(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 27 OCTOBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economy—Reports

1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister

of Finance: Mr Speaker—[Interruption] Although my name is not Bill and I will never pretend to be Bill, nor am I changing my name by deed poll to Datacom, I reply that the Minister has seen reports that our economy is performing well relative to the economies of most other developed economies. Our unemployment is lower, our banking sector is stable, Government debt is lower, and we have a clear plan to bring public spending growth under control. However, one perverse effect of that strong performance is a higher than expected dollar, particularly against currencies where the economy is weak, like the US and the UK. As the Minister has said several times, the Government is concerned about the impact that this is having on exporters and local producers, and it is doing what it can to ensure that its actions do not add to the pressure on the dollar.

Craig Foss: What actions is the Government taking to help exporters to remain competitive?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We are focused on lifting New Zealand’s trading performance. In the 5 years before we took office, our imports had grown at twice the rate of our exports, despite the world economy booming. This was simply the result of mismanagement. Competitiveness covers all aspects of the economy. The Government is busy improving regulation, boosting State sector efficiency, and providing the country with adequate infrastructure. In addition, we have a clear plan to control public spending and debt. This reduces pressure on the exchange rate and allows the rest of the economy to prosper.

Craig Foss: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Craig Foss.

Craig Foss: Has the Minister seen any reports on the level of the New Zealand dollar?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, the Minister has seen comments from Federated Farmers, stating that the Government should immediately cut its spending to ease pressure on the dollar. The Government understands farmers’ concerns. We have adopted a considered approach to spending decisions, in order to provide a level of certainty around public services and entitlements in a recession. At the same time, we have told Government departments to expect little or no extra money in future years. That is in marked contrast to reports we have seen of Labour’s plans to borrow an extra $6 billion a year. There is no doubt that that kind of reckless borrowing would push the dollar up further.

Dr Russel Norman: How will the Government’s changes to the emissions trading scheme, which will result in an increase in Government debt, according to Treasury, of 6 to 8 percent by 2050, reduce Government borrowing?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Although I will not enter into any discussions about the veracity of those figures, I will say that if New Zealand did not have an emissions trading scheme, the opportunities for our traders to trade successfully, to lift our exports and do better for this country’s economy, would be significantly reduced.

Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Are his statements last week on private sector competition in ACC consistent with the Government’s earlier promise to investigate opening only the work account to competition?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table an article dated 23 October that totally contradicts the Prime Minister’s answer. It is from the New Zealand Herald.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an article from the New Zealand Herald of 23 October.

Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the National Government considering turning over the work account to private insurers when the Treasury advice that the Prime Minister tabled last week suggested that there may be little benefit from that change, because Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) levies are not excessive?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There has been no decision about the future shape of accident compensation. There is a discussion taking place, and there is consideration of how the future of accident compensation may be delivered for the betterment of all New Zealanders. I point out to Labour members that it was previous Labour Governments that, in the last 9 years, successively introduced private sector involvement into accident compensation—yet somehow, to Labour, that seems OK. Unfortunately, the other mismanagement by Labour Governments has left the entire scheme in a most perilous position.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the National Government considering opening up the work account to the private sector when Treasury’s explicit advice is that this would have very little effect on cost pressures?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member who asks that question chooses a very, very narrow part of Treasury advice. It is evident that ACC is an organisation under stress, and that its ability to continue serving New Zealanders has been impeded considerably by the neglect of the previous Government. We are looking at how it may be preserved for the future.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table the Treasury comment that says that work account contestability would have little effect on ACC’s cost pressures.

Mr SPEAKER: Is leave sought to table the document?

Hon Phil Goff: That is right.

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

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I objected, and I now ask for clarification. Is that the document that has already been tabled?

Mr SPEAKER: That is not strictly a point of order. I dealt with the seeking of leave to table the document. Leave was not granted.

Chris Tremain: What other reports has the Prime Minister received about the benefits of competition?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Prime Minister has seen a report that talks about “the fresh air of competition, choice, opportunity, and innovation. It has put the nation on the road to real sustainable growth that, over time, means a better life for everyone.” The Prime Minister has seen another report that states “The consumer had everything to gain from the cut-throat competition the Labour Government deregulation of the financial sector had brought about.” Those were comments from Phil Goff, who now seems to think that competition is not appropriate.

Hon Phil Goff: Why does the National Government intend to open up the work account to the private sector when the major report done by PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that privatisation would add 10 percent to administrative costs and increase charges to ordinary hard-working New Zealanders who would have to pay that expense?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are two PricewaterhouseCoopers reports in the system. One report was released in 2008 based on figures from 4 years prior to that. The most recent report is the actuarial assessment of the accident compensation scheme’s current position, which paints a very dire picture. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is it a good idea to add to the bill that ordinary New Zealanders face in paying their levies the estimated $200 million in net profit that Merrill Lynch says the big Australian insurance companies would make out of privatising the work account?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In 2000 the Hon Michael Cullen raised the residual claims levy from 31c to 35c, claiming that that would see the accounts of the accident compensation scheme fully funded by 2014. Although the Labour Government successively put up the amount of the residual claim levies, Labour never achieved that. Rather, Labour opened it up to a whole lot of extra claims that have left the system in a parlous position.

Mr SPEAKER: The question asked was about the competition in Australia, the profits made in Australia, and how opening up to competition in New Zealand would not lead to similar profits, or something to that effect. The Minister has not really answered that in any shape or form. It would be helpful if the Minister were to—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could ask the question again, with all due respect.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that totally. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to do that.

