Questions for Oral Answer

3. to the Minister for the Environment: Does she stand by her statement that, “My preference will always be for all our sites to be safe for swimming”?

Yes.

💬 Eugenie Sage: If that is her preference, why is the Government not using the Resource Management Act to set clean water rules through national environmental standards?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: I would remind that member that, in fact, we are undertaking a considerable amount of Resource Management Act reform, amongst which is the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, which we have set up. We have the Land and Water Forum, which we established to give for the first time serious consideration to these issues, and we have indicated that the response to some of those recommendations will, indeed, form part of our Resource Management Act reform. But I would also point out to the member that at least our Government is getting on and dealing with these issues—something that the Labour Government, propped up by her party, failed to do for 9 years.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Given that her Government’s weak National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management gives councils until December 2030 to put in place water-quality limits, does she accept that water quality in New Zealand rivers will get worse, not better, while the Government sits on its hands?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: The member is right that the national policy statement gives councils until 2030 at the outside, but I am very pleased to report to that member that in actual fact a number of councils are taking very prompt action, and I am even more pleased to report to that member that it is only thanks to the actions of this Government that we have a national policy statement on fresh water at all. Furthermore, in actual fact, the recent report indicates that water quality has improved under this Government after taking over from the incompetence of the previous one.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Why will she not help those councils clean up our rivers by introducing national environmental standards so that there are consistent limits, rather than leaving it to each council to do it in an ad hoc way and set their own limits for their own waterways?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I am sure that the councils are delighted that the Government is putting nearly half a billion dollars over 20 years into assisting them with exactly that. It might interest that member to know that in the time this Government has been in office, we have spent $101 million on freshwater clean-up, which compares with a mere $17 million spent by the previous Government in its last 4 years in office.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a question about national environmental standards, which is a specific instrument under the Resource Management Act, and the Minister failed to address that at all.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: To assist the member, I invite Eugenie Sage to repeat her question, because she asked, if I recollect correctly, why certain things were not being done, and I do not think the Minister actually addressed that at all.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Why will the Minister not help councils to clean up our rivers by introducing national environmental standards with some consistent limits, rather than leaving it to each council to set its own water-quality limits in an ad hoc way?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, I remind the member that I answered—she asked how we are helping councils, and I gave her one very explicit example of how we are helping councils, which is funding them by $101 million over the last 4 years, compared with $17 million. But if the member wishes me to go on about the extensive actions of this Government on freshwater clean-up, I certainly can do so, and—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The Minister must resume her seat. I listened fairly carefully to the member’s question. She did not ask for that, at all. The member, if I recollect correctly, asked why the Government—

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: No.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me. When the member repeated her question, I believe she repeated the question she actually asked the first time round. I invite her to repeat it again, because she did not ask what councils were doing; she asked why the Government was not doing something different. The Minister is perfectly capable of explaining why the Government is choosing to do what it is doing, but I think the question should be answered.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Why will the Minister not help councils to clean up our rivers by introducing national environmental standards with some consistent limits, rather than leaving it up to each council to set its own limits for rivers in an ad hoc way?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, for the third time, we are assisting councils to help clean up their rivers, firstly, in the way that I have just indicated, and, secondly, we have a dedicated programme of experts and officials working on exactly the issue of limits of quality and quantity setting, which will help to guide that work.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: “Why will the Government not assist councils by introducing national environmental standards?”. That was the essence of the question. The Minister talked about many other measures, which is fine, but she did not address the question of why the Government will not introduce national environmental standards.

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: To introduce a national environmental standard, you first have to develop quality and quantity limits—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! The House will come to order. [Interruption] Order! Does someone want an early shower? That is not speaking to a point of order. That is actually answering the question. It would be very helpful if the Minister now actually did answer the question, because that was exactly what the question was asking—exactly what the question was asking. But it is not a point of order. It actually should be the answer to the question.

