(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Health Care—Policy

1. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Despite the fact that the Labour Government left the new Government with around $160 million of unfunded services to fill and quietly stripped $150 million out of Vote Health before the general election, yes.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt, but I am just across from the Minister of Health and I could not hear a word of that answer, because of the barracking. It is the very first question of the day. I think it is a courtesy to members that they should be able to hear the question and the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I concur with the honourable member. He makes a perfectly fair point of order.

With the House being in urgency, of course, we go straight into question time, as was agreed by the Business Committee. The House would do well to settle down. In fairness, the Minister actually said yes, in answer to that question.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has he received in relation to more New Zealanders getting much-needed elective surgery?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have received reports that from the year 2000 to 2007-08 the average increase in elective surgery discharges was 1,432, which did not even keep up with population growth. The new Government set the goal of nearly trebling this average increase to 4,000 a year— a goal that was well and truly exceeded, with record discharges in the past year. Meeting the continuing growth of elective surgery is a real challenge. However, even with the effects of the swine flu, I can advise the member today that the number of patients getting much-needed elective surgery in New Zealand has reached yet another all-time high: our public health service has delivered elective surgery to an unprecedented 34,000 patients in the past quarter.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to the people who will not figure in the district health boards’ league tables, such as the 5,000 people in Timaru who have had their access to the emergency department cut, so they will not be on the league tables because they will not even get through the door of the hospital?

Hon TONY RYALL: There has been no cutting of access to the emergency department at Timaru. I visited there recently, and the doors were still wide open. What I can tell the member is that emergency departments throughout New Zealand are working with their comrades and colleagues in the wards to improve service for New Zealanders, and really good progress is being made.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did the Minister not include a list of front-line health services and frontline staff in his league tables; was it because we have already seen cuts in both front-line health

services and front-line health workers, or is it because it shows that the tens of thousands of dollars he has spent on publicity is just wasted health money?

Hon TONY RYALL: I cannot comment on any specific case that the member might have raised in that question, because she did not do so. But I can tell the House that the latest information from the Ministry of Health is that there are actually more front-line doctors and front-line nurses working in our public hospitals than at any other time under a Labour Government.

Dr Russel Norman: Would an extra $110 billion in health funding over the next 40 years help the Minister to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Hon TONY RYALL: I can advise the member that I am currently in discussions with the Minister of Finance about the budget we need for the health sector next year, and that is not a figure I have yet promoted.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Which particular specialties have contributed to the record number of patients benefiting from elective surgery in this period?

Hon TONY RYALL: Basically everything.

Hon Members: Dodgy-ing the figures!

Hon TONY RYALL: That is from the crowd that cut 30,000 patients off waiting lists, then stood up and said they had them under control. In the 3 months to the end of September, a record number of patients have received ear, nose, and throat surgery, general surgery, neurosurgery, ophthalmology, plastics and burns surgery, and vascular surgery. These results really are a tribute to the work of our doctors and nurses in district health boards in responding to the Government’s very clear expectations of better services for New Zealanders.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to his discussions with the Minister of Finance about funding for health in future years, has the Minister of Finance raised any concerns about the level of debt the Government is building up, and may build up over the next 40 years, and will that have a negative impact on the level of funding for health care?

Hon TONY RYALL: In those discussions with the Minister of Finance, our concern really has been very much focused on the inheritance that we received from the previous Government, and on the fact that we inherited a health service on a track to financial crisis, with significant deficits. We are working very closely to try to fill those unfunded services that we inherited from the previous Government, and the $150 million that Labour quietly cut from the health budget only days before the general election.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

2. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): In spite of the years of neglect inflicted on the department by the previous administration, yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she have confidence in all the advice provided by the Department of Corrections about the cost of privately run prisons in comparison with public prisons, even though it has been giving her advice since last December that shows that the cost of the privately managed Auckland Central Remand Prison—the only example New Zealand has to draw on—is more expensive than the public equivalents, which is advice that is completely contradictory to her claim that private prisons are cheaper to run?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. The department also provided advice that included the 70,000 hours of rehabilitative treatment that the Auckland Central Remand Prison had to give when it was privately run. The figures that the member is talking about were not actually included. The real figures—the “apples with apples” comparison rather than the “apples with oranges” one—show that private prisons are better value.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is the Department of Corrections advice of 18 December 2008, which states: “The costs of the ACRP were higher than those of publicly run prisons.”

