ability to seek information from Government departments. We are not talking about any department here; we are talking about the department that is charged with incarcerating our citizenry. That is I would say a core function along with the police and the military. Through the mechanisms of this Parliament we have the ability to elicit information directly and to make the Department of Corrections accountable. As the chair of the select committee has said the Auditor-General did a damn good job of that through his report. 
The problem I have with the private prisons debate is that we will now have to go through a filter. No longer will the Minister be able to get up and say an issue is an operational matter so it is not her problem and we should go and ask the chief executive. The chief executive will now be able to say the department has a contract with a private provider. The Auditor-General does not have the power to delve into the business of a private company— 
Sandra Goudie 
: Nor should he. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE 
: “Nor should he” says the chair of the select committee. That is very interesting. Nor can a private company be questioned under the Official Information Act or pulled before a select committee. All of those mechanisms have to be gone through by the Department of Corrections. I ask the Minister whether she seriously thinks that the Department of Corrections will be able to win a tender. Yes it is possible but it is highly unlikely if the Government goes out for tender with a private provider. The department will not be able to pull the wages of prison staff—and nor should it—down to the floor reducing those wages and thereby somehow becoming competitive with a private provider. Of course private providers do not have to disclose wage rates or terms and conditions of employment and instead can just say how much they will run a prison for. 
We know for instance the debacle that some of the private prisons have had in Western Australia. The Minister has flaunted the fact that we could charge private prisons 50000 bucks if there is an escape. As we know Western Australia does a wash-up at the end of each month. There is a wash-up in the expenses and the private prisons claw that money back. It is the worst-kept secret in Western Australia. 
I am concerned about some of these issues. This is not about ideology to be honest; it is more about accountability. It is about what happens if something goes wrong and a prison officer is acting nefariously. Prison officers have said that private providers ask them to resign rather than dealing with them if that happens. The issue is about what happens if a prison officer has been hurt and if there has been neglect around the attention to and care and protection of that prison officer or likewise of a prisoner. Will the Parliament the democratic folk in here the institutions that we have and the media through the Official Information Act be able to elicit the same level of information and accountability from a private provider that we can in fairness obtain directly from a Government department? That is a major obstacle and a major concern. We are not talking about an outfit that just produces widgets. We are talking about a core function of the State which is the incarceration of our citizenry. We would not look I presume to privatise our police force or our armed forces. This function is a core part of what a Government and the Crown do. It is what they do. 
I say to the Minister that she ought to consider the level of her rhetoric. She smiles in her own smug way and says everything is rosy and if she can meet the expectations she has set for herself she may well be beatified by the electorate as she seeks to be. But she has raised the hype very substantially. This is the woman who says she will sort everything out and who came before a select committee and said “Look at these terrible jail cells! Isn’t this awful?”. This is the same woman who said before the election that jail cells were too good for the prisoners. Do members remember that? Before the election she said we were not locking enough offenders up; now she says it is terrible that we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. Well I agree with the Minister on that point but she did not say that before the election. She said—and the Government still does—we were not tough enough we were not locking enough criminals up and prison was a sort of holiday camp or Hilton hotel. I invite the Minister to reflect on her rhetoric. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the estimates for Vote Corrections. The Department of Corrections has had a remarkable turn-round this year. It is with great pleasure that I say that it is partly because we have given the department good direction and also because we have listened to the department and to the Auditor-General when a plea was made to properly fund the department. 
A total of $385.4 million has been allocated to enable the Department of Corrections to cope with a rising prison population over the next 4 years. I was absolutely appalled to find out that the previous Government had received a request from the department in September last year for particularly urgent funding in relation to the Community Probation and Psychological Services and that the request did not even elicit a reply from the then Minister of Corrections the Hon Phil Goff. I was also appalled to find that in fact the department had previously put forward estimates as to the rising prison population and that they had not been accepted by the previous Minister Phil Goff—obviously because it showed that we needed to have more prison beds. That is the emergency situation that we are now facing in the corrections system. 
A key component of the funding is $145.8 million in capital funding over the next 2 years to increase double-bunking at the new facilities of Northland Region Corrections Facility Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility Spring Hill Corrections Facility Otago Region Corrections Facility and the new prison under construction at Mount Eden. We are putting double-bunking into these new prisons because they have a huge amount of infrastructure and these are the same ones as at Spring Hill that cost $343000 a bed when built under the previous administration. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: How much are the containers going to cost? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The member who has just resumed his seat asks how much the containers will cost. If he listened when we told him he would know it is $53000 to $63000 per bed. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why can’t your officials tell us? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The officials have said that Mr Cosgrove. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: No they haven’t. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: They actually have. Some $24 million in capital funding over the next 2 years has been allocated to enable the department to progress work on a range of options to increase capacity in the upper North Island. That includes the possibility of building a new prison at Wiri which I announced recently. It also includes increasing the capacity of some existing sites. 
Much has been made of double-bunking. Well earlier this year the Corrections Association of New Zealand came to see me and it offered to put in place a plan for double-bunking. I thought that was a great thing for it to do. I accepted that offer and I am still waiting for the details. I see that recently the association has made it very plain that the safety issues it raised have been dealt with. The Department of Corrections is very much committed to doing that. Unfortunately it has to do it because it was not left with enough beds. A further $218.6 million in operating funding over 4 years provides the department with funding for the day-to-day management of a higher number of prisoners. That funding will be used to employ extra staff and to provide programmes and services to prisoners. Most of the funds will be used to employ more front-line prison staff so that prisoner to staff ratios remain unchanged. 
In terms of rehabilitation this Government has moved to give substance to its election promise to address the drug and alcohol problems facing so many of our prisoners. We are doubling the number of drug and alcohol places available to prisoners up from the measly 500 under the last 9 years of the previous Labour Government to 1000—and we would like to do more. Just a few weeks ago at the Arohata Women’s Prison drug treatment unit I launched the Department of Correction’s 2009-14 drug and alcohol strategy. Included in the strategy is the opening of three new prison-based drug and alcohol units doubling the number of prisoners able to receive intensive treatment. A total of $3.9 million has been allocated for capital expenditure and $7.2 million has been allocated to meet the operating costs of three new units over the next 4 years. 
Equally important is the issue raised by Ms Goudie in relation to Community Probation and Psychological Services. To enable those services to effectively and efficiently manage increasing volumes of offenders with community sentences such as home detention community detention supervision and court order programmes $255.9 million of this year’s Budget has been set aside. Those funds will help to make that happen. Adequate staffing is critical if Community Probation and Psychological Services is to deliver its services to the desired standard. Thank you for the opportunity to speak Mr Chair. It is with pleasure that I do so. 
Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. The Minister of Corrections came into this portfolio having created gales of rhetoric before the election. She despicably attacked the neutrality of the civil service as her first act of foolishness and then had to back down when the caretakers of civil service neutrality found that she firstly was wrong; secondly did not have the necessary information; and thirdly gave the public a dangerous impression of how the hard-working industrious staff of the prison service—starting from the top—were doing their jobs. In order to distract attention she has now launched a missile saying that society will get better outcomes in particular Te Ao Maori from the privatisation of prisons. The true test of whether the privatisation strategy will win is not in whether dollars and cents will be saved but in how many young men and women will as an experience of serving time in a private prison go back better equipped and better skilled to resume a more industrious role in society. Not once have we heard anything from the Minister other than florid language loose bits of dollars and cents—well an absence of sense—as to what she is doing with prisons such as those where I come from: the hinaki the whare herehere where we come from. 
Funds are being stripped from Ngawha prison. The Minister should be securing the support of New Zealanders for the idea that this experiment will reduce the level of recidivism and cause prisoners to experience prison in such a way that they will be better equipped for society. That approach never once features in this very bleak and mean-spirited approach the current Minister has to prison management and the fortunes or otherwise of the prison population. It is an issue of particular importance to us Maori members of Parliament given the disproportionately large number of our young people who end up in jail. 
It has been a measure of considerable concern that our friends from the Maori Party are busy talking to the iwi unwisely advising them to stand at the front of the queue somehow either to build or run the prisons. I am waiting for the Minister to say publicly somewhere that the proponents of private prisons in the Maori world are basing that thesis on the perpetuation of Maori crime and that somehow by creating a private prison the Government will stop Maori offending or more important it will give them a better experience. Shame on those misguided souls following the empty rhetoric of the current Minister who believe that Maori families will get a better deal out of topping and tailing double-bunking or the privatisation of our prison system! 
It not only speaks to the barrenness of the minds that have conceived such a foolish wretched idea; it also shows that there is no money or substance to back up the Minister’s rhetoric. Somehow New Zealand will be used as a social laboratory again—that word is spelt with a “b” not a “v” although one’s emotions suggest that it is spelt with a “v”. No it will be used in a very brutal way to try out this half-baked idea that has not worked in the United States of America. Consequently Schwarzenegger was required by the courts in California to release multiple numbers of prisoners from that prison system and that is what we will see when we have not only private prisons but also topping and tailing and containers. There is no way that containers represent the best option for a key function that these prisons have to serve. These young men and women not only are incarcerated—and I say “men” with a great deal of stress—but also will come back into society. We should not for a moment think that by shoving prisoners into containers where they must top and tail cheek by jowl we will have them come back into society better prepared. That is why this Minister is unfit for this position. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Police 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I touch on the Budget of course because we are in the estimates debate. I see that the legacy of the Minister of Corrections Judith Collins who is also the Minister of Police flowing from the Budget will be to institute in her own words a $21 million cut in police resources. It is interesting if we look at I think page 16 of the transcript of the meeting of the Law and Order Committee that examined the estimates for Vote Police. The Minister had initiated those cuts. No chief executive will come to the Minister and tell her that he or she wishes to cut the budget unless the Minister tells him or her that he or she wants in her words “savings”. The savings are cuts. I asked the Minister whether she would take responsibility herself for any degradation of service given that she had required $21 million in cuts in a recession when crime is likely to head north as it generally does in a recession. She said that Mr Broad could answer the question and that it was an operational issue. Then I put it to her that in theory if she had given $21 million in extra funding to the police she would crow about that fact—and she is fond of doing that. I am sure she would not consider it an operational matter and she would crow as she does extensively about how wonderfully that money had been applied and about any increase in service. But oh no if it is a cut of $21 million then that is an operational matter! 
