Questions and Answers - 6 May 2010

(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 6 MAY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Whānau Ora—Approach

1. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister responsible for Whānau

Ora: What is the significant change anticipated in the Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister responsible for Whānau Ora): The Whānau Ora approach is intended to place families at the centre of flexible and innovative service provision. It will provide for a different way of working with w’ānau, building on their strengths so that they can take ownership of their own needs. This new approach will see families become less reliant on State agencies, and agencies acting as facilitators rather than fixers.

Rahui Katene: How will the providers be selected?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Providers will be selected through a process of expressions of interest beginning in June this year. The Whānau Ora governance group will oversee the expressions-ofinterest process.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Can the Minister confirm whether any new funding will be set aside for Whānau Ora in the next 4 years, or is it just a “Take from Pita, to give to Paula” approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: We have an agreement at this moment for funding of $134 million over the next 4 years. Who knows what the Budget next year will hold?

Rahui Katene: How will contracts be integrated through a Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: There is a focus on the Ministry of Social Development contracts and health contracts, at present. Those contracts will be integrated in the first instance, which will make savings and compliance a really important first stage.

Katrina Shanks: How will Whānau Ora encourage flexibility and innovation?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The greatest innovation will come from skilled practitioners who are able to go beyond crisis and intervention to build skills and strategies that will contribute to w’ānau empowerment and positive outcomes. This funding encourages Government agencies to be responsive and flexible enough to align with w’ānau aspirations, and it also enables w’ānau ownership of solutions and actions in ways that are unique.

Hon Annette King: As over 800 non-governmental organisations were part of the Pathways to Partnership programme, many of which were to be fully funded through the Pathways to Partnership funding, which is now being diverted to Whānau Ora, how many of these providers will receive funding under Whānau Ora, and how many will have to operate with less funding?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Nobody will operate with less. I cannot give any guarantees about who will receive this funding, because there is an expressions-of-interest process.

Kelvin Davis: Can she explain why Whānau Ora, which was once touted as an overarching programme designed to overhaul the delivery of social services to Māori, with funding of $1 billion,

has morphed into a small-scale programme for all New Zealanders that is being run out of Te Puni Kōkiri on a budget of less than that of John Key’s proposed cycleway?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The fact is that this is not a programme. The integrated funding, which, in the first instance for 20 providers, will be well over $100 million—that will be contributed. The money that is being set aside for W’ānau Ora is about the capability of the providers—the training for the navigators. It will be used for the research that will run alongside it. It will be the first time that the Government will have value for money.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. How will providers that are not included in the first wave of providers be supported to undertake a fantastic Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: This is already happening, and it is really exciting. The Government’s whole approach is about moving towards integrated contracting, trusting communities and families to know what is best.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What kinds of investments will be made in whānau to realise aspirations of self-reliance and self-management through the fantastic Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The important investment will be to restore self-belief in these families so that they do not need the State to be their parent.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he accept ACC’s new clinical pathway for victims of sexual abuse, introduced in October 2009, has drastically reduced the number of people who have been sexually abused who are approved by ACC for counselling?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): The decline rate for The Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC) sensitive claims unit has increased from 5 percent in 2000 to 41 percent in 2008, when the new guidelines were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey. The decline rates have continued to increase since they were introduced, although the major change in the reported data is the large number awaiting further information. These delays are a concern. That is why last week I announced an independent clinical review.

Hon Annette King: Is he aware of Ashburn Clinic, a psychiatric centre in Dunedin, which has worked successfully with ACC to provide treatment to victims of sexual abuse since 2000, but to which no patients have been referred since his announced changes to ACC guidelines; and, even more alarming, where patients in treatment have had their cases reviewed and funding stopped, often rendering planning for a safe discharge extremely difficult; where does he expect these people to get their treatment from?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am not aware of any communication I have had with Ashburn Clinic. I would recommend that, if there are concerns that that private-hospital facility has about ACC’s management of sensitive claims, they refer them to the independent clinical review panel that was set up and is being led by Dr Barbara Disley, a former mental health commissioner, because I will take a very strong lead from that review team as to whether ACC is properly meeting its legal responsibilities for those victims of sexual abuse or assault.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter written to me from the director of Ashburn Clinic pointing out all of the issues that I raised in my question 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.