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.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The second document is departmental advice to the Minister on 10 March 2009 that “the closest scenarios” the department is able to provide show the privately run Auckland Central Remand Prison to be more expensive than the public prison service.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The next document is departmental advice to the Law and Order Committee on 20 July 2009 and 25 August 2009 that the per prisoner costs of the Auckland Central Remand Prison were more expensive when privately managed than when the Department of Corrections was in management the following year, and more expensive than the per prisoner cost of remand prisoners—

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just clarify whether this is advice to the select committee.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Yes, and it is now public.

Mr SPEAKER: Parliament already has that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I think it is germane to the question, Mr Speaker. It is your call, of course.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a document presented to the Law and Order Committee. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister have confidence in the advice given to the Law and Order Committee this afternoon by the chief executive of the Department of Corrections that it would not be equitable to compare the costs of the privately managed Auckland Central Remand Prison with the entire public prison system at the same time, because the Auckland Central Remand Prison dealt only with remand prisoners?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Unless I actually saw the direct quote myself, I could not take for granted that rendition of it from the member, because, of course, he has paraphrased it. I can, however, have confidence in the quote from the department’s chief, who told me that in New South Wales private prisons cost 32 percent less per prisoner than public prisons, and in Victoria they cost 11 percent less. That is the comparable figure.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that we are talking about New Zealand and not Australia, why did the Minister tell the House on 18 August 2009 that Auckland Central Remand Prison’s “equivalent in the public sector cost $61,796 per prisoner.”, when that is the cost comparison across the entire public prison system, which her chief executive has said is not an equivalent or fair comparison.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Because those are the figures given to me by the department. I have said time and time again that it is very difficult to actually compare the remand prison when it was run privately—when there was health treatment and there was all sorts of rehabilitation for 70,000 hours a year—with the publicly run prison, where there was not. Unfortunately, that member does not want to hear the truth, but that is what it is. It was a better service.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that we now have four documents from the Minister’s department that contradict her, is she aware that one of the reasons—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That cannot be allowed. The member started off without a question and made a highly charged political statement, rather than simply standing up and asking a question.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the honourable member makes that although I have not insisted on questions starting with a question word, I think it is very unhelpful when members make a provocative statement at the start of a question. I ask the member to not do that, and to ask his question without that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I then get some advice, because it is now a fact on the record of the House that there are at least two, and I think there was an objection to two other documents—

Mr SPEAKER: This is not a matter that can be litigated by way of point of order. If the member wants, I can go back to insisting questions simply be started with question words. I do not want to do that; I like the House to have more freedom. But the member would be wise not to make a provocative statement at the start of his question. I invite him to ask his question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is she aware that one of the reasons it is so difficult to asses the costs of the privately managed Auckland Central Remand Prison is, to quote her departmental advice of 10 March 2009, “the lack of visibility on some of the private operators’ information”, and will she therefore support the Supplementary Order Papers introduced by Labour that seek to increase the transparency of private prisons?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it is important to remember that it was some years ago that the Auckland Central Remand Prison was privately managed. I stick to the advice that we are after a quality service in our prisons, not a cheap service. If we were just after cheap, nasty services, we would put everyone in tents.

Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Houses Insulated

3. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: How many houses were insulated in October through the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Across the country a total of 5,720 houses were insulated in October. In only 4 months nearly 20,000 homes have been made warmer, drier, and healthier, thanks to the financial assistance provided by the Government. I am also pleased to report that 70 percent of the houses insulated in October were occupied by people on low incomes with community services cards.

Chris Auchinvole: What is the Government doing to cope with a huge demand for the scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government is responsive to the extraordinary way in which New Zealanders have decided to embrace the scheme. Accordingly, after discussions with the Green Party, we have made arrangements for the original appropriation of $323 million over the 4- year period to become a multi-year appropriation. This will allow a better spread of the funding, so that people will not miss out and have to wait until the start of the next financial year to get assistance. It also means that we will easily be able to surpass the target for the first year of 27,500 homes—something we have almost achieved in 4 months.

