Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “Notwithstanding the public consultation process, it is my expectation that the Government will act on at least some of these recommendations and make significant changes to Schedule 4.”?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes. The Prime Minister expects that at the end of the process, which will include public consultation, some areas of Crown land will be removed from schedule 4 and some areas may be added.

💬 Metiria Turei: Which mining consultation date does the Prime Minister stand by: Gerry Brownlee’s October 2009 date, their December 2009 date, their February 2010 date, or their March 2010 date?

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I guess I know which one I’d bet on.

I agree with the honourable Minister that probably the date ahead of us is the most likely one. The discussion document will be released shortly, and there will be plenty of opportunity to comment on it.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister saying he has no idea when his Government intends to release the public consultation document so that the public can know for sure which areas in schedule 4 he intends to be mined?

I can confirm that the consultation will not begin in November 2009 and it will not begin in February 2010. It will begin shortly, when the public discussion document is released.

💬 Metiria Turei: Which figure does the Prime Minister think is the most correct: his Government’s assertion that there is $140 billion of mineral wealth in New Zealand, the figure of $85 billion from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research, the World Bank’s figure of $14 billion, or Statistics New Zealand’s $6.5 billion of mineral wealth in New Zealand?

There is clearly a range of estimates about what that wealth should be. The Government has made clear its intention to go and look to see whether we can get a better idea about that.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific: which of those figures does he think is the most correct? He failed even to attempt to address that question.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. The Minister has given an indication of a spread of possibilities, and he has answered the question.

💬 Metiria Turei: Has the Government been misleading the public, then, on the value of mineral wealth in schedule 4 lands, given that the Minister cannot even affirm a particular figure?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am sorry; I could not hear the member. I ask the member to repeat the question. Members will please keep the noise level down, so that we can hear the question.

💬 Metiria Turei: Has his Government been misleading the public about the value of mineral wealth in schedule 4 lands, given that the Minister cannot affirm a single figure?

The answer to that, of course, is no. There is a range of estimates, and the Government will issue a discussion document where the opportunities for looking at schedule 4 will be publicly discussed. I understand that the member herself visited Oceana Gold a while ago, and I think she would agree that considerable wealth has come from that particular mine.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is it not incompetent of the Government even to consider moving Great Barrier Island out of schedule 4 for mining, when the Auckland district plan prevents, absolutely, any mining on the Hauraki Gulf islands, including Great Barrier Island?

The Government is not, of course, at the moment prejudging the public consultation process by getting into those kinds of detailed discussions. A document will be released shortly, and the member will have every opportunity to comment on it.

💬 Rahui Katene: What consultation has been undertaken already with iwi about Crown land, including some land administered by the Department of Conservation that has been returned to iwi and that might be under consideration in terms of the changes to schedule 4?

There is extensive consultation with iwi about all kinds of Crown land, and in more recent times there has been significant discussion with them about the use of conservation land. I cannot answer the question directly on an overlap between land returned to iwi and land that may be in schedule 4. But I say again the consultation document will provide all the information that any iwi will need if it wants to raise issues.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is it not correct that his Government’s schedule 4 mining policy is in complete disarray, because the Government does not know its dollars, does not know its dates, and does not know its law, and the public hate it?

No—the answer is no. In the context of the Government’s overall economic programme, which is designed to lift incomes and create new jobs, the Prime Minister signalled in his speech to Parliament at the beginning of the year that the Government would explore speculative opportunities around, for instance, the aquaculture industry, the better use of water storage in Canterbury, and expanding the mineral estate. The Government is setting out to do that. There will be a consultation document, with plenty of opportunity to discuss it. But the Government is quite firm in its desire to improve New Zealand’s economic prospects and to use the tools available to it to do that, rather than to sit around letting incomes drop, as the previous Government did, and hoping that everyone who is smart will get on a plane and go to Australia.

Auckland, Local Government Reform—Council-controlled Organisations

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement on the proposed council-controlled organisations for the new Auckland super-city “we like the structure …”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because the changes to the Auckland super-city will improve the coordination and delivery of services to ratepayers, and accountability. I am a bit surprised that the member seems surprised about the council-controlled organisations. Auckland city has had 40 council-controlled organisations, and these council-controlled organisations are being set up with a structure similar to that of those that were in place during the whole time that that member was in Government.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Why does the Prime Minister support a structure that Aucklanders from right across the political spectrum have condemned as removing democratic control and accountability from agencies that will be spending 75 percent of the Auckland Council’s—and the ratepayers’—money?