This is a Minister who also trumpets the fact that she has delivered out of the Budget a whole 43 new police vehicles. That is not a bad thing I would have thought. Any new vehicle for our police is a good thing. Then a couple of days later we worked out that she requires as part of the $21 million worth of cuts police to take 443-plus vehicles out of the police force. She envisages that they will not be front-line vehicles. She said that they could be vans. Well I was at a police station recently and I stood in the car park with a particular officer and I asked him to tell me which vehicles in the car park were not front-line. He looked at me and said: “Clayton take your pick. They’re all front-line.” Even the car that is used by the police officer the day after the burglary to gain the evidence and to follow up on leads and the community police officer’s car that patrols around the mall are front-line. Does the Minister expect that we will see a return to the 1990s when the police had to wait an hour to get a car to respond to a call? That is what happened in the 1990s. In the Law and Order Committee I asked the Minister of Police whether given the historical precedent of what happened in the 1990s she thought that there would be a risk. Commissioner Broad responded: “It does create additional risk. That is surely evident.” That is this Minister’s legacy thus far. 
The other thing that this Minister is fond of crowing about is that she has put 600 extra police on the streets. That is what her political promise was. We unpicked that in the select committee. We asked her whether that was in addition to the 1250 police who were budgeted for funded and were being recruited by the previous Government. Her answer was: “Well ah no.” She then prattled on to say that there will be 600 new police but we now know that 380 of those were funded by the previous Government out of the Budget. That is a broken promise. 
I say to the Minister in the chair the Hon Judith Collins that her rhetoric on this matter is misleading possibly even more so than in respect of the previous vote Vote Corrections. She is cutting $21 million out of the police budget and does not have the fortitude to take responsibility for it. She is saying to the commissioner: “I am requiring the cut but if it all turns to custard and there is a degradation of service from our police it is your problem not mine.” She is saying that this Government is supporting the police so much that on the one hand it is giving them 43 cars and on the other hand as part of a $21 million cut in funding—which she calls savings—it is getting rid of 343 cars. By the way the promise that the Government will put in 600 police officers in addition to what Labour put in is now a complete and utter phoney a complete and utter hoax and it is in black and white that the Minister has admitted it. She finally admitted after months in office that oh no she bodged the figures and that 380 of those 600 police were actually funded for and implemented by the previous Government. 
I say to the Minister that she can smirk as she did in front of the select committee she can crow as she does in this Parliament and she can raise expectations—and my word they are raised because crime was going to be non-existent under this Minister—but if we go and talk to the police around this country we see that they are scratching their heads to identify non - front-line vehicles. Maybe the Minister’s self-drive vehicle could be classed as being a non - front-line vehicle. 
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
: 
 The Government will provide in this year’s Budget $10 million over the next 3 years for the police to roll out Taser stun guns at a cost of approximately $1000 each. An initial $5.3 million of that $10 million will provide the police throughout the country with 720 Tasers. What a wonderful piece of expenditure it is. I say that without a trace of facetiousness and I say it for this reason. We need only go back a couple of months to see two tragic cases where the use of a Taser would have made a difference. In one case a Taser had been available would have saved a life. In the other case a life was very close to being lost. About a month ago an actor—I believe his name was Mr Mokaraka—was involved in an incident. The circumstances are a bit unclear. There has been a suggestion that he was attempting suicide by cop. In any event he came out waving a meat cleaver. Luckily for him the police officer on the scene at the time was an ordinary police officer who shot him with a pistol and Mr Mokaraka is alive today because the armed offenders squad had not been deployed. Sadly the reality is that those gentlemen are trained to fire two shots to the large part of the body and one does not survive that. So Mr Mokaraka is very very lucky. 
If we go back a year or so ago we know of another sad case in Christchurch. A fellow who was apparently mentally disturbed appeared in the dusk or evening armed with a hammer and was shot and killed. That case highlights exactly why the Taser is a humane weapon and is a wonderful advance for the police in this country. I say that again for two reasons. Firstly had the officer been armed with a Taser that man would almost certainly have been alive today. Secondly members will recall that there was a considerable dispute as to just what the circumstances of that case were. Lawyers in the Chamber will know that eyewitnesses are frequently unreliable. There were conflicting eyewitness accounts of whether the man was advancing or was static or exactly what he was doing at the time he was shot. 
I have seen the Tasers to be provided to the police both here and overseas. They are equipped with a video camera and audio. As soon as the device is turned on on comes the video and audio. Had the officer in Christchurch been equipped with that weapon two things would have happened. Firstly that poor man would be alive and secondly there would be no dispute as to the circumstances that led to him being shot. Instead he is dead. 
We can go back a few more years to the Wallace case in Waitara which is still sadly going on. We can think of the anguish that has been caused for the family the police and the policeman and we can think of the cost all of which would have been avoided if Constable Abbott had had a Taser made available to him that night instead of having to make a snap decision to use a pistol. 
This is a wonderful move and the Government is to be commended for it. It will result certainly in fewer people being killed or seriously injured. It will probably result in fewer complaints to the Independent Police Conduct Authority because as I know from my experience as a lawyer where there is video evidence of what someone has done or has not done it becomes very much harder to dispute it. 
The ACT Party fully supports this move. We would like to see if possible the programme accelerated and every front-line policeman having the option of the humane use of a Taser rather than having a firearm which is usually fatal and is sometimes purely by the grace of God not fatal. I have seen the Taser in action in Arizona during a visit I made a couple of years ago. I was told that frequently simply turning the Taser on is effective. I recall that members of a select committee became agitated or anxious when the laser sight came upon them even though the weapon had no cartridge in it. It was no threat at all but every member was aware of it. I have been told that the experience overseas is that when that light hits the chest the situation is defused. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Thank you for the opportunity to speak in the estimates debate in relation to the New Zealand Police. Five main operating funding decisions for Vote Police were announced in Budget 2009. There is nearly $23 million to fund 600 additional police staff by December 2011. Over the course of 4 years we will provide $182.5 million to fulfil this commitment. I am sorry that the Opposition is so mean-spirited about this. The Budget also includes $17 million of capital for property and $3 million for cars and computers. 
As Mr Garrett has just said we are funding a Taser roll-out to our front-line police staff throughout the country. It is with great pleasure that I can say that and I endorse many of the words that Mr Garrett has said about it. Tasers can save lives and we have already seen this occur in New Zealand. Some incidents have been publicised in terms of the media having been there and certainly the media were at a recent incident in Hamilton. But the police have advised me of other incidents that are subject to court proceedings and are not in the public domain at this stage. However I can tell the Committee that Tasers when used properly and in the right circumstances save lives. 
Nearly $5 million will be put towards reducing the waiting time in Auckland courts. We think that is extremely important because justice delayed is absolutely justice denied. Far too many of our victims are re-victimised by the length of time involved in having their proceedings go through the courts. 
There is $570000 towards the Fresh Start programme for young offenders and that is in conjunction with the Ministry of Social Development. 
The operating expenses ledger also includes $14 million offered by police in line by line savings. The commissioner has assured me that these savings will come from the better use of available resources so the impact on service delivery will be minimal. No fewer kilometres are expected to be travelled by the New Zealand Police’s cars. I accept the commissioner’s word on that because unlike Mr Cosgrove who has previously spoken I believe the commissioner when he assures me accordingly. 
We are funding a couple of other non-departmental expenses. The first is the provision for interception capability on telecommunications networks. We are also contributing to the UN drug control programme. I say too that the funding that we are putting into the digital radio for the police will be a lifesaver as well for police and also for victims. Digital radio has already been shown in the Wellington region where it has been rolled out to have stopped criminals in their tracks. At the moment strangely enough anybody can trot along to an electronics shop and buy a police scanner for a couple of hundred dollars but fortunately with this new radio system those scanners will not work. That is something that will give a great deal of protection to the police and also to the public. 
In conclusion I want to take just one moment to thank the Law and Order Committee for its work and in particular to thank its chair Mrs Sandra Goudie who ran a very good select committee despite all sorts of behaviour from some people. I also want to thank the police for the fantastic job that they do for the New Zealand public. There is just one final comment. I would like to offer my congratulations as Minister of Police to Deputy Commissioner of Police Lyn Provost. It has been a pleasure to work with Mrs Provost and I think she will be a great asset to the office of the Auditor-General. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Serious Fraud agreed to.  
Vote Veterans’ Affairs—Defence Force agreed to.  
Vote Veterans’ Affairs—Social Development agreed to.  
Vote Education 
ALLAN PEACHEY (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee): 
 The focus of the education estimates is to get the maximum value from the taxpayers’ investment in education. The appropriation sought for Vote Education in Budget 2009 is $10.8 billion which is a significant increase on the appropriation sought for the previous year. The Budget concentrates on areas of education that will make the most difference and lying behind the Budget is a single-minded purpose which is to raise student achievement. For example participation in high-quality early childhood education provides children with foundation skills for them to succeed at school. We all know that alphabetic awareness is critical to children learning to read and to write. The more of our children who arrive in our schools with that awareness the greater their chances will be of making it—not just in school but in life. There is $69.7 million for improving access to early childhood education by expanding the 20 free hours policy and by removing the 6-hour daily limit. There is $69.7 million for that. 
Behind the Budget is an understanding that good literacy and numeracy skills are essential for success. The Government wants every child to reach national standards in literacy and in numeracy and to get the help he or she needs when that child is having difficulties. It is for that reason that the Government wants parents to receive clear easily understood information about how their children are progressing towards achieving the national standards. This will enable parents to become more involved and more informed about their children’s learning. The sums of money devoted to this are considerable. There is $523.3 million in operating and capital funding over 4 years to give this country a modern 21st century school footprint. There is $523.3 million for that. There is additional front-line funding for raising achievement in our schools. There is $80.1 million in additional funding for day-to-day school operations. There is $36 million to support the crusade for literacy and for numeracy. There is $16 million to fight truancy and $34 million to improve schools’ access to high-speed broadband. These are very significant sums. 
