Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

on behalf of the Minister of Health: There are now 1,039,655 New Zealanders enrolled in the scheme, which keeps general practitioners’ fees at $15.50 for adults, $10.50 for young people aged between 6 and 17 years, and free for under-sixes. That is over 1 million New Zealanders who pay under $15.50, while the rest pay an average of $25. On average, the cost of a general practitioner visit has halved under the Labour-led Government. The question on my mind is whether the National Party is celebrating this, or is it intending to take charges back to where they were, and beyond?

💬 Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any reports of initiatives that will threaten lower doctors’ fees?

Yes, I have—the National Party’s secret plan to let the market set the price for people seeing a doctor, which will drive many people away from getting health advice. John Key and his friends think it is OK for something like health to be a market commodity.

💬 Barbara Stewart: What action is the Minister taking to ensure that the Government’s success in providing access to affordable health-care is extended to cover accident and medical services in centres such as Porirua, where staff shortages are threatening after-hours services to north Wellington, Porirua, and Kapiti coast residents?

This action, or any action, would be, of course, the responsibility of the district health board. After-hours services have historically been a problem, as people do not get ill between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. all the time—I appreciate that. But this Government has added 4,000 nurses and 1,200 doctors to rebuild the health sector decimated by the previous administration, and all of those additions will help a multitude of health services.

💬 Martin Gallagher: Has the Minister seen any report that cheaper doctors’ visits actually have a positive effect, even for people who do not necessarily need to see a doctor?

As a matter of fact, I have. When the Consumers Price Index figures came out this week, inflation figures were lower than what just about everyone had estimated. Treasury said: “It was mainly because the effect of increased Government subsidies for health and education was greater than expected.” Inflation in the September quarter was 0.5 percent. Treasury said: “Without the increases in Government subsidies the quarterly increase in CPI would have been at 0.9 percent.” Even the meanest-minded members of the Opposition must realise that without the Government paying these subsidies, interest rates would rise, mortgage payments would rise, and people would be much worse off, which, of course, they would be if the National Party health policy was implemented.

Taxation—Australian Tax Cuts

2. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH (National—Rodney) on behalf of the Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement, regarding recently proposed tax cuts in Australia, that “There’s nothing for anybody under $30,000 a year”; if not, why not?

No; because the advice I received initially failed to recognise the effect of the low-income tax offset, the Australian equivalent of our low-income earner rebate—

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

I think I should spread the pills out amongst them! If ever fully implemented, the proposal would see zero tax cuts on incomes of up to $11,000 a year, compared with $128 per week for those on $200,000 a year.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does he agree that the recently proposed tax cuts in Australia would actually deliver about $8.65 a week in the first year to those earning under $30,000 a year, and why does he consider $8.65 a week—almost $450 a year—to be nothing for people in that income bracket?

The member did not listen to my answer. I said that the initial advice I had did not account for what the Australians call the low-income tax offset. Taking account of that the member is quite correct, but there is still no change on incomes of up to $11,000 per year.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: Has he seen any reports on the value of delivering tax relief of around $10 per week for working families?

Yes, I have seen a taxation policy that proposes scrapping the $10 per child per week tax credit extension to Working for Families in order to pay for tax cuts for the better-off. I have also seen reports of a vote in this House where the National Party refused to endorse the Working for Families increase of $10 per week per child in tax credits that came into force on 1 April 2007, one of the most significant poverty elimination measures advanced for many years.

R Doug Woolerton: Is the Minister concerned that across-the-board tax cuts favour the wealthier members of our society, and does it further concern him that such tax cuts often lead to user-pays regimes for Government services, thus disadvantaging further the less well-off, such as young families?

I have made it clear that any programme of tax cuts under the Labour-led Government must be fair, and that the cuts must also not impact upon the ability of the Government to deliver services.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Is it correct, as the Minister has just alleged, that the Australian tax package proposal did nothing for income earners earning less than $11,000 a year and delivered significant tax cuts for those on higher incomes, because in fact those earning less than $11,000 in Australia pay zero tax—unlike the situation in New Zealand?

The effect of the tax offset is precisely that; it is the equivalent of our low-income earner tax rebate. The National Government, in its changes in the 1990s, reduced the low-income earner tax rebate with every change it made.

💬 Hon Mark Gosche: What reports has he seen on support for initiatives to reduce taxation in New Zealand?

I have seen reports showing that this Labour-led Government has reduced taxation on working families—that was opposed by the National Party. I have seen reports that this Government has reduced taxes on business on multiple occasions—each time that was opposed by the National Party. I have seen reports that this Government has reduced the taxation on savings—that was opposed by the National Party. New Zealanders need to remember that when the National Party talks big on tax cuts, its members do everything they can to actually stop them when they get in this House.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: If there is nothing in the proposed tax cuts in Australia for anyone earning under $30,000 a year, is it correct that a low-income earner, say on $16,000 a year in Australia, if the proposals were fully implemented, would pay $2,790 a year—almost $54 a week—less in tax than someone earning the same $16,000 here in New Zealand?

The fact is that the Australian taxation system is more progressive than New Zealand’s taxation system. Tax is lower at the bottom end and higher—higher—at the top end. The National Party’s proposal at the last election did absolutely nothing about rectifying that position at all; its tax proposals would not have given larger gains to those at the bottom end.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Does the Minister stand by his advice to his Cabinet colleagues that the Government should “not adjust tax thresholds in the medium term thereby retaining fiscal drag”, and that if it does eventually adjust the tax thresholds for inflation, it should retain some portion of fiscal drag to “finance our decisions.”—is that still his position?

The proposed—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: “Lolly-nomics”!

That member cannot just shut himself up, can he? It is terrible.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Although interjections are, in fact, permitted, some interjections create disorder. If that continues, then I will ask members to leave the Chamber.

