Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Which, if any, of the seven key recommendations of the Child Poverty Action Group’s report Left Further Behind will the Government be implementing?

I would not implement that report any more readily than I would Labour’s so-called policies, but, then again, they are the same thing.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who said this week that there are likely to be 228,000 children living in poverty now, and is that more or fewer than when she became the Minister?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will not speak on behalf of the Prime Minister; the question was directed at me. I can say that we have more than 220,000 children who are in benefit-dependent households, and by any measure we take of poverty, that says that children of benefit recipients are often doing the worst in this country.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, or not?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Prime Minister is always right.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that the position of children is a lot worse than it was 3 years ago, and that the longer that children spend in poverty the more harm it does; if not, why not?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I struggle to agree with pretty much anything that is in the Child Poverty Action Group report; it is so political. In fact, I think it is so political that it could almost carry a Labour Party authorisation with it, quite frankly. I can give the member many examples of why I do not agree with the Child Poverty Action Group, and I struggle with that example.

💬 Hon Annette King: Given that the Prime Minister said this week “I am deeply concerned about every child in New Zealand who is in poverty.”, why has the Government waited 3 years to issue a green paper, which is to become a white paper that may or may not become policy sometime after the election, and which manages to mention the word “poverty” on one page in the entire document?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think this really is the key: while Labour pontificates on whether there are children in poverty and on which report says there are and which report says there are not, this side of the House is actually getting on with real solutions—like 100,000 households that have been insulated, like more money going into early childhood education, and like $43 million more in the last Budget going towards kids in State care. If we want to talk about vulnerable children, those are the children who need us most, and whom this side of the House is prepared to stand up for.

💬 Hon Annette King: Why does the Government believe that the interests of children have to be balanced with the interests of other New Zealanders, as the Prime Minister said, but has no hesitation in spending public money on bailing out South Canterbury Finance, the Rugby World Cup, and kiwifruit growers, to name but a few examples of the Government’s more important priorities?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government does concentrate on, and has a belief in, supporting those children. Quite frankly, the list of initiatives is so long that I would not be allowed to read it out. With the health initiatives around immunisation of those children, the rate has been lifted from 73 percent to 90 percent, which is extraordinary in helping those children. Extra assistance is going into child well-being. But what do we have from the other side? A knee-jerk reaction like calling for a new Minister for children. What would they do and what kind of budget would they have? I will be interested in hearing responses on that.

💬 Hon Annette King: Is she aware that one of the key recommendations from the Child Poverty Action Group’s report is to ensure training allowances to support sole parents to go into education, to enable them to move into employment, and will she reinstate the training incentive allowance; if not, why not?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think I have made it quite clear that I do not put merit on the Labour document that is the Child Poverty Action Group’s report, which, quite frankly, is just a rehash of old policies and of what Labour perhaps intends to do, depending on whether it changes its mind in the next few weeks. On the issue of those on benefits going into training, this Government is hugely supportive of that, and we stand by our record on it.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I come back to the member, it would have been quite helpful had the Minister mentioned something to do with the training incentive allowance. My hearing may have let me down, but I do not recollect that in the answer. The question asked whether the Minister would reinstate the training incentive allowance, but I do not think that that was even mentioned in the answer.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: With regard to the training incentive allowance, of course that has not been cut. We have simply changed the criteria to make sure that it is addressing the more than 50 percent of women, in particular, who are on the domestic purposes benefit and who have no educational attainment whatsoever, and to make sure that they are getting the priority they need and deserve.