One of the measures that gives me the greatest personal satisfaction is the additional funding to improve the education of children with special needs. There is a 16 percent increase in Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding—an additional $51 million. This is the first time in 10 years that there has been an increase in special-needs funding of this proportion. As a result an additional 1100 students will be entitled to Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding—an additional 1100. I invite the next Labour speaker to take a minute to explain why over 10 years the Labour Government which is now out of office did nothing. It did nothing for our special-needs children. Those members should get up and tell us why. 
Of course one of the features of Vote Education is that the Government has had to provide for several significant cost pressures that were not covered by the previous Government. How often do we hear this? This Government is having to cover the cost pressures created by the previous Government but not provided for. For example there is $169.1 million in 2009-10 to pay the increases in teachers’ salaries. There is $70 million over 4 years to cover salary increases for school caretakers cleaners and ground staff. There is $127 million to inflation-adjust funding for tertiary institutions in 2010. These are significant amounts. 
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
: 
 Tena koe Mr Chair. Tena koutou katoa. The Education and Science Committee discussed the appropriations with the education Minister a few weeks ago. During that discussion I asked the Minister some questions about national standards. I was trying to find out what need the Government was trying to address. The question I asked was whether the Education Review Office had reported that schools lacked the tools for assessment or whether it was that schools were not consistently applying those tools. The Minister gave me some confusing answers telling me that there were assessment tools already and not all schools used them and that we did need national standards. I have been talking to teachers and parents and listening to principals’ comments about this issue. Many of them are wondering what problem we are trying to fix although everyone agrees that plain English reporting to parents is a pretty good idea. But what are we trying to measure through these standards that we do not have a way of finding out already? How well a child is progressing or how close to the top of the league table his or her school is—we pressed the Minister as to whether these were hurdles or progress indicators and she said they were both. 
The Green Party finds it quite strange. If we ask teachers now they can tell us now who is doing well in their classes and who needs extra help. They already have the assessment tools to do that. As the Canadian teachers union says they know what the cows weigh; they are more interested in feeding the cows. That particularly rural image is not necessarily appropriate for our children but I get what it is saying. Let us get on with pouring our creative energy into helping our children explore the world and their connection to it. We do not need more publicly available measuring between the young and diverse learners. We need smaller classes and better professional development in public schools and kura kaupapa. 
National standards could be a huge waste of money. However they pale in comparison with the Budget priority which gave $35 million to private schools. I asked the Minister why she cut some important educational programmes for public schools and community education and gave that funding to private schools. I asked her that because the Green Party is very concerned that the measure of a safe and successful society is reducing the gap between the privileged and the poor not increasing it. Many of us have been to visit some very nice private schools and we have seen beautiful data projectors well-stocked libraries and heated swimming pools where students in wetsuits learn to kayak. We have seen the small classes and the wonderful array of qualified staff offering many options to students. Let us not pretend that public schools do not also attract wonderful teachers but they do get ground down by large classes and tired resources. 
A teacher colleague of mine told me that some weeks more than six young people will come with a note from home and a look of shame and tell her that the reason that they have no shoes is that their family cannot afford to buy them. This happens in the Minister of Education’s home city of Gisborne. Meanwhile $35 million is going to private schools to enhance the privileged. If one reads the “Bunnythorpe address” which was recently delivered by Heather Roy of the ACT Party one will see that this is the world as it should be. Parental choice and privatisation is the ideal way for education to develop in this country! I find it extremely scary and sad that there is an agreement between National and ACT on education which is pushing a privatisation agenda. We need that $35 million elsewhere to create more equity not less. We want that $35 million back. We want to spend it on education for sustainability Enviroschools adult and community education te reo Maori and literacy. We need an equitable public education system for all our children to flourish. We need a bigger gap between the rich and poor the privileged and educated and the vulnerable in public schools like a hole in our hearts. Kia ora. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. There has been a little bit of interchange across the Chamber between the senior Government whip and myself as to whether the primary Minister and the officials will be available. The estimates debate is the time when there is to be a detailed examination of the Minister. Obviously I am treading around the conventions as far as absence is concerned in talking about the availability of the Minister to make a speech. 
We have three members here who want to speak. I want to speak mainly on the details of school closures and the decisions that the Minister has recently made and on special education which is the responsibility of Heather Roy. We have one member who wants to talk on early childhood education and the details in that area and we have a third member who wants to talk on Maori education. I accept that one of the Associate Ministers is available. I am sure that the Ministry of Education officials are running across the road to get here although they have not made it yet in order to back him up. I wonder whether it is possible because of the detailed questions to carry on with one of the other estimates and to come back to this one at the point when the Minister and the officials are available. Even frankly if Dr Sharples was available to handle Mr Davis’ questions I think that would also be acceptable. 
I remind you Mr Chairperson of what this phase of the Budget is. It is the detailed approach to the estimates whereby we want to ask some very specific questions that relate to individual schools in my case. Although I have lot of respect for Dr Mapp I am sure that without ministry support he will not have the answers available in order to respond within the time frame of this debate. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I thank the member for that. I draw the member’s attention to Speaker’s ruling 121/2 which clearly says that the Government can decide who the Minister in the chair is at that stage. The Government is exercising that right. I remind members that this is a time-limited debate so points of order need to be very succinct. If points of order are taken up it reduces the time of the debate for other members to have their say. If the member wishes he could seek leave for the reason that he has identified to delay this vote until other members are here. It does not mean to say however that the Minister will change but if there are other members who wish to take the call when you seek leave we will put that to the Committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I seek leave for this debate to be held on the next sitting day on which the estimates are to be considered. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: We must be more specific Mr Mallard. We are talking about Vote Education. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I seek leave for Vote Education to be considered on the next sitting day that the estimates are to be considered if that is the Government’s convenience. Clearly the Government could come back to it next week if it wanted to. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The Clerk informs me that the wording should be to postpone the debate. It could be that this debate finishes today as opposed to another day. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection. We are on Vote Education. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 It is unbelievable that a Minister of Education earning a ministerial salary does not have the backbone to come to the Chamber to defend her estimates and her cuts. Why can we not have a Minister— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member knows that he cannot refer to a member who is not here. The member can debate the issues but he cannot refer to the absence of a member or in this case a Minister. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I want to know why Anne Tolley is not in that chair now. Why can Anne Tolley not sit in the ministerial chair and defend her votes? Anne Tolley is not prepared to come here to defend the cuts in education that she has made. She is a person who makes cuts in special education and then runs away from them like a chicken. She makes cuts in education and she runs away like a chicken— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: The member cannot talk about someone as being chicken. Although the member can refer to members not being in the chair and being responsible for the vote he cannot refer to a member who is absent. The member knows that; I have already ruled on that. Also he cannot refer to a member as being chicken. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: We see Anne Tolley running away like a chicken. We see Anne Tolley not prepared to sit in that chair and tell the Committee that she has already signed off the closure of Aorangi School. Despite the rumours now being spread all over Christchurch she is not prepared to front up to that community; she is not prepared to do that. 
If she had decided to go to Aorangi School instead of defending these estimates I would praise her for her courage. But we have a Minister who is not prepared to do either of those things. She is not prepared to defend the estimates in this Chamber and she is not prepared to go to the community of Aorangi School which is John Key’s old school and say that she has decided to close it. 
When a member is a Minister and receives ministerial pay that member has to accept a little bit of pain. We want Anne Tolley to front up to sit in that chair and to take some of the pain for the cuts that she has made. We want her to tell us why she has folded on standards. Why has she pushed out to beyond the next election the implementation of the much-vaunted standards approach? She has done that probably because it is wrong. 
Why can she not sit in the chair and then stand up and tell us the cuts were wrong? Why can she not stand up and tell us that she has changed her mind? Why can she not stand up and say that she did not understand the effect of the cuts to adult and community education like the Prime Minister has done? He was big enough to say he had not understood the effect of those cuts. It was good the Prime Minister had the courage to stand up and say: “I didn’t understand what I was doing when I approved those cuts in the Budget.” Why can Anne Tolley not stand up in the Chamber now and say that either she understood or she did not understand the effect of them? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: What’s more important? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Is anything more important for a Minister than a debate in the Chamber on one’s own estimates? I want to know from the chief Government whip why he is protecting the Minister of Education. Why is he scheduling the Committee in such a way that Anne Tolley is not sitting in the chair when she should be? 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: He’s hopeless! 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I do not think he is hopeless. I think he has done it absolutely deliberately. I think he is shielding Anne Tolley. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: That is a personal reflection and the member cannot do that. Although we can have robustness in the debate a member cannot make personal reflections or say someone lacks courage or someone is protecting somebody else. I ask the member to continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. Can you point me to the precedent that states one cannot say a member is being protected? There has been a long history in the Chamber of people indicating that people are being protected from debate. I do not know whether Sir Roger Douglas is listening but I am sure I will get some assistance from him in this respect. People have said that people have been protected from debate in this Chamber certainly all the time I have been a member and probably since at least 1969 when Sir Roger first came here. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: I have heard enough. I have ruled. If the member is questioning the motives of another member by saying that a member is trying to protect someone then that is out of order. I ask the member to continue as his time is running out. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I am not questioning any motives at all. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Lindsay Tisch) 
: No I ask the member to continue. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The whip is doing a good job in protecting Anne Tolley. He is doing a very good job as a National Government whip because he is making sure that the weakest Minister on the front bench of that Government is not sitting in the chair and defending the estimates in the way any Minister who has courage and deserves the job would do. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
: 
 I start by getting us back on to Vote Education. This Government is putting $11.5 billion into education in this Budget—a 2.7 percent increase. With regard to Vote Education Review Office the Government is putting in $30 million—a 4.9 percent increase. That is a significant increase. 