The proposals put forward in the 2005 Budget did indeed retain some elements of fiscal drag because the adjustment was by means of consumer price index adjustment, not by means of average wage adjustment.

Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith: Should ordinary New Zealanders who currently pay what used to be the rich person’s tax rate of 33c in the dollar, and who after 8 years are still waiting to see the tax thresholds adjusted or the rates reduced, take it from the Minister’s comments that he considers tax cuts that deliver less than $10 a week to low and middle income earners to be worth nothing to them, and that he considers tax cuts that deliver more than $10 a week to be unaffordable; and should they therefore conclude that his promises to address bracket creep and fiscal drag are, in fact, worth nothing to them?

No, not at all. What they can take from them is what is a reality: $10 a week to somebody on $25,000 a year or $30,000 a year is worth far more than $10 a week to somebody on $150,000 a year or $200,000 a year. Yet the National Party continues to support changes that will give more to those at the top end than to those on low to middle incomes.

Māori Education Strategy—Government Agencies

3. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Education: Kua tae atu te tohutohu ki a ia, ko tētahi o ngā tino kaupapa nui kua kitea e ngā whakawhitinga whakaaro mō te kape tuatahi o te Rautaki Mātauranga Māori, arā, a Ka Hikitia, ko “te mahitahi a ngā pokapū Kāwanatanga, ko tā rātau hono hoki, tētahi ki tētahi”, ā, he aha rawa ngā rautaki kua whakaritea kia tino kore ai ngā mahi a ētahi atu tari Kāwanatanga e tukituki i ngā wawata o ērā e whai ana i ngā ara mātauranga?

[Has he been advised that consultation on the draft Māori education strategy, Ka Hikitia, has identified that one of the themes that participants think is important is “Government agencies working together in a collaborative and connected way”, and what strategies are being put in place to ensure that activities in other departments do not unduly compromise educational opportunities?]

A call for Government agencies to work together in a more collaborative and connected way is not new, but it is important. That is why it is in Ka Hikitia. The Ministry of Education regularly works with key education and Government agencies on a wide range of issues. It is certainly my expectation that where the actions of one department will have an impact on another, departments will work together to minimise that impact.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: What advice has the Minister received about the impact of New Zealand Police actions on kōhanga reo and kura located in Rūātoki, Waimana, Matahī, and Tāneatua, following the fact that the Rūātoki community was locked down, roads were sealed, and people were isolated during the raids of Monday, 15 October?

I am not fully briefed on police operations this week. The member would probably need to direct his question to the Minister of Police to get more detail on what actually took place. But I would like to point out that the police operation was independently initiated by the police. It was a country-wide operation that impacted on a wide range of people from a wide range of backgrounds and circumstances. We are all waiting to see what exactly will arise from the police activities.

With regard to, for example, the alleged boarding of the school bus, which I took some particular interest in, I advise that no police boarded that bus. The bus was facilitated through the roadblocks where there were armed police. Of course, it impacted on the schools that day, but my understanding is that those schools and kōhanga have gone back to operation as per normal.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: What crisis intervention assistance and culturally appropriate trauma counselling will be made available to te kōhanga reo o Tāneatua following the events of 15 October, after its van, full of preschoolers, was stopped three times at three separate roadblocks and reportedly boarded by an armed offenders squad in full combat gear with guns, leaving the children—the tamariki—extremely distressed, some still too afraid to go to kōhanga reo 4 days later because of the fear of the “ninja army”?

I think it is really important at this time for cool heads to prevail while we wait to see what will arise from the police investigations. Labelling is probably not the best thing to do at this particular time. I say again that my advice is that police did not board any transport and that children were facilitated through the roadblocks to make sure they moved on their way. In relation to trauma and counselling, the member will be aware that the Ministry of Education moves very swiftly on requests by schools to deal with those issues and to provide counsellors and support. It will do so in this case as soon as it is invited to.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with the plan for action in Ka Hikitia that recommends that Government agencies working together is one of five factors that can make the most difference for Māori students; if so, what protocols will he recommend to the New Zealand Police to ensure that children are not subjected to police actions that can cause long-lasting trauma?

I repeat that we are waiting for the full details of these operations to emerge; therefore, I do not have them. But what I am aware of is that the police appear to have made sure they did not board transport or put themselves in those kinds of situations the member is alluding to. We will have to wait for full details to emerge, but that is my understanding. I hope the member will ensure that the information he gets that he makes available in a public platform is accurate information, because, as I said, at this time I think it is very important that cool heads prevail, that we wait for full details, and that we are accurate in what we say.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I appreciate the information given by the Minister in his answer, but I ask him, through you, whether it is appropriate to address the question in respect of the concerns coming through the constituency, which were about the work that will be done by the New Zealand Police to ensure that the children are not subjected again to any actions. If he could address that part of the question, it would be helpful.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I thought the Minister did address the question, but if he wants to add any more, then he is perfectly free to do so.

I think it is important to clarify exactly where the question needs to go. If the member wants to know about the police, unfortunately he needs to ask a question of the Minister of Police. But as Minister of Education I say that it is, of course, my interest, and I am making sure that I am being kept up to speed with what is going on around young children in our country and in our schools. As I say, if trauma teams are asked for, they go straight in there to assist. I am assured that the police did not board buses; they treated children properly. It will emerge—and I see that the member is not agreeing with me—if the factors are different from that, but that is what I have sought to do. If the member wants to know precisely about the police, then unfortunately he will need to ask the Minister of Police.

Justice, Ministry—Confidence

4. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Justice: Does he have confidence in the Ministry of Justice; if so, why?

Generally, yes; because they are hard-working and conscientious public servants.