Many of those who have expressed an opinion have run councils with council-controlled organisations. All those 40 council-controlled organisations have been overseen by existing Auckland councils. They had an opportunity to present their views to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, which is fine-tuning the third Auckland governance bill. We await its report.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Why has he allowed the introduction of legislation setting up the Auckland Transport Agency, when all four key Government departments involved advised him in a Cabinet paper that they were against it because it would mean a lack of proper accountability to the Auckland Council and to the ratepayers of Auckland, whose money it will be spending?

The member may know that the changes in Auckland will take, currently, I think, nine transport organisations and turn them into one. He will be familiar with the operations of the Auckland Regional Transport Authority, which exists under the current structure, with appointed directors, its own statement of intent, and full public accountability. The member must explain why 40 council-controlled organisations were right in the past and a smaller number of them now are wrong.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a Cabinet committee paper that sets out that the four Government agencies that are involved in this process, which include Treasury, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry for the Environment, and the Ministry of Economic Development, all oppose the model that this Government has imposed on Auckland.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Why are the agencies being called council-controlled organisations, when the Auckland Transport Agency, for example, is not explicitly required in legislation to act in accordance with the requirements of its shareholder, the Auckland Council, when the council has no power to appoint its chair or its deputy chair, and when the council is not empowered to change the structure or to disestablish it—is that not an oxymoron?

I say to that member that if he was worried about the structure of council-controlled organisations, he had 9 long years in Government to fix it, and he never did.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very clear point of order. Precedents have been set, even in recent days, by Mr Speaker about Ministers starting replies to reasonable questions in a way that attacks the Opposition and does not address the question.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. It is a fair comment. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to come back to the question, and not to bring those sorts of innuendos into the answers.

The current structure of the new council-controlled organisations is very similar to that of the 40 council-controlled organisations that were in place during the term of the last Government. Of course, we have the opportunity to fine-tune the structure through the third Auckland governance bill, which is going through the select committee, but, in essence, these entities are controlled totally by the councils.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Why are the so-called council-controlled organisations able to hold their meetings in private, thus removing transparency and accountability to the ratepayers of Auckland, whom they are meant to be serving? Why are they not required to set out publicly what is in their agenda, or to publish their minutes?

Those requirements are exactly the same as the requirements that apply to the current 40 council-controlled organisations in Auckland, and to the council-controlled organisations that are operated by councils all around the country. I am a bit puzzled that the Opposition has now found out how council-controlled organisations work. Labour did not seem at all concerned about that when it used its influence when in Government to put Labour people on council-controlled organisations to get what it wanted.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the chair of Local Government New Zealand, Mayor Lawrence Yule, when he said, firstly, that there is a groundswell of opposition across Auckland to his Government’s legislation; secondly, that democracy is “fundamentally threatened”—I am using his words—by the changes; and, thirdly, that with control of three-quarters of Auckland’s assets being handed over to a few non-elected directors, Auckland ratepayers are deprived of accountability and transparency?

I think that where we agree is that the previous structure of 40 council-controlled organisations, with almost all of Auckland’s assets in the hands of a fragmented structure across eight councils, did not work very well. Even Auckland wants it changed. This measure is part of the process of change. In every case the council is free to appoint or dismiss any member of those council-controlled organisations, as has been the case for the last 15 or 20 years with council-controlled organisations all around the country.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, this is a relatively simple point of order. The question started with, and was all about, what the Prime Minister’s response is to Mr Yule. Mr Yule was not mentioned in the answer, and there was no response to the three points that had been made by Mr Yule.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I consider there was, but I must remind Ministers that when they are replying on behalf of someone else they must say they are replying on behalf of the Prime Minister, for example, instead of going directly to the answer.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter dated 12 March 2010 to mayors right across New Zealand from Lawrence Yule, the President of Local Government New Zealand, setting out all of the fundamental criticisms that I outlined in the question, and that the Deputy Prime Minister did not answer.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Will he respond to the growing mood in Auckland, as articulated by its community leaders of all political shades and by newspapers in Auckland, that Rodney Hide is not fit to guide these reforms of Auckland local governance, and will he act on their lack of confidence in Rodney Hide as Minister of Local Government by dismissing him; if not, why not?

No, absolutely not. The Minister of Local Government has overseen one of the largest and most complex changes in public policy in New Zealand. The thrust of those changes is broadly supported in Auckland and is widely supported throughout the rest of the country. I challenge that member to show me any other such large change that has gone as smoothly as this one.