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Before a national environmental standard could be introduced, we would need to develop a system of quality and quantity limits. As I mentioned in my previous attempt at answering your question, that is what we are working on. Whether it leads to a national environmental standard or to other forms of assistance to councils has yet to be determined.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I call Eugenie Sage. [Interruption] Order! Eugenie Sage.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Is she aware that the Marlborough District Council is today considering whether to “take the opportunity provided by the national policy statement on freshwater management to delay the introduction of cumulative contaminant limits” for rivers until at least 2023-24, and that that means rivers like the Rai and Taylor Rivers will remain at high risk of illness for anyone swimming in them?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: No, I was not aware of that specifically, but that is a matter for the Marlborough District Council and that community. But I would point out that under the time that the Labour and Green Government was in charge there was no requirement on councils to have any sort of limit.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: What steps has the Government taken to improve the swimmability and quality of fresh water?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: The Government has taken extensive steps to improve the safety, quality, and swimmability of our water, and a number of them have already been mentioned today, but I will repeat them for the benefit of members. We have introduced New Zealand’s first ever national policy statement on fresh water, and we have established the Land and Water Forum, bringing together all the key stakeholders in water management for the first time, and allowing a real, collaborative approach to water management. We have committed to continuing with a 20-year investment of half a billion dollars in cleaning up our polluted water sites. We have spent more than five times what the previous Labour Government, propped up by the Greens, did in its last years in office. We have assisted the industry in refreshing the Dairying and Clean Streams Accord. We have put another $15 million—[Interruption]; well, Mr Speaker, there is so much—into the Fresh Start for Fresh Water Clean-up Fund, and we have established a dedicated group to work on water quality and quantity issues. This is a Government that is actually doing something about fresh water.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Given that 52 percent of our monitored rivers are unsuitable for swimming and another 28 percent are graded only fair, why is the Government planning to spend more money on irrigation subsidies than on clean water clean-up?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: That is the usual sort of confusion of information. The report the member refers to, first of all, reports only on the monitored sites, and the report makes it very clear that it is not a useful indicator for the state of freshwater bodies in New Zealand. It makes it clear that they monitor only the sites they have concerns about. The other interesting thing is that because of the change in methodology, you cannot directly compare. But what it actually shows is that there has been an improvement in our freshwater lakes and rivers. Having said all of that, we are not happy that quite a number of rivers are unsafe for swimming. That is why we are taking all the actions I previously outlined to address it. But the other thing is that it is not right or fair to land this fully at the feet of the farmers. Livestock is one of the issues, as is human waste, as is wildlife, and as is water fowl. All of them must be addressed.

💬 Eugenie Sage: Was the Minister for Primary Industries correct, then, when he stated: “We need to acknowledge that intensive agriculture has environmental impacts. In some catchments we need to limit those impacts …”; if so, will she not take real action to protect our rivers by introducing national environmental standards now?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Yes, I do agree with the Minister for Primary Industries that intensive agriculture has an impact, or is capable of having an impact, and that we have to address it. We are, in fact, addressing it. The issue around national environmental standards I answered previously. We have a dedicated group working on how we might go about assisting councils with quality and quantity limits, and where that gets to we will know in time.

💬 Eugenie Sage: What does she say to the children and families who want to go swimming at Coes Ford or the Upper Selwyn huts on the Selwyn/Waikirikiri River in her electorate but who cannot do that because those once popular swimming spots are graded poor and very poor respectively and are unsuitable for swimming, with no prospect of that improving any time soon?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: What I would say to those people is that the quality issues we have with some of our water bodies have taken an awfully long time to come to be. They will take even longer to fix, and at least now we have a Government in place that is doing something about it.

Dotcom Case—Discussion on Unlawful Interception of Communications

4. to the Attorney-General: Who, other than himself and the Prime Minister, was present at the discussion on the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?

I have actually had a number of discussions with the Prime Minister about the Government Communications Security Bureau matter, some in person and some on the phone. I cannot recall who was or was not at each and every discussion I have had with the Prime Minister in person.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Has the Prime Minister asked him which other Ministers were present when they discussed the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom? To assist the Attorney-General, I am referring to the particular meeting that has been the subject of questions to the Prime Minister throughout the week.