💬 Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that his ministry’s latest forecast of the prison population, released in July this year, projected that the number of prisoners for 2007 during the peak month of September would be 7,959, yet the actual muster was 8,372 at the beginning of September, and that he stated on 1 October that New Zealand’s prison population is now approaching 8,500?

I do not have the figures in front of me, but I am sure I can rely on the member being accurate in the report he has given.

💬 Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the forecast of 7,959 inmates takes into account his Government’s Effective Interventions initiatives to reduce the prison population; and is it any surprise that those policies have failed, when one of those initiatives, electronic bail, was expected to be granted to “upwards of 1,000 defendants per annum in order to save 120 prison beds a year”, yet in its first 10 months only 56 defendants have been on electronic bail, thus saving just eight prison beds?

Again, I do not have the figures in front of me, but I am sure the member is quoting accurately. I say to the member that if he wants to put down questions about the operation—

💬 Pansy Wong: He has.

For goodness’ sake, the member should listen to the whole answer. If the member wants to put down questions around the operation of electronic bail, that is actually a matter for the police, and he should put the question to the Minister of Police. Equally, the member should be aware that the Effective Interventions policy was about slowing the rate of growth in the prison population, and that is something that was made very clear at the time it was announced.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that two of the reasons that the prison population may have increased are, firstly, that this Government is committed to increasing the numbers of police, and will have done so by more than 1,000 front-line officers, and, secondly, that this Government put into effect the tough legislation that the National Government never had the guts to do over 9 years?

Indeed, I can confirm both of those things. That is a good illustration of why they are called projections.

💬 Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the current prison muster is close to the total capacity of the prison system of 8,624, which includes beds set aside in the event of a disaster; and is the approaching crisis the reason why the Deputy Prime Minister told the House last month that Cabinet devotes “considerable attention to keeping track of what is going on within the prison system”, stating: “It is one of the few areas where … every week we examine the number of people in custody,”?

Again, I would have thought that the member would understand by now that if he wants to put down questions about the prison muster, he should do so to the Minister of Corrections—that is his portfolio responsibility. As to the other matter, I think the Deputy Prime Minister’s statement illustrates why this Government takes issues around law and order and imprisonment seriously—clearly, more so than the National Opposition.

💬 Simon Power: Did the Minister read a March Budget paper that states that the Effective Interventions decisions already taken have allowed Ministers to avoid decisions on 800 additional beds over the 5-year period to 2011; and given the current prison population is now at the level it was forecast to be at in 2011, does he concede that Effective Interventions seems to be failing to reduce the prison population?

Yes; and no.

💬 Simon Power: Will the Minister’s Government build another prison?

I can only paraphrase the Deputy Prime Minister and say that we will someday, yes.

💬 Hon Paul Swain: Is the Minister aware that National Party members, who were supposedly wanting to get tough on crime, were advising local communities on how to stop prisons being built in their local areas?

Yes, indeed I am, and I think it is just a further illustration of National’s—there is a word I cannot use—double standards, which we see daily in this House.

💬 Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm that the last three forecasts from his ministry have consistently underestimated the prison population, yet, unlike the previous two, the latest forecast was quietly posted on the ministry’s website without a press release from the Minister himself; and is that because he knew by the time the forecast was released that the actual numbers had already overtaken that forecast?

Yes; and no.

Police Operations—Complaints

5. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Police: Has she made any complaints over any aspect of police operations in the last week; if so, on what grounds?

No. There is a necessary separation between the Minister of Police and the Commissioner of Police over day-to-day policing decisions. This separation has been consistently upheld by the courts, and was the subject of an authoritative opinion by the then Solicitor-General in 1993. The constitutional principle of police operational independence is one that this Government is committed to uphold, and we look to other political parties to do likewise.

💬 Keith Locke: Will the Minister be seeking an explanation from the Commissioner of Police about raids such as one on Tuesday where a Tauranga pensioner’s home was raided in his absence—his window was broken, his door latch was smashed, and his belongings were strewn all around his house and his shed—yet no charges or explanation followed?

No, I will not be seeking an explanation of police actions in their operations. If any member of the public is dissatisfied with any action of the police, there is a proper and appropriate body for people to go to, to lay those complaints. It is not for the Minister of Police to troll through police operations and decide which bits are the good bits and which bits are not.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister’s answer mean that there is nothing the police could do that would lead her to seek an explanation from them or to make a comment to them; does this mean that she is quite satisfied that, by disrupting a workshop on yeast-free bread baking and seizing the computers and the underwear of the organisers of the very popular Ecoshow, under the Terrorism Suppression Act, the police are contributing to protecting the New Zealand public; if so, from what?

The New Zealand Police must act within the law. If the police did not act within the law, then this House and the Minister would be concerned. I do not know why the police would be looking at particular items; neither does that member. I suggest that those members breathe through the nose for a little longer, and allow the police to do their work and the proper institutions in this country to look at those actions, rather than rush to an opinion, which I do not believe is helping at all in terms of the debate over this issue.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: How does she believe it possible that the New Zealand public could have been protected, and from what, by the police seizure of the computer of a visiting Swedish banker, a keynote speaker at the Environment and Conservation Organisations show in Taupō yesterday?

I have no idea what is on any computer that has been seized. I suspect that the member does not, either. I believe she should not rush to judgment, but should wait until the proper processes have been gone through to see whether what the police did is correct. The member is making judgments without having all the facts. I do not believe that is helpful to the debate, at all. The member knows—because I have spoken to her—that the police were taking this very carefully. They were being very careful about what they did. They tried to follow through what was an operation of many, many months as carefully as possible, wanting to get to the bottom of what could be a very serious issue for this country.