Chris Hipkins: Will he admit that a lower standard of underfloor insulation has been specified by this Government so that it can poorly insulate more homes for the same amount of money that it would have cost to do fewer homes properly; if not, how does he justify lowering the insulation standards that approved providers are expected to meet?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

Rahui Katene: Can the Minister confirm that new money has been allocated to allow lowincome households to benefit from the home insulation scheme, as a result of the Māori Party’s relationship with National, and what impact will that new money have, over and above current allocations?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I can confirm that. It has previously been announced that discussions between the Māori Party and the National Government meant that a further $28 million was added to the fund, bringing it up to almost $350 million that will be spent over the period of

time. An extra 8,000 low-income households will be warmer and drier as a result of that arrangement. The Māori Party has expressed its concern about that group of New Zealanders, and the Government has recognised that.

Chris Hipkins: How can he continue to claim that standards have not been lowered, when the latest Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority guidelines suggest that homes previously fitted with foil underfloor insulation should have the foil repaired rather than replaced, and when previously the authority had recommended against foil underfloor insulation, because of “safety risks, challenging installation, dubious performance, and possible lack of durability”; why is he cutting the corners?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Simply because it is not new installation; it is repair of what is already there.

John Boscawen: By how much is the Heat Smart home insulation scheme forecast to reduce the profits of New Zealand power companies, and how does it compare with the billions of dollars of windfall profits that these same companies will receive under the emissions trading scheme, from, particularly, low-income New Zealanders, including Māori—or does he not know?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: One of the things that has become abundantly evident in the last few days is that all sorts of figures can be thrown into the mix when we come to discussing the emissions trading scheme, and any figure that does get put into the mix will be widely disputed. The purpose of the home insulation scheme was to improve the health outcomes of New Zealanders.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate the Minister’s answer, but I think he was asked what the reduction was, and whether he did know what it was. What we got from the Minister was his saying that lots of numbers were being bandied around, then restating the goals of the programme. I think the House can take that as his saying that he does not know, but it was hardly answering the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member has raised, but I think that when one considers the specificity of the question asked and the primary question that was laid down, the chances of the Minister having that particular information would not be high. I think the Minister was indicating that he did not have that particular information. I cannot expect him to give more precise information on such a question.

John Boscawen: By how much is the Heat Smart home insulation scheme set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and how does it compare with the Government’s emissions trading scheme; if he does not know, why have we been sitting under urgency to pass the emissions trading scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly, there were a number of aspects to that question, and I think a complication of two very simple issues. I will answer the first one, which was by how much the scheme will reduce the cost of home heating, effectively. Was that the question?

John Boscawen: No.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, by how much will it reduce greenhouse gases?

John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister does not seem to have understood my question—

Mr SPEAKER: The easiest way to resolve the issue would be for the member to repeat his question.

John Boscawen: By how much is the Heat Smart home insulation scheme set to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and how does it compare with the Government’s emissions trading scheme; if he does not know, then why have we been sitting under urgency to pass the emissions trading scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The first point is that it would depend entirely on what sort of home heating appliance was being replaced under the scheme. When we have collected all the information on that, we will be able to provide the member with a best estimate. On the matter of why we have been sitting under urgency to pass the Climate Change Response (Moderated

Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, I take it that the ACT Party now wants to be party to our passing the bill, and I look forward to it casting its vote accordingly.

Tertiary Education, Minister—Decisions

4. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does she stand by all the decisions she has made as the Minister for Tertiary Education; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education): Yes.

Hon Maryan Street: Is she aware that the Prime Minister indicated to the Manukau family literacy programme that he may be able to find some money for it after all, despite her original funding cut decision, but that it has now lost the opportunity to continue its programme for at least term 1 of 2010, while officials negotiate around her misguided criteria in order to meet John Key’s wishes?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I totally reject the member’s assertion that the criteria are misguided.

What happened was that the request for funding did not fit the criteria, so I have instructed the Ministry of Education to work with the City of Manukau Education Trust to find a way to support the continuation of the programme.

Louise Upston: What announcements has the Government made recently to provide more opportunities for younger people in polytechnics?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government has already announced that 2,000 Youth Guarantee places are to be added to the tertiary system next year. That is 2,000 young New Zealanders who will have fees-free learning in tertiary institutions next year. Yesterday I announced that an additional $8 million of funding will be allocated across a number of polytechnics next year. It is being made available to polytechs in areas of high unemployment that have demonstrated an ability to provide for younger students.