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Has he checked with his office staff whether they recall which other Ministers were present when he discussed the bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom with the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I have said, there have been a number of meetings and also a number of telephone calls. There was also a telephone—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked the Minister as to who was present at the discussion. Including telephone calls does not allow him to escape in that way. He must answer who was present, which was the direct question.

💬 Charles Chauvel: I did attempt to clarify for the Attorney-General in the first supplementary question which conversation I was referring to, and that is the conversation that I am asking about.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: When I read the primary question my first reaction to the primary question was, “Well, which discussion?”. The Attorney-General pointed out in answering the question that he had had more than one discussion, some face to face and some on the telephone. Forgive me, but, despite one member’s interpretation, this question does not rule out telephone discussions. It refers to just discussion. I cannot say to a member that, actually, the questioner meant that meeting or that discussion. The question is on the Order Paper, and, despite trying to identify which discussion, the member has not identified any particular date. [Interruption] Just before you—[Interruption] Order! The member may not have noticed—I know I am not that tall—but I was still on my feet and I have not recognised the right honourable gentleman yet.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: More than one person in this House, I am certain, understands the words “was present at the discussion” as being a person who was present, not on the phone—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can I finish off my point of order?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the member cannot. [Interruption] The member cannot, because it is not a point of order. Points of order must relate to the proceedings of the House—not arguing about what the primary question means. That is not a point of order. That is a matter for the Minister to interpret—what that question means—and I have ruled that it is not that clear what it means. That is the end of the matter. There cannot be argument about that by way of point of order. The member should know that.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister remember what was discussed precisely at the initial meeting that he had with the Prime Minister concerning the bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Did the Minister hear the question?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes. Yes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The answer is yes.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Can he inform the House what those matters were?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes. The director of the Government Communications Security Bureau had informed the Prime Minister of the question of illegality, and then the Prime Minister contacted me to report the contents of that conversation.

💬 Charles Chauvel: On what date did this first discussion between him and the Prime Minister occur concerning the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It was in the week prior to the Prime Minister saying on, I believe, 24 September that there was this issue of illegality. I cannot recall precisely exactly when it was. I was certainly with the Prime Minister visiting the Chatham Islands, in the marginal seat of Rongotai, so I do not think—

💬 Hon Annette King: Dream on!

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, look at the party vote, “Your Worship”. The actual conversation could have been on the afternoon of the Friday when we returned from the marginal seat.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Who, other than him and the Prime Minister, was physically—that means at the same place; not somewhere else on the planet but at the same place—present at the first discussion on the Government Communications Security Bureau’s unlawful surveillance of Mr Dotcom?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The question is vague. When I was present, I think the Prime Minister and I would have been present at that particular meeting, and I do not think anyone else was present at that meeting.

Canterbury, Recovery—Employment Opportunities

5. to the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: What reports has he received on the outlook for increased employment opportunities in the rebuilding of Greater Christchurch?

I have seen a number of reports that indicate excellent employment opportunities for those seeking work in Canterbury. TradeMe reports a 43.7 percent increase in job listings on the same quarter last year. Today over 2,000 jobs are listed for Christchurch on TradeMe. The ANZ Job Ads index, released today, said that Canterbury newspaper ads rose 5.9 percent this month alone. The Jobs Online skilled vacancies index was up 24 percent on September of last year. In January there were 5,185 people on the unemployment benefit in Christchurch. In September that number was down to 3,131. In addition, construction companies are gearing up to employ more people as insurers bring more work to their operations. That increased employment will also stimulate the secondary employment market. The opportunities are going to increase as the rebuild gains momentum.