Budget 2010—Effect on Economic Performance

3. to the Minister of Finance: How will the 2010 Budget improve New Zealand’s economic performance?

The Budget in 2010 will be another step towards turning round the bad performance of this economy under the appalling management of the previous Government. We need to move from a Government based on consuming too much and borrowing too much to an economy that is driven by investment, savings, and exports; and of course the Budget will continue to bring fiscal discipline to the significant waste of taxpayers’ money that occurred under the last administration.

💬 Amy Adams: What factors have been holding back growth that the Budget needs to address?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The imbalances that built up in this economy over the last decade are really quite extraordinary. For instance, in the 5 years to September 2009 the output of our food, beverage, and tobacco manufacturing sectors fell by 15 percent in real terms. Exports of services declined by 18 percent. In the same period, Government spending grew by 12 percent, and this is clearly unsustainable.

💬 Amy Adams: What have been the consequences for growth of those imbalances?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: These deep-set problems have meant that New Zealand’s economy started to wind down well before the global financial crisis. In fact, in the 3 years to September 2008, GDP grew by less than 1 percent per year. Because the population grew, per capita growth was negative between 2005 and 2008, at a time when the rest of the world was booming. That means that when the rest of the world was going ahead, New Zealand’s income per person actually dropped, and of course that is unsustainable.

💬 Amy Adams: How will stronger growth help families?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: We know that many families are paying the penalty for the mismanagement of this economy over the last 5 years, because they have lost their jobs and will have to work hard to find another one. Had the economy grown at the average rate of recent years, the average household would today be about $5,000 a year after tax better off. That is why growth matters to New Zealanders, because it provides new jobs and higher incomes.

“Three Strikes” Legislation—Minister’s Meetings with Department ofCorrections Staff

4. to the Minister of Corrections: How many meetings or briefings has she attended with corrections department officials in regard to the amended “three strikes” policy since it was announced?

Eight.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Was her Associate Minister of Corrections, Dr Pita Sharples, in attendance at any of those meetings; if not, why not, and if so, how many?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, because Minister Sharples has his own meetings with the Department of Corrections. I trust the Associate Minister to have his own meetings. In addition to that, Minister Sharples and I meet either every week or every fortnight, depending on our schedules.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why has she deliberately failed to consult with Dr Sharples as Associate Minister of Corrections or as co-leader of the Māori Party on this major policy issue, even though that is a direct breach of the confidence and supply agreement between the National Party and the Māori Party?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Perhaps the member did not hear my answer. Dr Sharples meets with the Department of Corrections every week, unless he changes the date, and he meets with me either every week or every fortnight, depending on our schedules.

💬 David Garrett: Is the Minister aware that since last November four more people have been killed by persons who would have been in jail—and thus unable to kill—had the “three strikes” legislation been in place at the time of the victims’ deaths?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would not be at all surprised if that were true. Unfortunately, there is a small but extremely difficult group of recidivist violent offenders who will benefit greatly from the “three strikes” law.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Considering that official advice on the amended “three strikes” legislation states that it will disproportionately affect Māori, does it concern her that her Associate Minister of Corrections, who has delegated responsibility for addressing Māori overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, responded to an Official Information Act request on 9 February 2010 by saying the following: “I can confirm that as the Associate Minister of Corrections I received no information prior to or following the announcement of the ‘three strikes’ policy by the National and ACT parties on 19 January 2010.”?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Dr Sharples has his own meetings with the Department of Corrections. I do not oversee them, because I trust him as the Associate Minister. In addition to that, I take offence at a comment that says that Māori need to be overrepresented when actually—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’s in your own policy papers.

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is not. It is not in my one; it relates to criminals. Yes, criminals will be overrepresented.

💬 Rahui Katene: What response has she made to Treasury advice warning against net-widening, cautioning that mandatory sentencing policies tend to expand over time, and signalling uncertainty about how the “three strikes” legislation would be used?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Treasury gives a lot of very good advice. I think that is just one of the pieces of advice that the Government has taken into account. The matter is before the Law and Order Committee, and, no doubt, the committee will come back with some recommendations.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she consider it problematic for the Associate Minister of Corrections to be “appalled” by the policy that the Department of Corrections is the co-lead agency on, and to describe the policy as “irrational and extreme”, as he did in a media release of 20 January 2010?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I am not at all appalled by Dr Sharples’ comments. I know that they are honestly held. However, I say to that member that the Department of Corrections is not the co-lead agency, and, as a member of the select committee dealing with the bill, he should know it. In fact, the lead agency is the New Zealand Police.