Hon Maryan Street: Does she consider the removal under her amended legislation of guaranteed representation of students on polytechnic councils to be consistent with previous assurances she has given to students’ associations about the importance of their presence at the top decision-making table in polytechs, or is this another fix-it job for the Prime Minister?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The bill that went to the select committee provided for eight-person councils. With regard to the councils’ composition, a great many submissions expressed a desire for more community representation. The solution that the select committee has proposed is, I think, quite an elegant one; it retains an efficient governance size, and it allows the councils the flexibility to determine whom they have in those four ministerial positions.

Hon Maryan Street: Does she continue to stand by her decision to cut adult and community education funding to high schools, now that it is clear that no high school - based adult and community education will be available throughout the whole of Gisborne, Hawke’s Bay, the Hutt Valley, most of the West Coast, and large parts of north, central, east, and south Otago, or will a visit by the Prime Minister to those areas see her decision overturned?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I remind that member that she was part of a Government—in fact, she was the Associate Minister for Tertiary Education—who left a funding hole of $520 million; $520 million that had not been funded that we had to start to find and make changes around. That is the first thing. Secondly, that member continues to misrepresent—

Mr SPEAKER: It is a very interesting speech that the Minister is making, but I heard a question that asked whether the Minister stood by a certain policy. Therefore, I think the Minister in answering is expected to talk about her policy, not the Opposition’s policy. I was trying to hear some response to the question asked.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: To the member’s continual misrepresentation of adult and community education as being provided only by schools, I say that, in fact, the instructions to the Tertiary Education Commission were to ensure that there was coverage of adult and community education

across New Zealand, with it being provided by schools in some cases, polytechs, and private providers right across the country.

Summer Research Scholarships—Progress

5. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What progress has been made on the Government’s summer research scholarships?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education): I am pleased to tell the House that 1,600 places for the summer research scholarships that the Government promised and jointly funded with the New Zealand universities have been filled. Many of these students started their scholarships last week and will be beginning their placements in universities, so that they can further their studies and gain some income over the summer months.

Allan Peachey: Why did the Government decide to fund the summer research scholarships?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The scholarships were first mooted at the Prime Minister’s Job Summit at the beginning of the year, and the Government agreed to meet the universities dollar for dollar up to $4 million in Budget 2009. These opportunities are important for the young people who have obtained them, and these extra places also help to free up other job opportunities for students over the summer period.

Hon Maryan Street: How do the short-term summer scholarships help the 2,000 - plus mainly low-decile students who had their Step Up and bonded merit scholarships scrapped by this Government?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Again, I say to that member that $521 million was promised by the previous Government in tertiary education and not funded. There were some changes to some of those smaller programmes, but they have been well taken care of. I remind the member of the 2,000 Youth Guarantee places that will be funded next year and will take many of those students.

Roading, Kapiti—Community Consultation

6. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What weight is being given to the views of the communities affected by the transport proposals through Kapiti?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of

Transport: The New Zealand Transport Agency is responsible for making the final decision on the State Highway 1 upgrade through the Kapiti region. I am confident that the views of local people and communities are being listened to closely and that each submission is taken on its merit. The New Zealand Transport Agency’s job is to balance the wider views of the community, which are extremely important, with the other relevant factors such as the cost, the benefits to the economy, and the impact on the wider region.

Hon Darren Hughes: How will it be possible to read, analyse, consider, and reflect on the 4,100 submissions and then make a decision all in the next 4 weeks, and why were submitters not asked whether they wanted to be heard in person?

Hon NATHAN GUY: My understanding is that the New Zealand Transport Agency is working around the clock to process and analyse the submissions. Some people chose on the feedback form to mention that they wanted to present in person to the New Zealand Transport Agency board.

Hon Darren Hughes: How will people in residential areas who are affected if a four-lane expressway is built right next to their properties be compensated if none of their land is required?