💬 Nicky Wagner: What support is the Government giving to maximise the employment opportunities in Christchurch?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Recently the Government announced the establishment of a new Canterbury Skills and Employment Hub. This will be a one-stop shop for employers to list vacancies, to recruit from Work and Income, or to recruit from the various building and rebuilding training programmes that are operating in the city. The skills hub was funded from a $42 million fund that has been set aside for additional training places, as part of a comprehensive cross-agency response to meet additional demands for labour for the reconstruction, under the name Skills For Canterbury. We are taking steps to make it easier to provide good quality temporary accommodation for workers as well, and the largely Government-funded Stronger Christchurch Infrastructure Rebuild Team is looking for another 1,000 employees to repair horizontal infrastructure. In addition, the central business district blueprint, very heavily supported by the Government, has created interest in private sector players around the world, who are looking to invest. That will bring significant new employment.

💬 Nicky Wagner: What predictions has he seen for continued increased employment opportunities created by the Canterbury rebuild?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Modelling has been undertaken that suggests that perhaps an additional 15,000 employees will be needed in the construction workforce when the rebuild peaks. These estimates are going to vary according to a number of factors that are used in that modelling, but all point to very significant employment opportunities in Canterbury, and that will be attractive for job seekers throughout New Zealand. These predictions are in stark contrast to those of the Labour Party, with its predictions of massive job losses, wholesale exodus from the city—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, order! The Minister is not responsible for the Labour Party.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: When was he first advised that Canterbury employers are not taking on apprentices due to workflow problems, even though the funding and places have been put there by the Government, and when will he address this so that young Canterbury people can play a part in their own recovery?

💬 Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think that is a highly emotive sort of question backed by very thin fact. The reality is that job prospects in Canterbury for young people are better than anywhere else in the country, and there is little doubt that the money that we have put forward—a total of $43 million that will go towards that training—will see young people taking up those opportunities. Unlike Labour, the Government of today does not think the Government has to do—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was lot of noise at the beginning of my question. My question was “When was he first advised?”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister obviously disputed the content of the member’s question, and that is my dilemma in asking him to answer further. There are further supplementary questions if the member wishes to pursue that particular issue, because her question went on to include other information that the Minister then disputed.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was “When was he first advised that Canterbury employers were not taking on apprentices due to workflow issues, even though the funding and places were there?”. The issue that I guess he went on to respond to was what that would mean regarding young Canterbury apprentices having a chance to have a place in the rebuild, but the primary question—“When was he first advised?”—the Minister did not even attempt to address.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a lesson that if a member wants a question answered, to keep it to the point. I do not think I can ask the Minister to go back and answer that first part of the question, reasonable though it might have been, because the member included more material in the question than was necessary, and because the rest of the stuff was opinion-type information.

Prime Minister—Quality of Answers

This question is to the Prime Minister and asks “Does he think it is important that his Ministers, including himself, come to the House prepared to honestly answer questions?”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is a smidgen different from the wording here. I am not sure whether it is material—it is not hugely different—but the wording here is slightly different. It is quite an important question and I think it should be as on notice.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Could I just say I have had a quick check here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It was the last two words. It was not that material. The question on notice says “prepared to give honest answers”, not “honestly answer questions”.

💬 Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS: Yes, you are correct. I was just going from the primary question from my office staff, and they have given me the wrong question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I call the right honourable member.

6. to the Prime Minister: Does he think it is important that his Ministers, including himself, come to the House prepared to give honest answers?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: [Interruption] Yes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is a serious issue.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can he give that answer—that the answer is “Yes”—when he has set the standard so low by giving inaccurate information to the House on multiple occasions this year, despite being fully briefed, for example, when he told the House that the first the Government Communications Security Bureau briefed him on Dotcom was on 17 September this year, despite a February briefing, or when he gave two conflicting dates for when he first learnt of the non-disclosure certificate having been signed by his Deputy Prime Minister?

Every effort is made to honestly answer questions, and when there are mistakes noted, they are brought to the House’s attention, as has been the case in each of those ones the member speaks of.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How does he explain the discrepancy between his written answer to my question on 7 May asking about meetings with the Hon Simon Power in the period between 7 April and 23 July 2011, in which he stated: “There is no record of what was discussed … and I have no recollection …”, and the answer he gave to a supplementary question in the House yesterday, claiming that the honourable Minister did not raise the issue of Kim Dotcom with him at the meeting on 13 June?