💬 Melissa Lee: What is the Government doing to rehabilitate offenders who have been sent to prison for serious offences, as well as for those who will be sentenced under the new policy?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It will be doing quite a lot. I have visited many prisons, and I have seen for myself the rehabilitation programmes that we have in place. They include alcohol and drug treatment units, prisoner employment training covering a wide range of industries and skills, specialist rehabilitative programmes, and units targeting particular offender groups. We are doubling the amount of drug and alcohol treatment available to prisoners under the National-led Government—something the previous Labour Government could never do.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response from the Hon Dr Pita Sharples dated 9 February 2010, in which he confirms that he “received no information prior to or following the announcement of the ‘three strikes’ policy by the National and ACT parties …”.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the CAB 100/2008/1 form for the amended “three strikes” policy Cabinet paper signed by Judith Collins, the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections, stating that the proposal had not been discussed, nor was there any intention—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is in respect of the answer to the primary question. I am not contesting the answer. In fact, I am very grateful to the Minister for answering it. She answered “Eight.” when I asked how many briefings she had. I am not contesting that answer. But I ask for—not today—a considered ruling by you—[Interruption]

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Points of order are heard in silence. The member Clayton Cosgrove has the floor. I am giving him the opportunity to state his point of order.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: My point is that on many occasions we have asked this Minister, and other Ministers, exactly the same question in written questions—how many briefings, how many visits, how many meetings, etc.—and the answer, particularly from this Minister, has been, basically, that she will not waste her time answering the question. Yet, when the same question or similar questions are put to her in the House, where there is public scrutiny, she quite rightly and properly answers them. I ask whether you could consider in writing whether we have to waste our time asking oral questions, when there should be some consistency. A Minister should answer written questions in the same fashion as he or she answers them in the House.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member for that. I will take advice on that matter, and I will get back to the member on it.

Roading—Waikato Expressway

5. to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Waikato Expressway road of national significance?

During the adjournment I was very pleased to attend the announcement in the member’s electorate of the $169 million funding package for the Te Rapa bypass. The Te Rapa section of the Waikato Expressway will provide better access to developing industrial areas in Hamilton and will reduce congestion around Te Rapa. Construction is expected to create up to 250 jobs directly, with many more downstream.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What progress has been made on the rest of the Waikato Expressway?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: With this announcement and other announcements to come, three sections of the Waikato Expressway will be under construction by next year: Te Rapa, Rangiriri, and Ngāruawāhia. The Huntly section is currently being designed, and the Hamilton section will commence design this year. The Government remains committed to achieving its goal of completing the outstanding 79 kilometres of the Waikato Expressway within 10 years.

💬 Sue Moroney: Is the Minister aware that today’s announcement on the Waikato Expressway simply reiterate the time frames already established under the previous Labour Government by Transit New Zealand in its forecast published back in 2007, and that today’s announcement is old news regurgitated to create the impression that he is making new progress on the Waikato Expressway?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is a very interesting statement to make. The interesting thing is that in the old days, of course, Transit liked to have plans, but the Government of the day would not front up with the money. In particular, the Government policy statement that the previous Government released prior to the election involved a reduction in State highway expenditure for building State highways, which we then turned round and increased so that the things could actually be built. This Government will be happy to stand on its record of construction on the Waikato Expressway, which is more than can be said for said for the previous Government over recent years.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What recent progress has been made on other roads of national significance?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am pleased to confirm that the New Zealand Transport Agency has begun the route investigation work for the Pūhoi to Wellsford section of State Highway 1. This route has the potential to transform the Northland economy by dramatically reducing travel times between the region and our largest economic powerhouse, Auckland. In addition, it will greatly improve safety along this dangerous stretch of highway by upgrading the road surface, improving intersections, and providing a median barrier.

💬 Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the Transit New Zealand State highway plan and forecast published in 2007, showing the Te Rapa bypass planned as announced today by the Minister.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Māori—Voice in Government Decision-making

6. to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement “Across many steps, the Māori voice is heard by the Government and is included in, and informs, decision making. The Minister believes that Māori need to be participants in decision making, not the recipients of it.”?

on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: Yes.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Got the “Brown” bit right, anyway. Is the fact that the Associate Minister of Corrections, who has delegated—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That comment is not necessary. If we want some order in the House, we will reserve those things for later.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Is the fact that the Associate Minister of Corrections, who has delegated responsibility for addressing Māori overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, did not receive any information about the amended “three strikes” policy prior to or following its announcement, an example of Māori being participants in, or recipients of, decision making?

