(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 17 FEBRUARY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Finance, Minister—Statements

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his recent statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does his Government’s promise that the vast bulk of New Zealanders would be better off after a GST change include compensating renters for both the increase in GST and the increase in rent they face as a result of property owners passing on both GST and property increases to them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Any impact on rents or on the property markets will depend, to some extent, on the details of the decisions the Government comes to.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address the question other than with a truism. I asked whether renters would be compensated, under the Government’s definition, for any possible flow-through. The Minister did not address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect to the honourable member, he is asking about something where the Minister indicated that no specific decisions have been made. It is very difficult for the Minister to give the precise answer the member is seeking, ahead of any decisions being made, as to exactly what the Government might do. That is my dilemma in asking the Minister to answer further. But the member has a further supplementary question.

Hon David Cunliffe: What does the Minister say to *Grey Power, who have, in response to his claims that superannuitants will be automatically compensated for an increase in *GST, pointed out that such compensation will arrive a year after the increase in GST; if so, will they be better off?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In his speech the Prime Minister indicated clearly that the Government understands the impact an increase in GST would have on superannuitants. He is quite open for the Government to make choices about what measures it uses to compensate them for those increases. I also add that in a tax package that reduces income tax rates, superannuitants will benefit from that because superannuation is tied to the *after-tax average wage. So if the tax on the average wage goes down, superannuitants will be better off.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister intend to ensure that all *homeowners are better off after a rise in GST, given the resulting increase in interest rates and a rise in local rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is getting well ahead of himself. Firstly, the Government has not made any particular decisions about it, and, secondly, it is not altogether clear how the housing market would react to any particular change in taxation. *In respect of high interest rates, that member would know a lot about it, because under his Government they reached record levels.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister think that the 59 percent of New Zealanders who are already sceptical about his promise that they will be better off, will be more or less confident that they will be better off, after it was revealed he broke his promise not to increase GST?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think their confidence will increase as they understand the significant problem in the New Zealand economy, which is that we spend more than we earn. This tax package is one way we can change peoples’ choices so that in the future we invest, save, and grow our exports. That is how we will get more jobs, better jobs, and higher incomes. It will not be by following the failed policies of the past.

Craig Foss: What reports has he seen on the need for reform after many years of economic underperformance in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It has become clear that since 2005 the economy has been performing worse than was thought, after the *Department of Statistics just produced revised growth figures showing that from 2005 to 2008 the economy grew at less than 1 percent per year. The result of it is that we have record high levels of Government spending and household spending, but record low levels of export earning. That is a huge challenge for New Zealanders who want more jobs and higher incomes. This Government last week outlined a programme in this House to increase our earning capacity so we can have the things we want.

Government Expenditure—Value for Money

2. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to ensure value for money in its expenditure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): After years of reckless spending, the Government needs to correct New Zealand’s habit of spending more than it earns. There are many opportunities for gaining better value for money, in particular where there are multiple agencies offering a range of social services to the same people in the same area. *Whānau Ora is part of a suite of initiatives that will contribute to the Government’s aspirational agenda for New Zealand by eliminating the continued waste of overlapping programmes, so that we can increase our social capital, improve the welfare of families, and achieve better value for the money that the taxpayer is spending.

Amy Adams: What are some of the value-for-money* initiatives that the Government is or will be implementing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are two in particular. One is the high-trust contracts where the Government has a new type of contract with *non-governmental organisations, whereby it operates on the basis of outcomes rather than by ticking boxes, and, secondly, there is *Whānau Ora, which is a philosophy and an approach to working with families that builds on their strengths and helps us to sort out the money that is wasted in overlapping social programmes.

Amy Adams: How will Whānau Ora deliver better value for money?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we have explained, there is any number of areas in New Zealand where there are many overlapping contracts, with overlapping requirements for auditing and monitoring. This problem has been around for a number of years. But it appears that Whānau Ora, which focuses on positive benefits for families, will be a very useful tool in bringing together these contracts and in ensuring we can deliver focused services that achieve outcomes, rather than ticks in boxes, and make progress for many New Zealand families.

Prime Minister—Statement

3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his comment yesterday “I have been busy running the country. But I am the first to admit it was a bit sloppy”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, I stand by my response to the question, which asked me how I was unaware that **Jackson Mining merged last year and sold its non-uranium interests.

Hon Phil Goff: Does his sloppiness extend to his management of the flagship home insulation programme, where an audit has found that 63 percent of the work was *substandard and that half of it had serious quality issues, including fire safety risks; and what responsibility will he take for that sloppiness and incompetence?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, but it is living proof that I have been busy running the country—given that we will insulate four times as many houses in a quarter of the amount of time that Labour did, and hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders will thank us for warm homes.