Hon NATHAN GUY: That detail probably should be directed to the New Zealand Transport Agency board. My understanding is that there are two pieces of relevant legislation: the Public Works Act and the Resource Management Act.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why did the Government not offer as an option the platform it joined Labour on during the election campaign—that is, Transmission Gully, rail electrification to Palmerston North, the Western Link Road as a local road, and improvements to State Highway 1?

Hon NATHAN GUY: This area is one of the fastest growing in New Zealand. It connects through to our capital city. We are well aware of the fact that over the last 5 years there have been 59 serious or fatal accidents on that stretch of road between Paraparaumu and Levin. Most of the feedback from the submissions that, I am told, the local MP for Ōtaki has received shows that people want action and progress on the issue—after 10 years of inaction by the previous Labour Government.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is not about the veracity of the last comment but about my question, which asked why a certain option had not been offered to the community. The Minister, in reply, told us about feedback that had been received, but I asked him why the Government did not put to the community, as part of the consultation programme, an option that mirrored the stance that National took at the election.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point, when a member asks why the Government did not do something, the member is not asking the most precise question. The Minister’s answer talked about the increase in population in the area, and although that answer may not be what the member wanted, I believe it was an answer to the question. I cannot start assessing the quality of answers; I can only assess whether the Minister has answered the question in some way. I believe that he did answer the question in some way.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. When the Minister said that he had received submissions from the MP for Ōtaki, was that Darren Hughes, because I thought he lost that seat.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat right away. Nice try but that is not allowed as a point of order.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. While we have the leader of the ACT Party with us in the country, I wonder whether he should lose a supplementary question for that very unfair reference.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not take this any further.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Mr SPEAKER: I call Metiria Turei. [Interruption] I apologise to the member but I am on my feet; I ask her to resume her seat. I have called a member, and I have dealt with the points of order that were raised earlier, and I do not think it is very helpful for members to be continuing to interject across the House. I call Metiria Turei.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Although not wishing to challenge your ruling—

Mr SPEAKER: I hope not.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: —could I just seek your advice, or ask for your reflection.

Yesterday you observed what you termed an abuse of the point of order process by a colleague of mine, and I think that last week you docked a supplementary question off my colleague Mr Hodgson. A similar abuse of the point of order process has happened today and the member simply got a slap on the wrist. I invite you to reflect on that.

Mr SPEAKER: I point out to the member that I am the sole judge in these matters, and when I got to my feet the member responded by sitting down. If the member abuses the point of order system again, I will treat it very severely. When I do treat it more severely is when a member does not respond to my getting to my feet and asking the member to resume his or her seat. That is when I take a very dim view of the matter. I have called Metiria Turei and I would appreciate the House allowing her to ask her question.

Benefits—Children’s Social Health Monitor Baseline Report

7. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Social Development and

Employment: Does she agree with the authors of the Children’s Social Health Monitor baseline

report, launched today, that New Zealand’s current benefit provisions are unlikely “to protect a large proportion of our children from severe or significant hardship”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I agree with a lot of what the report says. What I do not agree with is where it states that the number of children in families on benefits is likely to rise. Work and Income is working very hard to help people into jobs so that they can build better futures for themselves and their families.

Metiria Turei: Does she think that $110 billion over the next 40 years will be enough for her department to make sure that no New Zealand child goes without fruit, veges, raincoats, shoes, or visits to the doctor, which this report shows many are doing today?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I will say is that it is not just about the money. Research by the Ministry of Social Development in 2002 showed that for two families on the same low income, one on a benefit and one in work, the one in work had better outcomes every time.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koutou. Is she aware that many vulnerable families are not accessing the basic support that Work and Income should be providing now, such as the hundreds of people in Rotorua who are asking national beneficiary advocates for help this week because they have not been able to access basic support such as food grants?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I can tell the member that the number of special-needs grants has gone up considerably this year, so more people are accessing them via the department. We certainly encourage anyone who is having problems to go to Work and Income. Emergency payments and supplementary money can be made available to them; it is there.

Catherine Delahunty: Is it acceptable that a solo parent raising five children in Rotorua is able to access only $70 from Work and Income to feed them for a week; and does that not show that the benefit system is failing to meet the needs of vulnerable children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be too hard to make an assumption based on what the member is saying that that is the level of support available to them.