As the Minister of Corrections informed the House earlier, the Minister of Maori Affairs has his own discussions with the Department of Corrections on these matters. Therefore, no flow of paper was necessary.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: How much did the Māori voice inform the Government’s decision to shut down Te Hurihanga youth offending programme, considering that the Associate Minister of Corrections, who has responsibility for addressing Māori overrepresentation in the criminal justice system, did not receive a single paper, briefing, or report on the matter?

Unlike the Labour Party and the previous Labour Government, the National-led Government—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I know what the member is going to say.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Do I need to say it? Shall I just say “ibid”?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: See whether I am right. That was a straightforward question from the member, and there is no need to bring political inference into it or to make a political statement in your opening comments.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I accept that, and I think it is important, it is also reasonable that a Minister answering a question deals with what might be a misconception by the person asking the question. Otherwise the person asking the question can corner a Minister into answering a question according to his or her own limited knowledge.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: These are debating points, and I ask the Minister to respond in a manner that is fitting to the occasion.

In the case that the member mentions, there was conversation with relevant iwi.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Does he consider that the Māori voice is being heard through his role as Associate Minister of Education with responsibility for all matters relating to kaupapa Māori education and work relating to wānanga, considering that he claimed he was not consulted on national standards or on the Government’s plans to scrap some tertiary courses and cut funding for some tertiary institutions?

This matter has been dealt with in the House before and cleared up by the Minister of Maori Affairs. I invite the Hon Shane Jones to look back through Hansard to get the clarification he seeks today.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Given that these policies will have a disastrous effect on the overrepresentation of Māori in our prisons—

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to be overly pedantic, but I think it is time that we started to require members to start questions with a question word, not the sort of emotive claptrap we just heard from the Hon Shane Jones.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. The member knows he must start with a question.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to refer you to Speaker’s rulings by Speaker the Hon Dr Smith in this Parliament, in which he has indicated that he is reverting to the practice of before the period of Mr Speaker Hunt. The word “given” has been allowed by him, as has been the practice in this House for all but about 5 years.

It is true that Speaker Lockwood Smith has allowed some questions to begin with the word “given”, but generally it refers to something that has been said earlier, not to the sort of highly emotive, political statement that Mr Jones just made.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you for that. Questions should not contain arguments or inferences that might cause offence. I ask the member to ask the question again.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: How can the Minister of Māori Affairs believe that he will remain effective, given the effect of these policies on the overrepresentation of Māori in our prisons—with 50 percent of our prison population being Māori males—and on student underachievement; and, given that he was not consulted by the Government on any of these policies, is this not a case of “three strikes and you’re out”?

Firstly, the door to the Cabinet room is always open to the Minister of Māori Affairs. He frequently attends Cabinet meetings on matters that are of concern to him, and that will be a matter of public record. Secondly, although those statistics for young Māori, and, indeed, Māori in prisons, are not acceptable, that has been a circumstance that existed and was exacerbated through the 9 years that that member supported a Government in this country that did nothing. When it comes to Māori educational attainment, of course the Minister wants to see education at a higher level of attainment by Māori, and he believes that his arrangements with the National-led Government will produce that result.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: I seek leave to table an Official Information Act response from Dr Pita Sharples confirming that he did not receive or produce any information as the Associate Minister of Corrections in relation to Te Hurihanga youth-offending programme.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is this a letter from Dr Sharples?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Yes.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: To whom? Is this in the public domain?

💬 Hon Shane Jones: It is an Official Information Act request.

💬 Hon Judith Collins: Can I just clarify a matter raised by that member. The Department of Corrections does not have responsibility for youth justice, so I just wonder whether—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, we are getting into arguments here that are not necessary. Because this document was released under the Official Information Act, leave can be sought for that. Leave can be sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Youth—Number Receiving Benefits

7. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the numbers of young people receiving benefits?

There are many reports. The recession has hit our young people the hardest. They make up around a third of those on the unemployment benefit. However, last month we saw a 6 percent fall in unemployment benefit numbers, with over half of those being young people. This is a small but significant step in the right direction.