💬 Hon Annette King: Could the Minister outline, then, what changes she did make to the training incentive allowance soon after she became the Minister, and did that include not allowing those on benefits to undertake tertiary training at a degree course level, which is the same training she managed to get under the training incentive allowance programme?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Talk about the politics of envy. Quite frankly, if that member was still running policies like she did 20 years ago, she would be selling State assets, because that is what she was doing 20 years ago. If we all went back to what was happening 20 years ago, it would be kind of ridiculous. The changes that were made to the training incentive allowance I have reiterated in this House many times. We changed the criteria so that its eligibility is around the level of achievement and for those attaining level 3 or under.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Maybe my hearing is not so good today, but I thought that in a previous answer the Minister said there had been no changes to the training incentive allowance?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What would perhaps have helped to get a more specific answer out of the Minister on the last supplementary question was if the question had not included a slightly challenging reference to the Minister’s own past life. That sort of question always leaves more latitude for a Minister in how he or she answers it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister explain to the House how the withdrawal of eligibility for a group of people to go towards a degree course is not a cut?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: There was a change in the criteria. Those women can still get tertiary level achievements. There are student loans for them, there is extra early childcare assistance, there is out-of-school care and recreation assistance for them, and, on top of that, there is an extra loan they can get that is interest-free. So no one is saying that they cannot go on to study at a tertiary level. There is a lot of Government support for that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister telling us that a group of women who previously got the training incentive allowance, and people in the same circumstances, are not eligible—that that is not a cut?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the first part of that question I say that the people who were receiving the training incentive allowance were able to continue receiving it. That was not actually taken away from them. But, yes, we changed the criteria of the training incentive allowance. I think everyone acknowledges that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister answered a question that I did not ask. I asked a question about women who were in the same circumstances as the women who received the allowance, not about the same women. That part of the question was not addressed.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister, in answering, said that in respect of women in the same circumstances the Government has changed the criteria—that is what I heard the Minister say—and therefore some women maybe not qualifying under those new criteria is the implication of that. Whether someone wishes to interpret that as a cut is up to a member, but I think the Minister did answer that question.

Child Poverty—Green Party’s Goal

2. to the Prime Minister: Why did he refuse to join with the Green Party to set a goal to bring 100,000 children out of poverty by 2014?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: It is because he does not agree with the Greens’ policy prescription.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree that children have the same needs for good food, warm clothes, and secure housing whether or not their parents are in paid work?

We certainly want to see all children doing well in this country, and we believe that the welfare system provides them with a base level of support so that they can get that. Probably where I disagree with the member is that paid work and welfare should be at the same rates.

💬 Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister refused to set a bold target to bring children out of poverty because he knows that most of the children in poverty live in benefit-reliant households, and that therefore bringing them out of poverty would require increasing benefit levels?

Actually, every day the Prime Minister and his Ministers work hard on behalf of those children and all New Zealanders in this country. But let me give an example of lifting children out of poverty: if we get people into work, that is the best way to get those children out of poverty. For example, in the 9 months to June this year there was a 24 percent increase in the number of people going off the domestic purposes benefit and into work. Those 5,374 sole parents had more than 8,300 children. Those children—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is very interesting information that the Minister is sharing with us, but the question was reasonably precise about whether the reason the Prime Minister would not support the Green Party’s goal was that it would mean paying higher levels of benefits. The Minister sort of started to answer it in that she started arguing what other things might be important, but it would be quite helpful to say something about the question asked. If the Minister has forgotten the question, I am very happy to get Metiria Turei to repeat it. Maybe it would be helpful if she did repeat the question.

💬 Metiria Turei: Has the Prime Minister refused to set a bold target to bring children out of poverty because he knows that most of the children in poverty live in benefit-reliant households, and, therefore, bringing them out of poverty would require increasing benefit levels?

My point was on behalf of the Prime Minister and was that the best way we can get those children out of poverty is to have them in households that are in paid work. For example, in the 9 months to June this year, 5,374 sole parents went off the benefit and into work. That meant that more than 8,300 children were in households that were in paid work and were more likely to be out of poverty.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You asked the Minister to address the issue of increasing benefit levels, which she once again did not do.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In fairness, I think the Minister in her answer was disagreeing with the member’s question. Rather than increasing benefit levels—in other words, she was disagreeing with that proposition—she was arguing that the best way to get children out of poverty was getting parents into work, which I think is a perfectly fair way, I think, to reply to the question.

💬 Metiria Turei: How are low-wage jobs a solution to poverty when for every five children living in poverty, two are living in working households—how are low-wage jobs a solution to that?

Because people are more likely to get into a higher-paid job by being in work, gaining skills, and actually being in that working environment.

💬 Metiria Turei: Would not extending Working for Families to beneficiary families, and raising the minimum wage for working families, be sufficient to bring 100,000 children out of poverty by 2014, and why does the Prime Minister consistently refuse to do it for those children who are most in need?

I choose to answer the first part of that question. There is currently a court case going on about Working for Families and the in-work tax credit, and I am not prepared to answer that question.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is the Prime Minister aware that in Australia children receive the same Government support regardless of whether their parents are in or out of work, and that the Australian minimum wage is about NZ$19.50 an hour; if so, has he considered that introducing those child-friendly policies in New Zealand might actually help with his failing goal of catching up with Australia?

