(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 18 NOVEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Emissions Trading Scheme—Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his recent statements on the emissions trading scheme?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he stand by his statement made in the House yesterday that a potential court case existed over whether the Crown had information that it should have disclosed about an emissions trading scheme, when it signed the Ngāi Tahu settlement?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, and, in fact, that advice was received by the previous Labour Government in May of last year. Labour was so concerned about the issue that it actually sought an independent valuation. Initially the valuation was considered to be in the order of $50 million, but a later valuation showed that the liability could be in the order of $78 million to $130 million.

Hon Phil Goff: When he indicated that there was a question about whether the Crown had acted in good faith, did he in fact have a Crown legal opinion stating that there was no basis for a claim against the Crown; if so, why did he continue to use this as a justification for a deal to get the emissions trading scheme legislation through?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because the advice I have had is that there could potentially be a case. We would not want to prejudice that. But the issue so concerned Labour that it sought its own advice and got its own valuation.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister ignore the legal opinion prepared for the Crown Law Office by Helen Aikman QC that concludes: “there is no evidence of a breach of the Crown’s obligations”; is he therefore using potential legal action simply as a smokescreen so that he can do a secret and dirty deal that cannot be justified?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because that is a complex issue, and it is fair to say that Ngāi Tahu actually disagree with the findings. Just because one lawyer puts up a view, that does not mean that it is right. Lots of lawyers have put up cases. I suppose, in a way, if one is wondering why Phil Goff is making the comments that he is, then maybe it is worth listening to the Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei, who, on Radio New Zealand National this morning, said “It’s not about being race based. It’s about the value of those settlements and Labour can take some responsibility for issues around the valuation of settlements themselves from when they were in government. It’s a silly comment from Phil Goff and playing to the worst kind of politics.” I happen to agree with her.

Hon Phil Goff: Apart from that being a bit rich—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Phil Goff: —you should not have allowed that, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be silence in the House. The honourable Leader of the Opposition will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment.

Hon Phil Goff: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Throughout my entire career in this House, which is longer than any other member’s, I have never indulged in the politics of race. I take—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Phil Goff: In fairness, I am asking you to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that comment, which reflects on my integrity.

Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot withdraw—

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will now resume his seat. The House has got into a mess. I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to reflect on the question he asked. He accused the Prime Minister of doing a dirty deal. The Standing Orders rule out that kind of supplementary question. The member may not make that kind of assertion, or use that kind of innuendo in a supplementary question. I let it go because I do not wish to intervene all the time when supplementary questions do not comply with Standing Orders. When asked a question like that, the Prime Minister naturally responded in a political way as well, and he quoted someone else. [Interruption] I am on my feet. The dilemma I have is that I did not hear the Prime Minister make an assertion that the Leader of the Opposition was behaving in a racist way; the Prime Minister was quoting another member of the House. That is the dilemma I have. I certainly will support the member, though, if he feels that he has been accused of racism and is trying to seek a remedy, but I am not sure what the remedy is. I will sit down, so that the member can identify whether the offence came from the quotation.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will leave it up to the integrity of the Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to be cautious.

Hon Phil Goff: But since you have invited me to make a comment, Mr Speaker, I took clearly from the Prime Minister’s statement—if I heard it correctly—an implication that this was being raised on the basis of race. I have given you the assurance, Mr Speaker, that it was not, and that I take offence at any such implication.

Mr SPEAKER: I will just check with the Prime Minister as to whether he said anything that was not quoting another member of Parliament.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I am dealing with a point of order here.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to sort out an issue that has caused offence. When offence is taken over something like this, I accept it is a matter that I should not just ignore. As I understand it, the Prime Minister did no more than quote another member of Parliament.

Hon Member: He said he agreed with it.

Mr SPEAKER: He said he agreed with it? OK. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his final comment and leave it—[Interruption]. I am asking the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to just withdraw the final comment.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You have accepted—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite members to just take a deep breath. Offence has been taken over a matter that I know the honourable Leader of the Opposition feels deeply about. I accept that. As Speaker I must show respect to members of this House when they feel deeply about issues. All that I am asking the Prime Minister is whether he would be prepared to just withdraw the bit he added in which he agreed with the statement he quoted. Is the Prime Minister prepared to do that? [Interruption] I am asking him to just stand and withdraw his statement that he agreed—

Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Prime Minister. Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition have a further supplementary question?

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table a legal opinion prepared for the Crown Law Office, dated 26 November 2008, from Helen Aikman QC, entitled Impact of the Emissions Trading Scheme on Te Rūnunga o Ngāi Tahu.

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 Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the letter from Ngāi Tahu, where they say that Labour acted in bad faith in not advising them of either the terms of reference or the person who was to do that review, despite promises to the contrary.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a letter from Ngāi Tahu. Is there—

Hon Members: Is there a date?

Mr SPEAKER: Some members want to know the date of the letter.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I cannot remember the exact date.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table this letter from Ngāi Tahu. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In light of the fact that the Minister has just successfully tabled that letter, which I understand has been withheld to date under the Official Information Act, would he be willing to table the other withheld material relating to the emissions trading scheme?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. I invite members not to abuse the point of order process. That is not a particularly helpful start to question time.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that if his Government changes any policy that affects an asset that was at any point part of a Treaty settlement, then a full and final settlement would be reopened, even when he knows that there is no need or legal obligation to do so?

Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, it is quite the contrary of that. We have made it quite clear that the Crown always reserves the right to change land use or any other aspect that may have been subject to a Treaty claim. But there is, as the member will be well and truly aware, a specific difference if, in putting together the negotiation, a party feels that the other party was not acting in good faith. That is the basis of the opinion, and, yes, it could be tested in law. That is the point for Ngāi Tahu; they are thinking about a court case.

Hon Phil Goff: What estimates has the Prime Minister been given of the cost of the deal to buy Māori Party support for the emissions trading scheme legislation, and is it likely to be as high as the $2 billion estimated by the Kyoto Forestry Association?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I believe that that question transgresses the Standing Orders by suggesting that somehow a political party is being paid or bought off for its members’ votes. That is absolutely against the Standing Orders.

Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need help on this matter. The point that the Hon Rodney Hide has made is perfectly correct. The question was technically outside the Standing Orders, because it alleged that the Government has bought support for something, which is to allege bribery. Given that a member has objected to the question, I must uphold the Standing Orders. I ask the Hon Leader of the Opposition to reword his question in order to bring it within the Standing Orders.

Hon Phil Goff: What estimates has the Prime Minister been given of the cost of a deal to win Māori Party support for the emissions trading scheme legislation, and is it likely to be as high as the $2 billion estimated today by the Kyoto Forestry Association?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the $2 billion figure is about as accurate as the Treasury’s $110 billion figure. I am not going to go into the details of it, because it is confidential. But it is fair to say it is a very insignificant number, in the scheme of things.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Prime Minister willing to set aside an emphatic legal opinion, prepared by an acknowledged legal expert in this area for the Crown Law Office, simply to reach a deal with the Māori Party, which the Prime Minister will not tell us the cost of but which others have estimated is as high as $2 billion to the taxpayer?

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, firstly, in due course if a deal is concluded, then that will be in the public domain. That is the first thing. The second thing is that it is for the same reason that I set aside the emphatic legal opinion I saw from banks’ Queen’s Counsel, who were arguing that the banks did not owe the Crown billions of dollars for structured deals.

Economy—Fiscal Challenges

2. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What fiscal challenges does the Government face as the economy comes out of recession?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Minister, I ask front-bench members please not to keep interjecting when their interjections have nothing to do with the question being asked.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government faces considerable fiscal challenges. The effect of the recession has been to significantly reduce tax revenue. At the same time, there is a strong build-up of Government spending. In fact, in the past 5 years Government spending has increased by more than 50 percent. The current Government is borrowing $250 million a week to fill the gap between expenditure and revenue. Clearly we have to look closely at value for our public spending.

Aaron Gilmore: What are some of the reasons for this increase in Government spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the main reason has been the momentum built up under the lax administration of the last Government. There was a sharp growth in spending, particularly across back-office functions, with no clear evidence of better services for the public. For instance, Public Service pay has risen by 4.5 percent each year since 2000. The Government is keen to see better, smarter public services, and we will have to do that with little or no new money.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he stand by his statement this morning that it is “good for the economy” to push the country into deep recession, making it harder for struggling Kiwi workers to make ends meet; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have absolutely no idea what the member is talking about, and I suspect he does not either.

Aaron Gilmore: What are the Government’s expectations for future Public Service pay increases?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government expects that there will be plenty of negotiation with the Public Service about pay rises, but we expect that those pay rises will reflect what is happening in the rest of the community, where many people have taken low pay increases or have reduced their hours of work in order to keep their jobs. There will be legitimate pay rises, and we want to make sure that any pay rises that eventuate come with better ways of working. The Government needs to get some benefit for the public from increases in public servants’ pay.

Hon David Cunliffe: If he believes it is good for the economy to make spending cuts of $2 billion to $3 billion, how can he also believe it is good for the economy to give $110 billion worth of subsidies—according to his department, Treasury, which his Prime Minister obviously cannot rely on—to big polluters in foreign-owned multinationals?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I believe that what the Government is doing is good for the economy. It is charting a careful path between the need to pump money into the economy to keep it ticking along on the one hand, and not running up excessive public debt on the other. At the moment we are

borrowing at the rate of $250 million a week, and under that member’s policies it would be much higher. We believe that would be irresponsible.

Whānau Ora—Purpose and Outcomes

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

Development and Employment: What definition, if any, did her Associate Minister Hon Tariana Turia provide to her to explain the purpose and intended outcomes of the Whānau Ora programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have had many discussions with Minister Turia on the definitions of Whānau Ora. The member does not understand that it is not a programme; it is a way of working that leads towards positive outcomes for whānau independence and positive well-being. Frankly, the integrated provision of health, education, and social services for all New Zealanders is something Labour talked endlessly about but never accomplished. This Government is working towards it.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her statement that she does not envisage carving off a billion dollars to go into that sort of scheme; if so, where will her Associate Minister get the billion dollars she has claimed to fund the Whānau Ora programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are still working through developments on how that programme will come together. I can say that is looking really positive. What I have said is that, under Labour, welfare dependency increased; sickness, invalid, and domestic purposes benefit numbers went up; and abuse and neglect of children increased. What Labour did in the past did not work; Whānau Ora has the potential to work.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister deaf? I called for order several times. She continued to give an answer that was absolutely irrelevant to the question asked. It is unnecessary.