💬 Chester Borrows: Where are young people getting into work?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: At this time of the year young people are benefiting from seasonal work opportunities. However, this year young people are picking up longer-term work in some of the hardest-hit areas. For example, in Auckland over 500 young people got into work—over double the number at this time last year. The number is over 200 in Wellington, over 160 in Canterbury, and over 180 in the southern region. In respect of Northland, which is an interesting case, just 17 young people found work in February last year; last month 77 did.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: How many young people have moved off benefits in the last month because they have returned to education, and if the Minister does not have an exact figure, is it more or fewer people than in previous years?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Of the young people who moved off the unemployment benefit—that is, not the unemployment benefit student hardship—20 percent went into study and 80 percent moved into work.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Can the Minister advise whether she will be supporting my Minimum Wage (Mitigation of Youth Unemployment) Amendment Bill, which would enable young Māori, who are currently suffering almost 40 percent unemployment, to earn, say, $400 a week rather than to receive $160 a week from taxpayers in welfare; or has the Minister joined the unions in arguing for existing members over young workers?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, we will not be supporting the bill, as we are not convinced it would reduce youth unemployment, plus it would be a distraction from the really important work of improving productivity and growing the economy in order to create long-term jobs, which will keep young people in New Zealand.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Release of Expanded Review

8. to the Minister of Conservation: When will she release the expanded review concerning mining in the conservation estate repeatedly referred to by the Prime Minister in his post-Cabinet conference of 15 March 2010 and reported by the media?

on behalf of the Minister of Conservation: Soon.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This might be one for your further consideration. I know that it is general practice for any Minister to be able to answer on behalf of any other Minister, but, generally, it has been the practice of Governments that where there is a conflict between portfolios, the Minister for one of the conflicting portfolios does not act for the Minister for the other conflicting portfolio. I ask you to consider that matter for a later report.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I will consider it, but at this stage the Government has the prerogative to determine who answers questions. I take the point on board.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is the Minister of Conservation reluctant to clarify the expanded terms of reference, which were repeatedly referred to by the Prime Minister on Monday, because they do not exist?

A joint paper from the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources will be released publicly. When Cabinet has finished its work on the paper, it will be put into the public domain for comment. Until that time I make no comment.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the expanded terms of reference, which no Minister seems to be willing to comment upon. I thought it would be appropriate to ask the Minister to actually answer the question that I had asked.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister is speaking—[Interruption] I am speaking. The Minister is speaking on behalf of another Minister and possibly does not have all that information. You asked a broad statement, and I am comfortable with his response.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is the real reason the Minister of Conservation cannot release the discussion document or the mythical revised terms of reference that the discussion document on opening up national parks in the Coromandel to mining was thought too hot to handle, and the Prime Minister wants to do further polling before taking his decision?

That question, if it was a question, was loaded with all sorts of supposition and innuendo, fell well short of Standing Order 372, and should have been knocked out. All I will tell the member is that a public discussion document is coming, and when it comes he will be one of the first to know about it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If a member believes that a question should have been knocked out because it was out of order, that member either takes a point of order at the time or leaves it; to do otherwise is a reflection on you, because it is your job to rule out questions.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. I accepted the question. The political innuendo that the member brought in was responded to in a way that I think was appropriate.

💬 Hon David Parker: How can New Zealanders have confidence that the Minister of Conservation will appropriately protect national parks and other schedule 4 areas, when it is clear that the principles behind the review are being made up on the fly?

That member has got it completely wrong. Questions loaded with that sort of supposition will not be treated seriously by anyone, let alone by this Minister.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why, then, will the Minister not answer my simple question as to when the revised terms of reference, referred to repeatedly by the Prime Minister on Monday, will be released?

That question was answered. It was answered by the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister, it was answered earlier this afternoon on behalf of the Minister of Conservation, and I answer it again: soon.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have the same problem. In response to questions about the terms of reference from the Greens and me today and yesterday, the Minister chooses to reply in respect of the discussion document. They are two different documents. He knows that and he should answer the question that was asked.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister indicated that there have been a number of similar responses to this—

💬 Hon David Parker: None of which answered it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member may not agree with what the Minister said. The question was about the release of the document, and the Minister twice answered “soon”. The Minister has responded with that time frame.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I have is about the use of the word “soon”. The question was on notice; it was not a supplementary question. The use of the word “soon” is not, I think, an acceptable answer—

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member—

💬 Dr Russel Norman: —in the light of the fact that the question was on notice.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Sit down; I am standing. It may not be acceptable from the member’s point of view, but “soon” reflects a time frame of shortly, or whenever that may happen. The Minister, remember, is answering the question on behalf of someone else, and I have accepted that answer.