The highest priority in the 21st century with regard to human rights is access to a first-class education. That is a very very important point. In fact a person needs to have achieved level 2 of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement in order to complete a trade because that is the level one needs just to be able to complete the literacy side of it. Education truly is portable; it goes where we go and it goes where we take it. That is very positive. It is a ladder out of disadvantage and it is the single identifying feature between those who have and those who do not have. 
This Government to its credit has put more dollars into education than any other Government before it and in the most challenging economic times in 70 years. This Government has utilised every available dollar to do that and it is using those dollars to get the most significant benefits in educational outcomes. This Government is focused on educational outcomes and such a focus is to be commended. 
I want to spend a few moments addressing a couple of the differences that have been expressed by Opposition members about the Government’s view of how those dollars are to be spent. One of those issues is around adult and community education. This Government values adult and community education. We are investing $124 million into adult and community education over the next 4 years. That is significant. The question that I pose to members opposite is: what part of the $50 million would they take out of special education to fund adult and community education? What part of the $36 million for increased focus on literacy and numeracy would they do away with in order to focus on adult and community education? What part of the tens of millions of dollars would they take away from skills training and support for youth and the unemployed in order to fund adult and community education? Those members opposite would want the money spent on adult and community education. This Government is saying it thinks otherwise. 
Another point I would like to deal with and one that I think is appropriate is the $35 million allocated to private schools. On a year-to-year basis that is $10 million per year and when put into the context of the 30000 children in private schools that figure equates to the State being saved $152 million a year. That is significant. Those members opposite would say that we should let those schools fail. This Government says otherwise. The Government has proven itself to be a good manager of the New Zealand educational system. The Opposition has proven itself not to be. 
I want to deal with a couple of issues that the previous Government shrank away from. The first is truancy. This Government is investing $16 million into an initiative to address truancy over the next 4 years. That equates to $12000 per school but when Labour was in power up to 30000 children at any one time were not attending school. This initiative is significant. The second initiative is for voluntary bonding with regard to staff in education. This initiative is very very important visionary and hugely significant. We intend to invest $19 million into retaining staff in areas that are difficult to staff. This Government is managing the education system very well. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
: 
 When the economy is in recession I think a Government’s priorities become incredibly important and this Government’s priorities are out there to be seen. Vote Education is the vote that had the largest cuts. It was the biggest loser under this Government’s Budget. That tells us a lot about where this Government’s priorities are and where they are not. But even within Vote Education one can see the priorities that this Government has out there for New Zealanders to see. Not many of the Government’s speakers have chosen to say that even in the time of economic recession they felt it was important and a spending priority to increase funding to private schools by $35 million. It is almost like the evil whose name they do not want to speak! 
The previous speaker Colin King asked the Opposition where it would fund the $13 million that was cut from adult education. That was an extremely short-sighted cut. It has meant that all the night classes have closed down in schools like Fraser High School in Hamilton and in all the other schools that have had to cut their night classes and hundreds and thousands of New Zealanders have had that learning opportunity taken away from them. 
The Government has cut $13 million from adult and community education. I tell Mr King that the $13 million should be taken out of the $35 million extra for private schools. That is where that funding should come from and it should be going to the people who are looking at second-chance education—the masses not the elite in this country. That is where this Government has its priorities absolutely upside down and those figures demonstrate it very well. 
Why do I talk about education having the largest cuts in this Budget? It is because the single largest cut I believe came out of early childhood education. An amount of $275 million was carved out of early childhood education which this Government would have us believe is an area it is prioritising. The Government is prioritising early childhood education so highly that the sector suffered the largest single cut and that largest single cut was to reduce a plan that was there for staff—for teacher-child ratios to be improved so that the quality of early childhood education could be improved in this country. That Government and that Minister the Minister of Education decided to can that plan and in the process in one decision carved $275 million out of early childhood education. 
The Minister would have us believe that early childhood education is a top priority and that increasing participation would be the priority in early childhood education. Well then she is failing by her own goal; she is failing miserably. When she came to the select committee’s estimates hearing I asked her what her plan was to increase participation in this sector. She said it was the funding—as her colleague before has just argued as well—to extend the 20 free hours to Playcentre to te kohanga reo and to children aged 5 and over. When I asked her whether that would add more children to the early childhood education experience than there are now she said no. So that money is not adding one additional child to the system; it is paying for children who already access early childhood education and it is extending the 20 free hours to those children. It is doing that but it is not extending; it is not adding one more child into the early childhood education sector. 
What are the Minister’s plans? A few weeks ago she announced a plan which had actually been brought forward by Labour that will add an additional 400 places. Well I have news for the Minister. The Ministry of Education tells us that we have to add 19000 new early childhood places to our current system by 2011 just to stand still in terms of participation rates—not the measly 400 that the Minister was parading in the House 2 weeks ago but 19000. There is no plan. The Minister has no plan to add those 19000 positions. But it is even worse than that because Labour had in place a plan to go forward which would have already delivered by now nine new early childhood education services on school grounds in South Auckland where the participation rates for early childhood education desperately need to be improved. What has the new Minister done with that? She has cut the services down to three; it was nine it is now three. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
: 
 I rise to agree with my colleague Sue Moroney on the fact that this is all about priorities—priorities in education. If we agree that the main priority of education is to raise achievement then I say that this Budget misses that opportunity in a number of ways. If we are to raise achievement then the priority needs to be the quality of the teachers in front of the kids. If we strip everything away all of the social issues the one single thing that raises achievement more than anything else is the quality of interaction between the teacher and the student. That is the most important thing. 
So it disturbs me to see that in terms of support and resources for teachers $5 million has been taken away in this Budget. In terms of curriculum support which enables teachers to understand the curriculum and be able to deliver it properly $7 million has gone. For the provision of advisory services—the people who travel around go into schools and support teachers to improve their craft and their skills—$3 million has gone. That is $15 million in total yet when we listened to what Colin King said we heard that $16 million has gone into boosting the truancy fund. On the surface that seems admirable yet if we were to invest in teachers and in their ability to engage with kids and to excite them about schools and learning then we would not need huge funds for truancy. If school is the best adventure in town if pupils are engaged and interested in what they are learning then they do not want to truant. I think it is a bottom-of-the-cliff situation to put a heap of money into truancy and to take money away from improving support for teachers. It is about priorities. 
One of the priorities for those of us who are on the left of the political spectrum compared with those on the right is that we believe in cradle-to-the-grave education. We believe in opportunities. From the time our kids are born they can go through early childhood education through the compulsory sector and through into tertiary education if they so desire. Unfortunately there is a group of people who for whatever reason may not engage or succeed in education and who leave the system having underachieved or they might have been out of the workforce for a little while and want to have the opportunity to get back into adult education. Unfortunately their opportunity to do so has been severely jeopardised by the fact that there have been cuts to the adult community education budget. 
Adult community education also offers social priorities. I will touch on one of the social opportunities—it is also a health opportunity—that adult community education offers in Kaitaia. There is a course for those people who want to do massage. Four people wanted to take up this massage course which is probably a course that the Minister of Education would term a hobby course. However one of those people who took up the opportunity for the massage course who paid $50 and went off on a Saturday to do the course is the father of a tetraplegic boy who is confined to a wheelchair. This father used the massage course to massage the limbs of his son who is confined to a wheelchair and that has taken a measure of the burden off the health system. 
Another person who did the massage course is a woman whose elderly husband suffers from chronic arthritis. She massages his joints. Again that alleviates his pain and it also takes a measure of the burden off the health system. The final two people who participated in that massage course—this hobby course—are both practising nurses who used the massage techniques and strategies to supplement their ability in their work as nurses. 
It is really important that we do not forget that aside from the fiscal savings that those on the right are looking for there are also the social and the health savings that those of us on the left are concerned about because we are concerned about people. For those on the right it comes down to profits. 
We are also concerned about unemployment. My understanding is that the 0.6 percent of the tertiary education fund that has been cut for adult community education will mean that 4000 tutors will probably lose their jobs at a time when 1000 people a week are already losing their jobs because of the recession. We should be looking for opportunities for people to retain their jobs. Unfortunately this 0.6 percent cut in adult community education will impact on 4000 jobs. Thank you Mr Chair. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Education Review Office agreed to.  
Votes Arts Culture and Heritage agreed to.  
Vote Attorney-General agreed to.  
Vote Parliamentary Counsel agreed to.  
Vote Treaty Negotiations agreed to.  
Vote Agriculture and Forestry 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I must express a bit of surprise and disappointment that the Opposition asked for Vote Agriculture and Forestry to be debated today but that no one from the Opposition seeks to make a call. I will make a couple of comments because this is an extremely important vote and there is a huge amount of work going on. 
The first comment I will make is around the economic recession and the fact that no sector of the economy is immune from its effects. I think the House needs to be well aware of the pressures on the dairy sector which has been hit quite hard by recent adjustments in the pay-out price. If we look at the Fonterra payout of $7.90 a year ago which is now readjusted to a predicted payout of $4.55 we can see that that obviously makes quite a difference to an important sector of our economy. The situation is a lot brighter in the sheep industry in that after years and years of very low sheepmeat prices we now see a real example of the resilience of our sheep-farming sector. The price has probably nearly doubled over the last few years. But again I give a note of warning to the Committee that many farmers particularly those in the Hawke’s Bay region have been struck by 3 years of drought. They have had 3 years of drought so they have actually destocked; in some cases they are down to half the previous stock levels. The prices for lamb production now may well have doubled but with half the number of ewes that those farmers had previously they are still facing a fairly dramatic time. 
My Vote Agriculture and Forestry involves doing a lot of work because there are a lot of challenging issues before us. One issue that is very much a focus of mine and a focus of this National Government is an intention to do something around the provision of water infrastructure in order to allow more irrigation. 
Hon Parekura Horomia 
: What about the pollen coming on to all the houses— 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I have spent quite a lot of time I tell Mr Horomia travelling around New Zealand. I am aware of water infrastructure issues in Hawke’s Bay Wairarapa Marlborough Nelson Canterbury South Canterbury and Otago and with some contribution from the Government some attention and support from the Government I think we can make progress in providing water storage and solve something that in many cases if we take Canterbury as an example probably should have been solved 100 years ago. 