Hon Phil Goff: Was it sloppy, or was it more likely to have been irresponsibility and thoughtlessness, that led the Prime Minister to name the hitherto anonymous soldier pictured in Kabul as *Willy Apiata, against all the advice given to him by the Special Air Service* and the *New Zealand Defence Force?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. There are a couple of things there. Firstly, the Defence Force had already made that statement, but I am prepared—

Hon Members: No they hadn’t.

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, they had.

Hon Members: They hadn’t.

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, they had. They did it 2 hours earlier at a press conference, but I was more than happy for them to do so. Secondly, for the record, both Television One* and *TV3 had left messages to say that they would specifically ask me because they had recognised it was Willy Apiata. At the end of the day, I am not going to spend a week of having two pictures in the paper playing identikit games when it had already been printed.

Hon Phil Goff: Was it sloppy that this time last year he was promising the country 4,000 jobs from a national cycleway and now, by his own admission, he has created only 280 and even they are not up and running yet?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, but what I can say is that there has been an overwhelming response to the over 2,000 kilometres of the cycleway up and down the country. There are 54 requests. What I can say is that it has been such an overwhelming success that I have no doubt that future National Governments may well look to extend the cycleway, and I have full intentions of speaking to the Minister of Finance in the second term of a National Government, should we be lucky enough to get one, to ask for another $50 million.

Hon Phil Goff: Was it sloppy for the Prime Minister to have promised this country a youth guarantee whereby every young person under 18 would have a job or be in training and education when the reality of what the Prime Minister has delivered is a third of Māori and *Pasifika young people not in work, not in training, and not in education, which is a disaster for those communities and New Zealand?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, because 2,000 young people are going on *Youth Guarantee this year, and 2,000 next year, not to mention the thousands that have gone on the Job Ops* or Community Max* programmes. We know that the real future of young people up and down the country will be secured when we have national standards and they can read and write properly.

Hon Phil Goff: Was it sloppy of the Prime Minister to have described unemployment 2 months ago as being at a level that was a pretty good result given that 168,000 New Zealanders are now without a livelihood and that the Salvation Army reported to us last Friday that 30,000 more children are now living in households where neither parent is working?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, given that New Zealand’s unemployment rate is below the OECD average. Obviously, the fact that any person has lost his or her job is an unfortunate thing. Secondly, contrary to what the member has been telling people up and down the country, in the last quarter of last year there was a very small contraction in the number of jobs. Yes, a lot more people are staying in the country. People looking to come—[Interruption] No, it was actually 2,000 people in the last quarter. One interesting point did come out of the Salvation Army report. The report showed that 69, I think, or 70 percent—it was either 69 or 70—of young people who live in homes

that are based on a benefit are living in poverty. That is one of the reasons why this Government will undertake welfare reform.

Hon Phil Goff: Was it sloppy management on the part of the Prime Minister that the young girl he used as a photo opportunity at Waitangi has now been described by her mother as having been used by the Prime Minister, and that his promise that those on *Struggle Street would be better off has been the reverse—that they are now worse off—and that that is because the Prime Minister has looked after the high-income people and not those who are disadvantaged?

Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the *Sunday Star-Times to hand, as I did yesterday, but if I did have it I would be able to read out all the improvements that have happened in *McGehan Close, which are quite some in number. What I think is informative about the questions from the Leader of the Opposition today is that he has never been around a political leader who could ever say that he or she had made a mistake. Well, guess what? Sometimes we all make mistakes.

Education, National Standards—Announcements

4. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Today I have announced the appointment of a national standards independent advisory group. The group is comprised of five respected figures who have an outstanding mix of education and public policy experience. I am looking forward to receiving their ongoing, independent, free and frank advice on the implementation of the standards and on any refinements that can be made to enhance their effectiveness.

Louise Upston: Who are the members of the national standards independent advisory group?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The group will be chaired by Professor Emeritus Gary Hawke**, who is a very well-known expert in the field of public policy. It has a strong core of education sector academic experience from New Zealand, with the inclusion of Professors Tom Nicholson* and John Hattie*, and of Tony Trinick**. Finally, Dr Avis Glaze** is a well-respected Canadian educator who has played a pivotal role in education reform in a number of countries, and he will bring a useful outside view to the group.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister understand the difference between a ministerial committee and an independent committee; if so, what is it?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have set up this group by asking its members to give me their independent, free and frank advice on the implementation of the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she still claim to fully understand the national standards system, and, in particular, does she fully understand inter-school moderation of her literacy standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What is her best estimate of the cost of her inter-school moderation of literacy standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I well understand that that is a concern that has been expressed by people such as *Professor Hattie.