Yes, the Prime Minister is aware of what Australia’s policy is.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister believe that caring for children at home is work, and valuable work, in this country?

I believe that being in the home with children and being in work with children—and I am not here to make that kind of judgment—is sometimes work and sometimes it is fun.

Economy—Reserve Bank Forecasts

3. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

This morning the Reserve Bank issued its Monetary Policy Statement, which held the official cash rate unchanged at 2.5 percent. The bank noted that the economy has performed more strongly this year than it forecast in its June statement, despite weaker growth among our trading partners. This reflects stronger terms of trade, providing stimulus to households and businesses, and rising consumer and business confidence. Overall, the bank expects real economic growth to average about 3 percent over the next 4 years, helped by the earthquake rebuild in Canterbury.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What is the Reserve Bank’s assessment of the global economic outlook?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The bank has said that “While the domestic economy has been surprisingly robust … global financial risks continue to intensify.” In particular, the economic outlook for New Zealand’s trading partners has deteriorated markedly since June. Revised data for the US shows that its recession was deeper than previously thought, and growth has slowed in the UK, Germany, and France. Despite these risks, export prices are expected to remain relatively high, supporting incomes and boosting GDP and job growth in New Zealand.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What steps has the Government taken to address the risks identified by the Reserve Bank?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The main risk identified by the Reserve Bank today was New Zealand’s vulnerability to the uncertainty and volatility around events in Europe. One of the most important steps that the Government has taken is to plan to reduce our vulnerability to foreign lenders. In that respect, turning round 2008 forecasts of never-ending Budget deficits and permanently rising debt was important. We expect now to be one of only a handful of developed countries heading back towards surplus over the next few years, at which point we will be able to start repaying debt.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Reserve Bank’s current forecast that growth will peak at 3.5 percent next year, compared with his Budget projection of above 4 percent, a sign that once again he has overpromised and under-delivered on economic growth?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The Reserve Bank has changed its expectations of the profile of growth, but has not really changed its expectations of the total amount of growth. It expects that with the problems in Europe and a downturn in our trading partners, we will have a slightly lower peak in growth in 2012-13. But it is not a serious shift.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: In that case, given that economic output per person is still 2 percent below where it was when he took office, despite the recession ending over 2 years ago, can he name another New Zealand Government that has a weaker record on economic growth than this one?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can name another New Zealand Government that wrecked—maybe without intending to, but it certainly wrecked—the economic engine of this economy, which is the export sector, and that was the previous Labour Government. Despite the best economic conditions in a generation, it left the economy in a mess, and it will take us a few years to clean it up.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a graph showing the economic growth record—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The source—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: —of successive New Zealand Governments—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The source of the document?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The Parliamentary Library.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Thank you. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Economic Growth—Factored into Consideration of Policy Options

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does the Government ask when considering policy options whether the policy will improve New Zealand’s growth prospects or make them worse; if not, why not?

Yes. Overall, that is a very important consideration, although I have to say that it is not the only factor that the Government considers.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: In light of the fact that between 2008 and 2011 extra Government spending consumed 98 percent of New Zealand’s $16 billion increase in nominal GDP, what factors led the Minister to undertake that increase in spending, and did he believe that that spending would improve economic prospects?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, that is a trend the Government is certainly planning to turn round. That process began in Budget 2011 and will continue. The Government is too big a proportion of the economy. The increase in Government spending was consistent with the Government’s policy objectives, which were to protect the most vulnerable through the recession, to continue to invest in front-line services, and to embark on a very significant infrastructure investment programme.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: How can businesses expect to survive when the Government swallows up just about all of any increased growth that takes place in the economy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the situation of a fairly significant global downturn and also a New Zealand economy that was distorted by rampant housing inflation and huge increases in Government spending, that is what actually happened. The Government has set out its plans to reverse that trend, because it is important in this economy that people and resources move to the tradable sector, where we can earn higher incomes by selling products to the rest of the world, and out of the non-tradable sector, which has been characterised over the last 10 years by excessive debt and very low productivity.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: What advice did the Government seek and receive on the impact on economic growth and on small businesses when it refused to reinstate youth rates, locking young people out of work and preventing businesses from hiring extra staff?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the last few years, that advice has been, I think, similar to the consensus that developed in the last 10 years that higher pay rates for young people would not affect their employment prospects. It has probably become a bit more apparent in the last couple of years that that advice maybe was not realistic.