We recognise the importance of science and innovation in the sector covered by Vote Agriculture and Forestry and I refer to the recent announcement in the Budget of the Primary Growth Partnership which involves a significant investment by central government of $190 million over the next 4 years capping out at $70 million a year on a dollar for dollar basis. When we consider that the industry is making a dollar for dollar commitment we realise that means there will be $140 million a year available. Why that is so important— 
Moana Mackey 
: If that doesn’t go the way of the tax cuts. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: —and Moana Mackey needs to realise this—is that with the challenges facing the sector from climate change we need to find solutions particularly when we consider the profile of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. It is absolutely critical that as a nation we put the money forward and find some solutions so that we can develop an emissions trading scheme that will be balanced around our environmental responsibility as well as economic matters. 
With regard to climate change again there is a huge amount of work to be done. I acknowledge that a review of the original climate change legislation that of the previous Labour Government is going through a select committee process in the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Hopefully the committee’s report on that legislation is going to come out. But this Government is determined to develop an emissions trading scheme that will balance the environment and the economy. 
Hon Steve Chadwick 
: Tell us about live sheep exports. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: I am only too happy to do so although I tell her that if she wanted to debate Vote Biosecurity which is what animal welfare comes under she should have put that down for debate. But I am still quite happy to make some comments particularly in light of the programme the other night. The images shown on that programme are unsatisfactory to all New Zealanders and I as the Minister would not be happy to see live exports going out unless we were absolutely assured as to both the transportation conditions of those sheep and probably more important the treatment those livestock will receive upon their arrival. I think that although we might satisfy a very small number of New Zealand sheep farmers by allowing such a trade it would be at the risk of jeopardising the whole of New Zealand’s meat export reputation. I as the Minister certainly do not intend to do that I tell Mrs Chadwick. 
I congratulate my department the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry on the work that is being done. There is a huge amount of work to be done and there are some very very challenging issues to address. But as I am sure most people in the Committee certainly those on the National side of the Chamber realise this economy is totally dependent on the livelihood of New Zealand’s primary producers and if that sector is doing well then the whole of the economy will perform. 
SUE KEDGLEY (Green) 
: 
 I was pleased to hear the Minister discussing the issue of live exports of sheep for slaughter and pleased to hear his comments on the programme the other night. He implied that he would not approve live sheep exports under his watch. But I suggest to the Minister that what New Zealanders would really like to hear from him is an unequivocal assurance that there will be no live sheep exports for slaughter under the National Government. He has made a generalisation but New Zealanders want an absolute assurance that this brutal live trade in the export of sheep for slaughter will not proceed under this Government. We would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify that. 
I do not think that anyone who saw the television programme the other night would ask questions as to why New Zealand should not be sending live sheep exports for slaughter in Saudi Arabia. The conditions are absolutely horrendous on the ships. The sheep are jammed into those ships—we saw the pictures of the ships—and then once they arrive in Saudi Arabia there is no animal welfare legislation there or any way of guaranteeing that the sheep sent for slaughter will not receive the horrendous treatment that was shown on the screen the other night. 
The other question we need to ask is why on earth we would even consider sending our sheep all the way on that horrendous journey simply to be slaughtered at the other end. We have a very satisfactory trade in halal sheep— 
Hon David Carter 
: I agree. 
SUE KEDGLEY 
: —I am delighted to hear the Minister agree—so why would we have to send them over there to be slaughtered? 
One of the things that emerged from the television programme was that in Australia live sheep exports have resulted in the closure of abattoirs and the loss of jobs so why would we even want to contemplate that happening in New Zealand? A few months ago in this House the Minister was defending or appeared to be defending the trade. I obtained under the Official Information Act a whole raft of papers and memoranda going backwards and forwards that made it clear that the Government was seriously investigating this trade. In fact it was giving the green light to the Saudi Arabians and Mr Assaf. I have all of the documentation under the Official Information Act. But I think that the Minister and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry were perhaps hoping that the trade could resume under the radar quietly with none of us being alerted. Well the Green Party I am delighted to say exposed the fact that there were negotiations about the resumption of trade and that the Government was engaged in quite detailed negotiations. I am delighted that that was exposed in this Parliament by the Green Party. There was of course an uproar of public opinion once the public realised that the trade was a possibility and I believe that the Minister has backed down as a result of that. But I am delighted whatever his motives that he has backed down and that this trade will not resume. 
I challenge the Minister now as well as to make an unequivocal commitment to New Zealand on the live sheep exports to also use his powers under the Animal Welfare Act to get rid of the cages used to house sows in and to phase them out over a number of years. There will be some consultation on that later this year but the Minister knows that under the Act he and he alone—sadly not this Parliament but just the Minister of Agriculture—has the power to require any code to be reviewed or to make changes. He has been given that power under the Act. So I would like him to assure New Zealanders that he will use those powers and that he will not pretend they do not exist. Sure under the Act he has to consult with the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee but that is all he has to do. 
Sitting suspended from 6 p.m. to 7.30 p.m. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I certainly want to respond to the contribution Sue Kedgley made prior to the dinner break because it was a contribution that was full of inaccuracies. There was hardly a word of truth in the whole contribution. Firstly she spoke about the live sheep export issue. She accused this Government of working under the radar to reopen that trade. She knows full well that the discussions were initiated in 2003 by the then Labour Government which she was prepared to support over 9 long years and those discussions have been ongoing at a very slow pace. But for her to suggest that we were negotiating under the radar is completely untrue. 
The second issue she raised was an accusation that we were about to launch the trade. The only reason that that particular accusation came to light was that she released a press release saying that in June this year we would be resuming trade. As anybody who is abreast of this issue will know June 2009 has passed and the trade has not been initiated so I suggest to Sue Kedgley that she maintain some accuracy around this issue instead of trying to wind up many hundreds of New Zealanders who share a genuine concern for animal welfare as indeed I do. 
The issue she then referred to was the pork industry’s continued use of sow crates. Again she suggested that I am not making enough progress to wind up this issue. Again I remind her that she supporting the Labour Government had 9 long years to do something and accomplished nothing in that time. I have made considerable progress in that I have given very stern and strong messages to the pork industry which has accepted the need to reform its industry and is working to do so. 
Sue Kedgley claims that I have the ability to make changes to the animal welfare code and that is quite incorrect. I have gone through that quietly with her on one occasion and also in the House trying to explain to her how the law works. Section 76 of the Animal Welfare Act is quite specific. I can make minor amendments to a code but she seems to think that something as major as this would slip through without being recognised as substantially more than a minor amendment. In fact it would then incur the wrath of the industry not unfairly I might point out and result in judicial review. 
I care deeply about animal welfare but I will not see the Greens continue to use the issue simply for political gain on their part and come down to the House and proffer half-truths and inaccuracies. The people of New Zealand deserve to know the truth. I am quite prepared to give it to them but I expect Sue Kedgley to do the same. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Biosecurity agreed to.  
Vote Foreign Affairs and Trade 
KEITH LOCKE (Green) 
: 
 This afternoon in Parliament I think we had a very good debate on the question of Afghanistan and whether the SAS should be recommitted there. I note that the conclusion was that four parties were against the SAS going and one was for. I think that reflects the great concern in the population. It would have been good as Labour speakers said if the debate had happened before the commitment of SAS troops rather than afterwards. 
One point from that debate I would like to take up is the question of terrorism. Dr Wayne Mapp in his contribution as the Minister of Defence said—and he has used the expression before—that if we do not commit troops and fight the Taliban Afghanistan will end up being a “haven for terrorists” again. In a later point he said that it would be an uncontested home for al-Qaeda. I think it betrays reality; as Phil Goff said if Osama bin Laden is anywhere he is probably in Pakistan. All kinds of journalists have been running around Afghanistan talking to players in Afghanistan the Taliban and the Government and all sorts of factions and no one I know of has come across al-Qaeda in the past year or two. If anything there is just a very small core. But it serves the purpose of people who want to support this type of intervention in Afghanistan or elsewhere to portray some giant conspiracy: Osama bin Laden sitting in his cave in Afghanistan and all the tentacles going out and bombs going off in cities around the world duplicating the communist conspiracy of the past which was used to justify all sorts of other interventions including in Viet Nam. 
The reality is that these terrorist groups generally—including the ones that bombed in London and Jakarta most recently—have their own particular rationale. We very strongly disagree with object to oppose and criticise the way they are killing civilians in trying to get to their political goals but if we want to understand what terrorism is about we have to actually look at it in each situation and look at the arguments that each terrorist group comes up with to get some support behind it. 
When we look at the London bombings and the people engaged in that we see clearly that there are two basic motivations as they explained it. They felt alienated in Britain. They felt that Muslims there including Muslim youth like themselves were being mistreated. Also they objected to what was happening in Iraq with the British invasion of Iraq. There are different configurations of explanations for the support going to terrorist groups around the world. Osama bin Laden I think had three planks when he got going. First was opposition to US troops in Saudi Arabia second was what was happening in Palestine and third was the Western military pressure on Iraq and the sanctions against Iraq. He got support around that. 
So if we want to get rid of the evil of terrorism we have to actually look at the causes and try to deal with them. In fact if we look at a range of cases we see that foreign intervention particularly foreign military intervention is exactly what gives these terrorist groups their fuel not as some giant interlinked conspiracy but in each country they exist in. So it is from that point of view that I believe it is an error to send the SAS troops to Afghanistan and engage in a military solution rather than a solution involving dialogue reconstruction and the things that our provincial reconstruction team is doing. Peaceful solutions are increasingly being advocated around the world. 