💬 Hon George Hawkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you were talking, National backbenchers were yelling out “Sit down!”. I find that unworthy of them and not good parliamentary practice.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the member. Members know that when points of order are being raised, they are heard in silence.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you assist me? Could you help me with the definition of the word “soon”? Is it a week, or is it a month?

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: No. I am not entering into the debate. The Minister made a statement, I have accepted that statement, and that is the end of the matter.

Truancy—Survey

9. to the Minister of Education: What were the findings of the survey Attendance in New Zealand Schools in 2009, and what is the Government’s response?

The 2009 truancy survey results show that just over 30,000 students are truant from State and State-integrated schools on any given day. This Government has doubled the funding available to support schools to reduce truancy.

💬 Louise Upston: How did the results of this survey differ from those of the last truancy survey?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The last survey was taken in 2006, and it showed that up to 30,000 children—that is, 4.1 percent—of the 750,000 primary and high school pupils nationwide skipped school in the survey week. The 2009 figures show almost identical figures. These figures show that Labour did absolutely nothing to address this very serious issue. It even tried to hide the extent of the problem from New Zealand by cancelling the 2008 truancy survey. This Government is committed to reducing truancy and keeping our students engaged at school.

Education, National Standards—Alternatives

10. to the Minister of Education: What alternatives to the national standards approach, if any, did she consider before their introduction?

We did consider the approach from the previous Labour Government, which saw our literacy and numeracy achievements stagnate, and almost one in five students leave school without the skills they needed to succeed. We rejected that do-nothing approach in favour of national standards, which are overwhelmingly backed by parents around the country.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: What reports has she received on the progress made by students under the previous Government’s literacy strategy?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The primary question was extremely broad. I do not have those results with me; I had no way of knowing that they would be required. But I am happy, if the member wishes to put that in a written question, to answer it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she remember, from the briefings she has received, what the student gains in reading and writing were, under the literacy strategy of the previous Government?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My answer to that is that I am happy to answer such a detailed question in written form. I can remember the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study, which showed that our readers had not progressed in the last 10 years. That coincides with the previous Labour Government’s management of education.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she remember receiving a briefing that indicated that students’ gains in reading and writing under the previous Government’s literacy strategy were twice those that could be expected without the intervention, and that schools had accelerated the rate of progress for the majority of at-risk students by four times the expected rate?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, I did not read the Labour Party manifesto. But I do remember that it is very clear that almost one in five students—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question, right at the beginning, was whether the Minister could remember a briefing. The Labour Party manifesto is not a briefing, so I ask you to ask the Minister to at least start off by answering the question.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Minister said that she had not read Labour Party policy. She said that. If the member would like to ask the question again for clarification, I would be happy to accept that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she remember reading a briefing to her about the previous Government’s literacy strategy, which indicated that students’ gains in reading and writing were twice what could be expected without the intervention, and that schools had accelerated the rate of progress for the majority of at-risk students by four times the expected rate?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What I can remember is receiving many briefings outlining that nearly one in five New Zealand students is leaving school unable to read, write, or do maths at anywhere near the levels they need to in order to succeed.

💬 Nikki Kaye: What funding has the Government made available to support national standards?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government has provided $36 million of additional funding to support students and schools to meet the national standards. We will be announcing how we can make best use of that funding in the coming months. That funding is additional money that has been appropriated in Budget 2009. I have heard ludicrous suggestions from the education spokesperson for the Opposition that we should actually scrap that funding.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she read and understand the briefing to her as an incoming Minister that indicated that the previous Government’s literacy strategy resulted in student gains in reading and writing that were twice what could be expected without the intervention, and that schools accelerated the rate of progress for the majority of at-risk students by four times the expected rate? If she did read and understand that, why has she not invested more in that area, which has proven results, rather than the $62 million put into her national standards?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There was such a lot in that question. But, actually, New Zealand rejected that, not just me. New Zealand elected a Government that promised to introduce national standards so that every single child could read, write, and do maths when they left school. That is what the country voted for. No matter what the briefings say, no matter what the Opposition may say now, almost one in five children failed. They failed under the previous Government.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straightforward question about whether the Minister had considered her briefing as an incoming Minister before she made that decision. She did not address that question.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I believe that she did. She said that she had had many briefings, and then she went on to explain why the new Government has a different position to what the previous Government had even though there had been briefings.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the document that outlines the gains made under the previous strategy, which is the briefing to incoming Minister that the Minister appears not to have read and understood.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose, is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That document is already in the public domain. I released it.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: We have just ruled on that, so the matter is finished.