Hon Phil Goff: Why was it a good idea to add to the bill that ordinary Kiwis have to pay for accident compensation $200 million in net profit that Merrill Lynch says the big Australian companies would make out of privatising the New Zealand work account of the accident compensation scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The question asked was dealt with last week. However, the point is that the question supposes that that would be an outcome. This Government is not afraid of investigating competition, because we know that the scheme is in a dreadful state at the moment and needs a lot of work. We are considering the best way forward.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House last week that the failed experiment in privatising the scheme last time was effective, when PricewaterhouseCoopers, Treasury, and employers have all said that following a period of dropping the levies to capture market share would be followed by a large rise in premium income by those insurance companies? Why did he say that, when doctors have said that for them the privatised system was a nightmare?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The suppositions in the Leader of the Opposition’s question are just that. To answer them as if they were fact would be quite wrong. The reality is, though, that during the short period that the scheme was open to competition, it was a very successful time for all involved.

Hon Phil Goff: Why has the Prime Minister broken his pre-election promise that any consideration of privatising would be related only to the work account, when he has now made it clear that he intends consideration for privatisation to go across the whole area, and why did the Minister for ACC, Dr Nick Smith, constantly mislead the House up until 10 days ago—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot make an allegation, when asking a question, that another member has misled the House.

Hon Phil Goff: I will rephrase it. Why did Nick Smith constantly tell the House up until 10 days ago that the stocktake would not involve investigation of privatising the work account, because that was not a priority?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Firstly, I dispute the interpretation that the Leader of the Opposition has put on to the statements made prior to the election. But also neither the Prime Minister nor any of the Cabinet had any idea what a dreadful state ACC was in prior to the election.

We had a loss in that organisation of $2.4 billion in 2008, and every account is in an utter mess.

This Government is attempting to fix it.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it necessary for a Minister to authenticate a comment such as that, when 10 days ago Nick Smith was—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows he cannot litigate an answer like that. I apologise for the fact that he cannot do it, but he cannot.

Climate Change—Australian Scheme

3. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Which is true: his statement to the House of 21 October “in respect of Australia, there is a complete ban on any deforestation of pre-1990 forests”, or his statement to the House of 22 October “In Australia each state requires by law that the deforestation of pre-1990 forests be notified”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Both. The Australian Government has noted that it has not included deforestation in its emissions trading scheme because of the regulatory controls that have been imposed since 1990. For instance, in New South Wales the new Native Vegetation Act and regulations that commenced in 2005 severely constrain land clearance, with only 2,060 hectares approved last year. All of it is subject to offsetting or rather strict environmental requirements. In Queensland, its Act also severely restricts vegetation clearance and also requires offsets. The exact provisions vary from state to state, but they have resulted in very little deforestation in Australia in recent years.

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I heard the answer correctly, the first answer was both. Logically, that simply cannot be true—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot argue about the quality of an answer by way of a point of order. He has a supplementary question in which to further question the Minister about his answer, or about what he might have said, but he cannot do it by way of a point of order.

David Garrett: How can the country have any confidence that New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme will match up with Australia’s, as promised, when the Minister responsible has not even got the basic facts about its scheme right?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, this Government campaigned and is now delivering on harmonising our emissions trading scheme more closely with Australia’s. We think that makes good sense, given the CER relationship. We have never said the two schemes would be identical in every respect. There are differences between New Zealand and Australia in areas such as forestry and agriculture. We need to be pragmatic and recognise that.

Louise Upston: Why is the inclusion of deforestation important in the context of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, deforestation makes up a pretty large proportion of New Zealand’s emissions. For instance, in 2007 it made up 8 million tonnes, or 7 percent, of New Zealand’s emissions. For most developed countries, including Australia, it is a pretty small contributor. Secondly, it would be very unfair for us to say that those foresters who have credits under Kyoto are able to claim them but those who deforest are responsible for any debits. That would be illogical, and that is why the Government’s policy is the way that it is.

Rahui Katene: What is New Zealand’s current position regarding the relationship between deforestation liability and afforestation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is Government policy that foresters should be able to earn credits for afforestation and, equally, liabilities should apply for deforestation. That is in accord with the Kyoto rules. The Government is looking to further improve those Kyoto rules, on which I want to acknowledge the good work of both the iwi leadership group and the Māori Party. Priorities for

change include provision for offsets, carbon embedded in wood products, and continuation of the credit liability rules for existing forests.

David Garrett: What is the Government’s policy on climate change: to be a world leader or a fast follower?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: At the last election National very clearly campaigned on a policy of New Zealand doing its fair share as a developed country in respect of climate change. That is exactly what we will be doing in the international negotiations in Copenhagen, and those are exactly the policy parameters on which we have designed our emissions trading scheme.

Charles Chauvel: Is it true that under the Minister’s proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme, made in the name of harmonisation with Australia, hard-working New Zealand taxpayers will be required to subsidise Rio Tinto to the value of $225,000 per worker per year, as the select committee heard last week, and how is it fair to enact provision for that sort of subsidy while reducing support for New Zealanders by cutting effective accident compensation prevention programmes in order to reduce costs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I find the member opposite’s approach around the emissions trading scheme and the smelter interesting, because in the very scheme that the previous Government put on the law books, the reality was a very substantial allocation. In fact, during the period from—

Charles Chauvel: 12 years!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What the member opposite said is interesting, because when I was involved in negotiations with the Labour Party about the phase-out over the 12 years, he said Labour recognised that 12 years was unrealistic and was very relaxed about it being extended further.

Charles Chauvel: Unfortunately, I cannot use this supplementary question to deal with that misrepresentation, but—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to discontinue this exchange, because I cannot hear the supplementary question. I ask the member to ask his supplementary question.