Lynne Pillay: Has he seen the report from Rape Crisis that states that the new clinical pathway imposed in October 2009 has almost destroyed the sector, that the review, which will not be completed until late July, is too late for some, that many survivors are suicidal, and that no alternative was put in place?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I make in response to the member is that clinical guidelines for dealing with sensitive claims were undertaken on research work done by Massey University and launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in March 2008. I invite the member and any counsellors, psychotherapists, or others who have concerns about those guidelines or ACC’s processes, to make direct submissions to that clinical review team.

Lynne Pillay: In light of the avalanche of evidence showing that the changes made to ACC’s clinical guidelines last October are having a disastrous impact on the lives of vulnerable people, will he listen, and reinstate the previous clinical guidelines while the review is under way?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I make is that under the previous Government in 2008—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague is trying very carefully to put a very sensitive topic area to the Minister. She had no political content in her question; she simply asked about two dates, and what guidelines would operate while the review is under way. A Minister cannot stand up and say as the beginning of an answer: “The first point I would like to make is that the previous Government x, y, and z.” Clearly, this is all within his portfolio responsibilities for the warrant he holds at present.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the member’s question, she made reference to the change in the number of sensitive claims. I wanted to point out to the House that to advance the argument for change, one has to show that cases were not being declined previously.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite Lynne Pillay to repeat her supplementary question because in my view it was not that. Her supplementary question specifically asked whether the Minister would contemplate going back to old guidelines while the review is being conducted. I invite Lynne Pillay to repeat her question.

Lynne Pillay: In light of the avalanche of evidence showing that the changes made to ACC’s clinical guidelines last October are having a disastrous impact on the lives of vulnerable people, will he listen, and reinstate the previous clinical guidelines while the review is under way?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that under the previous clinical guidelines that the member wants to return to, 2,400 sensitive claims were declined per year. I also point out that the member is incorrect in her assertion, in that both the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the College of General Practitioners have issued statements strongly supportive of the changes that ACC has made. I do not wish to engage in a clinical argument. That is not my area of expertise. That is why I have sought an independent review team of skilled clinicians to look at the differing views and to provide recommendations on a constructive way forward.

Hon Annette King: Has he heard of a group of survivors of sexual assault called Courageous Women, who are challenging the changes to ACC guidelines, and is he prepared to meet them and hear their stories and the impact the changes are having on their lives?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have heard of the group only through the newspaper. I have made no decisions as Minister in respect of the issue of sensitive claims, because it is such a clinical area in which I am not wanting to interfere in decisions; the only decision I have made is that there is sufficient concern to justify a clinical review, and I invite Courageous Women, or members of the Opposition, or any other group that has concerns about ACC’s work in this area, to make their submissions to that clinical review team.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, why did he phone a member of the Courageous Women who is an advocate against sexual assault, and berate and bully her, saying the Courageous Women who signed T-shirts to highlight their concerns at his policy were part of a fiasco and a media circus, and if she wanted to speak out, the only appropriate forum was his review?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, I totally reject the member’s assertions. On Monday I read claims in the newspaper that this group was to meet with me. The first my office had heard of any request was when I read that in the newspaper. The person concerned phoned my office three times on Monday—

Hon Annette King: For an appointment.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —that is right—and she said that if she did not get an answer by 4 o’clock she would be going on the radio. I phoned her and said to her that the proper place for her to direct her concerns was the clinical review, and I think that is entirely appropriate. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I say to Labour members that they must immediately remove that. If members do not want to leave the House they will remove that immediately. [Interruption] I am on my feet. Members know the rules. The member who is speaking may use visual aids when he or she is speaking; other members may not. A member was not speaking then, and that was totally outside the Standing Orders.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In light of the claims made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I seek leave to table an email, in respect of the conversation I had with the person concerned, from persons who were listening to those who were part of the conversation, to show that the claims that have been made by Annette King are not correct.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that email document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Budget 2010—Roads of National Significance

3. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government in Budget 2010 continue to spend billions of dollars on the seven “Roads of National Significance” identified in the National Infrastructure Plan?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. The Government is forecast to spend $11 billion over the next 10 years on State highway construction, which will include substantially progressing the seven roads of national significance. We are doing this to lift our national productivity and economic growth by easing prominent bottlenecks within and around our five largest metropolitan areas, and by linking our major sea ports and airports more effectively into the State highway system.