Hon Member: What’s the estimate?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have no estimate on the cost of inter-school moderation. The actual difficulty New Zealand has, and the reason for our national standards policy, is supported by the *Programme for International Student Assessment data, which shows that the greatest variation in student achievement in New Zealand schools is within schools, not between schools.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of her reply to my *second to last supplementary question, how does the inter-school moderation of her literacy standards work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am sorry, but I cannot—

Mr SPEAKER: I think it was perfectly fair. The Minister did not hear the question. I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to repeat it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of her answer to my second to last supplementary question, how does her system of inter-school moderation of her literacy standards work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is not “my” method of inter-school moderation that is at stake here. What we have put in place to examine the implementation and monitor the implementation of the national standards over the next several years, to be carried out by the Ministry of Education, is a contract that will evaluate and monitor the implementation, including between-school differences if there are any. Also, the *Education Review Office will have direct responsibility for examining the basis on which teachers are making their judgments. The Opposition members cannot have it both ways. On the one hand they argue that if we use assessment we run the risk of teachers teaching to the test; the minute that we allow teachers to use their judgment and their relationship with the students, then the members opposite start worrying about inter-school moderation. We want to have professional judgments from professional teachers about the progress that students are making against the standards. This Government is determined to address the one in five students whom the previous Government left to fail in our education system.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister now explain to the House how the inter-school moderation of literacy standards will work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I take you back to the primary question. I have engaged with and tried to answer the member, but the primary question was about recent announcements that I have made. I have made no recent announcements on inter-school moderation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that I need the member’s assistance. [Interruption] I am on my feet. The dilemma I have is that the Minister was asked a question, if I recollect correctly, about her understanding of how the moderation of national standards will work. The Minister—if I recollect correctly; it was about three supplementary questions ago—said “Yes.” The Hon Trevor Mallard therefore, under our Standing Orders, is entitled to question further about that answer. That is what he has done; he has asked for an explanation of how the standards will work. My dilemma is that the member’s question therefore is absolutely in order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Education is dealing with these questions very factually and in a very direct manner, I think it is worth noting that although the Standing Orders control the way in which the House operates, they are moderated by Speakers’ rulings. If I take you to Speaker’s ruling *160/2, you will see it states: *“Supplementary questions must arise directly from the Minister’s reply; they must be related to it not indirectly but directly.” Now, that, of course, relates to the primary question, which was, as the Minister quite rightly pointed out, about the announcement of the ministerial committee to give her free and frank advice on the implementation of the standards. To start running down the track of how we are doing inter-school moderation is the sort of thing we might have at a select committee, quite appropriately. It is fascinating that the member opposite needs to ask those sorts of questions, but *none the less they do not really comply with the direction by Speaker Algie.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I probably do not tell you this, because you are absolutely aware of the fact that the replies referred to are replies not only to the primary question, but to supplementary questions also.

Mr SPEAKER: My dilemma is that the Standing Order and the particular Speaker’s ruling that the Hon Gerry Brownlee has referred to are quite clear that supplementary questions that relate to answers given are perfectly in order. In fact, if one goes to the Standing Order—I think it is Standing Order *378—on supplementary questions, one finds that it states that further questions can be asked about either the primary question or the answers given. My dilemma is that the member the Hon Trevor Mallard asked a very specific question about the Minister’s understanding of the moderation system, to which the Minister said “Yes”, and now the member is pursuing that answer further. I would like the Minister to see whether she can answer that further question,

because it is absolutely in order. I would feel that I was not doing my duty if I did not ask the Minister to answer. I would appreciate her doing that.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am perfectly happy to answer; I just really wanted to point out that we were heading off down a different track from the primary question. I say to the member he is concerned about inter-school moderation, but, actually, the national standards, at their heart, are to address inter-school moderation. Currently a large number of assessment tools are used by schools, and no one standard applies across them. That is what national standards are. So the existing assessment tools will remain in place, and the national standards will go right across all those tools, so that it will not matter which school a child goes to, or which assessment tool a particular school uses, because there will be a standard that is national. That is the essence of national standards, so the inter-school moderation is exactly that. Parents will know, whichever school their children attend—

Hon Trevor Mallard: This is embarrassing.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Well, it just shows that you do not understand—[Interruption] It just shows that you do not understand what national standards are—

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is on his feet, and as a former Minister of Education, the Speaker might understand. The Minister should not be saying “you do not understand”. I think we have heard a sufficient answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I should have said that the Opposition members, who continue to put misinformation out into the community about what national standards are, do not understand. It is not a new test; it is not a new assessment tool. It is a common standard across them.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I now ask the Minister not how national standards will work and not about the fact that there is going to be moderation, but how will that moderation work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to the member that I give him the same answer. It is exactly as I have explained it. That is how it will work. If the member would like to come and have a briefing, I am quite prepared to provide it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I say this with some reluctance. I have not quite counted the number of attempts that I have had to have that question answered. Offering a briefing is not an explanation of how moderation will work.