Because that is the case.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, then, what is it? That his answer to my question on 7 May, in which he said that there was no record and no recollection of the 13 June meeting with Mr Power, is true, or the answer he gave yesterday to the effect that Kim Dotcom was not raised at the 13 June meeting by Simon Power, because logically both answers cannot be true; or is it that both answers are false?

No.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. No what? I am asking him: if the first answer is true and the second one is true, that cannot be; well, they are both false if he says no.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will be aware that with supplementary questions a Minister is obliged to answer only one part of the question. The final part of the member’s question was “are both answers false”, and the Minister answered “No.”, which is a perfectly legitimate answer.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I see. It appears anything goes. Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has given false information to the House on multiple occasions this year—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is quite an important subtlety involved here. The member has now just accused the Prime Minister of giving false information to the House. [Interruption] No, order! The member can question about the accuracy of information. I have allowed some fairly robust words to be used, as was the case even in the primary question. It talked about the requirement to give honest answers. But I think it is going one step too far to accuse another member of giving false information. I am sure the member can word his question just to avoid that direct accusation in a way that is acceptable.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why on earth should I, when the Prime Minister has apologised twice in this House, and he is coming again with another apology for having given information to the House that was not true—the opposite being false. I am not going to be restrained by that sort of dialectic argument.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think I will accept the member’s point on the basis that information that is not correct can be defined as false. I accept the member’s point.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Bearing in mind that the Prime Minister has given false information to the House on multiple occasions this year, despite being fully briefed, such as the first time the Government Communications Security Bureau briefed him on Dotcom, or the certificate to do with the Deputy Prime Minister, or yesterday that there was no record and no recollection yet he could tell me that Simon Power did not speak about it; bearing all that in mind, why does he not apply the same standard that he applies to other Ministers to himself, and step down to avoid what will be most certainly, inevitably, future deepening embarrassment to him and his colleagues?

I think the proposition put by the member is quite ridiculous. If you just take the situation with the so-called meeting with Mr Power, quite clearly he had no recollection when he answered your question, and upon checking he was able to confirm that—simple.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. But the Prime Minister told us there was no record. How can he check with no record?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I say to the Leader of the House I am on my feet. The member cannot dispute the answer by way of point of order. The Minister has given his answer. The question contained a number of assertions, and the Minister in answering them said they were ridiculous. He is at liberty to do that in answering a question.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of the Prime Minister’s answers, does he stand by his statement to TV3 last night that he voted for the purchase age of alcohol to be 20 years old; if so, has he corrected the record of Parliament that says that Mr Key voted for the age to be 18 years of age?

That vote was for the split age.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, I seek leave of the House to table the personal vote record for the purchase age vote on the Alcohol Reform Bill that indicates a vote of 18 years from Mr Key.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the member has made his point, but we do not table stuff that is actually in the Journals.

Youth Minimum Wage—Eligibility

7. to the Minister of Labour: How will employers know whether a job applicant aged 18 or 19 has been receiving a benefit for 6 months or more in order to pay the Government’s starting-out wage?

on behalf of the Minister of Labour: I am advised that eligibility will be a matter for discussion between the job seeker and the potential employer.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to be unhelpful to the Minister, but there was total silence in the House then, and I know that you and I were both straining to hear the Minister. Could we ask him just to speak up a little and give the answer?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister could use a slightly more robust voice, it would be helpful.

I am advised that eligibility will be a matter for discussion between the job seeker and the potential employer. The young person will be able to provide verification from Work and Income New Zealand. The starting-out wage is another tool that will help young people get work in this competitive job environment. It pays the same rate as the new entrants wage introduced in 2008 by the previous Labour Government.

💬 Darien Fenton: Will employers be able to advertise that a specific job will be offered only at a starting-out wage?