Charles Chauvel: Is it true that under his proposed legislation, made in the name of harmonisation with Australia, carbon credits will be freely allocated forever, as the select committee was told by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, and is it fair to increase taxpayer subsidies for large polluters at the same time as he plans to privatise some of the activities of the accident compensation scheme to foreign-owned insurance companies, at the expense of support and protection for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to answer the member’s supplementary questions as he succeeds the spokesperson on accident compensation, but the substantive question was about climate change. I think the member should be required to cofine his questions to that issue.

Charles Chauvel: Speaking to the—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need to hear further on the matter. I realise that the member, in asking his supplementary question, compared climate change policy with accident compensation policy, but I do not see that as being totally out of order. I think the Minister is perfectly capable of answering it. The fundamental part of the supplementary question relates to the emissions trading scheme.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Just as we said, the Government’s emissions trading scheme strikes a very good balance between making sure we get this economy growing again by providing jobs for New Zealanders, and doing our fair share in respect of the huge challenge associated with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. I challenge members opposite as to why they criticise a scheme that is very similar to the schemes being proposed in Australia and in most other developed countries as a good balance between sensible economics and environmental responsibility.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a supplementary submission tabled and released by the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week, showing that the subsidy per job to Rio Tinto under the Minister’s changes to the emissions trading scheme is worth $225,000 per annum.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this document available and already released by the select committee?

Charles Chauvel: It is.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not see why I should waste the House’s time on that, because the document is already publicly available to members. The recommendations of the Standing Orders Committee, which are published in the Standing Orders, are very clear that leave should not be sought for the tabling of such documents. I make it clear that I intend to make sure that the power to seek leave is not abused, because I do not see how it assists members at all if the document is readily available to them.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Previously you have advised the House about your views on this matter, particularly citing that particular report of the Standing Orders Committee, and I say that although that matter is noted in the report, it was not a recommendation of the committee that the Standing Orders be changed in respect of the ability of a member to seek leave. That is the primary purpose of what my colleague is doing; he is seeking leave under the Standing Orders to undertake an action. Until such time as the Standing Orders are changed in that respect, the words that you are quoting are the views of that select committee but were not felt strongly enough for it to recommend that changes be made to the Standing Orders.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the members, because, OK, I have obviously annoyed them by what I have just done. But I make it very clear that there are also Speakers’ rulings that indicate that where information is readily available to members, it is not the purpose of the power to seek leave to table documents that members should seek to table documents that are already readily available to members.

Charles Chauvel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just want to make the point that I am not seeking to trifle with you or the House by asking for this leave. The material was tabled by a submitter at the select committee. Yes, it is technically available, but it is not by any means readily available—for example, to the media or to other members who do not sit on the committee. In my submission the document contains very important information about the amendments to the accident compensation scheme, and I am simply, I suppose, asking that you consider the matter carefully, because the document is something that I think the House should see.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member. On this occasion I will seek leave, but I make it clear that I will seek further advice on this issue in terms of situations where documents are tabled at select committees—they are released immediately, and they are available from the select committees; they are already available to Parliament, if you like—because I think there should be guidance on that matter. On this occasion I will seek—

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Peter Dunne.

Hon Peter Dunne: Before you seek leave, I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 142/2 by Mr Speaker Tapsell: “Leave should only be sought to table papers that are not readily available from other sources.” The practice that has developed in recent years has been that members seek to table a range of documents, but, as Mr Tapsell’s ruling points out: “The tabling of a document is not an occasion to make a point; it is an opportunity to produce for the House a paper that other members may not see or may not have seen.” I submit to you that papers that have been released by a select committee, or papers that are in other ways put on the Table of this House or released in the public arena, conform with Speaker Tapsell’s ruling, and that you were right in your initial assessment not to seek leave in this instance.

Hon Darren Hughes: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to take up any more time of the House at the moment. I appreciate the point made by the Hon Peter Dunne. He is quite correct, of course, in quoting Speaker Tapsell. I was aware of that particular Speaker’s ruling; I just did not want to take too much time over the issue. On this occasion I will seek leave, and members can make their own judgment about the document. But I make it clear that in future I do not intend to seek leave; I intend to uphold the practice of the past, whereby seeking leave to table a document was to provide information for the House, not to make a political point. In recent times greater emphasis has gone on to seeking leave to table documents in order to score a political point, and that is not the purpose of such leave. The power under a point of order to seek leave to table a document is a very significant power, and it should not be abused. But on this occasion, because I have not given prior warning of that, I will seek leave for the submission to the select committee to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point goes with the ruling you have just given. I happen to agree with your perspective on what should be tabled and what should not, but, unfortunately, this matter was considered by the Standing Orders Committee. Effectively, it considered whether discretion should be given to the Speaker to decide whether to put leave to the House, and decided to leave it as a recommendation to members that they should not seek leave— that it is not an appropriate thing to do. I think we would probably agree that the Standing Orders Committee, at the time when it considered this, did not go far enough. I suggest that before you go further than the report that has been adopted by the House from the Standing Orders Committee— because there were a lot of other matters there—it might be a good idea to call that committee together again. I know, as I say this, that I am not universally supported by members on my side of the House. But I think the matter would be worth considering, because I have had some experience on the other side of the House, and I know that from that perspective at least, as well as from yours, seeking leave to table such documents can be seen as trifling. It is not so in this particular case, but I think it is something where the House should support you in a new ruling. I think it is appropriate that the Standing Orders Committee consider the matter first.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member, and we will not take further time on this today. I will come back to the House on the matter.