Hon Annette King: Does the Minister agree with her Associate Minister that “to be quite frank with you there’s probably a billion dollars already being wasted now”? If so, what programmes or initiatives is her ministry wasting millions of dollars on, and will these programmes be cut to make way for the new Whānau Ora programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are looking at value for money for every taxpayer dollar that this Government is putting in, and we make no apologies for it. I tell members that our ministries are excited about the prospect of Whānau Ora, this Government is excited about the prospects of whānau ora, and we believe that it can make a positive difference for all families, and we will continue to work towards that.

Hon Tau Henare: Was does the Whānau Ora taskforce say about the current delivery mechanisms and the outcomes for Māori?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The taskforce discussion document states: “Despite Government investment across a number of sectors the results for whānau are often disappointing.” It continues: “The taskforce is not convinced that whānau and taxpayers are getting value for money, or that the efforts of Government are matched by the measurable gains for whānau.” That is what we need to address.

Hon Annette King: What has she done to convince her Government colleagues to now support separate and identified funding for Māori service provision, something that members opposite opposed when in Opposition and called race-based funding; and how did she convince Tony Ryall to agree to the Whānau Ora programme, when he only a short time ago said that race-based funding had to come to an immediate end?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What that member does not recognise is that Whānau Ora has the potential to be good for all families, for all New Zealanders. Through a different delivery mechanism we will see positive outcomes; we will see changes that we did not see in the 9 years of the Labour Government, which just piled programme on top of programme.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou. Kei te hāngai pū te Whānau Ora ki ngā ratonga hauora, ki ngā ratonga whakahiato ora, noa iho?

[An interpretation in English was given to the House.] [Is Whānau Ora just about health and social services?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No. Whānau Ora is focused on re-empowering families to take responsibility for themselves. It is about the contribution that iwi, hapū, communities, and extended whānau make to family outcomes. Māori economic development contributes to Whānau Ora, as do the services associated with health, social services, housing, justice, the community and voluntary sector, and education.

Mr SPEAKER: Dr Rajen Prasad. [Interruption] I apologise to the member, but if his own frontbench colleagues would only be quiet, so that we could hear the supplementary question from Dr Rajen Prasad, I would be obliged.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the person who asked the question, I unfortunately did not catch pretty much half of the delivery from the Minister. I just could not hear it from here. Is it possible to have a rerun of the end part? I did not hear it.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness I—[Interruption] A point of order is being dealt with. I do not know what was in the lunch that some members had today. [Interruption] Has the Hon Paula Bennett quite finished? I say to the honourable member that I could hear the Minister’s answer reasonably clearly.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Did she see the reported comments at the weekend from her Associate Minister, the Hon Tariana Turia, that the Minister’s views on the “whānau first” policy, a key aspect of Whānau Ora, are hugely controversial; if so, what discussions has she had with her Associate Minister, and have they decided which social services will be covered by the Whānau Ora interventions framework?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, that statement was factually incorrect. What I can tell the member is that we have some real challenges ahead of us as a country on how we deal with our abused and neglected children.

Carmel Sepuloni: Blah-blah-blah.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry, what was that? The member does not see it as being important?

Carmel Sepuloni: You heard me.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Has she got a problem with that?

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not entirely sure what happened during that interchange, but after a question from the member Rajen Prasad, the Minister looked at somebody, made a comment, then sat down. We did not get a complete answer to the question that had been put by Dr—

Hon Tau Henare: No.

Hon Darren Hughes: Mr Henare keeps interjecting during everyone’s—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the House please to come to a little more order today. It is not very tidy at all. What happened—in answer to the honourable member’s question—was that the Minister simply disagreed with the statement contained in the member’s question. I think she then felt that she had continued on for long enough. So I think the matter was dealt with. I was just waiting for the House to settle down.

Dr Rajen Prasad: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The term “hugely controversial” was attributed to the honourable Minister in the—

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that the member has not been here for many years, but he cannot use the point of order process to litigate a question in that way. The Minister—

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, it was I who said it was hugely controversial.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet; I just do not know what has got into members today. Where the member asking a question inserts a statement into the question, and the Minister refutes the statement, the question has been answered—because the Minister has refuted the statement. It cannot be litigated by way of point of order.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kei te tautoko ia i te kaupapa Whānau Ora? [An interpretation in English was given to the House.] [Does she support the Whānau Ora approach?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Of course I do. Whānau Ora has the potential to transform whānau in an unprecedented way. It is consistent with my goals—and this Government’s—of having service providers working together more effectively for whānau. I also strongly support anything that encourages families to take responsibility for themselves.

Schools—Property

4. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about school property?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Last week I announced $29.8 million of funding for new buildings at 27 schools across New Zealand: 17 schools will be funded for new buildings, and 10 schools will receive funding to replace existing buildings.

Louise Upston: Which schools in the Taupō electorate will benefit from the Government’s commitment to enhancing school property?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In Budget 2009 the Government pledged $523 million towards school property over the next 4 years. I am pleased to advise the member that in this funding round, Taupōnui- a-Tia College in Taupō received almost $3.5 million to replace an art room, a classroom, and its technology block.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. How many primary schools is the Minister considering for closure?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How does that question relate to the primary question, which was about school property?