Gareth Hughes: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that two of the motorways, Pūhoi to Wellsford and Transmission Gully, have benefit-cost ratios of less than 1, meaning that for each dollar spent they will not achieve even $1 in benefit?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister can confirm that depending on which way the Transmission Gully road is measured, one can come up with a benefit-cost ratio of less than 1. The Minister can also confirm that when the road was announced it was pointed out that it would be constructed in a very challenging environment, and that if we wanted a high benefit-cost ratio on the Transmission Gully road, we would have to move the capital city somewhere else so that the road could be built much less expensively. In the case of Pūhoi to Wellsford, depending on the discount rate used, and taking into account the wider economic benefits, from memory the ratio ranges from 0.8 to 1.6.

Gareth Hughes: Does he have any advice from Treasury to support his view that it is good economics to fund projects when the costs outweigh the benefits?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, the Minister does not have any specific advice in that regard. Of course, there is a huge range of Treasury advice on a range of issues, but Treasury is certainly keen to see the Government focus on economic growth, and we are certainly doing so. Roading forms part of a plan that we have developed for some time now, and it seems to be bearing early fruit in terms of a reduction in unemployment numbers, and in comments from the Governor of the Reserve Bank that New Zealand is back on the road again.

Gareth Hughes: Will he admit that recent OECD analysis referenced in his National Infrastructure Plan actually shows there was no positive relationship between motorways and economic growth in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. The Minister of Transport has been through that report at some length and it does not actually say that, at all. He is happy to take the member through it if the member so desires.

Hon Darren Hughes: How does he plan to come up with the $600 million shortfall between the funds he has available to him as the Minister of Finance and the funds that are required to build the seven roads of national significance over the next 7 years?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure exactly which numbers the member is referring to because—

Hon Darren Hughes: There’s no money for all this.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, the National Land Transport Programme projects $10.7 billion to substantially progress the roads of national significance over the next 10 years. It makes no prediction as to what will be completed within 7 years.

Gareth Hughes: What is his response to all the evidence that spending on trains and buses creates twice as many jobs as spending on motorways, because motorway construction involves more land and machinery than people?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member is referring, once again, to the OECD report. I am happy to take him through it at some point, because the points he is making are not reflected in the analysis of the appropriate approach for investment in New Zealand. The analysis reflects that we historically have had a very road-dominated transport system, which we are continuing to invest in.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table graphs from pages 62 and 63 of the OECD report on infrastructure investment, which show there is no correlation between motorways and economic growth in New Zealand, and a strong, positive link—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Gareth Hughes: Can he name any city in the world that has eliminated congestion and enhanced economic productivity by widening motorways and attracting more cars into crowded urban areas?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I can. There is one north of here called Auckland, which has made good progress with roading investment. With the combination of good roading investment and good public transport investment, I strongly predict that in the next 4 or 5 years we will have a much better transport outcome in Auckland.

Gareth Hughes: Is it fiscally responsible when the Government is cutting funding across the board for it to be spending tens of billions of dollars on motorway projects that fail to deliver jobs, fail benefit-cost analysis, and fail to provide for our future?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister would reject all of those assertions. I point out to the member something that he may not be aware of, and that is that we have a hypothecated roading revenue system in this country whereby road-user charges and petrol excise duty are reinvested into the roading system, largely to improve it. That system, of course, was signed off by the previous Government, of which his party was a member.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table a report from the US that demonstrates that economic spending on public transport—

Mr SPEAKER: Whose report is it?

Gareth Hughes: It is entitled What we learned from the stimulus, and it is by three nongovernmental organisations based in the US.