I do not expect that that would be the case. As is the situation now, employers take those matters into consideration when they make their employment decision.

💬 Darien Fenton: Is she aware that the Human Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of employment status, which includes receiving a benefit, and that, as such, the Human Rights Commission advises employers not to ask job applicants whether they have been receiving a benefit, in order to avoid unlawful discrimination?

I am aware of that, and I think that is why a number of—and this is nothing new. Employers often are able to determine whether people are eligible for various subsidies or support programmes, and employers ask whether there is eligibility for these matters in terms of their employment choice. They need to be aware of their legislative requirements, as well.

💬 Darien Fenton: How could she claim that the starting out age will not be compulsory and is negotiable, when an 18 or 19-year-old receiving a benefit who does not accept a job on the starting-out wage faces the penalty of having their benefit cut for 13 weeks?

Those sanctions apply to people on a benefit whether or not they are going to be applying for a job under the starting-out wage. Clearly, if a person on taxpayer support is able to take a job that they have been offered, and they turn it down unreasonably, then they should be subject to sanction. The same will apply to this.

Child Poverty, Abuse, and Neglect—Children’s Teams

8. to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has she made on the new Children’s Teams which form part of the Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children?

Last week I announced the first of two Children’s Teams to be piloted—the first one being based in Rotorua. We are bringing together key front-line professionals, who will work with vulnerable children. As they are the ones who work with these families, they know them and have the information to see a whole picture. An individual plan will then be designed around the child, and one lead professional will be responsible for ensuring outcomes.

💬 Tim Macindoe: How will these Children’s Teams work locally to protect vulnerable children?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: The new teams will be made up of local education, health, and social sector professionals to respond to the needs of these vulnerable children. This will build on the work that is already there. These teams take this to the next level of child protection, ensuring that single, multi-agency plans are put in place for each child. When fully implemented, a predictor tool will also mean that we are getting to them before they are abused or neglected.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What leadership and accountability will there be to ensure these vulnerable children are protected?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think this is a key to the success of this initiative. We will be making legislative changes so that a combination of chief executives has shared responsibility for these children. And in each local area there will be a children’s director, who will be responsible for these children and will have to report on outcomes.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: How many children in New Zealand are currently at medium to high risk?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it depends on which set of accountabilities you are looking at for that, and predictors. If you are looking at the recent ones that were put out by Statistics New Zealand, they would say there are around 67,000. We are taking the 30,000 that we see as being most vulnerable. The reality is, as well, that we have to have the number of children that these teams can work with. There is no point in overrunning them. So we are, without a doubt, targeting those we see who are most likely, quite frankly, to end up broken or dead.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table a report from Statistics New Zealand showing that there are 268,000 children at medium to high risk in New Zealand.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Government Information and Communications Technology—Computer and Payroll Systems

9. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his comment that Government computer systems “can’t actually support radical changes from Government”?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister stands by his statement, which was in relation to the Inland Revenue Department’s existing computer system, but he would suggest that if the member has any questions relating to details of the Inland Revenue Department’s computer system, they would be better put to the Minister of Revenue.

💬 Dr David Clark: When the Prime Minister expressed concerns on Monday that “You’ve quite a lot of very old legacy systems within Government, and increasingly demands for things to be done digital”, were these the same concerns he had back in February; if so, what further breach or other catalyst is required before the Government will outline a credible plan and time line to address the situation?

We need to be constantly vigilant with regard to Government computer systems, and they are being monitored frequently.

💬 Dr David Clark: Given the Prime Minister’s comment in February that you do not want to be in a position where Parliament is held hostage to a lack of technology, when does the Prime Minister expect the Government will outline a credible time line that reflects the Prime Minister’s apparent urgency 8 months ago?

Despite the dramatic attempts behind the question, the reality is that there are a lot of systems operating in the technology sector for Government. They are always being upgraded and they are always being improved. What we do want is to make sure that there is greater vigilance over individual security.