Mr SPEAKER: The primary question asked what recent announcements the Government has made about school property, and the supplementary question asked about the matter of school closures. I think it does bear a reasonable relationship to the primary question.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In answer to the question, I say to the member that a couple of primary schools have asked to be considered for closure. If the member would like to put her question down as a written question to me, I can make the names of those schools available to her.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. It asked how many—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. When a supplementary question is some distance from the primary question, in the way that question was—although I ruled that it was within order—the Minister will not necessarily have the specific information. She indicated that if the member wants to put down a question specifically on that matter—[Interruption]. I am on my feet, ruling on a point order. If the member wants to put down a specific question, the Minister has indicated that she will answer it. I think it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to have that specific information at her fingertips when there is not such a close relationship to the primary question.

Jo Goodhew: What does the Government’s commitment to school property mean for schools in the Rangitata electorate?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am pleased to advise the member that in this funding round Wakanui School received $455,000 to increase its buildings, and Hinds School will receive $900,000 to replace two classrooms and its manual training block.

Television New Zealand—Boundaries of Role as Shareholding Minister

5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any recent advice on the appropriate boundaries of his role as shareholding Minister in Television New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No, not since I answered written question No. 16594.

Hon David Cunliffe: Now that Television New Zealand has admitted it was wrong to produce the “Plain English” ad, will he now admit that he was wrong to star in it?

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. A point of order has been raised, and members must show some courtesy to this House. That is all I am asking for.

Hon David Cunliffe: Clearly I caused offence by referring to the Minister of Finance as a star, and I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable David Cunliffe will get to his feet and apologise for that discourteous treatment of this House. I made certain that the member’s point of order could be heard, and then he just abused the point of order process. That is not good enough, and I ask him to apologise to the House for doing that.

Hon David Cunliffe: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am flattered by the member’s description of my participation as “starring”, because in my understanding that is a description he usually applies only to himself.

Brendon Burns: Does he stand by the statement that he made only minor factual corrections to the “Plain English” script, when documents released under the Official Information Act reveal that he changed more than 60 percent of the script?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member saw the original script, he would see why Mr Cunliffe might have gone on TV to say that stuff, but I thought it was nonsense and I would not say it.

Hon Pete Hodgson: In respect of the answer to that question, the question that I heard being asked was about why he—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Hon Pete Hodgson: Yes, it is. It is challenging the veracity of the answer, or at least whether the answer addressed the question. The question was around whether the Minister stood by his earlier position that there were minor amendments in the face of the facts, and he has not addressed that aspect of the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He meant it in terms of—

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee knows better than to interject when a point of order is being considered. In fairness I say that I think the Minister, in answering the question, pointed out that he disagreed with so much of the original script that he would not say it, even if certain members of the Opposition might have been prepared to say it. In my view that was an adequate answer to that particular question.

Brendon Burns: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I put to the Minister asked whether he stood by the statement that only minor factual corrections were made to the script when in fact documents released under the Official Information Act show that substantive changes were made.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Relitigating the question!

Mr SPEAKER: Members must not interject on points of order. I have ruled on the matter. I do not accept the point the member is making. In the Minister’s interpretation of the changes he made, he considered them minor because they were not changing the whole substance of the script. I gather from what he said that he was removing stuff he felt would make him look silly in saying it. In his view, that was minor. So I cannot help the member get a further answer to that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to the Minister’s admission that he did, in fact, change two-thirds of the script, how can he maintain there is no conflict of interest when Television New Zealand (TVNZ) said that it was happy to give him final sign-off and that he would really like it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand that the member’s main concern as expressed this morning at the select committee was that he did not feature in the promotion alongside me—to which I can only say that if he had something worthwhile and relevant to say he would have been in that promotion.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I enjoy a good joke—

Mr SPEAKER: The member must come to his point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: In response to a straight question, the Minister has misrepresented the questioner, and that cannot be addressing the question. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure where members have been this morning but it sure was not a helpful place. I invite the Hon David Cunliffe to repeat his question, but if he expects a concise answer, he had better make it a concise question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Minister has now admitted that he changed two-thirds of the script, how can he maintain there was no conflict of interest when TVNZ executives gave him an assurance that he would have final sign-off rights and would be happy with the outcome?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do maintain that position.

Brendon Burns: I seek leave to table an email from Peter Parussini of TVNZ to Craig Howie of the Minister’s office, in which TVNZ seeks the Minister of Finance’s assistance in promoting a series of programmes on TVNZ.

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.

Brendon Burns: I seek leave to table an email from 14 September from Scott Spicer of TVNZ, attaching for the Minister’s press secretary, Craig Howie, a very rough indicative script for the promotion.

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

Brendon Burns: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s press secretary, Craig Howie, to Scott Spicer and Peter Parussini of TVNZ. The email details the Minister’s shoe size, shirt size, trouser size, and contains an amended copy of the script, which the Minister was happy with.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. [Interruption] I guess it is members’ day so it is the members’ own time that they are wasting. Leave was sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Brendon Burns: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the member that this is getting disorderly. If there is a set of documents he wishes to table, I ask him to seek leave to table them as a set, not individually.

Brendon Burns: I seek leave to table the balance of the documents received under the Official Information Act in relation to the “in plain English” promotion.