Mr SPEAKER: Serious issues are being addressed here; this is question time working. I have to say to the honourable member that I have supported the quite clever questioning he has pursued, but I have a dilemma now. He rightly used supplementary questions to highlight that he wanted to dig into an answer he was receiving that, to him, was unsatisfactory. But he is now asking me to intervene, and my dilemma is that the primary question was broad. Had the primary question been more specifically in respect of the moderation of national standards, I could have gone further in supporting the member in his questioning. But, given the nature of the primary question, I believe that in the interests of fairness I have gone about as far as I reasonably can in supporting the member’s questioning. I think that in fairness to the Minister, with such a broad primary question it would be unreasonable for me to expect any more specific answer than has been given.

Whānau Ora—Extension

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social

Development and Employment: What work, if any, has she undertaken to extend Whānau Ora to all New Zealanders?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I can inform the member that decisions are yet to be made, and that we are expecting announcements to be made as part of Budget 2010.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree that Whānau Ora is a cross-sectoral,* whole-of- Government* concept that uses a structured process of Government agencies and community organisations working together to achieve better education, housing, health, and social outcomes for

families, in which both Government and non-governmental and community organisations will participate; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.

Hon Annette King: Is she aware that the description I have just given is that of the *Strengthening Families programme, which has existed for 6 years, has been evaluated, and is operating effectively? Why are we going through the pretence of saying to New Zealanders that the Government has a new programme for vulnerable families, and wasting time and money pulling the wool over their eyes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have to wonder why Labour has an issue with Māori coming up with solutions to their own problems. I mean, Labour’s big idea was *closing the gaps, which, according to the head of *Te Puni Kōkiri, was a heavily—

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the member ask a question, but I am not hearing much of an answer relating to the question, at all. If I recollect correctly, the question asked was: “Was the Minister aware that a description given was the description of”—from memory—“the Strengthening Families policy?”, or something. Some attempt to answer that question would be helpful, rather than a launch into the Opposition.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The second part of the question was: “Why is the Government doing it?”, which, of course, gives the Minister an opportunity to ask why, if the programme was so good for all those years, so many families are still living in poverty.

Mr SPEAKER: I am perhaps suitably censured. Maybe the question should have been briefer. I ask the Minister, though, in responding, not to launch straight into the Opposition.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have Strengthening Families; unfortunately we also have as much dysfunction and as many families struggling as there were under years of Labour’s just putting out more and more programmes, and driving stuff from Wellington into areas that did not work. We are talking about something that is *grassroots; we are talking about something that is going back to those communities and to those families and working in quite a different way.

Hon Annette King: Does she still insist that it is the media’s fault that no one knows the definition of “whānau ora” even though her own ministry’s website has no clear definition, and even though she thinks it is one thing, Minister Turia and the Māori Party think it is another, and the Prime Minister thinks it is a *waterbed?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I do not. I think that it is kind of clear, and that it is Labour that is having issues. We could go back to *closing the gaps and *“reducing inequalities”. I just don’t understand Labour’s issue with Māori coming up with their own solutions to their own issues in their own communities, and coming up with stuff that really works. It is because it is not Wellington-driven.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer and I did not hear any addressing of my question, at all.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need assistance on this one. In fairness—given the nature of the member’s question on this occasion, which became somewhat flippant towards the end—I say that if one wants to inject that kind of thing into the question, the answer will never be quite as objective as the member might have wanted. I do not think I can intervene on this occasion.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that most of the funding for *Whānau Ora will come from existing baselines; if so, how much does she expect to be taken from Vote Social Development?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As previously answered, the member must wait and see. Those announcements will be made in Budget 2010.

Election Spending—Political Party Cap

6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Justice: Why is he proposing election campaign spending caps for political parties?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Spending caps have been in place for political parties since the Electoral Act 1993. However, the limits for parties and candidates have not changed since 1995. In response to the review of electoral finance laws, there was broad agreement that these limits should be adjusted by a CPI rate. As a result, this is one of the Government’s proposals for reform.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the *Royal Commission on the Electoral System when it stated: “It is illogical to limit spending by parties if other interests are not also controlled. … Nor should powerful or wealthy interest groups be able to spend without restriction during an election campaign, while [the parties] are restricted.”?

Hon SIMON POWER: I understand the point, but submissions on the electoral finance proposals, as I said to the member yesterday, were sharply divided between those who proposed that parallel campaigners be tightly regulated, including a spending cap, and those who wanted minimal regulation. In the absence of consensus, the Government is proposing that those who spend over $12,000 should register to provide more transparency than exists under the current law, without unduly limiting freedom of speech. The member may be interested to know that this was the suggestion of both the *Human Rights Commission and the *Employers and Manufacturers Association, which suggests we might have the balance—initially—about right. My overriding concern has been to ensure that, in the initial stages, the electoral finance reforms have broad-based support, heading into that select committee, so that they can endure.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the royal commission when it went on to state that it is not fair if some in the community use their relative wealth to exercise disproportionate influence in determining who is to govern and what policies are to be pursued?