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

Government Proposals—Treasury Criticism

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Which of the Government’s proposals have been criticised by Treasury as representing poor value for money?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Most Ministers and most Governments have been criticised by Treasury for certain elements of their proposals. For example, Treasury is regularly critical of proposals to take GST off food, because that would cost about $2.5 billion in lost tax revenues per annum. That would dramatically push up our levels of foreign debt, which is another thing that Treasury is also critical of. Treasury is also critical—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —of moves to increase—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I should think so. This is a question on notice, which states: “Which of the Government’s proposals have been criticised by Treasury as representing poor value for money?”. I have been listening carefully to the Minister, and I have not heard any list. It is a question on notice.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. An open question like that surely has to allow the Minister some scope to narrow it down to the portfolio area in which it is asked. If it is just a general question, I will get my office to come over here with a wheelbarrow full of stuff relating to the previous Government’s policies, which Treasury consistently said were poor value for money.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member says, and if there are many criticisms it could be a very long list, so maybe we would not expect the Minister to make an exhaustive list. But no attempt was made to advise the House as to which of the Government’s proposals have been criticised by Treasury. The question appears to be in order. It is a very particular question. It is a primary question. It is capable of being answered, and I do not expect the answer to attack the Opposition without making any attempt to answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Speaker—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think we should give the Minister a chance to answer the question.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member will be aware that Treasury criticises a huge range of proposals made by many Governments, and it also criticises some policies that actually proceed. One policy that the member may be interested in is the Government’s Youth Opportunities programme, which Treasury criticised, yet it seems to have had a positive effect alongside the Government’s other policies, with the unemployment rate today announced as having fall to 6 percent, from 7.1 percent in the December 2009 quarter.

Hon David Cunliffe: When the Minister said earlier he would not be funding the cycleway project—not this year, not next year, and not the year after—was this because he agreed with Treasury advice that it was poor value for money?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Minister always defers to the Prime Minister’s superior judgment to that of Treasury. Of course, we are funding the cycleway project.

Hon David Cunliffe: Following on from that answer, why is he continuing to implement policies like the cycleway, which Treasury said was low-quality spending, when he is axing home help for the elderly on the same grounds as that?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has a huge range of policies that are designed to improve economic growth, to take the toughest edges off the world recession. I note that the Government is having some success in that regard, with a reduction in unemployment reported in the household labour force survey this morning from 7.1 percent to 6 percent. I also note the comments by Mr Bollard, the Reserve Bank governor, who says New Zealand’s recovery from the global crisis is now entering a “new, less fragile stage” in an article headlined: “NZ economy trucking again”.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Minister’s contention that the recovery is now fully under way, what does he say to the hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders who have gone without wage

rises, who face rises in the cost of living, or who have lost their jobs? What does he say to them, now that he is trumpeting the arrival of the recovery?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The recovery is still in an early stage. The household labour force survey figures are moving around, but they are improving. This is very encouraging when we consider the experience of many other countries in the world, including that of many in Europe, that are still struggling with the global economic recession.

Simon Bridges: What kinds of economic policies would threaten New Zealand’s recovery and destroy jobs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The biggest threat to our recovery would be an economic policy mix that featured soaring debt, higher taxes, and never-ending Budget deficits. This Government inherited precisely that scenario in late 2008, when New Zealand had already been in recession for most of that year. This Government has taken concrete steps to reduce our debt, to get our economy growing again, and to get people into sustainable jobs. That is evidenced in figures today. Labour never learns: it is still promoting a recipe of more debt and higher taxes.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

5. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his recent statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the announcement that the Government has approved and funded a bowel cancer screening pilot that will cost in total $31.6 million over the next 5 years. Bowel cancer is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and the second highest cause of cancer death here in New Zealand. In 2007 almost 3,000 people were diagnosed with bowel cancer, and 1,252 people died from the disease. However, it is a cancer that, if diagnosed and treated early, people have a good chance of surviving.

Dr Jackie Blue: What further details can he advise concerning the bowel screening announcement?

Hon TONY RYALL: The final decision on which district health boards will be the sites for the pilots will be made following an expression of interest process, which is expected to cover a minimum of 60,000 people aged from 50 to 74. This process will enable the Ministry of Health to assess willingness, capacity, and readiness, and will allow a coordinated approach to planning and implementation. It is a long-awaited initiative that if successful, and if a national programme is rolled out, could save up to 270 lives a year over time.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Given that we hear the Minister congratulate himself day after day for elective surgery increases, what does he say to Dr Clive Solomon, a surgeon operating at the front line, who said that the Minister’s figures were “questionable”, and a “blatant misrepresentation of health figures for political expedience.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would say that he is wrong. I say that that is wrong, and that it is quite clear we are heading into the district health board election season.

Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: How can this House trust his so-called good news on health, when each day my office is called by another older person who is suffering because of the Minister’s health cuts—which is why we will listen to the views of those older persons, not the Minister’s?

Hon TONY RYALL: That member can recite that mantra as much as she likes. The fact is that more services are being provided at the front line in New Zealand every day. If members look, for example, at Capital and Coast District Health Board, they will see that 500 more Wellingtonians had elective surgery last year than in the final year of the failed previous Government, whose members are seated opposite.

Adult and Community Education—Funding

6. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does he stand by the decisions the Government has made with respect to funding adult and community education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): Yes. This Government has had to make some difficult decisions regarding adult and community education, because the previous administration left behind a $521 million hole of unfunded commitments in Budget 2008.

Hon Maryan Street: In this New Zealand Sign Language Week, is the Minister aware that his predecessor had this to say last year about guaranteeing funding for sign language classes: “New Zealand Sign Language will continue to receive adult and community education funding, because it fits within the Government’s adult and community education priority. … The courses will not be cut.”; if he is, how is it that sign language classes previously held at Napier Boys’ High School, Tamatea High School, and Hastings Boys’ High School are no longer running in 2010, because of funding cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, I am aware of that. In relation to the Hawke’s Bay schools that the member mentioned, I am not aware of the specific provision in Hawke’s Bay. But if she would like me to make some inquiries on her behalf, I am happy to do so.

Lynne Pillay: How is it that sign language classes at Tikipunga High School, which serves the Whangarei, Kaikohe, and Kerikeri areas; at Rutherford College in Te Atatū; at Kelston Boys High School, which is right beside the Kelston Deaf Education Centre; at Tauranga Boys College; and at Tauranga Girls College are all unable to deliver services this year because of funding cuts?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has made a decision to refocus adult and community education funding on providing a number of programmes, including literacy, language, numeracy and foundation skills, and sign language. The individual funding decisions are made by the Tertiary Education Commission. But if the member has concerns about the lack of provision in a particular area, I invite her to contact my office and I will investigate that.

Hon Maryan Street: If sign language is one of the Government’s priorities for adult and community education, how in New Zealand Sign Language Week is it that courses at Fairfield College and Melville High School in Hamilton, at Shirley Boys High School in Christchurch, and at Taieri College in Dunedin cannot be offered in 2010, because of funding cuts; is this a sign of how the Government delivers its priorities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said to the previous speaker, the funding decisions are made by the Tertiary Education Commission, based on the Government’s priorities. Once again, I am happy to address any specific concerns about lack of provision in a particular area, but schools and other providers are prioritised by the Tertiary Education Commission. I note that the biggest reduction in Adult and Community Education funding occurred under the previous Government, where the number of students funded for Adult and Community Education dropped from 279,000 students in 2004 to 77,000 students in 2008.

Electricity—Number of Households That Changed Suppliers in March 2010

7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many households switched electricity suppliers in March 2010?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): A total of 34,892 households switched electricity suppliers in March this year. That is the highest number of customer switches since August 2001. It is 48 percent more than in March last year, and is a very good sign that people are making choices for cheaper electricity.

Katrina Shanks: What steps is the Government taking to promote customer switching and competition within the electricity market?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The recent ministerial review of the electricity market endorsed competition as the best way to constrain retail electricity price increases. The Government agreed with a series of recommendations made by the expert advisory group. It has agreed to reallocate

Tekapo A and Tekapo B power stations from Meridian Energy to Genesis Power and to create virtual asset swaps amongst State-owned generators to facilitate a better market. The benefits forthcoming from the transfer of Tekapo A and Tekapo B have already been seen, with Genesis Power aggressively entering the Christchurch and Dunedin markets and offering extremely competitive price packages. We expect the same to happen in the north very soon.