Energy Strategy—Emissions Trading Scheme and Greenhouse Gases

6. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Is he satisfied that the analysis behind the emissions trading scheme and proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the New Zealand Energy Strategy is realistic?

Yes, I am. Work across these policy areas is well integrated. The emissions trading scheme has been reviewed by independent economics consultancy Infometrics Ltd and came up trumps. New Zealand has a competitive advantage in renewables, and the Labour-led Government is going to seize that opportunity.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why does the Energy Strategy provide for growth in electricity to 2025 of just 9 percent, or an annual growth of just 0.4 percent per year, when growth in the use of power has consistently grown at 2 percent per annum for the last 20 years, and when he is proposing hundreds of thousands of new electric cars?

I do not think the strategy does say that. It may say that for the next couple of years there is not expected to be a high rate of addition of capacity, but that could, of course, be because we have added a bit more than 500 megawatts of capacity this year, which is more than 3 years’ demand growth. I am advised that electricity demand is expected to increase by between 15 and 20 percent to 2025, equating to between 1.3 and 1.5 percent compounding growth per annum. This is lower than recent historical trends of up to 2 percent per annum, but that difference reflects the gains expected from efficiency as a consequence of the National Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy and the Electricity Commission’s expanded electricity efficiency work programme.

💬 Hon Marian Hobbs: Is the Minister confident that the domestic emissions reduction amount signalled in the independent Infometrics study can be realised?

Yes, absolutely. Without counting emission reductions from avoided deforestation, which will be substantial, and without counting reduction opportunities in agriculture from the likes of nitrification inhibitors, which will at least be significant and could also be substantial—even without taking those into account—the Infometrics model predicted a $25 per tonne of carbon dioxide scenario, which is a 25 percent drop in the country’s deficit. I also make the point that it ran its $25 per tonne scenario not as a prediction that that would be the figure, but because if it used any other lower figure—assumed price of carbon—it could not get any discernable effect on economic growth.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should New Zealanders believe the Minister’s reassurances that the Government’s latest energy efficiency strategy will achieve some dramatic drops in electricity use to 75 percent, as well as sufficient power for hundreds of thousands of electric cars, when his Government’s earlier 2001 strategy achieved less than a fifth of the gains it promised, and when it contributed to the 2002 bungle over New Zealand’s Kyoto balance and to the two power crises that were experienced earlier in the term of this Government?

The member is well aware that the main reason that electricity-related greenhouse gas emissions increased was as a consequence of Māui Gas running out and Huntly switching from gas to coal, thereby increasing emissions. In terms of my confidence as to New Zealand doing better in energy efficiency, I refer the member to the KEMA study that has been released this week on the website of the Electricity Commission. It shows, with the best cost-benefit analysis this country has ever had, that very affordable reductions in electricity usage are available in all sectors. Of course, the levy-making powers that the Electricity Commission now has, in addition to the extra funding that has been put into this through budgets through the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, mean that the projects that are necessary to bring forward those savings will, in fact, happen. On that last point, I note that requests for proposals on some very significant proposals are going out this week from the Electricity Commission.

💬 Peter Brown: Is the Minister aware that there are some real and genuine concerns in sectors of our society that the Energy Strategy announced by the Government will have an adverse effect on the exploration for gas and, possibly, oil; if that is the intention, will he confirm that; if not, what will he say to those people to allay their fears?

The first point I would make is in respect of the major exploration work that is expected in the next few years in the Great South Basin. None of that is occasioned by New Zealand demand. I spoke with the chief executives of two of the major oil companies involved down there before the tender rounds, and they confirmed to me that their interest is stimulated by the potential size of those resources for export markets, not for the New Zealand market. In respect of the New Zealand market for gas, it is an unavoidable reality that if we have more focus on renewables, we have less focus on thermal alternatives. It is two sides of the same coin. However, having said that, I point out that we will still have a dependence on gas in industry and in electricity generation to a significant extent for years to come. That, in itself, will be a market.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister satisfied that a realistic way of incentivising agriculture to reduce its emissions is to exempt it completely from any price on carbon until 2013 and rely on voluntary action, given the sector’s complete failure to get anywhere near the targets it agreed to with the Government in the 2004 memorandum of understanding?

A number of reasons are behind the Government’s proposed decision in respect of that, including a signed agreement with the industry that we thought we would be accused of breaching if we imposed a price-based measure before the end of 2012. However, I do not accept the proposition that there is no incentive on the agricultural sector to reduce its emissions in the meantime. The proposed level of allowance, or grandparenting of emission rights, on 1 January 2013 is 90 percent of 2005 emissions. If the emissions increase above 90 percent of 2005 emissions between now and then, the sector will be paying for them. So there is an incentive for the sector to start reducing its emissions from now.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How many Eveready batteries will New Zealand need to import to power the huge fleet of electric cars the Minister is proposing, when over the same period he is proposing reductions in per capita electricity use?

If the member cares to look at the information in the Energy Strategy, he will see that the time period over which electric vehicles are expected to enter the fleet is still some years away. The member seems to be of a party that says we should not try to do anything until it has already been done. On this side of the House we think that occasionally we should lead and give a bit of direction in areas that will obviously be in New Zealand’s economic interest. This is one of those areas. I have no doubt that history will prove us right.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How is it realistic for New Zealand to be a world leader in electric vehicles, when in March this year the Ministry of Transport advised: “The first generation of electric vehicles will have limited application to New Zealand.”, and when the only initiative in the strategy to achieve the goal of 1.4 million electric cars is to form an advisory committee?