If one thinks that a military solution is right and that putting in a lot of foreign troops bombing places having sweeps across the Afghan countryside upsetting everyone killing civilians and everything else will get rid of terrorism one is dreaming. In fact it goes completely the opposite way. There have been articles in the  
Dominion Post 
 the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and all kinds of papers and when we read the stories of why people in Afghanistan go towards the Taliban we see that the kids there feel alienated and have nowhere to turn. So they turn to the Taliban to madrasas and Islamic fundamentalism just as in our society the young kids in South Auckland or Porirua who turn towards the criminal gangs are the kids who are at a loose end are in poverty and do not see a future. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Official Development Assistance agreed to.  
Vote Sport and Recreation agreed to.  
Vote Conservation 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
: 
 Pest control is a core function of the Department of Conservation and it is an absolute necessity for the protection of New Zealand’s incredible biodiversity. This is especially so in our forests for the protection of vulnerable birds endangered insects and fragile plant species. In the 2009-10 Budget this National Government cut pest control funding to the Department of Conservation by $82000. This cut is highly irresponsible. Pest control has more than just biodiversity benefits. Indeed it is a key component of New Zealand’s response to climate change and to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. 
The Green Party has called on the Government to set a responsible target for the meeting in Copenhagen which as we know the Government has failed miserably to do. In order to demonstrate the practicality of a responsible 30 to 40 percent target the Green Party has released a plan called  
Getting There 
 which shows exactly how the Government can reduce emissions both drastically and cheaply. In order to meet a responsible target of between 30 and 40 percent New Zealand will need to take responsibility for 48 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions in 2020. That will require both actual cuts in our emissions and the purchase of some credits. 
How will pest control help New Zealand to meet this responsible target? Pest control on just 219000 hectares of juvenile forest will capture 8.75 million tonnes of emissions. That is pest control alone will capture 17 percent of the emissions that New Zealand needs to save to meet a responsible target of 30 to 40 percent. How does this work? Over 200000 hectares of easily identifiable public conservation estate land is juvenile forest and shrubland. Pests are the reason why those areas never grow into mature forests which are an important carbon sink. Eliminating pests from juvenile forests will enable those forests to mature and store carbon. Pest control focused on these juvenile forests will return the fastest result. That is the benefit of much of this carbon storage will occur in time to meet New Zealand’s 2020 target. 
How much will this pest control cost? It is easiest to describe the cost in terms of cost per tonne of carbon. A pest control programme over 219000 hectares of juvenile forest will cost between $5 and $10 per tonne. This will save the taxpayer money. At today’s prices the cost of purchasing carbon credits is around $25 per tonne. By 2020 the cost may well be as high as $100 per tonne. If we act now it will cost us $5; if we delay it will cost us $100. If we do this pest control now we will save money and emissions and meet our obligations as a credible and responsible international citizen. Extra jobs would also be created by this pest control programme. The biodiversity of our native birds and forests would flourish benefiting our tourism industry. In a recession every job and every dollar count. In a climate crisis action now will save us money. 
The Green Party is a specialist in practical solutions that deal with both the climate crisis and the recession and that is what the Green New Deal is all about. Investment in pest control—as set out in our plan  
Getting There 
—will easily achieve this. Biodiversity of our forests will be enhanced native bird and tree species will be saved jobs will be created through pest control and through our burgeoning tourism industry precious and scarce public money will be saved through taking early action and carbon emissions will be cut. 
This National Government has no plan and is using bogeymen to frighten the public away from acting as a responsible international citizen and protecting New Zealand’s fragile biodiversity. Only the Green Party has the plan to get us through the twin crises of climate change and recession. 
Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Conservation) 
: 
 I make just a few comments on the issues that the member Metiria Turei has raised. First of all I will put the so-called cuts into some perspective. The so-called cuts—the savings that we have asked for some $13.5 million each year over a period of 4 years—are to be compared with a total spend of the best part of $1.6 billion. No matter how one makes the comparison if one takes the narrowest comparison of spend as a Government we will still be spending $57 million more in Vote Conservation than was spent as recently as 2007-08. The idea that there are great swingeing cuts simply does not stand up to any serious scrutiny. 
I have said before and I will repeat now that such is the scale of the problem facing our country in terms of our responsibilities in biodiversity that as a country we could probably spend three or four times the amount we do—I do not know what figure—and there would still be biodiversity jobs that could be done to the benefit of New Zealanders. We are in a general situation where we are trying to fight our way through a recession. We believe we have taken a responsible fiscal position. The very modest savings at the Department of Conservation—I have a great deal of respect for the men and women who work there—are extremely moderate and will provide the basis for maintaining the position with regard to its core functions. At the end of the day the argumentation that the member has used is correct: the pest weed and fire control is part of the sequestration equation. 
I just say to the member that one of the frustrations I have among many frustrations with the current Kyoto Protocol accounting framework is that we are not properly incentivised under the rules to deal adequately with the 6.8 million hectares of mature forest; I appreciate that the member was talking about young forest for the most part. I am actively looking at our options on that issue as a small net increase in sequestration over the magnificent resource that we have in our indigenous historical forests would be an absolutely enormous potential sequestration. Unfortunately we are not clear as to what the net picture is in terms of loss and gains but I assure the member that I am actively considering this in the context of wearing my other hat as Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations). 
But I very much take the point the member has made with regard to pest control being part of the climate change picture. As a matter of principle we as a Government give the department the director-general and his senior staff a target to meet. We do not interfere politically with the specific decisions that the director-general and his senior staff make in respect of weed and pest control. 
Just to indicate how this is played out I say that I went through the figures and I think they are quite interesting. These are the figures that the department has supplied to me as the Minister as to how it will meet its targets. I will first of all read out some figures expressed in terms of hectares and then I will make a comment or two about value. The figures are for 2008-09 and draw a comparison with the year to come 2009-10. With regard to weed control we will increase the number of hectares this coming year from 481000 to 531000. So the department will actually increase the total volume of hectares of weed control under this so-called budget cut regime. The amount of money will go fractionally down in respect of weed control from $22 million to $21 million. 
With regard to possums we will increase the number of hectares where we will try to reduce possum numbers or try to eliminate possums if at all possible. The total number of hectares that will be processed next year is going up—I repeat going up—from 244000 to 310000. In deer control it is the same picture. We will increase the number of hectares where deer control will be in operation. The precise figure is 339000 going up to 360000. There will be a reduction in goat control in terms of hectare coverage by a considerable margin for the simple reason— 
Hon David Carter 
: The job’s done. 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: —that the job has been done in certain areas of New Zealand. 
Hon David Carter 
: What a good Minister. 
Hon TIM GROSER 
: Actually it is quite wrong to say “What a good Minister.” I say to Mr Carter because those are the decisions of the director-general and his senior staff. A good Minister does not make those decisions of an operational nature so I suppose in that sense I could perhaps agree with Mr Carter. 
This is a very well run department. We have outstanding senior staff. I have the great privilege of working with them on a daily basis. They have made some very serious and sensible decisions and I think we should all be proud of the job that they are doing. As always when we dig down into the detail we find that life goes on. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Crown Research Institutes agreed to.  
Vote Defence agreed to.  
Vote Defence Force agreed to.  
Vote Research Science and Technology agreed to.  
Vote Communications 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
: 
 The Minister for Communications and Information Technology Steven Joyce does not strike me as a ditherer but I am starting to change my mind. The National Government was elected more than 9 months ago and an essential component of National’s campaign strategy was its $1.5 billion commitment to roll out ultra-fast broadband to 75 percent of New Zealand homes within 10 years. That was National’s big-ticket item its big campaign pledge. The first thing the new Government did was to axe the existing broadband programme introduced by the previous Labour Government which was called the Broadband Investment Fund and had dozens of regional projects poised to roll out and had widespread support in the industry. 
In 2008 the previous Labour Government committed to spend $500 million in broadband investments over 5 years. The targets were high-speed open access urban fibre networks improved rural connectivity and improved international links. But the new Government axed it and there was a vacuum in the industry. It took this Government until the end of March to release its investment proposal for consultation the Broadband Investment Initiative. Since then there has been nothing. The submissions closing date at the end of June came and went and what did the Minister do? He said he needed more time to think about it. After 2 more months he is still thinking about it. We are now approaching the end of August and there is no indication of how and when this Government will start rolling out broadband to 75 percent of the population. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Or if they will. 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Or whether it will. But there are some things that we do know. We already know that this Government cannot deliver broadband into people’s homes despite saying that it could. Maybe it can deliver broadband to their streets. It will cost hundreds of dollars per household maybe even thousands to connect from their streets to their houses and the Government does not seem to have an answer on how that will be achieved. What will be the incentive for households to pay that price or for companies to bear the cost so they can sign people up to their products? It is also very unlikely the Government will be able to deliver to 75 percent of the population through a $1.5 billion investment especially within 10 years given that it has wasted nearly a year working out what direction to take. 
Another thing we know is that a quarter of New Zealand’s population living in rural areas is not included in the Government’s ultra-fast broadband scheme creating what is essentially a digital divide between urban and rural communities. The Government has not announced any plans for a separate rural broadband strategy. National has set aside $48 million for rural broadband but that has been described as what it is a “drop in the bucket”. In relative terms with urban areas it should be $500 million. 
The previous Labour Government on the other hand had a comprehensive rural broadband strategy that it had planned to build upon—a commitment of $75 million for rural projects aimed at extending the reach of people living in remoter areas of New Zealand. It was about providing new and improved broadband connections to communities businesses and users in the health education and wider Government sectors in rural areas. 
Another thing we know is that there has been a lot of uncertainty and concern in the communications sector about National not announcing its plan. Every stakeholder I talk to cannot understand why it is taking so long for this Government to make up its mind which leads one to speculate why. Is there an internal disagreement within the National Cabinet and caucus as to which direction to take? Is there some sort of heavy pressure being applied to go in one direction and not the other not for reasons of good policy but for other reasons? Or is the Minister a ditherer? 