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

Victoria Park—Roading

6. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has the Government made on progressing the Victoria Park road of national significance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I am pleased to report that last week I turned the first sod on construction of the new, $400 million Victoria Park project, which is the first road of national significance to get under way. This is also one of the first projects to benefit from the Government’s decision to increase State highway construction funding by $1 billion over the next 3 years. It provides further certainty in an important and vulnerable time for the construction industry. I am pleased to report that the project is expected to employ 450 people: 350 directly on-site, and a further 100 in downstream jobs.

Nikki Kaye: What long-term economic benefits will the Victoria Park project provide?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This project will greatly ease congestion for the 160,000-plus vehicles that use this route every day, as well as allow for improved bus priority measures between the city and the bridge. It is expected that by 2016 the project will deliver time savings of up to 20 minutes during peak times. In addition, the Auckland Harbour Bridge is a key freight route through the region, and this project will improve access to markets, economic efficiency, and productivity.

Darien Fenton: If fast tracking such roads of national significance is considered by this Minister to be a measure of his Government’s success, how does he quantify the increased numbers of schoolchildren who could be injured or even killed because of the millions of dollars he has cut from New Zealand’s community road safety programmes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have not cut millions of dollars from New Zealand’s road safety programmes. The demand management and community programmes category in the National Land Transport Fund is steady at $120 million, and the New Zealand Transport Agency is determined to spend that money wisely in terms of promoting safety in the land transport sector.

Nikki Kaye: What progress is expected to be made on the other roads of national significance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Over the next 3 years there will be significant construction on five out of seven of these vital routes, with all seven to be substantially advanced within 10 years. Within 3 years we expect to complete the Victoria Park project and begin construction of the Waterview Connection, the Waikato Expressway, and the Christchurch Southern Motorway. Design work continues on the Wellington, Tauranga, and Pūhoi to Wellsford routes. The roads of national significance are being developed alongside key regional roads and public transport services, and they will all help secure a step change in economic growth for this country.

Accident Compensation—Proposed Increase in Levies

7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by his statement: “the scale of the increases proposed by the Accident Compensation Corporation board will not need to be advanced.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Yes, but the member should have used the full quote from Hansard, where I preceded that statement with: “I am confident, with the changes this Government is advancing to the accident compensation scheme, that we can make some savings”.

Hon David Parker: Is it not true that the Minister has known for many months that the accident compensation increases to motorcycle levies do not need to be as high as those he allowed to be published? Why did he embark on another of his scaremongering campaigns? Is it because he has to justify the accident compensation scheme as being insolvent in order to justify privatisation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that John Judge, the chair of the board of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), has made very critical comments about the previous Government’s financial management of the accident compensation scheme. I also ask the member to note that the board is required to make recommendations on the basis of the current law. I am changing the law to enable the increases to be less.

Michael Woodhouse: Is the Minister aware that the previous Government increased accident compensation levies for motorcycles from $134 to $212—a whopping 57 percent increase—in 2003?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am. The increase was justified by the then Minister for ACC, Lianne Dalziel, in response to a protest at the time. She said: “Injuries from motorcycle accidents tend to be of a more serious nature, a longer duration”, and motorcycles are a higher risk. The irony is that Miss Dalziel now joins in the protests and says exactly the opposite.

Hon David Parker: Why does the Minister not accept his responsibility as the Minister for ACC and take responsibility for his own scaremongering rather than blaming the ACC board, which he hand-picked, for the excessive increases he caused it to publish?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is absolutely no need to do any exaggeration in respect of the accident compensation scheme’s finances, because the facts speak for themselves. The annual report signed by Maryan Street discloses a $2.4 billion loss, the greatest loss of any Government organisation in the history of this Parliament.

Michael Woodhouse: What advice has the Minister received on the levy differential between motorbikes and other vehicles historically?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The differential was increased by the previous Government to 1.5. That is, it decided that for motorbikes the levy paid would be 1.5 times that for the average car. The Hon Ruth Dyson recommended to Cabinet some years later that the differential should be further increased to 2. The Cabinet minute noted that even with that increase the levy payments would meet only 35 percent of the cost of motorcycle accidents. I find it ironic that the very facts that Cabinet noted when Phil Goff was in Cabinet are now described by him as crap.

Hon David Parker: Has the Minister had time to consider why more than 6,000 motorcyclists yesterday described his explanations as “bullshit, bullshit”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am not at all surprised, because whether there is a Labour Government or a National Government, people do not want their levies to go up. But I note that when Mr Parker was in Cabinet, Cabinet noted that motorcycle fees met only 35 percent of the actual costs. It is not consistent for this Government to argue that the numbers are wrong when he, in Cabinet, argued just the same. I say to Mr Parker that I think a bikie would call it a backfire. I seek leave to table a press release—and I realise it is a press release, but it is from some years ago—

from Lianne Dalziel, the then Minister for ACC, justifying the very large increase—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the House should know, before the member goes into the details, how many years ago. What is the date?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The press release was in 2003, which is quite recent. I think the House should know what Lianne Dalziel said in 2003.

Mr SPEAKER: I will not accept that. It is contrary to the principle of the ruling I made the other day. The member is seeking leave to table a document purely for political purposes and not to provide information to the House. I will not accept that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Can I seek leave to table her blog of 15 November?

Mr SPEAKER: Nice try, but no.

Question No. 4 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I seek the leave of the House to give an answer to a question that was asked earlier.

Mr SPEAKER: What does the Speaker say? I suppose a Minister can seek leave to do anything. The Minister has sought leave to provide an answer to a question that was asked earlier. The question, I presume, was the question asked by Catherine Delahunty. The Minister has sought leave now to answer that question. I put it to the House. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The answer is nine.