Of course, the first generation of electric cars is already with us in the world, and it is obvious that they are not in New Zealand. So we are not relying upon that first generation of electric vehicles. We do already have some high-end fully electric vehicles in the sports car market. In addition to that, I say to the member that clever though the engineering students are at the University of Waikato to build a fully electric vehicle this year in New Zealand, I suggest that if they can do it now, then in the next few years the Japanese car industry might be able to too.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why should anyone believe his Government’s strategy for New Zealand to lead the world in new-car technologies, when the record of this Government is that our car fleet has got older every year over the last 8 years and is the dirtiest and the noisiest in the OECD and one of the least efficient; or has his Government become so desperate for re-election that it will say anything to anybody because it knows it will never have to implement it?

The member would have that status quo continue. We actually want to change it. The other point I would make is that New Zealand is not talking about pretending to be the developer of all this technology. We are just saying we want to be one of the first countries to widely deploy it, and in that we have some advantages. They include our low-cost electricity, our renewable electricity, and the fact that we do not have a domestic car industry based on internal combustion motor production to protect.

Public Transport—Auckland

7. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has she received on the improvement of public transport in Auckland?

I have received the 2006-07 annual report on the Auckland regional land transport strategy. It states that many achievements have been made possible from central and local government funding. Highlights of the report include the fact that a million passengers use the northern busway and the Albany park-and-ride; the opening of the Esmonde Road interchange; the construction and opening of eight new railway stations; and the completion of the upgrade of the Birkenhead ferry terminal, with work progressing on Bayswater and Beachhaven. All these projects show the progress being made due to the Government’s investment in partnership in Auckland’s public transport. That was not possible under a National Government, as National invested no more than around $40 million a year in public transport across the whole of New Zealand.

H V Ross Robertson: What legislation that the Minister has just introduced will further improve public transport in Auckland?

That is a very good question, because on Tuesday I introduced the Public Transport Management Bill, which will give the Auckland Regional Transport Authority new tools to improve public transport in Auckland, and I was pleased that the bill received unanimous cross-party support to go to the select committee. Today I tabled the Land Transport Management Amendment Bill 2007. This legislation, among other things, will allow regions to introduce a regional fuel tax if they want to. One of the things that it would be used for in Auckland is the electrification of its railway network. It will also enable us to be able to hypothecate, or dedicate, all fuel excise duties to the National Land Transport Fund—something the National Party talked about, said it might do, but never got round to doing.

💬 Peter Brown: Is the Minister in a position to advise when, she believes, sufficient numbers of people will be using public transport and the roads in Auckland will become much less congested—certainly in off-peak times—or does she believe that to achieve that, even with our current population, we will need to build more roads?

There is no doubt that a greater emphasis is being put on public transport today than ever has been before, but it will take a number of years before we have a sufficient number of people travelling on public transport. The great sadness, I suppose, for that member is that we would not have to have quite the same amount of congestion we have now if some emphasis had been put on public transport in the 9 years when National had the opportunity to do that, and maybe we would not have so much congestion if National had invested in roads as well, instead of starving and underfunding places like Auckland. We know that in transport there has to be a balance. There have to be roads for buses to travel on, and there have to be buses, trains, and ferries that are reliable, safe, and affordable. That is what we are committed to, in our land transport strategy, but all we have from the Opposition is the ability to hold up little bits of newspaper and make plaintive cries about what National might have done but never got round to doing.

Electoral Finance Bill—Refinements by Select Committee

8. CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (National) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Electoral Finance Bill that “the select committee process will add value by further refining the bill”; if so, what refinements was he referring to?

That is my view, but I would not presume to predetermine the specific outcome of a select committee’s consideration of the matters before it.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: Is it not the reality that the bill is incapable of refinement; and should the Minister not listen to the Human Rights Commission, which, like the New Zealand Law Society, said that the right thing to do is to withdraw the bill and completely rewrite it, or will he continue to toe the party line and defend this indefensible assault on freedom of speech?

I do not accept the first premise in the member’s statement—that the bill is indefensible. It is eminently defendable. It will be subject to refinement, as I said in the answer to the first question, and I am sure that that will help to improve what is already good legislation.

R Doug Woolerton: Is the Minister aware of the delaying tactics of Opposition parties at the Justice and Electoral Committee; if he is aware of that, would he agree with me that those delays are designed to postpone the introduction of the Electoral Finance Bill so that the National Party can run a costly billboard campaign during the early months of 2008, just as it did in 2005?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: No. The first part of the question is in order, but not the second.

Indeed, I think the member has it precisely right and, although as you point out, Madam Speaker, his assumption is beyond my ministerial responsibility, I am sure that it is correct.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: If the Minister will not withdraw the bill, will he ensure, after changes are made to the bill either by the select committee or by Supplementary Order Paper, that the bill is sent back to the select committee so that the public can make submissions and give evidence on what will be fundamentally different legislation from the current disaster, which he commended to the House at first reading?

That proposal, it seems to me, ignores the very fundamental role of a select committee. The member seems to be suggesting that we should call for public submissions, presumably listen to, take note of, and respond to them by way of potentially refining the bill, and then ignore that process and go back to start all over again. I understand that National members want to try any strategy at all to avoid actually having change made to legislation that they used to abuse the electoral system last time, with their friends, by means of multimillion-dollar rorts of the system. I am sorry, but this party will not support that sort of avoidance of fixing the rort-prone electoral law that we currently have.

R Doug Woolerton: Is the Minister aware that individual members of the Exclusive Brethren Church were the third-biggest spenders at the last election—outspending all political parties except National and Labour—if so, does he think that they should be brought under the sensible rules of New Zealand’s electoral law, just like the rest of us?

That is my understanding. I think that when one considers the wide range of expenditure that the Exclusive Brethren undertook—not only the million-dollar campaign that we are all aware of and the $350,000 pamphlet campaign that preceded it, but, of course, the phone canvassing and push-polling undertaken at the urging of various National MPs—which Mr Neville Simmons has recently admitted took place—to try to further undermine the electoral system in New Zealand.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: Will the public have an opportunity to comment and make submissions on the Supplementary Order Paper—yes, or no?