Screen Production Industry—Government Support

11. to the Minister for Economic Development: What support has this Government given to the development of a vibrant screen production industry in New Zealand?

The Government provides support to the screen production industry through the incentive of the Large Budget Screen Production Grant. The most notable film support this year was for the biggest-ever grossing movie, Avatar. The production spent over $300 million in New Zealand. After a robust audit process, it received a grant of around $45 million for the qualifying expenditure. This incentive keeps our industry competitive with other countries, and maintains a highly skilled and a highly technologically capable industry on our shores. I congratulate Weta Digital in Wellington on winning the Oscar for best visual effects for the movie. That is another win for a leading high-technology firm in New Zealand.

💬 Hekia Parata: What are the benefits for the wider economy from screen productions?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: A recent PricewaterhouseCoopers study on the economic impact of the film and television industry in 2009 found that the film and television industry contributed $2.5 billion to the New Zealand economy and contributes additional financial benefits to the country by enhancing international awareness of the New Zealand brand. Major benefits also accrue to our wider service economy through associated activities, like the provision of accommodation and hospitality. Screen production has continued to deliver strong economic support through the recession. I have come to know a lot more about this industry, and I think we are doing very well with the support we are giving it.

Aorangi School—Transition of Students to Other Primary Schools

12. to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied with the transition of the former students of Aorangi primary school to other primary schools; if so, why?

Yes; the Ministry of Education and local primary schools worked extremely hard to transition the students. The work was a credit to, in particular, the principals of the primary schools. I am advised that their very hard work means that the transition of the Aorangi School students has gone smoothly. In fact, I received an email a couple of weeks ago from one of the principals, who told me himself that the 50 students that he had from Aorangi School had all settled positively. He had received supportive emails, comments, and letters from families, all pleased with the way that these children had been welcomed at the school and complimenting the Ministry of Education staff, in particular those at the Christchurch office.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: When will Burnside Primary School be provided with a dedicated classroom for bilingual education, in light of the revelation today that it has had to resort to the use of the stage in the school hall in order to provide bilingual lessons?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Bilingual education is available, I am advised, at both Burnside Primary School and Cobham Intermediate School. There is a process happening at the moment—in fact, there is a meeting with whānau tonight—to discuss the establishment of a bilingual unit. There is a set process—and I advised on that at the end of last year—committed to establishing the unit. That is happening apart from the provision of bilingual education that is happening as we speak at Burnside Primary School and at Cobham Intermediate School.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why did the Minister choose to shut Aorangi School before the transitional arrangements for all the students had been made, especially in light of the statement of the Burnside Primary School principal that not having a separate classroom was placing stress on them all, and that was why he felt there had not been enough time allowed?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It was always very clear that the closure of Aorangi School was completely separate from establishing a bilingual unit for that part of Christchurch. I undertook to Ngāi Tahu in particular, who wanted input into the establishment of that unit, that there would be widespread consultation. In fact, Burnside Primary School has property space for 320 students, and it currently has a roll of 288. How a principal chooses to use school property is entirely his or her decision.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister agree with that principal’s statement that “Our tamariki deserve better in terms of what we have been able to deliver so far, in terms of teaching te reo.”, and will she apologise to this school, the teachers, the tamariki, and their whānau for not allowing sufficient time and resources for this transition to occur?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There was never a bilingual unit other than for primary children at Aorangi School, the same as there was at Burnside Primary School. We had an extension for 1 year for year 7 Aorangi School students, and I granted that at the beginning of last year. But I made it very clear during the closure of Aorangi School that there would need to be, and there would be, a consultation process in order to set up a bilingual unit that may or may not be put into Burnside Primary School and Cobham Intermediate School. That is why we consult. I know that this is an unusual concept for the Opposition, but we actually consult in order to get people’s points of view and we do not reach a decision before we take part in consultation.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. The first is from Burnside Primary School. It is a message sent home to parents, dated 23 February 2010, that raises concerns about ending up in the situation of not having the proper provision of bilingual education.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: The second document that I seek leave to table is another message sent home to parents last week. Unfortunately it is undated, so I cannot identify its content by date. It is the message that says tamariki deserve better than the school has been able to deliver so far, in terms of teaching te reo.

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is none.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 4 to Minister

In light of the Minister of Corrections’ denial that Māori will be disproportionately affected by the “three strikes” policy, I seek leave to table a Cabinet paper under the name and signature of the Minister of Police and Minister of Corrections that says the policy “is likely to have a disproportionate effect upon Māori.”

💬 Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.