Finance, Minister—Statements

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister

of Finance: Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Did he use his influence as shareholding Minister to promote himself and the views of the National Government in an advertisement that ran during prime time on Television New Zealand (TVNZ)?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. TVNZ invited him to appear, and the programme that it is trying to promote, Plain English, clearly plays on his name. He assumes that the company invited him to be on the programme and to front it because he is considered to be almost as economically literate as the Prime Minister, and, most likely, almost as good looking as him, as well. He is sure that if the—

Mr SPEAKER: I have called the Hon David Cunliffe. I think we have heard sufficient.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm whether TVNZ approached him or his office regarding this self-promotion on Plain English, or did he or his office approach TVNZ?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I suggest that the question is inappropriately asked, because it talks about who approached whom over self-promotion. I made it very clear in the first answer that TVNZ had invited the Minister to appear. It is their initiative, it is their programme, and it is their

format. The Minister has simply said that, yes, he will participate. I am sure that if the Labour Party had had something important to say, it would have been equally welcome to participate.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister or his staff had any input into the preparation, scripting, or editing of this promotion, at any time?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As I said before, it is a TVNZ initiative. Their invitation was issued to the office of the Minister of Finance, and—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a different question from the previous supplementary question. The previous supplementary question, to be fair to the Minister, asked who had approached whom, and the Minister answered that question. The second supplementary question asked whether the Minister or his staff had had any input into, or involvement in the preparation of—any involvement of any kind—the production of that promotion. It is not—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has made his point. I ask the Minister to come to the answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Of course his office has not been involved in matters relating to the production of the programme, nor has his office been involved in promoting the programme.

But his office most certainly has been concerned to ensure the accuracy of the script. Of course, I am sure that one or two of his advisers advised him on how he should appear on the programme.

None of that would be unusual.

Hon David Cunliffe: In taking advice from TVNZ as to the accuracy of the script or what he should wear, did the Minister or his office discuss any aspect of this self-promotion with the Prime Minister, or with anyone from his office or department, including the Cabinet Office, given the requirements of the Cabinet Manual relating to perceived conflicts of interest?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member clearly misheard the answer to the previous question.

The Minister’s office—naturally, with the Minister—was concerned as to the accuracy of the scripts, not TVNZ itself. As to the other matters, communications within the Government are going along just well and fine, thank you very much.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he think it is “a good look” for him as a shareholding Minister in TVNZ to be spending taxpayers’ money on a broadcast promoting his own views called Plain English, when that title mimics the title of his own political National Party email newsletter?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I simply say that sometimes one cannot help good luck.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the invitation from Television New Zealand come before or after he used a seven-letter word beginning with “f”, followed by a four-letter word beginning with “c”, in a conversation with the person in charge of editorial policy for Television New Zealand?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that question is within the Standing Orders; it certainly is not within the decorum of this House, and I struggle to see what possible point Trevor Mallard MP could be trying to make.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear further on the point of order. I waited to see how members of the House would react to that particular question, because it was patently obvious to anyone who heard it what was meant. It certainly, in my view, was right on the boundaries of whether it should be allowed in this House, and that a member objected to it is, I think, grounds to invite the member to reword his question. I do not want him to lose a supplementary question, but I think we cannot allow that language to stand in the House when a member has objected to it. If the member could reword his question, so that its language does not offend.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the invitation to appear on the programme come before or after he swore at the person in charge of Television New Zealand editorial policy and thereby put pressure on a company that he is an ownership Minister of?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I doubt that question would meet many of the requirements of the Standing Orders, given that it was so full of assumption and assertion. But what I can say is that, in

order for an accurate answer to be given, I suggest the member put the question down as a written question, so that all members can know exactly on what date what took place.

United Nations Human Development Report—New Zealand Results

5. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Has he received advice on the UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report 2009; and is he concerned that it positions New Zealand as having the sixth-biggest gap between rich and poor among countries with very high human development, with a similar inequality score to India and Russia?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of

Foreign Affairs: No. The Minister is advised that NZAID, Treasury, and the Ministry of Social Development have not yet seen the report, and the Government cannot comment about the content of a report it has not received. However, I can advise the member that an electronic version of the executive summary, which was sent in advance of the report’s release, has been received. I understand that this summary says nothing about the inequality scores the member referred to in his question.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that this report has been completely available for the past week, has Cabinet discussed the findings of British researchers Wilkinson and Pickett that “Almost every modern social and environmental problem—ill-health, lack of community life, violence, drugs, obesity, mental illness, long working hours, big prison populations—is more likely to occur in a less equal society.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he concerned that the same research shows that violence is higher and more people are imprisoned in more unequal countries; if so, what is his Government doing to improve New Zealand’s inequality ranking from that reported by the United Nations Development Programme?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government would need to study the report in detail before it could comment on the methodology used or the reliability of the data. I understand that methodology and data are often contentious aspects of such reports.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Given that the methodology of the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report is now 17 years old, and that this particular ranking is taken from the Gini coefficient ratio, which is well known to researchers and policy makers, is he concerned that more people suffer from mental illness in more unequal countries; if so, what is his Government doing to improve New Zealand’s inequality ranking from that recorded by the United Nations Development Programme?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister cannot be concerned or unconcerned until the report has been read and the methodology data has been studied.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Working on the assumption that the report will no doubt be read by the Government in due course, at its leisure, is his Government’s policy of tax cuts for the rich and cutting weekly accident compensation entitlements for casual and seasonal workers likely to increase or decrease inequality in New Zealand?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I can assure the member that when the report is received it will be read.