There is no Supplementary Order Paper for anyone to comment on.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: Has the Minister heard reports that this morning in the select committee the Human Rights Commission said it had considered the decision of the Supreme Court in Harper v Canada on which the Minister places so much reliance, but had decided that it was not worth mentioning because all it stood for was the principle of caps on third-party spending; and how does he reconcile that with his own comment last week that the Human Rights Commission had neglected to consider the case?

The Human Rights Commission made no reference to the case in its submission, as the member knows—I am sure he has read it—and it certainly did not seem to me to reflect any consideration of it. I say it is a bit rich to have National quoting endlessly the Human Rights Commission, when one considers that that is the party whose then PC eradicator, Dr Wayne Mapp, claimed that minorities had captured certain institutions in New Zealand and were telling people in New Zealand how to think. He said that the Human Rights Commission was one of those institutions, and that it should not have an advocacy role. It is very interesting that for once the National Party seems to place some credence in the Human Rights Commission’s view.

💬 Christopher Finlayson: Why is the Minister changing his mind on the $60,000 spending cap and changing his mind on the definition of an election advertisement, but will not change his mind on the most glaring omission—that being the lack of any measures in this bill to prevent his party from robbing the taxpayer of $800,000 to fund another pledge card?

As I indicated in my primary answer, I have not yet responded to the select committee’s consideration of these matters, because it has not yet reported. But as for stealing, the real attempted theft in 2005 was the National Party’s attempt to steal an election outcome.

💬 Simon Power: Has the Minister received any reports on whether New Zealand First has paid back the money it owes from the last election?

💬 Madam SPEAKER: As the member knows, the Minister has no ministerial responsibility for that matter.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Barely a day goes by when we do not have Government members asking every Minister for reports on all manner of things, and you have repeatedly said that it is perfectly in order to ask a Minister for a report. We are asking questions of the Minister of Justice, and he has responsibility for electoral law. One of the key breaches at the last election was that a number of parties used taxpayer allocations for campaigning, as found by the Auditor-General, and that is why the question from my colleague Simon Power as to the reports the Minister of Justice—who is responsible for electoral law—had received is perfectly in order. I simply ask for some consistency.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I understand the member’s argument. The fact remains, of course, that reports can be called for, but only reports on matters that are subject to ministerial responsibility. As the member knows, that is not a matter of this Minister’s responsibility.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it is.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, Dr Smith; it is not. Please be seated or you will leave the Chamber.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Mark Burton, the Minister of Justice, is responsible for electoral law. One of the key debates around electoral law is the use of taxpayers’ money, such as we saw on the pledge card at the last election. I cannot see how you can rule that a question specifically about that, and whether he had received reports on it, is somehow now deemed to be outside his jurisdiction, given the broad range of questions you have allowed on this issue.

💬 Madam SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for that matter. The Minister who is responsible for it is the Minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service, which is well known.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Just protecting the Government!

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Would the member who made that comment please leave the Chamber—the comment that the Speaker was protecting a member. That is totally unacceptable.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Protecting the Government.

Hon Dr Nick Smith withdrew from the Chamber.

💬 Rodney Hide: Does he agree with the Human Rights Commission in its submission this morning that his Electoral Finance Bill represents a dramatic assault on two fundamental human rights that New Zealanders cherish: freedom of expression, and the right of informed citizens to participate in the election process; if he does not agree with the commission, will he explain to the House why the Human Rights Commission is wrong in its submission?

No, I do not agree, because I think that alongside the provisions in the bill there is the opportunity for the select committee to look at those to ensure that if there are areas within it that need to be refined, that is done, and for the select committee to ensure that the purpose of the legislation is as well delivered as it can be. So I fundamentally disagree with the commission. The purpose of this legislation is to protect the right of participation of ordinary New Zealanders, and their right not to have their voices overwhelmed by those who have the capacity to spend large amounts of money.

Employment Relations Act—Workplace Stoppages

9. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour—Waitakere) to the Minister of Labour: What reports has she received on the number of workplace stoppages since the enactment of the Employment Relations Act 2000?

on behalf of the Minister of Labour: The Minister has recently received a departmental report comparing work stoppages under the Labour-led Government’s Employment Relations Act with the number under National’s Employment Contracts Act of the 1990s. It shows that the average rate of work stoppages has dropped by 21 percent under the Employment Relations Act, the average rate of working days lost has reduced by one-third, and wage losses have dropped by almost 50 percent. Those results do not even take into account the fact that there are 362,000 more New Zealanders employed today than there were under the previous National Government.

💬 Lynne Pillay: Has the Minister seen any other reports concerning the Employment Relations Act?

Yes, the Minister has seen two reports. The first states: “Under National, expect quite significant changes. There was nothing wrong with the Employment Contracts Act.” A second quote states: “Broadly speaking we weren’t planning to make major changes … we haven’t argued for some time that we would go … back to the Employment Contracts Act,”. Both of those conflicting statements unfortunately come from the Leader of the Opposition, John Key. Once again, we can see the billboards across the country demonstrating that Mr Key cannot hold one view for very long.

💬 Kate Wilkinson: Will the Minister also confirm that Statistics New Zealand has today released results that show that labour productivity growth since 2000 is about half what it was prior to Labour taking office—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: That’s because low-skilled people have been getting jobs, you silly member!

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Those sorts of comments lead to disorder. If the member does it again, he will be asked to leave the Chamber.