Metiria Turei: How will her plans to force single parents out to work when their youngest child turns 6 relieve severe and significant hardship for those children, when the number of full-time jobs for women is declining; the market for part-time work is highly competitive; hours of existing jobs are being cut back, threatening in-work payments; and rental housing prices for our most vulnerable families continue to rise?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say that we start from different assumptions. The Green Party assumes that people do not want to work, that those on the domestic purposes benefit are happy to stay on it, and that is how they want to survive. National believes that a lot of them want to work. If the incentives are right and the jobs are right, they will go out and take jobs, and that is what we are focused on.

Hon Annette King: If she is serious about helping children in New Zealand, why did the National Government recently turn its back on a suggestion by the Every Child Counts organisation to establish a multiparty working group on children’s issues in Parliament? Instead of agreeing to work with other political parties, the Government refused, stating that Parliament already had enough processes in place to consider issues relating to children. And can she tell the House of the success of one of the processes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Because for 9 long years we had a lot of talk, and now this Government has decided that it is about action. We have seen already this year a number of initiatives that target the most abused and neglected children. The Never Ever Shake a Baby campaign starts on 6 December, the first response to a non-governmental organisation that will be going out to those businesses, with an independent experts forum delivering actual responses on what we can do. This Government is focused on action, not on a whole bunch of chit-chat that gets nowhere.

Hon Annette King: Does she believe that her naming and shaming of two solo mothers earlier this year who had the audacity to speak out on the impacts of the cuts she had made to the training

incentive allowance, which was helping them to get off the benefit, has made it harder to assist beneficiaries and their children, because of the venom and vitriol her comments generated out there in the public?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is another example of recycling old arguments. One of those women did not feel it was naming and shaming; she was quite happy with having the information, which was correct, put out there. I make no apologies for telling a true story of where our welfare state is.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter to me from the Prime Minister, dated 3 November, in which he turns down the suggestion, not from me but from an organisation that does not just do chit-chat, asking—

Mr SPEAKER: The member should not make that kind of comment when seeking leave to table a document. 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.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Children’s Social Health Monitor released today.

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.

Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Amendment Bill—Hearing Aids

8. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he think it is fair that his Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Bill will determine the threshold for entitlements to hearing aids rather than clinical need?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Yes, because the law in respect of accident compensation is about defining the extent of the scheme. A scheme with no limits is unaffordable.

Other schemes, like WorkCover in Australia, also have a 6 percent threshold for hearing aid entitlement.

Hon David Parker: Is he aware that a man in his 50s with less than 6 percent noise-related hearing loss cannot hear birds sing, misses most of what his grandchildren say to him, and needs a hearing aid?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not accept that. The advice that I have received is that the 6 percent limit is a reasonable limit to the point where a hearing aid actually becomes useful. It is a standard that is used in a number of parts of the world. However, the bill is before a select committee, and I will wait for the select committee to report back to the House before making final decisions on the bill.

Hon David Parker: How can he deny criticisms that it is cynical to take away people’s right to sue for work-related hearing loss of up to 6 percent, but then say they will be included in accident compensation cover, so they have no right to sue, when they cannot get a hearing aid or any other treatment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that it is highly unlikely that for industrial hearing loss any case could be pursued in the courts under normal tort. The reasons are, firstly, that it is normally after a very long period, and, secondly, in terms of the proof of fault, that is very unlikely.

Hon David Parker: Why does he continue to say workers in Australia with up to 6 percent work-related hearing loss cannot get a hearing aid, when they can, because the decision is a clinical one in the likes of Victoria and South Australia?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is some variation from state to state in Australia. In New South Wales it is a 6 percent rate. But the decision will still be left to clinicians, in the same way as many

other parts of the accident compensation law set out the threshold at which a person gains an entitlement.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document showing that in Victoria there is no threshold and one can get a hearing aid for work-related hearing loss at 6 percent, and similarly for South Australia.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document?

Hon David Parker: It is information that has been provided to me by audiologists in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a document provided by audiologists in New Zealand on the thresholds for hearing aid entitlement in Australia. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection.

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

Family/Whānau Violence—Preventative Initiatives

9. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to prevent violence within families and whānau?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Today is White Ribbon Day. I am sure that I join with the rest of the House in our stand against family violence, particularly against women. This is an opportunity for all New Zealanders to stand up and show that they will not be standing for that sort of family violence. This morning, the Minister of Women’s Affairs and members of the Families Commission joined with the police at the Wellington Railway Station to hand out white ribbons. I can say that it was a fantastic response from the New Zealand public.