Education, National Standards—Plain English Reports for Parents

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: How important is it that parents receive plain English information on their children’s progress against national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): It is very important that the information that parents receive explains to them clearly and in plain language how their child is doing at school. This means providing information that tells them what progress their child is making and how he or she is achieving in relation to the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How would the Minister explain in plain English to the parents of a year 8 student that, notwithstanding their child being in stanine six, being in the top half of the asTTle results, fulfilling the expected requirements of the New Zealand curriculum, being in the average and above group for the progressive achievement test, and being ranked in the top third of the OECD, their child has failed to meet the numeracy requirements of her national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member fails to understand that the national standards are designed to lift standards, and they are aligned to National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. In those circumstances, that child would not be on track to achieve at NCEA level 2.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about measurement, not lifting, and it was about how she would explain that a child who is average or above in New Zealand has failed. The question did not ask about how the tool is to be used in the future.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect to the member, I listened quite carefully to the Minister’s answer. Unless I misheard her, I believe that she was pointing out in her answer that the standards that are being set may be a little higher than those in previous tests, and that someone who might have been above the average in the asTTle tests may not meet the national standards, which may be set differently. The member can pursue that point in supplementary questions.

Allan Peachey: What support is being provided to schools to help them to report to parents in plain language on children’s achievements and progress against the national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: More than $26 million of existing professional development funding has been budgeted for, and is focused on, delivering extensive, specialised support around national standards, including reporting to parents. We have also provided a range of online resources and a self-review tool to support schools’ improvement of their reporting practices.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How will having a national standard that her ministry says 50 percent of year 8 students will not meet help to identify the bottom 20 percent of students, who she says make up the tail of underachievement that she wants to focus on?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The national standards are designed for all students, not just the bottom 20 percent. First of all, no good teacher would ever label a child who did not reach the national standard as a failure. No good teacher would ever call a student a failure. Secondly, schools will be reporting to parents about the progress and achievement that their child is making in relation to the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know what it is. Again, it was a pretty simple question about how, when we have a standard that is set at 50 percent, it helps to identify the bottom 20 percent. I do not—

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I support the honourable member. The question was reasonably concise. It asked how schools would identify the bottom 20 percent of students that the

member understood were causing concern. The Minister did not give any information on that at all. It would be helpful if she could do so.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The national standards are designed for all students, not just the bottom 20 percent. Teachers are required to report on all students to their parents in writing, in plain language, twice a year. Even the bottom 20 percent will be reported on to their parents as to how they are progressing and achieving against the standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How, then, do her standards differentiate between a child who is in the bottom 10 percent and a child who is, say, at 45 percent of his or her cohort?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The discussions between teachers and parents are held entirely at their discretion. So how teachers explain to parents where their child is at at that particular point in time, and explain how that child has progressed, is up to them. Teachers know best. Their relationship is with the parents. But what parents must know—and we know this because parents have told us this—is how their child is progressing against the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that I had raised before. I asked how the national standards help to differentiate between a child who is at 10 percent and a child who is at 45 percent. The discussion with the parent does not actually help to identify where a child sits against the standard.

Mr SPEAKER: Again, the Minister focused in her answer on how teachers would report to parents, rather than on how the standards would differentiate between the bottom 10 percent of students and, say, a student who is achieving at around the 45 percent level. It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate in her answer to the member’s question how the national standards will differentiate between those students.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If the member cares to read the national standards, he will see that they set out very well what is expected at standard. There are exemplars for teachers to use, and, of course, they can use their professional judgment on where the child’s achievement and progress sit. Teachers can also use a whole range of assessment techniques and tools to ascertain that. A goodquality teacher will know what the difference is in a child’s achievement and progress.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What, then, is the point of having a standard?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Mr Speaker—