Petroleum Production—Royalty and Taxation Payments to Crown

8. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: How much did the Crown receive in royalty and taxation payments from petroleum production in 2008-09?

Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable Gerry Brownlee. The honourable Gerry Brownlee.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Mr Speaker—

Hon Member: I know it is the wee small hours of the afternoon.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I tell members that in the wee small hours of the afternoon Phil Goff looks around to see who has a Hansard hanging out of the back pocket.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today you asked one of my colleagues to apologise for making a derogatory reference; in that case, it was made at the conclusion of the question. In the Minister’s case he started off, once he had finally got to his feet, with a jibe at the Opposition. All we were trying to do was alert him to the fact that he had to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Was it a derogatory comment? If it was derogatory, I ask the member to withdraw. If it was felt to be derogatory by the members that it was directed at, I think the member should withdraw the comment. I ask the Hon Gerry Brownlee to do so.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I withdraw. In answer to the question, I am pleased to advise the House that the Crown received approximately $965 million in taxes and royalties from petroleum production in the 2008-09 financial year. Furthermore, the value of New Zealand’s oil exports in the 2008 calendar year was $2.8 billion, making oil our third-largest export earner behind only dairy and meat exports.

Jonathan Young: What is the potential value of New Zealand’s petroleum basins?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: GNS Science has recently undertaken a study of 10 petroleum basins to establish an estimated unproven resource that could reasonably be expected to exist. Even when taking a conservative approach it is estimated that the Crown receipt alone could increase to more than $10 billion per annum over the next 40 years, adding $400 billion to Government revenues. The petroleum sector could also generate over $30 billion per annum in export earnings by 2025.

Jonathan Young: What will the Government do to unlock some of that potential?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Earlier today I announced an action plan for the Government on petroleum. Its aim is to ensure that New Zealand becomes an attractive global destination for petroleum exploration and production investment. The action plan has a number of elements to it, including explicit Government encouragement of the sector, a review of the Crown’s capability to manage our petroleum estate, adjustments to our royalty regime, and legislative amendments to the Crown Minerals Act.

Catherine Delahunty: Can he confirm that the Crown received royalties from gold mining that totalled less than 1 percent of the mining companies’ earnings in 2008? Why is he so keen that the New Zealand public give up even more conservation land to be destroyed and polluted by foreignowned mining companies?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave of the House to table an invoice addressed to the Minister of Women’s Affairs, the Minister of Labour, and Business New Zealand asking them to pay New Zealand women the $4 billion they are missing out on because of the 12 percent gender pay gap. The invoice is from the Pay Equity Challenge.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not entirely clear in my mind exactly what the document is but I will leave that for members to judge.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think we should know who generated the document before we can make a consideration.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a valid point. I ask the member who generated this document.

Sue Moroney: I said when I sought leave that it is from the Pay Equity Challenge coalition. It is dated 18 November 2009.

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

Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost to Taxpayers of Deal with Māori Party

9. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he stand by his reported comments that he cannot put a figure on the cost to taxpayers for his proposed deal with the Māori Party to secure support for the ETS?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes, and for two reasons. The first is that one cannot put a figure on a deal that is not yet finalised. The second is that there are matters such as the agreement to halve the power price and petrol price increase that would come from the previous Labour Government’s emissions trading scheme, and that does cost the Government $400 million, but as the National Government and the Māori Party have made that agreement, how is it possible to assign it to one party or the other?

Charles Chauvel: What is the total cost of any liabilities to the Crown that could result from the legal proceedings that the Minister is trying to avoid by the exercise of his “political judgment” in reaching a deal with the Māori Party?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have received advice from Crown Law, but as members opposite would know, when one is seeking to resolve such issues where there is the potential for legal action, Ministers need to be cautious about sharing that advice. I assure the member opposite that I am acting in the best interests of the taxpayers in seeking to resolve this issue.

Charles Chauvel: If the Minister cannot put a figure on the costs of the deal that is being proposed, does he have any idea whether either of the two following figures are correct: $130 million, which is what Ngāi Tahu says, or $2 billion, which is what the New Zealand Kyoto Forestry Association says?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I heard Mr Dickie make the claim that 30,000 hectares of Department of Conservation land for afforestation and carbon credits would be worth $2 billion. I invite him to come to my office, because I would love to put a Cabinet paper up so we could earn $2 billion from just 30,000 hectares. I can advise the member that the Department of Conservation has entered into agreements for carbon farming that are a very small fraction of what Mr Dickie claims, and that is why the member is again guilty of gross exaggeration in his numbers.

Charles Chauvel: If Ngāi Tahu, the New Zealand Kyoto Forestry Association, Dr Christina Hood, the Sustainability Council, and Treasury are all wrong about the cost of his deal for the changes to the emissions trading scheme, just where is the Government getting its advice about emissions trading scheme costs from?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make the point very plain. In 2030 Labour’s scheme would cost farmers $30,000 per year, in terms of advice—

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion the member asked a fairly clear question. He asked the Minister where he was receiving his advice from, not details about the scheme itself. As I heard the question, it pointed out that certain people did not seem to be people the Government was accepting advice from, and it asked who the Government was accepting advice from.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: We are receiving advice from Government officials. Let me share some of that advice.