Let us look at the choices. As the Minister has acknowledged the choice appears to lie between a Telecom-led unitary roll-out and a growing coalition of electricity lines companies and independent fibre operators called the Regional Fibre Group. The regional approach is much closer to the direction that was taken by the previous Labour Government using the vast networks and experience of lines companies to build regional networks that have a common set of standards. The Telecom-led model would on paper take fibre further than the Government originally proposed but questions remain over Telecom’s incentive to duplicate its existing copper network plus a unitary model raises issues of stifling competition in the sector. We have to ask ourselves what could be holding these things up. Is it a choice between deals done between mates or is it something that makes good sense? Or perhaps the Minister is grappling with how to make the new level of bureaucracy the Crown Fibre Investment Company work and how to get a return on the Government investment at a time of recession. 
On another matter there is no doubt that a $1.5 billion investment in our broadband infrastructure is substantial. If it ends up being a $3 billion investment with a one-for-one contribution by the private sector then well and good but that is a lot of broadband fibre to lay out and it does not get laid out by itself. It requires a skilled workforce to lay it. A problem is occurring right now under the Minister’s nose which he seems oblivious to. Right now the country’s biggest telecommunications company Telecom is embroiled in an escalating drama with its own workforce of 900 service technicians and engineers in Northland and Auckland unionised and non-unionised who are fighting attempts to turn them into independent contractors. 
Essentially these employees will lose the protection provided to them as employees. They will be forced to buy their own equipment and transport vehicles pay for their own holiday and sick leave entitlements and accept all the other financial obligations associated with their own employment and that could cost them 50 to 66 percent of their income. Turned into independent contractors who do not make a fortune they will be at the mercy of the parent contractor and their remuneration will be based on how many jobs they can get through rather than the quality of the work that they do. 
These are real and genuine concerns and they will have a devastating effect on Telecom’s skilled workforce at a time when it is needed most. I have now received hundreds of contacts from employees in this industry who do not want to sign up as independent contractors but say they have no choice. They say they will not be able to make a living as a result and they feel forced to leave the industry. What sort of signal is that sending? 
I also hear from industry sources that it has been handled extremely poorly and that questions are being asked about what the Government will do about it. I will have a lot more to say on this issue in the coming days. 
Paul Quinn 
: We can’t wait! 
CLARE CURRAN 
: Good! I want to highlight one of the things that really concerns me. I thought that the Minister for Communications and Information Technology Steven Joyce was actually quite bright. But he does not seem to understand that in order to deliver an important infrastructure policy particularly one in the communications and technology industry we need a skilled workforce. When asked in this House 2 weeks ago about his commitment to a skilled workforce Mr Joyce was able to talk only about the importance of digital literacy across our population—that means more people with computers than skills to use them. 
Labour is absolutely committed to this but a skilled workforce is a lot more than that. When asked whether this Government is committed to establishing an industry training organisation in the information and communications technology industry or whether it is committed to use information and communications technology training in the Modern Apprenticeships scheme both of which were Labour policies the Minister replied no to both. Instead he has shown a cold indifference to a skilled information and technology workforce at a time when the Government needs a highly skilled workforce to deliver its $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband to the streets of New Zealand. 
I tell the Minister that he ignores at his peril the development of this important industry. Every industry player knows there is already a skills shortage in this industry—I have heard the figure of 2000 skilled workers quoted from a number of sources. Every industry player knows there is a real disconnect occurring as this industry continues to develop between having an adequate pathway between schools and training institutions and ensuring enough New Zealand schoolchildren know about and are encouraged to move into the information and communications technology industry as a career path. I refer specifically to New Zealand schoolchildren because in the last few years we have had to fill the gaps with skilled workers from outside New Zealand. The previous Labour Government knew that; it had policy in place to address it and this Government does not seem to have a clue. It is clueless and dithering and that seems to be the key message from this speech. I believe this industry and these issues deserve better than that. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Perhaps I could quote my good friend Paul Quinn whom I do not often quote to be fair but I should quote him more often. I think he summed it up when he said that there is a difference between 9 years and 9 months. I think he summed it up rather well. 
Clare Curran the member opposite who has just resumed her seat may not recall this but when the then National Opposition announced its broadband policy it said that it wanted to take the first year to finalise the plan because amongst other things it is such a huge sum of money. It is $1.5 billion to invest in ultra-fast broadband. As the member points out if it is matched by private sector contributions which is certainly the Government’s aim we will be talking about a $3 billion investment. I imagine that if we do not take the time to get it right then the criticism will be that we rushed it. It is one of those situations where the Opposition will not be happy as it will be too early too late not enough or too much. That is I suppose the lot of being in Opposition. 
The Government remains very strongly committed to its pre-election promise. To be clear we received 104 submissions on the proposal which was very encouraging. The submissions made a number of comments and added things to the proposal. That analysis has now been completed. Cabinet will address the final version of the plan shortly. It will address some of the key issues that have been raised in the submissions including the definition of the relevant coverage areas for the network the ability for local fibre companies to provide second-layer services as well as dark fibre and the need to provide regulatory certainty to the industry. It will address the issue of demand side or take-up risk and the need to retain flexibility over the funding model that the Crown Fibre Investment Co. will implement. These are all crunchy issues that Cabinet is about to address. 
The other really important part is the rural broadband side and related to that the telecommunications service obligation or TSO. Again there is a range of issues. The first and I think most important one is ensuring that rural schools have access to world-class broadband services. We cannot afford to have the digital divide between urban and rural education providers. The Government is very conscious of that and knows that it is very important. Once we have addressed the issue of rural education then we must maximise what one might call the spillover benefits to surrounding communities. Initially we allocated $48 million in the Budget this year and that will be supplemented from other revenue sources. Alongside that telecommunications service obligation arrangements are being reviewed in conjunction with these rural broadband issues. 
I stress that any question of relaxing the requirement for free local calls is not on the table. Also off the table are changes that would impact on the ownership of Telecom shares. 
These are the biggest issues but they are not the only issues. There is a number of other very important corollary issues in the portfolio one of them being of course international connectivity. I note that the member opposite did not mention it but it is a very important area in the broadband space. It is good to see that there are a couple of potentially viable commercial options for improving international broadband connectivity for New Zealand. That is exciting. The Government is prepared to play its part through the organisations it is involved with in the space to help facilitate activity there. 
Another area is that of complementary measures. If we can get complementary measures that reduce the cost of fibre roll-out then that is of benefit to all players in the industry. We are doing a lot of work in that area looking at the access to ducts and poles looking at access to land on which infrastructure is located and of course looking at the constraints imposed by our good friend the Resource Management Act. 
There are issues around mobile services which is an important part of both the telephone and broadband space. Members will be aware of the investigations into mobile termination services. The Commerce Commission’s final report is due to me in December of this year. Of course there is the issue of national roaming which remains in the hands of the Commerce Commission. It is good to see increasing competition in the mobile space with a third player coming into the market. It is also good to see the further investment and deployment of third generation services by both Telecom and Vodafone. It is a vibrant and exciting market and we are pleased to see it develop further. We will be making more comments on international roaming. 
There are a whole lot of other areas such as the readiness for digital literacy in the education and health sectors. We will address all those areas in the coming 12 months. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Transport 
DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): 
 It is a great pleasure to rise to talk about the estimates debate in respect of Vote Transport. When we look at Vote Transport I think we need to give great praise to the Minister of Transport Steven Joyce. He has delivered the leadership that has been lacking in the transport sector for a long time. Within the short period of 9 months he has achieved more than the previous Government achieved in 9 years. He has been a revolutionary Minister who has performed a great role. 
The major investment in transport in this Budget is into the roads of national significance. This investment will provide an economic spur to this economy and it will deliver jobs and the infrastructure for us to grow and have the strong economy we need to deliver the social services that we all wish to see. Let us look at some of the roads of national significance. Firstly there is the Waikato Expressway on State Highway 1. For 9 long years Labour tried to build that road but the only part of the Waikato Expressway it finished was the part we started. Labour had 9 years and it could not put the Waikato Expressway up there. The good people of the Waikato have had deliverance from the Minister and we thank him for that. The good people of Tauranga also got deliverance last week. They got the Tauranga Eastern Corridor which will revolutionise the Tauranga coastline. We will see further development further out past Papamoa as we open up the link between Whakatane and Tauranga which is so lacking. 
But today we also need to focus on something that I think many New Zealanders will want to see our Government focus on in transport—that is making our transport systems safer. Today we saw the release of the Safer Journeys discussion document which I encourage all members to read. It goes through many of the issues that we will face in making transport safer in the next few years. It performs the role of providing a strategy for safer transport use which we have not had in this country. There has not been that direction and we have been putting out the issues so that people can discuss them. These issues are important to New Zealanders because far too many people are losing their lives on our roads. 
The road safety priorities are in three categories. There is the high concern category the medium concern category and the areas for continuing focus and emerging issues. We can look at some of the high concern issues. The first one is the need for a reduction in alcohol-impaired and drug-impaired driving. This brings in a lot of the debate around alcohol consumption levels when we compare them with other countries especially Australia. We can see the initiatives that the National Government passed recently around drug-impaired driving something that Labour did not pass in its 9 years in Government. 
Another area is the safety of young drivers. There are far too many accidents involving young drivers and their rates of injury and death are too high. We can look at having safer roads and roadsides which is part of the programme of constructing roads. That will give us safer roads to drive on. Safer speeds has an important role in the high concern category. The document also looks at the safety of motorcyclists. Those are the high concern issues that the National Government has identified and it has put out this discussion document so that people can give us feedback and we can then address these issues. That is called listening to the people. That is called engaging with the public. It is giving them a chance to have a defined opportunity to make some constructive criticisms and to promote some ideas. That is what we need in Government. We need to engage with the people to find the best solutions. 
The issues of medium concern include improving the safety of the light vehicle fleet safer walking and cycling improving the safety of heavy vehicles reducing the impact of fatigue on driving and addressing distraction while driving. We are opening up consultation on those issues in order for people to give us feedback on what they think we should be doing in those areas. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 I thank the previous speaker David Bennett. He is a fine select committee chair. He holds the Government to account on a regular basis. Thank goodness he does because nobody else does. He asks fine questions of the Government. 