Earthquakes, Canterbury—Consultation with Ngāi Tahu on Demolition Waste Dump

5. to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has he received about any discussions with Ngāi Tahu regarding the application from Ceres Environmental to establish an earthquake demolition waste dump in residential Papanui; and what was Ngāi Tahu’s response, if any?

I have not received any reports about any discussions with Ngāi Tahu in relation to this proposal. The Christchurch City Council and Environment Canterbury are the decision makers in relation to any resource consents needed for the proposal. An Order in Council under the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act provides for temporary storage of earthquake demolition waste, but it still requires the consent of both the city council and the regional council.

💬 Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware of the expected environmental impact of the site; and how appropriate is it that the proposed site is close to a school and residential properties?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In calling the Minister to answer, I do not want to deprive him of answering the question, but as he pointed out in his answer to the primary question, the Minister is not actually responsible for any decision with regard to where such a dump might go. However, recognising that fact, I am happy for the Minister to attempt to answer the question.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not have the details of the proposals. I expect the city council and the regional council would need to give consideration to issues of noise and potential dust, as well as to issues of any contamination of stormwater coming off such a site. I also expect that if any of the immediate communities, such as schools, were likely to be affected, the councils would consult those affected parties.

💬 Rahui Katene: What involvement will there be with Ngā Kaihautū Tikanga Taiao, the statutory advisory committee that has been established to advise the Environmental Protection Authority on matters relating to policy, process, and applications from a Māori perspective?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The advisory committee is for the Environmental Protection Authority. It deals only with very large, nationally significant consents. Although I do not have the detail of the specific consent before me, I would be highly surprised if it met the national significance tests of applications that go before the Environmental Protection Authority, so I would not expect it to have any role.

Fiscal Forecasts—Revision

6. to the Minister of Finance: Is it the Government’s intention to revise its fiscal forecasts and the timing of reaching fiscal surplus; if so, when will it do so?

As the member will know, there is an upcoming event called an election, and Treasury is obliged by law to independently update fiscal forecasts in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update, which must be released 20 to 30 working days before the election. That is where there will be a revised fiscal forecast.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update include a downward revision in the protected sales revenue from his proposed privatisation policy, given international equity market downturns and the higher cost of the plan, including forgone dividends and sales fees?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I simply do not know. Treasury prepares these forecasts independently.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update include higher costs of climate change policy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, it is up to Treasury to check whether the Government has made any decisions that would change the Budget forecasts on the emissions trading system. If no decisions have been made, then it will not incorporate any changes into the forecasts.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker, I do not believe that the Minister has addressed the question—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Yes, Mr Speaker, point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: With respect, the Minister answered the question perfectly. I think he said that if any Government decision had been made on climate change policy, Treasury would pick that up, and if a decision had not been made, Treasury would not.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The point of order is that he is the Minister responsible for the very policy he is delegating to Treasury—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the member had listened to an earlier answer—in fact, the answer to the primary question—the member would have detected the Minister saying that Treasury conducts an independent update of the fiscal and economic position. Therefore the Minister cannot tell with detail what Treasury is going to do. The law requires that.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Is it the Minister’s intention to advise Treasury of any changes in the area of climate change that might have fiscal implications for the Government’s Budget aggregates?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If there were any changes, I would be obliged by statute to advise it.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given the statement of the Governor of the Reserve Bank today that the high level of the New Zealand dollar is having a dampening impact on some parts of the tradable sector, does he continue to believe that New Zealand has the best monetary policy in the world; if so, why?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, the level of the currency is not the measure of whether the monetary policy framework is a sound one. In our view, the monetary policy framework is sound. We can debate endlessly subtle nuances and changes to that framework, but I doubt whether they would have any impact on the forces that are currently determining the level of the New Zealand dollar.

💬 Amy Adams: What have previous fiscal forecasts shown about the Government’s operating balance?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first set of forecasts I received from Treasury in late 2008 showed that a continuation of the previous Government’s policies would have resulted in deficits for ever, and debt increasing to 60 percent of GDP and never reducing. This would certainly have put us, by now, in the same kind of category as Greece, with probably the same kinds of problems.

💬 Amy Adams: What do the latest forecasts show about the operating balance and Government debt?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The latest forecasts show a considerable improvement. These were released in May with the Budget, and they show New Zealand getting back to surplus in 2014-15, rather than the endless deficits under the previous Government’s policies, and net debt peaking at below 30 percent of GDP instead of exceeding 60 percent of GDP. By 2015 we will have borrowed $40 billion less than we would have needed in order to continue Labour’s policies.