Hon Tony Ryall: Back to basics.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Back to basics. The national standards are designed to ensure that every single New Zealand child is able to achieve and progress in reading, writing, and maths, so that he or she will achieve NCEA level 2 as the minimum qualification that a modern child needs in order to live a full and successful life. I understand that that is a difficult concept for the Opposition to grasp.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How will identifying half of the year 8 children as not meeting a standard help every child to achieve NCEA level 2?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is exactly the point. It is the legacy of the 9 years of the previous Labour Government that half the children in year 8 are not on track in mathematics to achieve NCEA level 2.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked how identifying children would help them to get to NCEA level 2. That was the purport of my question, and you understand that, Mr Speaker. The question asked not how they would get there; it asked what the point is of having those standards if they do not assist children to get there.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The member should not go pleading to you, Mr Speaker, on the basis of his interpretation of his own question. The Hansard will show what he asked. Equally, it will show that the response was very good. The fact that he claims that 50 percent of year 8 students will not meet a standard simply means that those students have an awful lot of work to do. The Minister pointed out that that is the legacy of the previous Government’s failings.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a nice try, but the difficulty is that the member asked a pretty fair question on how identifying a certain number of children as not meeting a standard will assist them in reaching NCEA level 2. It is a fair question, and it is perfectly capable of being answered. To say it is all the fault of the previous Government that 45 percent of students are not meeting the new standard does not really answer that question. I think the question deserves an answer before a political criticism is made, because it is a fair question. I can think of all sorts of ways of answering that question. I think an answer is deserved.

Hon Gerry Brownlee:I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If this matter relates to a year 8 standard, then it is patently evident that most of the years of those children’s education were under the previous Government.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member knows that the Minister does not need that kind of help to answer a pretty simple question.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The standards will provide signposts for teachers and parents to notice, recognise, and respond to.

Police—Facilities

9. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Police: What is the Government doing to ensure police have the facilities they need to effectively serve New Zealand communities?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I am pleased to report that tomorrow I am opening the 10th new police facility since becoming the Minister of Police. The new station in the Hawke’s Bay community of Tamatea will provide a base for the Napier tactical response team and the community constable. This Government is keen to ensure that all communities, large and small, have the police they need to make them feel safer in their homes and on the streets. Single-officer stations will also be opened over the next 6 months or so in Russell, Karamea, Granity, and Nuhaka.

Chris Tremain: What role has the Tamatea community of Napier played in ensuring they have a community police base?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am advised that this station has been a classic example of community policing in action. The community and police jointly recognised a problem, then worked together to find a solution. It has involved local residents, the three schools in the area, local businesses, and the council. I am told that the residents are now feeling much more reassured, and that they are keen to work with the new constable at the grassroots level to take ownership of crime problems in their area, which is something Labour could never bring itself to do.

David Garrett: Has she investigated what resources and facilities would be required to implement a zero-tolerance policing policy in even one major police district?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I have not.

David Garrett: Is she aware that zero-tolerance policing is widely accepted as the reason for dramatically reducing crime rates in New York State, and would she consider trialling such a policy here?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. I think we need New Zealand solutions. Last time I checked, New York City had 37,000 police officers for a population of 8 million. I am not sure we want to have an equivalent number here.

Biosecurity New Zealand—Confidence

10. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does he have confidence in his ministry’s ability to protect New Zealand against biosecurity risks?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity): Generally speaking, yes, particularly when we consider the enormity of the task ahead of us in protecting New Zealand’s biodiversity and biosecurity.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Why did he reassure this House just last year that his Government’s policies would “significantly strengthen and enhance our biosecurity system”, when last week an

independent report stated there were 29 deficiencies in the biosecurity processing of imported raw pig meat, including the import risk assessment?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The issue to which the member is referring is the import health standards for pork imports into this country. We received, quite recently, a very substantial report— 67 pages—which is detailed and wants further work before we conclude. I am intent on solving this issue with a lasting solution. This is something that started before 2005, to which the previous Government simply turned its back. I want to achieve a way we can meet our obligations by demanding good access for exports and allowing fair importation into New Zealand, but at the same time balancing the need to protect New Zealand’s biosecurity.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given that it is the second time that an independent review panel has found his department’s import safety risk assessment to be deficient, in order to protect New Zealand will the Minister suspend all imports of raw pork products—as happened with bee product imports from Australia—until all the panel’s recommendations have been addressed; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER: As I said to the member, we will analyse this very complicated report with care. We have, as of the end of last year, established 737 import health standards without difficulty. We have two challenges, which we inherited from the previous Labour Government, concerning the importation of honey and pork products, and I will consider them with care, accepting advice from my biosecurity officials.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the UN Food and Agriculture Organization’s recent advisory that Governments undertake “re-examination of possible routes of entry and measures to reinforce controls,” and “more rigorous checks at ports and airports.” in order to protect against a heightened threat of foot-and-mouth disease, will he reinstate the 56 front-line biosecurity staff whom he sacked last year?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The first point I make to that member is there has been no cut to Government funding at the front line, whatsoever. As soon as we were aware of notified foot-andmouth outbreaks in both Japan and Korea, we heightened awareness at the border and we increased our profiling of visitors coming through from those countries. But the point I think Mr O’Connor needs to be aware of is that our biosecurity should not respond to incursions that occur in Asia just when they occur, because, frankly, foot-and-mouth is prevalent throughout that continent at all times. Our systems at the border need to be prepared to manage that risk, not only when we are notified, but on the assumption that foot-and-mouth is in China, Japan, and Korea at all times.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a report of the independent review panel on the provisional import health standards for pig meat and pig meat products into New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Damien O’Connor: The second is a document of notification for importers of bee products from Australia. It is an import health standard that advises the industry that it can no longer import bee products from Australia.