Hon Darren Hughes: Not Treasury.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry say that the existing scheme will cost farmers $30,000 per year in 2030. The amended scheme will cost farmers $3,000 per year. As a consequence of our changes it will cost a whole lot less. The last point I will make is

that it is no surprise at all that in the advice we received, if the assumed carbon price is doubled, then—surprise, surprise—the value of the assessment is doubled into the future.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou. Has the Minister any advice on the cost to the taxpayer from the Labour Government’s deals to secure support for its emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, it cost the taxpayer $1 billion to secure the changes sought by the Green Party. I am advised it cost $2.5. billion to secure the support of New Zealand First. However, these costings do depend on the assumed price of carbon, and if I use the same approach that Mr Chauvel uses and add compound interest, the cost comes to $8 billion for the agreement of the Greens and New Zealand First.

John Boscawen: Would the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group’s afforestation proposal, which he is considering, fully compensate iwi for the $1.9 billion in land value they have lost as a result of the inclusion of pre-1990 forests in the emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Iwi who own pre-1990 forests are affected in the same way as other pre-1990 forest owners are affected by the scheme. The Government’s policy is that after full and final settlements we need the flexibility to be able to deal with modern issues. The area on which we are working with Ngāi Tahu is a specific issue about the integrity of its Treaty settlement.

John Boscawen: If the credits earned under the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group’s afforestation proposal are sold offshore, what would be the impact on the Crown balance sheet of the afforestation proposal?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Whether it be iwi who plant trees or whether it be other New Zealanders—and I stress that the Department of Conservation has entered into agreement with other parties to farm carbon credits—my question for the ACT Party asks why it is OK for overseas companies to plant trees in New Zealand and gain carbon credits but it is not OK for iwi. That to me seems illogical.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, one cannot answer a question with a question. The question was, precisely, what would be the impact on the Crown balance sheet—which was not addressed in any way, shape, or form.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister whether he could answer that part of the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If any groups plant trees—iwi or anybody else—they earn the carbon credits. If they export those overseas it makes no difference to the New Zealand position, because the carbon credits would not have existed without the planting of those trees.

Clean, Green Image—Guardian Article

10. DAVID CLENDON (Green) to the Minister of Tourism: What advice, if any, has he sought regarding the impact on New Zealand’s tourism industry of last week’s UK Guardian article, which says that our “green image increasingly defies reality”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Minister of Tourism): I have not asked for specific advice, because I already understand the impact that such articles can have, as I pointed out to Federated Farmers in my speech to them this morning. However, that does not mean that I accept all the points made in the particular article the member is referring to.

David Clendon: Did he seek advice earlier this year when the World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Report ranked New Zealand 92nd on climate change performance; if so, what advice did he receive?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I did lament that we had 9 years of a Labour Government that did absolutely nothing in that area.

David Clendon: What is he doing in response to New Zealand coming last, according to the same report, at protecting threatened species; and does he think this delivers on our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand?

Hon JOHN KEY: Could I ask the member to repeat his question? It was little noisy on the other side of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I absolutely accept the Minister of Tourism’s point. I ask David Clendon to repeat his question, and I ask the House to show some courtesy to a new member.

David Clendon: What is the Minister doing in response to New Zealand coming last, according to that same report, at protecting threatened species; and does he think this delivers on our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand?

Hon JOHN KEY: We are working to improve that area. We have made it clear in areas like conservation that we are keen to engage with the private sector to deal with areas like that. When it comes to climate change, we are working hard to have policies that actually work, as opposed to rhetoric from the previous Government.

Charles Chauvel: Is the “100% Pure New Zealand” brand still the focus of tourism policy in New Zealand; if so, how is it compatible with opening up the Department of Conservation estate to further mining; with Gerry Brownlee’s petroleum action plan, announced earlier today; with a $110 billion subsidy to polluters; and with an emissions trading scheme that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment says will actually see an increase in greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, “100% Pure New Zealand” is still the brand campaign that we are running. Secondly, I remind the member that there are 82 concessions currently on the conservation estate, many of which were issued by the previous Labour Government—

Hon Ruth Dyson: That is irrelevant.

Hon JOHN KEY: That is irrelevant—that is a good one, actually! That is a little bit like the carbon neutral statement that the previous Government wheeled out—unfortunately it then allowed our emissions to go through the roof. But, that is OK; this Government will fix up that problem.

Mr SPEAKER: I call David Clendon. [Interruption] I have called David Clendon. I ask members to show some courtesy to the new member at the back of the House. I want to hear him.

David Clendon: Does he agree with the United Nations World Tourism Organization that New Zealand has managed to capture the world’s imagination with its consistent branding; and does he also agree that it is crucially important that the reality is in turn consistent with that branding?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and yes, and that is why we work hard to protect our environment.

Metiria Turei: Will the Minister then accept the very kind offer made by Greenpeace to pay for his fare to the climate change conference in Copenhagen, in order to demonstrate to the many potential international tourists that New Zealand does take its environmental responsibility seriously?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I will not be accepting the cheque from Greenpeace to go to Copenhagen. It is very unlikely that I will be going there. I will be well-represented by Tim Groser and Nick Smith. Anyway, I will be far too busy reading the comments from the co-leader of the Green Party about why she thinks that Phil Goff is a racist.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to that comment. What I said on the radio this morning is absolutely accurate, and I stand by those words. But the description of them by the Prime Minister of this country was derogatory and disgusting. I ask that he withdraw and apologise.