Crime Proceeds—Seizures

7. to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on the results of the legislation passed by this Government allowing the Police to seize the proceeds of crime?

I am very pleased to report that the Police have been highly successful in investigating and seizing assets funded by criminal activity since the passing of the enabling legislation in December 2009. Police are currently holding restraining orders over $40 million worth of assets, and a further $8 million has now been forfeited to the Crown. This Government is serious about confiscating the profits of crime and putting gangs out of business. I am advised that this Act is having a substantial and rising impact on organised crime and drug offending.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What is the range of assets that have been restrained by the police, and what other steps are being taken to boost their investigations further?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The assets restrained under the Act include five boats, 30 motorbikes, 74 other vehicles, one art collection, five commercial properties, six farms, 10 lifestyle blocks, 42 residential properties, and substantial holdings of cash and bank accounts. I am advised that the police have now struck memorandums of understanding with other Government agencies to enable the disclosure and sharing of information so that the legislation can be used to the maximum extent possible. These agencies include the Solicitor-General, the official assignee, and the Inland Revenue Department.

Housing New Zealand Corporation—Proposed Restructuring

8. to the Minister of Housing: Did Housing New Zealand take into account the statements made by Rt Hon John Key, when in Opposition, not to wholesale reorganise or restructure the public sector or reduce the number of frontline staff, when Housing New Zealand developed their plans for restructuring?

I require it only to take into account my annual letter of expectations as Minister of Housing, which I trust reflects John Key’s view as Prime Minister.

💬 Moana Mackey: Is he seriously saying that his changes to the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which it has confirmed—and which will result in front-line redundancies, the closure and downgrading of Housing New Zealand Corporation neighbourhood units, tenancy managers being made to work out of their cars, and the instruction to staff that they must no longer concern themselves with vulnerable tenants’ “wider social needs”—are not a major restructuring and will not result in the reduction of Housing New Zealand Corporation front-line staff?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The corporation is yet to make a decision, but if fewer staff are able to deliver more and better front-line services because they no longer paper-shuffle but are actually out in their cars visiting tenants, then I support the Housing New Zealand Corporation.

💬 Moana Mackey: If making tenancy managers work out of their cars is such an effective way of getting more out of them and serving their community, will he be advising his colleague Whangarei MP Phil Heatley to close his electorate office and have his staff work out of their cars so that they can better serve their communities?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I think part of the reason for the success of National MPs is that they do not hide in their offices. They are out and about in their cars, visiting their constituents.

💬 Moana Mackey: What is he doing about the rock-bottom morale amongst Housing New Zealand Corporation staff given the lack of consultation, the fact that they have already been told to stop attending to the social needs of tenants before any other protocols are put in place, and the speed of these changes, such as in the case of one young mum who was shocked to find out that she has been fired by the Housing New Zealand Corporation while she is on maternity leave?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am not aware of the member’s various allegations.

💬 Moana Mackey: Will he give an assurance to community housing organisations, who already see a marked increase in their workload thanks to the changes he has implemented, that they will be properly resourced to cope with the further additional workload that will fall on them, and will he at least have the decency to consult the community housing sector, given that he keeps saying it is the solution yet it has not been consulted and it has absolutely no idea what is going on?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The non-governmental community housing organisations I have spoken to have said to me that Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancy managers are not district nurses, are not parole officers, are not policemen, and are not mental health experts—they would prefer to do that work—and they have asked for Housing New Zealand Corporation staff to pass those concerns on to them. We say that, yes, Housing New Zealand Corporation staff will pass those concerns on to those specialist providers.

💬 Moana Mackey: Given that social housing in New Zealand is still recovering from the actions of the last National Government, which hocked off 13,000 State houses and carried out no modernisation whatsoever, why is he not carrying on the work of the last Labour Government, which spent 9 years trying to repair the damage, instead of firing front-line staff, reducing the housing stock, and now taking the “social” out of social housing; or is he simply trying to finish the job?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The previous Government—and this is well-known—left the State housing stock in a serious state of disrepair. Houses were old, cold, and mouldy, and where the rats and mice did not destroy Labour’s State houses, the gangs did—and it let them get away with that too.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has he read any of the evaluations of the community renewal project in Aranui, which has made a substantial difference in terms of the housing stock and in terms of providing the community itself with the foundation it needs for recovery after the massive earthquake, and a strengthened organisation in partnership with the Housing New Zealand Corporation, the city council, and central government?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Yes.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Renewable Energy and Forestry Investment

9. to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What reports has the Government received on the performance of the ETS and on trends in New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions?