💬 Kate Wilkinson: Will the Minister also confirm that Statistics New Zealand has also today released results that show that labour productivity growth since 2000 is about half what it was prior to Labour taking office, and now puts us in the bottom quarter of the OECD in this area?

The member raises an interesting point, because, of course, the very high levels of unemployment in the 1990s did tend to concentrate productivity. There has been a massive increase in the number of people in employment, but most of them have come in through entry points that are low-skilled positions, and, of course, we end up with a lower level of productivity. As Mr Lockwood Smith would know, the challenge for all of us now is not just to get people into employment but to walk them up the training ladder, to walk them up the skills ladder, to walk them up the productivity ladder. That is the challenge before us.

Education, Minister—Statement on Delivery of Education

10. PAULA BENNETT (National) to the Minister of Education: Does he stand by his statement that “This Government is delivering a better education system”; if so, why?

Yes, and I thank the member for the opportunity to highlight some of the things that have taken place since 1999: 5,000 extra teachers in classrooms, an extra $4 billion, the introduction of 20 free hours’ education for 3 to 4-year-olds, the provision of laptops for every teacher, the provision of broadband access and free software licences for every school, the reduced number of students leaving school with no qualification, the introduction of the Modern Apprenticeships scheme, the dramatically increased funding for industry training, and significant rises in participation in tertiary education. Time means that I cannot go on any longer, but if any member wishes for an extension of time, can he or she please ask another question.

💬 Paula Bennett: If this Government is delivering a better education system, why do 9,600 students every year—according to the Minister’s report on the compulsory school sector in New Zealand—drop out of school with no qualification and without even the most basic literacy and numeracy skills?

In answer to the primary question, I was going to say that I am sure that the member is about to rise to point out that there is more work to be done in our system, and I fully agree with that. But I would say to the member that after nearly 9 years of a Labour-led Government, the results are there, they speak for themselves, and we hope to remain here to do more work in the future.

💬 Dianne Yates: How does the implementation of the National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) fit within the Government’s overall game of improving our education system; and what recent reports has he received on NCEA’s success?

The introduction of NCEA is one of the more important things that has happened over recent years to meet the needs of this century’s young learners. NCEA is designed to ensure we recognise what students can do and how well they can do it. It also helps us recognise where they need more help. It provides a greater level of detail, in other words, on student achievement, and, of course, it has been very strongly supported by employers. I have received a recent report that states that 90 percent of school principals support NCEA, and the majority of teachers and school trustees support it, as well. The report found that NCEA motivates low-achieving students to do better, and very few people have argued for a return to the old system.

💬 Dianne Yates: What reports has the Minister received on the number of students leaving school without any formal qualifications, and how are the policies of this Government actually encouraging students to stay at school longer?

The number of students leaving school with little or no formal attainment has halved between 1999 and 2006. As recent research has highlighted, the introduction of NCEA is helping to motivate students who were previously left behind. We have also introduced programmes such as Gateway, and more recently we have piloted a new Youth Apprenticeships programme, which will give students the opportunity to link their learning to real, on-the-job experience. There will always be more improvements to be made and I would join with the member in saying that we want to carry on doing that, and we are looking forward to doing so.

💬 Paula Bennett: Why will one of every three 15-year-old males and one of every four 15-year-old females not have even basic literacy and numeracy skills after 10 years in the education system, and why, to quote the Minister’s own report, will most of this group leave study after their first senior secondary year?

As the member will know, for achievement we compare very well with systems all around the world, but we share the same problem that all systems have, which is that we have some students who underachieve. That is the task before us. There has been massive improvement over the last 9 years, but, of course, we need to continue that. I say to the member that there is obviously a complex range of reasons why students underachieve. It may be to do with their health, family background, or school. But what we do know is that this Government is making a real difference.

💬 Allan Peachey: How has the learning of children in New Zealand school classrooms today been improved as a result of the reported $94 million salary blowout at the Ministry of Education, where the salaries of bureaucrats—not schoolteachers—have skyrocketed by 154 percent since 2002?

A former principal who gets the figures so stunningly wrong could perhaps take over from Lane Nichols at the Dominion Post. Lane Nichols, for example, says that 200 people have joined the staff at the Ministry of Education. The figure is actually 2,000—I know that a zero is easy to miss, but he missed it. Those people are special education staff, who have been brought under the Ministry of Education. As a result of their coming in, their wages have come in as well. It would be helpful to the member if he had a look at our website when he pops back to his office. He will see, for example, that the average salary of Ministry of Education staff has actually gone down. The number of people who are on over $100,000 is exactly the same as previously. The report in the paper—I am sorry to say—is totally wrong. It is a shame, because these are dedicated public servants doing a great job of serving this country, and they deserve better reporting than that.

💬 Allan Peachey: How far would that $94 million go towards addressing the problem coming out of the advice that the Minister gave to me in his answer to question for written answer No. 16928 (2007) that there is “a lack of trained reading recovery teachers willing to teach reading recovery in our lowest-decile schools”, and the advice that the Minister gave in his answer to question for written answer No. 15713 (2007) that, compared with 1999, there are now 4,000 fewer reading-recovery hours in our schools?

Once again, one of the things I would have hoped a person who has been in the education system would know is that schools choose the reading programme they want to use. People have made different kinds of decisions about how they will address issues of reading in their school. I go back to the point I made before, because the member did not seem to listen. He is still using the $94 million figure, as if I had confirmed it. I want to confirm for him and the House that the report is totally wrong. If he has a look at my website when he goes back to his office, he will see the real figures.

💬 Allan Peachey: I seek leave of the House to table the report stating there is a $94 million blowout in—

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

💬 Allan Peachey: I seek leave of the House to table the answer to question for written answer No. 16928 (2007).

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

💬 Allan Peachey: I seek leave of the House to table the answer to question for written answer No. 15713 (2007).