Accident Compensation—Opening Scheme to Competition

6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Has he received the Treasury memo to the Hon Bill English entitled “Work Account Contestability”, which states it is “Not clear that levies are excessive—competition in 1998 did reduce levies but could have been firms lossleading to establish market share”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Yes. But the memo also states that contestability has advantages, with gains through innovation, the sharing of gains between purchasers and providers, the removal of politics from the levy setting, and the use of market mechanisms to improve the accident compensation scheme’s performance. Treasury concluded that contestability was worth exploring further.

Hon David Parker: Does he agree with the architect of accident compensation, Sir Owen Woodhouse, who when asked whether private insurers will be able to provide the same cover for lower premiums than those of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) said: “I’m not merely a sceptic, … It cannot happen.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has committed to exploring the option of the private sector being able to provide services in the work account. I am very surprised that members opposite are so close-minded that they will not allow even a stocktake, led by one of their former colleagues, David Caygill, to do work in this important area.

Hon David Parker: Why does the Minister continue undermining ACC when he ought to be honouring the social contract that is its foundation, rather than grooming it for sale to foreign insurance companies and leading New Zealand down the path of an American-style medical misadventure system?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Both I and the Prime Minister have made it abundantly plain that the ACC will remain a publicly owned provider of services. The debate here is whether employers should be able to take out accident insurance with other companies, and I am surprised that members opposite have become so opposed to that notion.

Aaron Gilmore: Does the existing accident compensation system enable private sector participation, and profits by overseas companies from accident management?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It may come as a surprise to members opposite, but, yes, it does.

Twenty-three percent of employees in New Zealand are covered under accredited employer schemes that are run by companies like Southern Cross, Gallagher Bassett, Aon, and Wellnz, which are both American and Australian - owned. I am also surprised that Labour now considers profit to be some sort of dirty word. I fear for the New Zealand economy if Labour ever gets on the Treasury benches again.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister think ordinary New Zealanders, like motorcyclists, will believe him or Sir Owen Woodhouse, who says that accident compensation is not in a crisis, given that what was collected last year in levies was $1 billion more than was spent, and it also has $11 billion of assets?

It may be that for members opposite an organisation that lost $4.8 billion in the last year, $2.4 billion in the year before—

Hon Members: No!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite say “No!”. Whose signature is on those annual accounts? Hon Peter Neilson, the deputy chairman of ACC. Are members opposite saying that accounts that have been approved by the auditors in the Audit Office, by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and by Infinity, are all wrong? What they show is that accident compensation is in a serious financial pickle, and this Government is having to clean up an awful mess arising from the financial mismanagement of accident compensation by members opposite.

Hon David Parker: Why does he not tell New Zealanders that under his plan services will be cut, losses socialised, and profits privatised, to the advantage of foreign-owned insurance firms?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member should listen to my answers, because the truth is that already we have Southern Cross, Aon, Gallagher Bassett, and Wellnz, all companies that are in it not because they love New Zealand but because they make a profit under a scheme that was approved by members opposite. That might be news to them, but we are saying that we think there are further opportunities for the private sector to make a contribution to efficient and fair accident compensation in New Zealand.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether the Minister was quoting from an official document when he said there were some private insurers in New Zealand providing insurance; if he was, I ask him to table the document, because I have never—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made a fair point of order. Was the Minister quoting from an official document? He was not.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green): I seek leave to table four documents, if I may.

Mr SPEAKER: What are they?

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: The first document is table M from the United Nations Development Programme’s Human Development Report of 2009, which gives New Zealand an inequality ranking similar to those of India and Russia.

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.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: The second document is page 148 of the book The Spirit Level by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, showing that more people are imprisoned in more unequal countries.

Mr SPEAKER: What was the document published in?

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: It is from a book called The Spirit Level by researchers Wilkinson and Pickett.

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

There is objection.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Perhaps members might relent on page 67—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member for interrupting, but I say to the front benches on both sides of the Chamber that we are hearing a point of order, and it will be heard in silence.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: I am seeking leave of the House to relent with regard to page 67 of the research, which shows that more people suffer—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this the same document that the member—

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: Yes. It is the same book, but a different page.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a separate page from the same book. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM: The fourth document is a list of the top 11 “Countries with the Biggest Gaps Between Rich and Poor”, which appeared on www.businessweek.com on 16 October.

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.

Herceptin—Implementation of Policy

7. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for ACC: What reports has he received on the implementation of the Government’s policy in relation to Herceptin?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Within weeks of last year’s general election, the Government, as part of keeping its election promise, announced it would be fully subsidising a 12- month course of Herceptin for women suffering from HER2 positive breast cancer. I am pleased to be able to report to members that, according to the latest available information, 191 women with HER2 positive breast cancer were receiving the Government’s fully funded 12-month course of Herceptin at the end of September.

Nicky Wagner: What other progress is being made with subsidised medicines in addition to Herceptin?

Hon TONY RYALL: The new Government has provided an extra $40 million for subsidised medicines this year, including the 12-month Herceptin course. In addition to women receiving the fully subsidised 12-month course of Herceptin, people suffering from cystic fibrosis, hepatitis B, leukaemia, and autoimmune disorders will receive more treatment as a result of the extra medicines funding. At this time of economic restraint, the Government is working to achieve better access to medicines for New Zealanders.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims and Sexual Abuse Victims

8. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Is he satisfied new sexual abuse clinical guidelines will not further injure sexual abuse victims?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Yes, because the guidelines have been put together by skilled clinicians. I have noted members’ concern, and I have invited MPs to a briefing by Dr Peter Jansen, senior medical adviser in the clinical services directorate of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), to brief members on the care that ACC is taking in the sensitive claims area. I am surprised that the member who has raised these questions has not accepted my invitation to be briefed by those clinicians.