💬 Dr David Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that in its briefing to the incoming Government in 2011, the Inland Revenue Department argued that its dated computer system was hindering its work; and is this why the Inland Revenue Department had more than 1 million filed returns outstanding at the end of 31 March 2012?

What was clear when we came into Government was that the previous Government had presided over a woeful neglect of information and communications technology infrastructure. Under this Government’s business transformation programme the redevelopment of the department’s computer system is the Inland Revenue Department’s top current priority.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister believe that the Government’s approximate $26 million investment in a payroll switch to the new Novopay system was a radical change for the worse, leaving many teachers still waiting to be paid; if not, why not?

No. Although there have been some glitches, it is generally working well. I point out that the system was started by the previous Labour Government.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table a response to a written question showing—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no, written questions are not tabled in the House. They are available to all members.

Border Control, SmartGate System—Passengers Processed

10. to the Minister of Customs: How successful has SmartGate technology been at processing passengers at the border?

SmartGate—

💬 Chris Hipkins: The fruit flies like it.

💬 Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Well, you would know about that, son. SmartGate, which uses electronic information in e-passports and facial recognition technology, has exceeded all expectations. Just this month, the 4-millionth passenger passed through SmartGate. As a good example, last week almost 62 percent of eligible New Zealand and Australian passport holders used it on arrival, and 54 percent on departure. The target that we had set ourselves—which was actually ambitious—was to be at 45 percent. The Customs Service is now confident that 3 million people a year will be using SmartGate by 2015.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: How does this technology benefit the consumer and the country as a whole?

💬 Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: SmartGate came about following a meeting of our Prime Minister and his counterpart Prime Minister in Australia, in 2009. It is delivering on the Government’s vision for a seamless trans-Tasman traveller experience. SmartGate has brought about a step change in passenger processing. It has allowed more accurate and faster passenger processing, it improves border security by allowing improved profiling of higher-risk travellers, and it frees up customs officers to get on with the serious problem of catching bad buggers.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 11, Chris Hipkins.

💬 Chris Hipkins: My question is to the Minister of Education. How long will boards of trustees of the schools she proposes to—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seriously, in respect of the standards of this House, surely you cannot let a Minister get up and start swearing, like he just did. That is not really acceptable in this Parliament, surely.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think it is better not to draw attention to some of these things.

💬 Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has withdrawn and apologised.

Question No. 11 to Minister

I seek leave to hold over my question until such time as the Minister of Education is available to answer it.

The member can seek leave. [Interruption] Order! A point of order is being heard. He started his question, he was interrupted by a point of order, and now he has raised a point of order to seek leave to have his question held over. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Schools, Canterbury—Consultation on Proposed Closures and Mergers

11. to the Minister of Education: How long will boards of trustees of the schools she proposes to close or merge in Christchurch have to consult with their local communities before they are required to provide feedback to her ahead of a final decision?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: The boards of trustees will have 50 working days from 28 September, when they received their letters, until 7 December, to consult with their local communities.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Have any of the schools proposed for closure or merger approached her asking for an extension of time so that they can report back to her after the 7 December deadline she has set; if so, has she allowed them that extra time?

I understand that the Aranui and the Halswell clusters asked the Minister for an extension, and the Minister decided that the time frame for individual schools—those that are proposed to be merged or closed—will remain the same. That time line of 7 December remains, but consultation for clusters of schools is an ongoing process that is not linked to the legislative process and proposals that schools are undertaking about mergers and closures. That is a separate process.

💬 Chris Hipkins: How can clusters of schools engage with their local communities in a meaningful way about what education in their area might look like if one or more of the schools in that cluster is already formally the subject of a merger or closure consultation process and others are not?

I understand that these are two separate processes and that discussions around the clusters of schools—all the schools are involved in clusters—involve more than just individual proposals to merge or close schools.

💬 Chris Hipkins: If one of the clusters of schools presents her after 7 December with a proposal that involves not closing or merging one of the schools that she had already concluded consulting on the closure or merger of, will she therefore reopen the formal consultation for those schools?