Hon SIMON POWER: Again, I understand the point, but the requirement to register, as currently proposed, would make it clear who was behind any parallel campaign. I think the public and the media are smart enough to join the dots. In addition, a parallel campaign would be restricted by the fact that under the proposals, as they exist today, the parallel campaigner could still not advertise on television or radio. I note in respect of the member’s suggestions around big groups—I think she used the phrase “big campaigners”, “big business”, or something similar—that the 25 groups and individuals who registered as parallel campaigners in 2008 were far more diverse than that, and included 11 unions, the national students’ association, and a group called “Vote for the Environment”.

Metiria Turei: How will his proposals prevent a political party from giving money to a third party so it can run an uncapped political campaign?

Hon SIMON POWER: As I said, I am confident that the registration proposal, which is currently part of the Government’s package, will bring increased transparency over and above those requirements that currently exist in the *Electoral Act 1993, with the donations portion of the *Electoral Finance Act 2007 clipped on. As the member is aware, and as I said to all political parties yesterday in briefings, on the matters of parallel campaigning, donations, and broadcasting I remain very interested in what the select committee comes up with. If a broad consensus can emerge from that particular forum, which was not able to emerge on those issues from three, or maybe four, stages of consultation leading to this point, I would be very interested in hearing about it.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister then confirm that there is nothing in the proposals thus far that will prevent a political party from giving money to a third party to run a supportive and uncapped election campaign?

Hon SIMON POWER: On the contrary, I think the suggestion that has been made, which is actually tighter than the regime that existed prior to the 2008 legislation, will in fact enhance transparency in the area that the member is concerned about.

Metiria Turei: What in his proposal is there to require a third party to disclose campaign donations from a political party?

Hon SIMON POWER: Off the top of my head, nothing. But, again, the select committee could well provide an opportunity for a broader consensus to develop on that point. As I said to the member yesterday, one cannot draft a piece of legislation that has options and operational clauses. We have to put down a proposal to send to a select committee to hope that the debate will produce the consensus that may be lacking on these one or two remaining issues.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister not agree that the absence of a spending cap for third parties means that Governments can very well be beholden to the wealthy interests that pay for the parallel campaigns, and not to the voters, who are an essential part of this democracy?

Hon SIMON POWER: No, I do not share that view.

Referendum on MMP—Proposed Question Format

7. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: What is the proposed question format for the upcoming referendum on MMP?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): The first question at this stage is to ask voters whether they wish to retain MMP or change to a different system. The second question will ask voters, irrespective of how they voted on the first question, what their preferred alternative system is from four options, those being *first past the post, *preferential voting, *the supplementarymember representation system, or the *single transferable vote system.

Chester Borrows: Will the public have any input into the proposed approach for the referendum?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes. I will be introducing a bill in the next month or so that provides for a referendum to be held. I am pleased to say that agreement has been reached that a special all-party select committee will be established to consider this legislation as well as the reforms that are being proposed in the electoral finance rules area. Both bills, if it is the wish of Parliament, will receive the normal 6-month consideration by the committee, which I hope will allow the public and political parties to make submissions on these important matters.

Step Change: Success the Only Option Report—Recommendations

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Has she received the report entitled **Step Change: Success the Only Option; if so, which recommendations does she agree with?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes; I am yet to make a decision as to whether I agree with the central recommendation, which is to appoint a task force. I will make that decision after further consideration and advice.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Are her national standards with their inter-school moderation able to be used to assess which students fall into the top 5 percent or the bottom 20 percent of their cohort, which are the key figures in that report?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said to the member, I am considering the report, and I believe that any further comments on the report would be premature.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was actually a very simple question about whether her national standards would identify the top 5 percent and the bottom 20 percent. It would not require any thought from a Minister on top of her portfolio.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The essence of the question implies that I have accepted the report and that I agree with what is in the report. The point I made was that I had only received the report, and I was still considering it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want this debate by way of point of order to go on. I understand what the member who asked the question is getting at, but in fairness I have to say that, as I understand it, the report was received only in the last 24 hours or so. I think it is reasonable for the Minister to answer that she needs time to consider the report. I realise the member’s question is about how the report interacts with national standards proposals, but it is reasonable that the Minister may need time to reflect on that, and I think that is a reasonable answer.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Annual Temperature Data

9. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: Does the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research maintain an up-to-date schedule of adjustments of all changes made to the raw temperature data that are used in calculating the official series “Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008”, published on the institute’s website; if not, why not?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): The “Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008” analysis, which was referred to by the member, does make adjustments to the raw data from the seven stations. The reason that is necessary is that in some cases the location of the stations has changed. For instance, the Wellington site has been moved from Thorndon to Kelburn, a difference in height of 125 metres. That requires an adjustment. All of the information to explain the methodology used to adjust the data is on the institute’s website. The original methodology to do so was developed in Dr Salinger’s PhD thesis, which is also publicly available.