Lynne Pillay: Does the Minister realise that the majority of the 4,000 petitioners calling for a halt to the new guidelines are the professionals who provide counselling, including the researchers who took part in the Massey guidelines upon which it is claimed the new ACC sensitive claims process is based?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been hesitant to interfere in what is clinical best practice. I acknowledge that there has been some professional debate between the view of counsellors and psychotherapists, and the view of psychiatrists and psychologists. I acknowledge that difference, but, as a politician, I simply say that we should be hesitant to interfere in clinical decisions.

Michael Woodhouse: What trend has there been since 2000 in the acceptance rates by the ACC of sensitive claims?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is very interesting, given all the noise that has come from the Opposition, that 5 percent of sensitive claims were declined in 2000, but this figure grew in every single year that Labour was in Government, to the point where 40.5 percent of sensitive claims were declined last year. In fact, last year, 2,378 sensitive claims were rejected by the previous Government. These facts show how the Opposition has crudely used this sensitive issue for political gain.

Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister explain the blowout in the number of pending claims and the rising proportion of declined claims with regard to the sensitive claims unit—for example, in Auckland in December 2008, of 114 claims, fewer than four were awaiting a decision, and in August 2009, of 110 claims, 103 are awaiting a decision?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would note that during the period from 2000 to 2008, when that member was a member of the previous Government, the number of claims that were declined grew from 5 percent to 40 percent—an eightfold increase. That is why I ask members opposite to please not make politics out of people who are the victims of sexual abuse.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very, very specific. The Minister has made no attempt whatsoever to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma I have with the member’s question relates to the fact that she made a very major assertion in her question. If I recollect correctly, she cited figures relating to certain cases in front of ACC that were waiting to be decided in a certain year compared with cases in another year. Strictly speaking, members cannot make that kind of assertion when they ask questions, because members are meant to ask a question. They could ask the Minister whether the figures are correct. But to make the bulk of the question an assertion like that leaves me with little

opportunity to be able to ask the Minister to give any particular kind of answer, because the Minister can, if he chooses to, just dispute the figures. I do not see how I can assist the member on this occasion. I will briefly hear the member further.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you may be able to assist me. I was seeking to table a response to my written question from the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seeking leave to table a document?

Lynne Pillay: Yes. I can quote from the document.

Mr SPEAKER: Hang on a moment. I just want to find something out. If the member is now seeking leave to table a document, I need to know what the document is.

Lynne Pillay: It is a response from the Minister to a written question, showing that the increases—

Mr SPEAKER: We get to the same difficulty. There are plenty of Speakers’ rulings that make it very clear that answers to questions for written answer are outside the kind of material that should be tabled in this House, because they are already available to all members. I presume the member wishes to seek leave to table this document to make a political point. That is not the purpose of seeking leave to table a document. The purpose is to provide information for the House that the House does not have available to it. In this case the House has that information available to it, unless the question was lodged several years ago and it was something particularly unusual. But if it was lodged in the last few months, it clearly is totally outside the Standing Orders.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry. I may not have been clear. What I want to table is the exact figures that I have just asked in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me. If the figures are from an answer to a written question, I will not put the seeking of leave to table that document, because it absolutely wastes the time of Parliament.

Parliament has that information. If the figures are from a different source, I apologise to the member, and I will be very happy to put the leave. But if they are from information that has been provided through an answer to a written question, I will not take the time of the House for that. The House has that information. There is no way it can be within the Standing Orders to seek leave to table material that the House already has available to it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all, I say “ibid.” to my previous comments as to your moving the rulings without the support of the Standing Orders Committee. I think there is an additional point in this particular case. You said you would not follow up on the question because of a lack of authentication. Now, I am a realist. I do not expect you to follow every question for written answer or to keep all those facts and figures in your head.

But the figures are before the House—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat, because he cannot use a point of order to debate that. If Ms Pillay wants to go back to the Standing Orders, she will see that I could have ruled the question out. A member cannot ask a question in that manner. The member can ask the Minister about the figures on cases and the decisions that are waiting to be made on them in a certain year and a certain other year. It is fine to ask that question, but to make an allegation of information into a question is not the purpose of question time. If the member is looking puzzled, I suggest that she reads the relevant Standing Order. It is not very difficult. It spells it out very clearly. Now, I do not normally enforce that Standing Order, because it wastes too much time of the House to do so. Where I will draw the line is where members seek leave to table documents that are answers to written questions. Members have that information. If the member is seeking leave to table information that members already have, that is out of order. That is clearly out of order, and that is why I am not putting the seeking of leave.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have made a decision on the matter. If the member wishes to challenge me, there will be consequences, but I will hear the honourable Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I can understand that you will not be happy, but I want to take you back through your argument. You ruled something out for not being authenticated. My submission to you—

Mr SPEAKER: I will not listen to—[Interruption]. The member will resume his seat right now.

Supplementary questions do not require authentication, because they are meant to ask questions.

They should not inject new material. I do not think I can put it in any more simple words than that.

The Standing Orders require supplementary questions to ask questions. They should not inject new material at all. We do allow them, but when members put in new material, they cannot object when Ministers do not answer the question in the way members might wish. Arguing that material that might be before the House—[Interruption]. I can hear that the member is muttering, which he should not be doing. Arguing that material has been provided by way of written question is still no excuse for seeking to inject material into a supplementary question that is not in front of the House as part of either an answer that a Minister has given to previous supplementary questions, or contained in the original question, because the original question has been authenticated. When members seek to inject new information by way of a supplementary question, I allow it, because I do not want to be ruling members out, but members cannot be too precise about the way Ministers handle such questions. I apologise to the member, but I will not permit leave being sought to table an answer to a written question when the House has that information. That is the end of the matter.