💬 Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Economic Impact

11. Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: What reports has he received on the likely economic impact of the emissions trading system?

I have recently received and released an independent report on the emissions trading scheme, prepared by the economic consultancy firm Infometrics. The report concludes that the macroeconomic impact of New Zealand’s complying with our international commitments around greenhouse gas emission reductions, as represented by a variety of indicators, is very small. This is consistent with previous reports indicating that the impact on the size of the New Zealand economy under the Kyoto Protocol over the first 5 years would be negligible.

💬 Dr Ashraf Choudhary: Will emissions trading reduce emissions?

Yes. The report also confirms this. Infometrics estimates that significant reductions in emissions will occur in New Zealand under an emissions trading regime. It estimates that during the first commitment period the emissions deficit would decrease from around 9 million tonnes per annum to about 6 million tonnes per annum. That figure—as was expressly stated in the report—is before taking into account avoided deforestation and cost-effective agricultural mitigation opportunities. The report also assessed the cost of reducing emissions through an emissions trading system, compared with the Government just going out and buying emission reductions offshore, and found that it was cheaper to do it through an emissions trading scheme. It also confirms our view that under a Labour-led Government the economy will continue to grow.

💬 Peter Brown: Noting that the emissions trading scheme will ultimately result in increased power prices—and there is already a lot of concern in society over the levels of current prices—can the Minister advise how far work has proceeded on the compensation package that has been proposed to assist low-paid people on fixed incomes?

We have said there will be two components to that package, an important part of which will actually be helping people to reduce their electricity consumption, rather than just paying them to consume the same amount at higher prices. We have said previously that our decisions on this package will be finalised before the emissions trading legislation is finalised.

Conservation, Department—Environment Court Case

12. Hon DAVID CARTER (National) to the Minister of Conservation: Did he support his department’s Environment Court case against the Bayly Trust; if so, why?

Yes; because Waikatea is a regionally significant mature kānuka forest and an important bird and reptile habitat.

Can the Minister confirm that the highly respected Bayly Trust volunteered to conserve 800 hectares of native bush, wanting to clear only 260 hectares of scrub, and why did that proposal not receive the Department of Conservation’s wholehearted support?

What I can confirm is that the Bayly Trust said it would do that, but it was not prepared to put it into a covenant. Taking the trust to the Environment Court meant that it was required to do so. It was a very positive environmental outcome.

💬 Russell Fairbrother: Why did the Department of Conservation appeal to the Environment Court the decision of the Wairoa District Council to consent to the Bayly Trust clearing the native kānuka forest?

The Department of Conservation has had a longstanding and well-known interest in the mature kānuka forest on the Waikatea block. The Department of Conservation met with the current landowners in 2004, prior to the purchase, to identify the conservation values on the block. It willingly entered mediation prior to the Environment Court hearing, seeking to protect areas of particular significance. The landowner walked away from those discussions. My department is satisfied with the outcome ordered by the Environment Court. Approximately 280 hectares of mature forest will be conserved, with a covenant on pest control and fencing to protect a further 800 hectares of restored indigenous vegetation. It is a pity that this outcome was not able to be secured without recourse to the Environment Court.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: How much has the department’s advocacy for the biodiversity values of the Waikatea kānuka forest saved taxpayers in terms of the carbon costs of deforestation?

Through the Department of Conservation’s advocacy, 280 hectares of mature kānuka forest will be conserved. As the forest existed prior to 1990, its clearance would have incurred a Kyoto Protocol liability that the taxpayer would have had to pay until the emissions trading scheme commenced. As the Greens co-leader Russel Norman has pointed out, that liability is estimated at approximately $2 million—a cost the taxpayer will now not be expected to shoulder, thanks to the Department of Conservation taking an active role in this matter.

Can the Minister confirm that in excess of $100,000 of taxpayer money was wasted by the Department of Conservation on this case, which was inevitably going to be thrown out by the Environment Court?

What I can confirm is that if the Department of Conservation had not appealed the case, the covenants the Bayly Trust said it would put in place—but did not—would not have been put in place. This land is now protected, thanks to the excellent work the Department of Conservation has done. The National Party may want to gut the Department of Conservation, but Labour, like most New Zealanders, supports the excellent work the department does.

💬 Anne Tolley: Will the Minister confirm that the Wairoa District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council defended this action for the Bayly Trust, as the regional council was so concerned about the impact that the Department of Conservation’s heavy-handed approach would have on the implementation of its regional plans?

What I can confirm is that when the Wairoa District Council gave its new consent, it did the paperwork properly and the covenants were put in.

How many briefings did the Minister himself receive on this issue prior to the Environment Court hearing; and why did he at no stage instruct his department to pull out because it was on a hiding to nothing?

I am delighted with the actions my department has taken. By the Department of Conservation involving itself in this process, we have now protected this land. If it had not done so, there would be no legal covenant to stop the whole lot being cleared.

If the Minister is so delighted with his department’s actions, will he instruct the department to reimburse the Bayly Trust, the Wairoa District Council, and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council for the costs they have incurred in having to take this matter to the Environment Court?

What I think the people of New Zealand should be very pleased about is that the Department of Conservation has saved the people $2 million because of the carbon credits we have. What I hope is that the Wairoa District Council will be a little less sloppy next time it does its paperwork.

What disciplinary action will be taken against the East Coast - Hawke’s Bay Conservator, Peter Williamson, who is pursuing a case that can only be called bullying tactics against a local community, including the council and the local landowner?

I confirm again that this Government endorses the work the Department of Conservation does in protecting our unique biodiversity, which is something most New Zealanders are really proud about. I know that the National Party would gut the advocacy role of the Department of Conservation, at our peril and to our cost.