Hekia Parata: What steps is the Government taking to reduce family violence?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Much work has been done to raise awareness of family violence over many years. We have to look only at the increased reporting to see that New Zealanders know that it is not OK. But we are past talking about it, now we need to be doing what we can do, what the Government can do, what the community needs to do, and what families can do to stop violence.

Minister Turia is focusing her efforts on the doing.

Sue Moroney: Why, then, has the Minister allowed her Government to increase the trauma of sexual violence by making it harder for victims of sexual abuse to get help through accident compensation with 111 people having dropped out of the system already across New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As the House well knows, those matters are complex. They are made by clinicians, not by politicians, and that is exactly how it should be.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave of the House to table a document. It is the answer to written question—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this the answer to a recent written question?

Sue Moroney: Yes, and it demonstrates—

Mr SPEAKER: The House already has that information. The member will resume her seat immediately. Why did the member continue to make that statement to the House when I am on my feet? In what way was that assisting the order of the House? The member was seeking to abuse the position. I will not tolerate that in the future.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the statement by the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners welcoming the changes that the Accident Compensation Corporation has made in respect of sensitive claims.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a press release?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It is a statement by the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners. It is not a document that would otherwise be generally available to members, and given the debate there has been on this issue—

Mr SPEAKER: I will take the member’s word for that. Leave is sought to table this document.

Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am unclear whether leave was sought for my document.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not seeking leave for that, because that information is readily available to the House. The House has answers to written questions.

Education, National Standards—Revision

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Was she correctly reported this morning as indicating flaws in her proposed national standards are being addressed; if so, what is the process she is using to address those flaws?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The member must be suffering from a bit of jet lag. No.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, are you going to deal with that, or not? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. We can see what happens when members are disorderly. I say to the Minister that response was totally out of order, and it led to disorder. That will not be tolerated.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is there one published expert or academic who agrees with her view on national standards, rather than with the views of Thrupp, Crooks, Flockton, and Hattie, who have today written an open letter to her; if so, who is that academic or expert?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Several academics have expressed support at various stages in the process. Several have been involved in their development.

Colin King: What sector involvement was there in the development of the national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Over 4,000 principals, teachers, literacy and numeracy advisers, and other professionals attended meetings. There were 1,176 written responses from the sector, of which 490 came from groups representing, in total, 4,557 people. The education sector was also involved in an independent expert panel, which helped to develop the standards, and in the national standards reference group, which provided feedback on the draft standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If she disagrees with Thrupp, Crooks, Flockton, and Hattie, New Zealand’s four leading assessment academics, who have written to her stating inter alia that full implementation of the intended national standards system over the next 3 years is unlikely to be successful, will not achieve intended goals, and is likely to lead to dangerous side effects, why are they wrong?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I said this morning that the academics’ concerns are being addressed.

For instance, the Ministry of Education is working on how schools can report on children’s progress and achievement in relation to the New Zealand curriculum. Professor John Hattie himself is participating in this work. I say to that member that parents want this proposal, and they want national standards—

Mr SPEAKER: I always get concerned when Ministers start with “I say to that member”, because it invariably means they are no longer answering the question. The Minister answered the question, and that is sufficient.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to disagree with the ruling you have just made as to whether the Minister has sufficiently answered the question, but I do not think she actually got to the question about the specifics of why she disagrees with those four experts.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did point out that she did not disagree totally with the experts, and that in fact one of the experts was involved in working on the scheme to address issues that were of concern. I believe that that was a perfectly fair answer to the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was her reading of this picture book to a group of secondary school teachers designed to be evidence of her ability to meet literacy standards, and was she describing her position with the line about rats having a better life, or was she telling teachers that the final line, “You have to be happy with a lot less.”, applies to them?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I suggest that that member reads the book. It is a great read.

[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Interjections that are nasty are not helpful, at all. I ask the the House to just take a deep breath.