John Boscawen: Given that we have been through the information the Minister refers to and found no schedule of adjustments, can he point to where in this mass of information it is contained; if he cannot, can he commit to table in Parliament the simple schedule of adjustments?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The member is correct; there is a complex range of information on the institute’s website. The methodology for the site changes is published in the peer-reviewed **International Journal of Climatology, which has been referred to a number of interlocutors on this case. That particular article is by **Rhodes and **Salinger, and is called **“Adjustment of temperature and rainfall measurements for site changes”. The huge volume of information indicates that this is quite a complex area.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With great respect, the Minister did not answer the question. The question is a very simple one. It is not about the methodology; it is about the simple schedule of adjustments. In his answer to the primary question he said that the schedule was on the institute’s web page, amongst this mass of information. We have been through it. There is no schedule of adjustments. So the Minister was asked whether he could point to the actual schedule of adjustments, not the methodology, and if he could not, whether he could table in the House the schedule of adjustments—not the methodology; the schedule.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member, and I am sympathetic to the member’s point of order, because the question was on notice. The question asks specifically whether the institute maintains an up-to-date schedule of adjustments of all changes made to the raw temperature data. It does not ask why changes are made to raw temperature data, or how those changes are made; the primary question asks whether the institute maintains an up-to-date schedule of the adjustments made. That information should be available, and I believe that the House deserves an answer. I invite the Minister to give the House an answer.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: As I indicated in my answer, the information is contained in a wide range of information, rather than in a simple one-page schedule, which the member seems to be requesting. In fact, that has been previously advised to the member in this regard. As I indicated, it is a complex issue. As Minister, I have advised the institute that it should provide as much

information as possible on how the adjustments were made, so that they can be independently analysed.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I have two points. One is that the PhD thesis referred to is not publicly available. We have had a great deal of difficulty getting it, because it is subject to copyright and is not available to the public. The second thing is that, as the Speaker pointed out, the question is not about a mass of data; the question is whether there is a schedule of adjustments. The Minister said that it is somewhere in the data on the institute’s web* page. We have been right through it, because we got this information last Christmas. We cannot find it. Is it there or not?

Mr SPEAKER: This should not be debate by point of order, but, again, I am sympathetic to the member’s point of order. The question was on notice. The institute has had at least a couple of hours to advise the Minister on a very simple question: basically, is there a schedule of the data that has been adjusted, or is there not? The question is not about how it is adjusted or why it is adjusted; it simply asks whether a schedule of the data changes is kept. That is either available or it is not. I believe that the House deserves better, because this issue is of interest to the House. The House deserves better. I am very sympathetic to the Minister, too; if the Minister has not been provided with the information, maybe he should acknowledge that to the House. But I believe that, on such a straight question that was on notice, no Government agency should be allowed to not provide an answer—unless to do so is not in the public interest; it may not be in the public interest, and I accept that. I invite the Minister to indicate that the information is available, or that he has not been advised, or whatever the answer is. [Interruption] We will hear the answer.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: As I indicated in my previous answer, the information is not set out as a singular document in the way that has been noted here. Rather, it is a range of material, all of which is available on the institute’s website. Effectively, it is not in a schedule in the form of a onepage document, but, rather, a methodology, and I have indicated the sources of information for that methodology. Mr Speaker, I believe I have addressed the question in precisely the terms that you as Speaker have requested me to do.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I say this carefully because I think the Minister is trifling with your ruling. You said that the question was on notice and that the question asks whether there is a schedule of adjustments. The Minister has said that it is in a mass of data, that it is not in one place, which I guess is sort of saying no, but he is actually trifling with you, because you have said that the question was on notice: is there a schedule of adjustments—yes or no?

Mr SPEAKER: I think I have made very clear my concern. The question was on notice, and the answer sought is very simple. The question does not ask about methodology; it simply asks whether the data has been maintained. That is not a matter of whether it has been maintained on a single sheet or anything; it is a matter of whether the data is available. I have tried to support the member’s point of order as far as is reasonable today. There are more days to question the Minister on this issue, if it is one that concerns the relevant members, but I think the House should move on today.