Reports show that a reversal from deforestation to afforestation and a significant increase in renewable electricity, incentivised by the emissions trading scheme, have reduced New Zealand’s emissions for the first 2 consecutive years since 1990. Our emissions are 4 percent down on 2008 levels. This compares with a 23 percent increase in emissions during the period between 2000 and 2008. The report of the emissions trading scheme review panel led by the Hon David Caygill, released today, confirms the Government’s confidence in the emissions trading scheme as the most effective way for New Zealand to reduce emissions at least cost. The report also supports the 2009 changes in respect of industry allocations and recommends that no change be made to those provisions.

💬 Nikki Kaye: How has the electricity sector responded to the price signal of the emissions trading scheme, given that this sector has seen the largest increase in emissions—130 percent—since 1990?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Last year was the best for renewables in a decade, with 74 percent of generation being produced from hydro, wind and geothermal sources. In the last year, 1,340 megawatts of new renewable generation has been built—five times the level of the last average, when most of the new generation was, ironically, fossil fuelled. This shift is the product not just of the emissions trading scheme but also of the Government’s reforms to the Resource Management Act and the adoption of the National Policy Statement for Renewable Electricity Generation.

Women, Progress—Government Initiatives

10. to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: As we prepare to celebrate Suffrage Day, what improved outcomes for New Zealand women can she point to as a result of initiatives by her Government?

This Government has made a number of reforms that have led to improved outcomes for women. For example, we have made changes to our tax system that have seen the after-tax average wage increase 2 percent faster than inflation over the last year, and this has put money back into women’s pockets. We have also introduced police safety orders, which allow the police to remove an alleged violent person from the home for a period of up to 5 days. Over 5,000 of these orders have been issued since their introduction in July of last year, and over 80 percent of these orders have been issued to protect women.

💬 Carol Beaumont: What advice has she given the Prime Minister about his stated intention to “look closely at” the gender pay gap of 27.5 percent in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, or his commitment “to take action to deal with any pay discrimination” in response to a question about the significant pay gaps in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Treasury, the Ministry of Education, and Crown Law?

Far be it from me to give the Prime Minister any advice. I am sure that he is paying attention to that issue for himself. But I would point out that the gender pay gap has fallen from 13 percent in 2008 to 10.6 percent in 2010, and that is the lowest it has ever been.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Why has the Minister moved from a goal committed to over 22 years, supported by both National and Labour Governments, and promoted by many, including former National Prime Minister Jenny Shipley, of having women make up 50 percent of appointments to Government-appointed statutory boards, to a goal of 43 percent, as she stated when discussing this year’s women’s affairs estimates?

It is my understanding that this Government has maintained the previous level of about 40 percent of the appointments being women.

💬 Carol Beaumont: What specific action is she taking in light of the UN Women report In Pursuit of Justice: Progress of the World’s Women 2011-12, which states that New Zealand has the highest rates of physical and sexual violence against women in the OECD?

Can I refer the member back to the answer that I gave to the primary question. We introduced the police safety orders, of which there have been 5,000 issued since July of last year, and over 80 percent of those were issued to protect women.

💬 Carol Beaumont: Which of these changes affecting New Zealand women does she believe to be the most worthy of celebrating on Suffrage Day this year: scrapping the pay and employment equity unit; passing the fire-at-will bill, which disproportionately affects women; cutting successful family violence prevention programmes and creating uncertainty for the Girls’ Self Defence Project; or decreasing the number of women in leadership positions, as highlighted by the New Zealand Census of Women’s Participation 2010?

I would not agree with the premises of any of those suggestions, but I would point out that the Pay and Employment Equity Taskforce was established in 2004, with a 5-year plan of action. This Government, at the end of those 5 years, ended it.

Children, State Care—Support

11. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is the Government working to better protect and support our vulnerable children?

In Budget 2011 we put in $43.7 million to support children in State care, who are our most vulnerable. Part of the package ensures that all children who enter our care—around 2,200 in any given year—will be comprehensively assessed for their health and education needs. We know that, unfortunately, around 88 percent of children coming into State care have previously unidentified health issues, and 40 percent have a mental health disorder. The changes kicked in from 1 July, and so far we have had 136 children in our care be referred for, and go through, the gateway assessments.