Lynne Pillay: Given that National MPs Nikki Wagner and Michael Woodhouse have today committed on the Minister’s behalf to listen to clinicians’ concerns, will he now delay the implementation of the guidelines due to come into effect today?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have made it plain to this House that I am satisfied that ACC is using the best of clinical expertise in the development of policy in this sensitive area, and that I as a politician do not intend to interfere in clinical decisions.

Michael Woodhouse: What steps has the Minister taken to reassure New Zealanders that the clinical decisions in this area are in the best interests of those who have been victims of sexual abuse?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I acknowledge the concern from a number of genuine professionals around the sensitive claims area and the changes being made to the scheme. For that reason I have asked ACC to consider an independent clinical review of the new policy. I am pleased to advise the House that ACC has agreed to do that, and it will be done in 6 months’ time, to ensure that what is being done in this area is putting to the forefront the needs of those people who have been victims of sexual abuse.

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table the copy of the petition to delay the implementation of changes to the accident compensation sensitive claims schemes, signed by 3,973 petitioners, as presented to National MPs today.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification. There is a normal process for the tabling of petitions that are tabled by the Clerk’s office; that is in respect of every petition that is presented to this House. It seems to be a strange mechanism for us to be asserting that through the mechanism of tabling a document. I want clarification as to whether the process that member is adopting will usurp the normal process for dealing with a petition before the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I take this matter any further, I will seek advice from the Clerk as to whether this document has already been tabled in the House. We are not aware that this petition has been tabled.

Lynne Pillay: This petition is not to the House of Representatives, but to the Minister for ACC, Dr Nick Smith.

Mr SPEAKER: I understand. The member has sought leave to table this document. This is a genuine document. It is a petition. Leave is sought to table it. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table the official figures from ACC showing that the percentage of claims that have been declined has grown from 5 percent in 2000 to 40 percent in 2008.

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 Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When you ask members about documents they wish to table, I ask that you are consistent and that you ask Ministers as well as members on this side of the House as to whether documents are already publicly available. That document apparently was.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need an argument on this matter. I say to members that where Ministers seek leave to be helpful by tabling official documents, or documents from officials, I believe that is helpful to the House. Now if a mistake is made and a document may already have been made public or tabled, members can object. It is perfectly within their right to object. But I believe that the whole process to table documents is to make more information available to members of this House.

In respect of official documents, members normally go to a great deal of effort to try to require them under the Official Information Act. I thought it would have been helpful for members, where leave is sought, to provide those documents without that hassle.

Asia—Trade Opportunities

9. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Trade: What steps has the Government recently taken to enhance New Zealand’s trade opportunities in Asia?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Trade): The National-led Government last night signed a free-trade agreement with Malaysia. Malaysia is New Zealand’s eighth-largest export market, accounting for almost $1 billion worth of exports in 2008. This freetrade agreement further deepens our ties and strengthens our relationship with a key partner, underlining New Zealand’s commitment to this rapidly integrating region. The free-trade agreement supplements the existing 12-country ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed earlier this year, and is another contribution towards the goal of a possible free-trade agreement in the Asia-Pacific region.

Jacqui Dean: What specific benefits will the Malaysia - New Zealand Free Trade Agreement provide for New Zealand?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: This agreement provides exporters, service providers, and investors with new opportunities and greater certainty while doing business in Malaysia. It will eliminate tariffs on 99.5 percent of New Zealand’s exports. Key export industries will benefit from measures including duty-free access for kiwifruit by 2012; binding our existing duty-free access for meat, wool, dairy, fish, and forestry products; and early elimination of tariffs on manufactured products like certain steel, paint, and plastic products.

Hon Annette King: Can he confirm that the act of signing a free-trade agreement with Malaysia by the Prime Minister is the final part of a 3-year - plus process, in whose success the Hon Phil Goff, as former Minister of Trade, had a large part to play?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I can confirm that there has been a bipartisan approach to this trade agreement, and that the former Minister of Trade played his part. He was an energetic Minister of Trade; it is a shame he did not show that energy as Leader of the Labour Party.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was a very straight question. The answer from the Acting Minister was a very good answer until he had to be nasty at the end. You have ruled against him doing this on nearly every question he answers. I think it is time that it stopped. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am listening to a point of order; let us have some silence while I am doing so.

I think the member’s point is fairly made: it was a fair question. It obviously had political overtones, but it was a fair question. To put a nasty plug—to add a phrase at the end of the answer was totally unnecessary. I think members should cease that, and I ask the Minister not to do that again.

Education, National Standards—Evidence

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: My question asks—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Duck Mallard!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Oh, there goes the loser again.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and members will be silent all around the House. Clearly, normally I would deal with that very severely, but how can I deal with that very severely when the Minister did something very similar with an open microphone just a few seconds ago. It shows the problem we get into when members use an open microphone to put down other members of this House. It is a practice that, I think, should not be continued. I would rather see members be noisy and passionate about policies, and not make nasty comments about other members of this House.

That goes for both sides.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: What evidence does she have that national standards in literacy and numeracy improve the quality of teaching and learning?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The national standards provide reference points that describe the achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics that will enable students to meet the demands of the New Zealand curriculum. They will help teachers to make judgments about their students’ progress so that the students, their teachers, and their families can agree on the next learning goals. Research evidence such as the work of Paul Black and Dylan Wiliam in their book Inside the Black Box shows that when students are clear about their goals and what to do next, their achievement and learning improves.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has she read the Cambridge group report on 11 years of testing in the United Kingdom that found, amongst other things, “if breadth is attained, so are standards; if breadth is sacrificed, so are standards”; if so, did she take that into account before cutting out the advice for science and the arts in primary schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What we are doing here in New Zealand is very different from what is done in the UK and the USA, where a national test is used and where the system is underpinned by high-stakes testing and assessment for accountability. We are doing neither of those things. We made a conscience decision to move away from this and to favour a policy where schools can make choices about the assessment activities, tools, and processes that they use. It is a very different one from the one that is used in the UK and the USA. Therefore, I say to the member that he needs to be very careful that he is actually comparing apples with apples.