John Boscawen: Is the Minister aware of revelations involving the previously prestigious climate research institute at the *University of East Anglia, which has been found to be deliberately breaking official information laws, arbitrarily adjusting raw data, hiding the reasons for those adjustments, and contriving to lose the original unadjusted data so that it could not be independently checked? Does it not concern him that the same could be happening to the records of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, particularly when Dr Jim Salinger previously worked there?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, I am aware of the extensive controversy on these issues. Can I also make it clear that no changes at all have been made to the raw temperature data itself. Obviously, adjustments have been made because of the variations, but the original information is

available on the institute’s database, and members are able to have their own independent analysis made of it to effectively check, verify, or, indeed, disprove the institute’s information.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, given the difficulty that we have had with this question I seek leave of the House to ask one extra supplementary question of the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the Hon Rodney Hide to ask an additional supplementary question. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.

Hon Rodney Hide: Is the Minister aware that the raw data of the graph in question shows no warming for the period in question—that is, from 1853 till now—and that the entire warming indicated in the graph, which has been used to highlight the 0.92 degrees of warming a century that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has been talking about, is entirely a consequence of the adjustments that the scientists made, and it is those adjustments that need to be explained?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, I am very much aware of the issues that have been raised by the member. That is precisely why adjustments are made when locations are shifted. For instance, it is a very significant difference to change the location from being virtually at sea level to being 125 metres above sea level. That is precisely why the methodology that I referred to in previous answers had to be applied to achieve the adjusted result. A rigorous scientific process has been undertaken to achieve that.

Auckland Transition Agency—Performance

10. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Is he satisfied with the performance of the *Auckland Transition Agency?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): Yes. I am very satisfied because the Auckland Transition Agency is getting on with the job. I agreed with that member when he said that Auckland has not been working for a long time and that the previous Labour Government did nothing about it. I am pleased that *Mark Ford and the team at the Auckland Transition Agency—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. A moment ago he was questioning other Ministers’ answers. The question simply asked whether he is satisfied with the performance of the Auckland Transition Agency; it did not ask him why. I think we have heard sufficient.

Phil Twyford: Does it meet his openness and transparency test to have a former *National Party president and current mayoral campaign advisor to *John Banks contracted to recruit senior executives to run the *super-city?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I have taken some care with this answer because I suspected the question would be asked. I am advised that the Auckland Transition Agency’s *HR adviser and the former *Alliance leader, *Laila Harré, led this process and that the agency considered *Ms Boag’s company, Momentum**, had the best proposal “in terms of quality, process, and lowest cost structure”. Momentum is one of several companies assisting with the very important job of recruitment at the new *Auckland Council. I am pleased that Aucklanders from across the political divide are getting in behind the Government’s changes for Auckland and are focused on getting the very best result. I am not responsible for what Michelle Boag does in her spare time, just like I am not responsible for what Laila Harré does in her spare time.

Phil Twyford: Is he aware that Michelle Boag told the public she had nothing to do with the recruitment bid, yet the tender documents profile her as a member of the recruitment team and identify her specifically as the person who will recruit the super-city’s chief spin doctor?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No, I am not aware of those public statements.

Phil Twyford: Is he concerned that Michelle Boag’s recruitment company, Momentum, may have misled the Auckland Transition Agency when it stated in its business proposal that it had no conflicts of interest to declare?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No.

Phil Twyford: Will he order an investigation into the Auckland Transition Agency tendering process to assure himself and the Auckland public that the process is all above board and that there is no hint of cronyism in the awarding of tenders; if not, why not?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No. The reason is that apart from this member’s allegations there appears to be no reason for such an investigation. I suggest to the member that if he has concerns he should frame them up and send them to the *Auditor-General, who independently can consider whether an investigation is called for.

Phil Twyford: I seek leave to table the business proposal from Michelle Boag’s recruitment company, Momentum, to the Auckland Transition Agency, which profiles her as a key member of the project team responsible for recruiting the chief spin doctor for the Auckland super-city.

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.

Step Change: Success the Only Option Report—Māori Students

11. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Education: E pēhea e rerekē ai te noho o ngā tauira Māori i roto i ngā kura auraki nā runga i te aronga nui i te pūrongo Step Change ki te mātauranga ahurea, nā, kei te whakaae atu ia ki tā te ripoata “it is difficult to see how success for many students in New Zealand can be achieved without this component of learning”?

[How will the experience for Māori students in mainstream schools change as a result of the commitment to cultural competence outlined in the Step Change report; and does she agree that “it is difficult to see how success for many students in New Zealand can be achieved without this component of learning”?]

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I have already made the comment in the House that I have not made a decision about the report yet. But I completely agree with the member that commitment to cultural competence is crucial. I also agree with the member’s comments yesterday that “the same old, same old, been there, done that” approach cannot continue. That is why the Government has invested in a further *roll-out of the *Te Kōtahitanga programme and to *He Kākano, a professional development programme for principals and school leaders to embed cultural competencies. Māori students in mainstream schools have much to gain from these programmes.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Ka ahatia ki ngā kura me ngā kaiako e koretake ana ki ngā āhuatanga mahi ahurea ahakoa tōna kaha ki te hāpai i ngā taumata mātauranga Māori? [How will schools be held to account for teachers who are failing to demonstrate the cultural competence that contributes to success in Māori education?]