Immigration—Silver Fern Visa

11. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: What announcements has the Government made on the introduction of the Silver Fern Visa?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration): Today the Government announced the launch of the Silver Fern Visa. It is designed to attract highly skilled young people to New Zealand. The Silver Fern Visa creates a pathway to residency for young people educated overseas and fulfils the National Party’s manifesto commitment to access higher-level skills for the economy.

Hon Tau Henare: How will the new Silver Fern Visa policy work?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Applicants with high educational qualifications aged between 20 and 35 will be eligible to apply for one of 300 Silver Fern Jobseeker Visas, issued annually. This gives them 9 months to search for a skilled job. Once they have skilled employment, they get a further 2-year permit that will allow them to gain points under the skilled migrant category and apply for residence. The Silver Fern Visa is about attracting the right skills and matching them to the employment needs of the economy.

Aorangi School—Closure

12. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister of Education: Why did she not ensure that the Aorangi School board was given time to inform teachers and parents of the confirmation of her decision to close the school before the announcement was made public?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Under the Education Act the decision to close a school is made by the Minister of Education. The Ministry of Education communicated my decision to the chairman of Aorangi School yesterday afternoon. I thought it necessary to notify and explain my decision to the community directly and immediately.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is she aware that two of the four schools in the 1.5 kilometre radius of Aorangi School have enrolment schemes that exclude almost all Aorangi School students; if so, why did she allow a misleading impression to be created that there are more options for these children than there are?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because there will be one fewer school in the area and the enrolment schemes will have to be redone. I informed the board of that quite some time ago.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Did she follow the ministry’s advice to discuss her final decision with the Hon Dr Pita Sharples, an Associate Minister of Education; if so, when did she do that and what was his response?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I informed Dr Pita Sharples of my decision yesterday afternoon.

Rahui Katene: How does she respond to the statement from Aorangi School principal, Stephanie Thompson that closing the school sent a clear message that the National-led Government did not believe that a low socio-economic, multicultural part of Christchurch was as important as other groups, and what specific provision will be made for the whānau affected by the closure of the only bilingual unit in the north-east of Christchurch?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are two parts to that question. With regard to the first part, I absolutely reject the offensive suggestion that the decision to close Aorangi School was based in any way on the economic and cultural elements of the area. The reasons have always been the cost of the rebuild, the roll’s size, and the number of schools in close proximity. With regard to the second part of the question, I have stated a number of times that I am committed to ensuring that there is an ongoing provision for bilingual education in the area. I have directed the Ministry of Education to work with Ngāi Tahu and local boards of trustees on this very important decision.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister appeared to be reading the answer to that question. I wonder whether she was reading from the official document.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister whether she is reading from official documents. The Minister indicates that it is not an official document.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has she or her ministry advised the principal and board of trustees of Waimairi School and Fendalton Open Air School that their zones will be altered as a result of this decision?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The decision to close Aorangi School was made and announced yesterday. A change-manager is being appointed as soon as possible by the Ministry of Education, and he or she will be in contact with all the surrounding schools. I say to the member that the children who attend Aorangi School come from quite a wide section of Christchurch, so it is impossible to tell at this stage how many children will be going to the surrounding schools.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question to her asked whether the two schools that are covered by enrolment zones had been informed that there would be a change to their enrolment zones. That was a very specific question, and she has not addressed it, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that that was the absolute thrust of the question. If the Minister has that information, I would appreciate it if the House could have it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The first point is that the Minister did say that the change-manager would take care of this matter. That has to be an answer.

Hon David Cunliffe: Count the votes, Gerry.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am, don’t you worry.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I say to the Hon David Cunliffe and the Hon Gerry Brownlee that when I am on my feet they will de—decease from interjecting.

Hon Members: Decease!

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker can get tongue-tied too. I say to the member who has raised the point of order that the question asked whether the schools have been advised that the enrolment schemes would be changed. Whether someone is being appointed to change-manage the process is another matter. Whether the schools have advised is a fairly simple matter. The Minister may not have that information, and it is perfectly acceptable if she does not. If she does have the information, I think it is reasonable that it be provided to the House.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The decision was made yesterday afternoon. A change-manager is being appointed. I have no knowledge as to whether that change-manager has informed those schools. But they know that there will be one less school in the area, so it is normal that the enrolment schemes would be re-done.

ENDS

© Scoop Media