Allan Peachey: What reports has she received of members supporting literacy and numeracy standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a report from one member that states: “Let’s make it clear, I support the standards. I support better information for parents, I support looking at class and school results to identify teacher and school strengths and weaknesses so they can be built and worked on.”

I am very glad that that member, the Hon Trevor Mallard, supports standards in literacy and numeracy. I look forward to him dropping his hysterical statements about national standards and supporting this Government’s drive to lift literacy and numeracy achievement for New Zealand students.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What does “School Leadership and Student Outcomes, Identifying What Works and Why: Best Evidence” which she is about to launch, say about the role of assessment in improving student outcomes and national standards in particular?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have that document in front of me. As the member said himself, it is yet to be launched. But the use of formative assessment is well-known to be successful in informing better teaching and learning, and that is an important part of the use of national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question about a very specific document, which the Minister must have read, because she is about to launch it. This is an area of interest—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The Minister made it very clear that she did not have the document and could not be more specific in relation to that. That is the difficulty when the member asks a fairly general primary question and then gets specific in asking a supplementary question. The member has further supplementary questions if he wishes to use them.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the Cambridge study I referred to in my original question.

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 Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the invitation, from the Minister, to the launch of the document I referred to in my second supplementary question.

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 Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a Public Agenda article “Teaching for a Living: How Teachers See the Profession Today”. I downloaded it from a public international website.

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 Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table an article called “Social Class and Education Achievement: Beyond Ideology” by Ivan Snook from Massy University.

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 Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table an article by Kate Gainsford, which indicates that political pressures are the main reasons that worthwhile changes in education—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the document?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is the New Zealand Post Primary Teachers Association (PPTA) newsletter. Kate Gainsford is the president.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an article from the PPTA newsletter. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Education, National Standards—Announcements

11. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about the national standards policy?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): On Friday morning the Prime Minister and I launched the final version of the national standards policy at Glen Taylor School in Glendowie. The standards to be introduced in English medium primary and intermediate schools next year support the New Zealand curriculum by setting clear, consistent expectations of student achievements from years 1 to 8 in reading, writing, and mathematics.

Allan Peachey: What was the basis on which the national standards were set?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The standards were deliberately developed so that students achieving the standard are on track to obtain at least National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) level 2. NCEA level 2 is the minimum requirement for entry into industry training options such as Modern Apprenticeships. I acknowledge that it is a high standard when just under 30 percent of our students currently leave school without NCEA level 2, but it is also a minimum level of achievement that our young New Zealanders need so that when they leave the education system they have a qualification that gives them the options that they deserve.

Aorangi School—Proposed Closure

12. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister of Education: Is she satisfied with the quality of the reports she has received on the proposal to close Aorangi School; if so, why?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes, I have received reports from the Ministry of Education, from the school, and from an independent facilitator, and they have all provided useful information.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has she received professional accounting advice to confirm the costings of the closure option, in light of the significant errors that have been identified in the ministry briefings; if not, will she undertake to obtain this independent analysis before making her decision final?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. I say to the member that the net saving from closing the school against the cost of rebuilding it is an estimated $1.468 million, but we are not able to predict exactly where the children will go, and, therefore, what the cost of any extra buildings might be.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. Is she satisfied that the education of tamariki learning te reo Māori at Aorangi School will be protected if the school is closed, given the complete absence of bilingual units in neighbouring schools, and the long-term and particular relationship that the school has developed with Ngāi Tahu?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have made it clear in all the discussions that I have had with the board of trustees and the community that should Aorangi School close, I intend to pursue bilingual provision in that community area.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister aware that the ministry’s briefings have failed to include its own roll growth projections for the network, both in terms of the costs and in terms of the capacity of the network to absorb the students from Aorangi School should it close, and, therefore, that the figure she just gave the House is patently wrong; and will she review her decision?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said to that member in a previous supplementary answer, that is an estimated amount; it is impossible to tell what the exact amount might be until we know exactly where those children go and what arrangements we have to make to take care of them.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Has she seen the advice from the Ministry of Education that proposes—without explicit consultation with affected schools—that the bilingual unit could be moved to another school in the area; and in its experience, what is the closure rate of bilingual units when they are opened without community support?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I have seen that advice. Yes, I am confident that should Aorangi School close, a new bilingual unit could be established. The ministry will work with local schools and Ngāi Tahu to ensure the continuity of bilingual provision in the area.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: In light of the Minister’s comments before, will she agree that the school could remain open if it is established that it is less costly to rebuild it than to close it, that there is insufficient network capacity to absorb the students over a 10-year period, that the roll has grown this year, not fallen, and that the school can build within budget now that it has accurate figures from the ministry?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The reasons for my decision to close Aorangi School have always been the cost of the rebuild, that it is a small school whose roll has fallen, and that there are four other schools in a 1.5 kilometre radius.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table a transcript from a Newstalk ZB programme where the Minister stated “that the decision I had to make isn’t about buildings and figures so much as about what’s in the best interests of the children.”

Mr SPEAKER: What is the date of this transcript?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I do not know.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a radio transcript of unknown date. Is there any objection? There is objection.

ENDS

© Scoop Media