Hon Rodney Hide: Point of order—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need further help on this. I do not know who made that interjection, but it was not helpful, either. It is fortunate that I did not pick up who it was. I say to the Prime Minister that his comment was totally unnecessary; I ask him to stand, withdraw, and apologise for that comment.

Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw and apologise.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I called that I would hear a point of order from the Leader of the Opposition’s own colleague, and he made an interjection that is totally unparliamentary, and he knows that. I now ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to stand, withdraw, and apologise for that.

Hon Phil Goff: I withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard, and the senior members—[Interruption] The Prime Minister will also be quiet. I say to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Prime Minister, and all senior members that we have had a fair bit of fun today, but I think we should show a little decorum. There have been a lot of visitors in the gallery who would not have been too impressed.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a copy of a cheque raised by Greenpeace members, via cake stalls and sausage sizzles, for $4,781 to enable the Prime Minister to attend the Copenhagen climate change conference.

Mr SPEAKER: I recently made a ruling in which I made it clear to members that I would not be seeking the leave of the House for members to table articles that have nothing to do with providing information to members of the House. When a request to table an item is purely political grandstanding, it is demeaning of this Parliament. I ask members not to do it, or I will take serious steps in the future.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to reflect on that. The Prime Minister in his answer referred to the cheque from Greenpeace. He introduced that material into the House in his answer. My colleague is simply tabling the information that the Prime Minister referred to in his answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter, and that is the end of it.

David Clendon: I seek leave to table New Zealand’s country profile in the World Economic Forum’s Travel and Tourism Competitiveness Index, which ranks New Zealand near the bottom of the world—

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.

Literacy Programmes—Manukau Family Literacy Programme

11. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Education: Is she prepared to back up her support for literacy programmes by funding the expansion of the Manukau Family Literacy Programme, a programme that PricewaterhouseCoopers says has already boosted the income of participating families by an average of $200 per week?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The City of Manukau Education Trust’s request for funding for brokerage and administration for this programme was initially declined, as it did not fit in any of the current funding forms run by the Ministry of Education and the Tertiary Education Commission. However, the Government is committed to finding a way to support the programme, and I have instructed the Ministry of Education to work with the trust on a solution that allows the programme to continue.

Su’a William Sio: When will she make her final decision, and is she aware that if the City of Manukau Education Trust does not receive the minimal investment of $35,000 this week, the Manukau Family Literacy Programme, as upheld by PricewaterhouseCoopers, will fold?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat that I have instructed the Ministry of Education to work with the trust to find a way to support that programme. I understand that discussions are happening as we speak.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that the $350,000 sought by the City of Manukau Education Trust—acronym, COMET—for a programme recognised by her as a highquality programme has been declined; if so, why has the Prime Minister told the trust to go back to her, saying that she should look harder?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat what I said in answer to the primary question. The trust’s request for funding for the brokerage and administration for this programme was initially declined, because it did not fit any of the current funding models within the Ministry of Education and the

Tertiary Education Commission. I have instructed the ministry to work with the trust to find a way to support the programme, and it is working on that as we speak.

Carmel Sepuloni: Given that the Minister is looking to backtrack on her decision to cut funding to the Manukau Family Literacy Programme, are there any other ill-considered decisions that she has made that have been overturned by the Prime Minister that the public should be aware of; if so, what are they?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I totally reject the original premise of that question, and that answers it.

Carmel Sepuloni: Given that the Minister is looking to backtrack on her decision to cut funding to the Manukau Family Literacy Programme due to the Prime Minister’s intervention, does this mean that the other ill-considered decisions she has made, such as cuts to Adult and Community Education funding, will also be reviewed?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat: I have not cut any funding to the City of Manukau Education Trust.

Su’a William Sio: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I am afraid that by my reckoning all the supplementary questions available to Labour today have been used.

Su’a William Sio: I seek leave through you, Mr Speaker, to ask one more supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to ask a further supplementary question. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Su’a William Sio: I seek leave through you, Mr Speaker, to table a PricewaterhouseCoopers report outlining the significant dollar value for dollar investment in the Manukau Family Literacy Programme.

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.

Probation Officers—Recruitment

12. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: Has she received any progress reports on the recruitment of additional probation officers following a $255 million funding boost in the Budget?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. The Government inherited a community probation system under extreme stress. Budget 2009 provided funding for 134 additional probation officers. I am pleased to report that 91 front-line probation staff have already been appointed. Funding was also provided for a further 112 probation officers who will be recruited in the first half of next year specifically to improve the quality of parole and home detention management. Public safety is the No. 1 priority when offenders are released on parole, and this Government is serious about fixing the probation system and improving the safety of the public.

Sandra Goudie: What other steps is the Government taking to recognise the important role carried out by Community Probation and Psychological Services, which often has to deal with some of society’s most troubled people?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is not easy being a probation officer, and it is a job that is often under-recognised by the wider community. At my suggestion, the Department of Corrections has established a Minister’s Excellence Award to recognise outstanding achievement among new probation officer graduates. I was delighted to present the first award last week. It was also the first time that a formal ceremony has been held for graduating officers. It is important to recognise the important contribution that probation officers make to our justice system.

ENDS

© Scoop Media