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: At the moment I would expect that that problem would be picked up by the *Education Review Office’s regular review of schools and that the *Ministry of Education would then provide support for that school to address the issue. The introduction of national standards means that from 2012 schools must report the progress and achievement of cohorts of students to their community and to the Ministry of Education, and this includes a specific requirement to report on Māori students’ progress. This will ensure that any problems can be addressed much earlier.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Opposition seeks your assistance. The Minister gave quite a detailed response—in fact, a written response—to a supplementary question from another political party about the Step Change* report, a report that, at question No. 8, she said she had not had time to read—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is stretching a long bow there. That is not a point of order.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Ka ahatia e te Minita ki te whakautu i te āwangawanga o ētahi whānau e mea ana, kāore ētahi kaiako i te whai i te kaupapa o Te Kōtahitanga ēngari, kei te utua te kura ki te whakatinana i tēnei kaupapa nā runga i te hiahia ki te hiki i ngā taumata mātauranga Māori? [What will the Minister do to respond to concerns from whānau that some teachers are refusing to participate in the Te Kōtahitanga project, yet the school has been funded to do so in a desire to lift Māori educational achievement?]

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order just goes the relevance of that question to the primary question or to the supplementary question. Refusal to take part in a particular programme currently existing, and not related to this other than the fact that, for the Minister’s information, it is mentioned in the report is, I think, a long bow, and certainly, given the Minister’s lack of familiarity with the report—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member must sit down now. That is not acceptable. I think it would be unfair for the Speaker to intervene and rule such a question out of order.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have not heard those concerns before, and that information is of concern. I would appreciate some further information from the member, and I would be happy to discuss this with him further. But I can say that as a Government we expect a professional response to the issue of continued Māori underachievement in mainstream schools, and I would be really disappointed if some professionals are refusing to participate in what is a very effective project.

Transport Stimulus Projects—Progress

12. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the transport stimulus projects announced last February?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I am pleased to report that all five medium to large transport stimulus projects announced last year, plus the *Victoria Park project, are now under construction. They are well on their way to improving transport efficiency and boosting growth. They are together employing around 500 New Zealanders in construction jobs, not to mention the additional jobs created downstream in the supply of services and materials. These 500 jobs are all in addition to the significant construction activity already *under way across New Zealand.

David Bennett: How is this injection of funding being received by the road-building industry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Both the *Contractors Federation and *Roading New Zealand have indicated that they are pleased with the responsiveness of both the Government and the *New Zealand Transport Agency. The New Zealand Transport Agency has brought forward a further $10 million worth of work this construction season, further helping contractors through the *tail end of the recession. With work on *roads of national significance now also developing quickly, the sector has a substantial pipeline of Government projects to look forward to.

Hon Darren Hughes: What areas of New Zealand received the money in last February’s announcement by the Minister for road maintenance and road renewal, given that so many regional mayors around New Zealand have voiced concern about the safety of New Zealand roads, the budgets for which they say have been effectively cut?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not want to take up the House’s time reading out every single one of the 87 different local authorities that were allocated funds in the last round; they are, of course, available on the New Zealand Transport Agency website. I point out to the member that the funding increased by around 17 percent across the country for the next 3 years over the last 3 years. That 17 percent increase is shared across a range of territorial local authorities.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill—Consideration

1. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Chairperson of the Law

and Order Committee: When did the committee last meet to consider the *Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill?

SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): As the member should well know, being the deputy chair of the select committee, we met today—Wednesday, 17 February 2010—from 10 o’clock until 1 p.m.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Have any requests been made to the chair to make Ministry of Justice officials available to provide advice on the bill; if so, what decision was made?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that the member can ask about decisions of the committee, because they are not within the responsibility of the chair.

Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill—Timeline for Submissions

2. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Chairperson of the Law

and Order Committee: What is the timeline for submissions on the revised Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill?

SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): The committee is inviting submissions from those who previously submitted on issues directly related to the current proposed amendments, with a deadline on Friday, 5 March 2010.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How many hours of oral hearings have been set aside for those submitters?

SANDRA GOUDIE: Decisions in relation to legislation before a select committee are decisions of the select committee and in committee.

Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill—Report-back Date

3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Chairperson of the Law

and Order Committee: When does she expect the *Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill will be reported back to the House?

SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): The bill is scheduled to be reported to the House by 30 March 2010.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is it the case that a minority report was presented that highlighted that the Government and ACT members had blocked Ministry of Justice officials from becoming advisers to the committee?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that that question meets the requirements of the Standing Orders.

ENDS

© Scoop Media