Where is “Dazza”? Where is Darren this evening? It is his big chance to talk about transport— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: Order! 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Point of order Mr Chairman— 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: I have got it. The member cannot refer to the absence of a member from the Chamber and he will desist from doing that immediately. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: My apologies Mr Chairman. Can I just say what a fine chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee we have and that he does hold the Government to account on an ongoing basis. 
We are very busy in the transport portfolio. Transport is a very important portfolio for this Government because it has a major role in developing the economic prosperity of New Zealand. I think it is fair to say that the Government has been working very hard over the last 9 months to make progress in the transport sector after a period of time when its progress was reasonably slow—slow-train progress. 
I will highlight briefly some of the initiatives the Government is working on as part of our development of the transport space. The first one is the recently released Government policy statement on land transport funding. It is a very important document. It makes economic growth and productivity the primary objective for investment in land transport. I think that is incredibly important and it will be more important in the coming years to have an efficient funding allocation and to invest in transport infrastructure that reflects the modal options that are realistically available to New Zealanders. I know that that attracts criticism but it is the only sensible way to develop the transport system in these tighter economic times. 
We are investing significantly more in the State highway network over the next 3 years—$1 billion - plus more than was planned by the previous Government. This will lift investment in State highways to 35 percent of the National Land Transport Fund. 
We also did not proceed with regional fuel taxes. I think that is very important. It is easy to forget it. We can imagine what would be happening now if we were facing higher and higher regional fuel taxes. As a result of our decisions we are now facing a smaller increase in national fuel taxes which go straight back into the National Land Transport Fund. That happens on 1 October. We will see some real benefits coming out of that in terms of improvements in our land transport system. 
We have recently passed the Road User Charges Amendment Bill which will achieve a couple of very important things. It gives notice periods for road-user charge increases to help operators recover their costs and gives electric cars a rebate on road-user charges. That is also an important part of what the Government is doing. It is adopting and encouraging other forms of fuel as it addresses the emissions issues and environmental issues that it is facing. 
Back in February we announced a half-billion-dollar stimulus package across a number of portfolios of which about $143 million was for the State highway area. Five specific projects were advanced. I am very proud to have had the opportunity to join the people of the Coromandel as we did the sod-turning for the long-overdue Kopu Bridge which has such huge potential for improving the economies of both Coromandel and the Hauraki Plains. That is really the enabling benefit of these transport infrastructure projects. 
The previous speaker David Bennett also mentioned roads of national significance and these are very important. Last month the New Zealand Transport Agency announced the winning contractor to build the Victoria Park project which is a hugely important project for the whole country. It happens to be in Auckland City but it is a very important project across the whole country. About 165000 vehicles pass through that bottleneck every day at normally very low speeds and the potential productivity benefits are hugely positive. And the great news is that the contractor involved is saying that it will be able to complete that project in just a couple of years. It is a very exciting project that would not have happened in anything like the time it will and possibly might not have happened at all if the previous Government’s land transport policy statement had continued. 
I would like to address the Waterview Connection which is another road of national significance. The Transport Agency is working through a process that will enable that project to be completed at a much more economical cost to the country. The western ring route in Auckland is a hugely important project and this Government is committed to seeing it completed. 
I would also like to speak briefly about the Tauranga Eastern Link which is a project that is hugely important in the Bay of Plenty. Two weeks ago we launched a process to look at tolling that route in order to bring it forward. 
There are a whole lot of other things that we could address but in this small period of time we cannot address them. 
Vote agreed to. 
Vote Courts agreed to.  
Vote Pacific Island Affairs agreed to.  
Vote Employment 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I stand to take a call on Vote Employment and I am sure that the Opposition will take calls as well with it being such an important vote and such an important issue at the moment as far as what is happening in the country is concerned. It will not surprise the Committee to know though that when the ministry officials and I were before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the estimates Opposition members did not have enough questions on employment and we finished early. With the way that things are at the moment our economy is strongly influenced by the performance of the labour market and employment is obviously a key issue not just for this Government but also for the country. However Labour members did not have enough questions and we finished early on that day because they did not have enough questions to ask us. But that is all right. 
Members might be interested to know that the first question we had was from the previous Minister Ruth Dyson asking me to define productivity. It will not surprise members that she did not know what productivity was even though for 9 years members may have thought that Labour members had been concentrating on that. What happened though was that we had an Opposition that was so keen to be so clever its members did not end up addressing any of the real questions that needed to be addressed. 
Our economy is strongly influenced by the performance of the labour market. We are facing the biggest economic downturn since the Depression yet we heard very few questions coming from the Opposition. We know that a well-functioning and flexible labour market is the key to improving economic performance and it is absolutely vital that we get this stuff right. We are responsible for the labour market analysis for that information to support our national our regional and our sector labour market engagements. We are keenly interested in what is happening in the overall picture. I think the vote has a good interest in where we are heading longer term—getting us through these tougher times recognising what skills we need to move further ahead and making sure we are upskilling the workforce where it is needed. Recently there was a good report on aged care which is of vital importance if we are to look at how we move ahead. 
I want to talk a bit about the unemployment rate and where we are at at the moment. Members should make no mistake: we are at 6 percent at the June 2009 quarter but we do compare favourably internationally. We are ninth out of 30 of the OECD countries. 
Sue Moroney 
: Not any more. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Actually we are. I know that it is hard for Labour to understand but we are ranked ninth out of 30 OECD countries. [ 
Interruption 
] By all means if Opposition members would like to take calls on this very important Vote Employment which is possibly one of the most important votes then I would be very interested in hearing from them. We have seen employment losses in a number of industries—the wholesale and retail trade agriculture fishing and forestry and communications services. But the losses have been partly offset by what we have seen happening in health and community services the accommodation industry cafes restaurants and property and business services and a little still in the construction industry which is of interest to some. 
Our labour force participation rate remains unexpectedly high indicating that people still want to be in work. Some have moved to part-time work or they have reduced their hours wherever possible. There is no doubt about the fact that people want to be in work wherever possible. The labour force participation rate currently sits at 68.4 percent. It is only 0.1 percent under what it was in December 2007 which is when we acknowledge the recession started. 
We know that we are not catching up with Australia as far as productivity is concerned. We saw 9 years of that not being of interest at all and we have a lot of catching up to do on that. We have recently got the task force on board and to get that there we had to start making moves towards it. For 9 years we did not see productivity as a priority in this country. There was no real acknowledgment of where the economy had to grow in the good times but now fortunately this Government is picking it up and doing well through the tough times. These are tough times I tell Opposition members and they do not realise it. As we go around our electorates we are certainly told that there are people out there who are struggling. They recognise though that they can get through this shorter term in order to see us grow throughout the longer term and that is certainly where this Government’s focus is. Thank you. 
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
: 
 Kia ora tatou. I am delighted to stand and make a small contribution to this estimates debate in respect of Vote Employment. I am delighted to follow on from the Minister who has provided us with a very rich context around the labour market at a time of deep recession which allows us to discuss some of the challenges that confront us today. She has also provided us with some very helpful statistical definition which can guide us in our consideration of the issues that face us. 
As we all know and as this Government in particular has been prepared to be seized of we are in a deep recession. We are also very aware of how important employment is not only as a contribution to growth and productivity— 
Sue Moroney 
: Talking the economy down. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Perhaps if the member listened she might get the opportunity to learn a little about what this Government has taken 9 short months to contribute. National members waited 9 long years in Opposition and we heard nothing about such a contribution from the previous Government. This Government is very seized of the importance of employment not only in terms of its contribution to the economy but also in terms of the opportunity it gives for people to participate to increase their skills to add to their quality of life and also to support their sense of well-being and identity—all of which add value to the opportunity to be employed. This is the context in which this Government faces this recession. 
But we have not sat on our hands like the members who are now in Opposition did when they were in Government. We have invested in a number of ways. But we have not had the arrogance to assume that the issue is all about the role of the Government again unlike the previous Government. This Government under this Minister has been prepared to take leadership on this issue while understanding that there are other players involved such as business community organisations and iwi. We have been prepared to partner with those in the joint enterprise of getting this country back on track after the poor management the mismanagement by the previous Government which was peopled by the members who now sit on the benches opposite. 
We have understood that we need to soften the tough edges of the recession and we have done that through providing ReStart for which there has been an uptake of nearly 4000 people. These are people who need to see their way clear to regaining employment. We have also provided the Job Support Scheme which has helped firms to work through the tough times so that they can keep the staff they have and 32 firms have signed up to that. [ 
Interruption 
] You may well sneer but 32 firms with their collective employment— 
H V Ross Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Chairperson. I know that our colleague on the other side is a new member but she referred to “you” thereby bringing you into the debate. You as well as I know that that is not parliamentary and it is out of order. I ask the member to adhere to the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings. 
The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) 
: The point of order is upheld. I missed that; I was engaged in some dialogue. The member will mind her pronouns. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: Thank you for that helpful guidance. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: That’s all right. Any time. 
HEKIA PARATA 
: And I thank the member opposite. I am talking about substantial help if I can now revert to talking about what this Government has invested in in terms of stimulating the labour market providing the opportunity for employment and in particular focusing on a sector of the labour market that we are all passionate about and that this Minister in particular has set out to address and that is the opportunity for young people to be engaged in the labour market. 
The Government has recently announced its Youth Opportunities programme. It provides job opportunities for young people aged 16 to 24 who will have the opportunity to take up placements in workplaces and in businesses. We think we will be able to provide that opportunity to up to 4000 young people. Those 4000 young people belong to families whanau and communities and the opportunity that this package affords them also spreads to their families in terms of feeling better about the recession and supporting their young people to have exposure to the opportunity to work. We are creating up to 3000 new opportunities in Community Max which again engages with the community rather than patronising it. We are prepared to work with communities and to recognise that they have skills and that it is not all about the Government which again is a distinct change in the way we operate from the way the previous Government operated. We understand that we have to work with communities so I am pleased to support the Minister in this work in the employment area. Kia ora tatou. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I move  
That the Committee report progress 
. 
Progress reported. 
Report adopted.