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.

Pilots, Commercial—Safety and Monitoring

11. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent measures has the Government taken to improve the safety and monitoring of commercial pilots?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport): I have recently announced two new initiatives by the Civil Aviation Authority. It will work with the Ministry of Justice to introduce random checks on commercial pilots for any criminal convictions that have not been declared. This will be in addition to the existing check required when a pilot first enters the system. Also, the Civil Aviation Authority is proposing to introduce an electronic database, which will enable it to more effectively gather information and monitor medical issues affecting pilots.

Hon Tau Henare: What recent measures has the Government taken to improve the safety and the monitoring of commercial pilots?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I wanted to reassure the travelling public of New Zealand that these new measures are in addition to the current legislative requirements and will be cost-effective. I am very confident that airlines take the issue of drug and alcohol abuse seriously and that the vast majority of pilots do an outstanding job.

Local Authorities—Privatisation of Infrastructure

12. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Local

Government: Does he favour the privatisation of local authorities’ infrastructure?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister

of Local Government: No. The Minister favours efficient and effective delivery of services provided by councils. Some are best delivered by councils directly and some by private enterprises contracting to a council. He supports councils making their own decisions within the law and representing the wishes of the ratepayers.

Phil Twyford: Does his Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill allow private ownership of water infrastructure for periods of up to 35 years?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Yes. Let me reiterate that there is no proposal to privatise water anywhere within New Zealand. The House has been told on a number of occasions that the decision is simply this: to take what the previous Labour Government had in place for many years, which was that a council could enter into a public-private partnership for 15 years, and to allow an extension of up to 35 years if the council and the ratepayers deem it to be appropriate.

Brendon Burns: If a council did not build it, does not own it for 35 years, does not operate it, does not maintain it, and does not control it, as his changes to the Act allow for, how can it be anything other than privatisation?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The fact is that the member first of all needs to look in the dictionary to see the definition of “private” ownership. I say this to the member: the fact is we are talking about public-private partnerships with regard to the management of water; the councils will always own the water supply. That is what the law requires to have happen. We are not talking about privatisation. The councils own the public water supply. It may be that they will deem that the most efficient and effective way to get good performance of delivery of water to the public is to ask the private sector to administer the water, but there is no way that that is privatising the actual asset.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree that, under his bill, activities or functions can be shifted from the public sector to the private sector; if so, is he aware that he has just met the definition of “privatisation” widely accepted in the academic literature?

Hon JOHN CARTER: No, he does not. If that member is an example of what academics think, then I do not think we have a problem with regard to privatisation in this country.

Brendon Burns: When he compared his proposals to allow private sector involvement in water services with his having his lawns mowed by a contractor, was he aware that under the provisions of this bill the lawn-mowing contractor would own his lawn, and that he would be stuck with him for 35 years?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The member fails to understand that when we talk about the provision of water and public-private partnerships we are talking about the administration of the water, not the

ownership. In this case, the fact is that the lawns continue to grow, and the councils will continue to own the water supply in New Zealand and to provide water to the public of New Zealand.

Question No. 2 to Minister

LYNNE PILLAY (Labour): I seek leave to table a survey from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, which shows that it is currently consulting about concerns about the Accident Compensation Corporation’s guidelines.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

ENDS