I can only repeat what the Minister said in the House yesterday, which is that she is keen to listen to the views of parents and the school communities, and she will take, along with them, the time that it will take. All of us, she said, are interested in getting this right, and getting in place the best possible education system for the Greater Christchurch region.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question about whether she would reopen the consultation and she has not addressed that matter.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Yes, indeed. That was really the heart of the question—whether, in the ongoing consultation with the clusters, a school that was to be merged or closed, and therefore dealt with already, supposedly, according to the time lines, could have consultation around that merger or closure reopened. I think that was the heart of the question.

I understood that, but I think the Minister’s words make it very clear that she is open to ongoing discussions with those schools. She is saying she will take, along with them, the time that it will take. She is making it very clear that she is willing to listen and talk with schools about the proposals and the way ahead.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue that we have is that under the Education Act—I am sure you are familiar with it—there is a legislative process around formal consultation with those schools, the deadline for which the Minister has set as 7 December. The question that I have asked her is whether, if those clusters of schools come up with an alternative proposal that comes to a different outcome from the one that she had already concluded the formal consultation on, she would go back and reopen that formal consultation process. The Minister’s answer still has not addressed that matter.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister can help, it would be very helpful.

Well, I am not sure than I can help, because the Minister’s answers are confined by the legislative process. So the Minister can answer only within the limits that that legislation puts in place.

💬 Chris Hipkins: That is exactly the point, but she has not actually addressed the issue. Within the legislative process, once the schools have made their submissions under the legislative process as it is now, that has to be in by 7 December, and I have asked her whether she would consider reopening it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think, in fairness, the Minister has been pressed and the member has made it quite clear what he is after, but the Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister, and I think it is probably unreasonable to expect the Minister answering on behalf of the Minister to be able to give the House that particular detail about matters beyond 7 December. I think it is probably unreasonable to press further on that.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the member’s party has used its allocation of 22 supplementary questions today.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I thought we still had one more to go.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no, I think they have all been used.

Question No. 12 to Minister

I seek leave to transfer the question—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order is being dealt with.

In the light of what has just happened, I seek leave to transfer my question to a day when the Minister of Education is in the House to answer it.

Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Schools, Partnership—Operation and Accountability Standards

12. to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement to schools, about their obligation under the Official Information Act 1982, that, “New Zealand is an open and transparent democracy. They [schools] are required to release this information. You are public entities.”?

on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Under her Education Amendment Bill, will charter or partnership schools be part of New Zealand’s open and transparent democracy?

Yes.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Will charter schools be required to publicly release all the information that State schools are currently required to, under the Official Information Act, such as annual reports and details of staffing; if not, why not?

We have covered this issue earlier on in the House. Partnership schools will not be subject to the Official Information Act. However, they will have a legally binding contract that sets for them specific performance criteria, they will be reviewed by the Education Review Office, and they will have to report against national standards.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: Will parents of charter school pupils have the rights of other parents, including the automatic right to attend governing body meetings, a say on the appointment of their principal, and the right to complain to the Ombudsman if they think their child has been unfairly treated; if not, how is that consistent with an open and transparent democracy?

Firstly, I would say that partnership schools will not be Crown entities, and therefore they will not be subject to the Official Information Act, but the Privacy Act will apply. Secondly, I would say to that member that parents have a choice as to which school they decide to send their child to.

💬 Catherine Delahunty: By legislating for a separate standard at profit-making charter schools so that they can operate in secrecy that would be illegal in the State sector, does she agree that she is exposing hundreds of children to an unacceptable level of risk?

No. This Government is determined that the one in five children whom the previous Labour Government was for 9 years content to see leaving school without the necessary education will get every opportunity to succeed educationally, and we believe that partnership schools have a role—

💬 Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a question about the operation of the charter schools—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister answered absolutely. The Minister said “No.” She was going on to explain a little more than perhaps was necessary, but she answered the question very emphatically.