💬 Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How else is this package supporting New Zealand children in State care?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Our policy change also included 20 hours’ early childhood education for children in State care who are aged between 18 months and 3 years—an investment of more than $11 million—to improve the outcomes for these children. I am delighted that already nearly 100 children have accessed this education, and that number is about a quarter of what we expect in any given year.

Pike River Mine—Approval for Second Exit

12. to the Minister of Labour: Did the Department of Labour Inspector Kevin Poynter sign off the Alimak raise and ventilation shaft as meeting minimum standards and adequate as a second egress from the Pike River mine on 12 August 2010; if so, why?

I am advised that the department is not aware of any such formal sign-off, but the matter raised is the subject of evidence before the royal commission of inquiry, which will no doubt make its determination accordingly.

💬 Kevin Hague: Is she aware that the Mines Rescue service audited the emergency exit involving the 55-metre sheer vertical ladder with a carrying capacity of just eight men, and found it to be extremely difficult to use, and impossible in a fire; that attempts to trial it as an exit, in ideal conditions, ended in failure; and that on the day of the disaster Daniel Rockhouse attempted to use this exit to escape but was forced to abandon it, just 10 metres up the ladder, because it was too physically demanding?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am aware and understand that there have been some criticisms in relation to that second access, but can I say that the matter of access is the subject of evidence before the royal commission. I think it would be wise if we waited for them to make their determination accordingly.

💬 Kevin Hague: If the emergency exit from a mine can meet minimum standards, as former mine manager Doug White has said on oath to the royal commission, yet be impossible to use, does it not suggest to the Minister, as it does to every other New Zealander, that those standards are in urgent need of reform?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am not prepared to speculate on the adequacy, or otherwise, of the second access, nor on safety issues, because these are matters for ongoing investigation. Indeed, they are the matter of evidence. Some of it has not been tested, and it certainly has not been determined as yet by the royal commission of inquiry.

💬 Kevin Hague: How does she think the families of miners must feel, knowing that miners go underground every day into mines where their safety is assured by regulations so bad that they allowed Pike River Coal to get away with an emergency exit that was impossible to use, and with a Government that refuses to take action to improve things until the royal commission reports?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I hope the families will consider that the Government is doing what it can to ensure that the royal commission of inquiry is as wide ranging as possible. The Government has conducted operational reviews. It has reviewed the safety of existing mines, and also there is an investigation pending under the Health and Safety in Employment Act. I am reluctant to go into too much detail for fear of pre-empting any of those outcomes, as I do not believe that is in the public interest.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Do the reports from the Pike River mine inquiry, which highlight the disconnect between the trained and knowledgable specialists, Mines Rescue, and those making the decisions about rescue, based in Wellington at her Department of Labour and Police National Headquarters, raise concerns with her, and will she remedy this flaw and ensure that in the future, decisions about mines rescue will be made by the specialists who are at the scene and best placed to make the decisions?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am not going to speculate or pre-empt what the determinations of the royal commission of inquiry will be. I can say we are watching it very, very carefully, and when those determinations are forthcoming we will certainly consider the matters very, very seriously.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Does the Minister accept that the deficiencies of the Pike River coalmine, such as telephones not working, no functioning safe emergency air, and a totally inadequate secondary emergency exit, highlight the inadequacy of the mines inspectorate, and does this give her the resolve to fix these deficiencies to make our mines safer?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: As I have said before, the safety issues at the Pike River mine are currently being considered by the royal commission of inquiry. They are also subject to criminal investigations by both the Department of Labour and the police, which may result in criminal charges. Given this, it is not in the public interest for me to comment on issues that are likely to be the subject of those investigations, by speculating about what may or may not have occurred, and what may or may not have been safe.

💬 Darien Fenton: Does the Minister agree with the comments made by mines inspectors, in the review of her department’s interaction with Pike River Coal, that workplace safety representatives really made much of a positive contribution, and that there was essentially nothing to be learnt from those who were actually doing the work underground in the mine?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: The report that we had, which gave recommendations on small mines, did indeed make recommendations on employee participation. It is the legal responsibility of the employer to keep the workplace safe, but it is also important that the whole workplace does have a culture of workplace safety, and that is the responsibility of both employers and employees.

Questions to Members

Question No. 1 to Member

Question postponed.