(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Justice System—Minister’s Views on Rehabilitation

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Justice: Is it his view that the justice system should provide rehabilitation and give people the chance to change?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Yes, where appropriate.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Peter Williams QC that the justice system should give recognition to rehabilitation and repentance, and that the David Garrett case clearly demonstrates why it is valuable to recognise repentance?

Hon SIMON POWER: In respect of the first part of that question, I have already said in relation to matters regarding rehabilitation that, where appropriate, that is the case. In respect of the second part of the question, I do not have any ministerial responsibility for that particular issue.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the comment made by Garth McVicar of the Sensible Sentencing Trust that David Garrett deserves a second chance; if so, how does that approach sit with the punitive and irrational “three strikes” policy adopted by his Government?

Hon SIMON POWER: In respect of issues of rehabilitation, I have already answered the question: yes, where appropriate. In respect of the second matter relating to the “three strikes” legislation, Government policy has seen that legislation introduced, and my understanding is that it is working well.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he support the clean slate legislation brought in by the Greens with the support of others, which wipes the convictions of people who committed crimes in their youth but who have since stayed on the straight and narrow, or does he share the view of the ACT Party that such laws are “anti-morality” and “seek to airbrush history”?

Hon SIMON POWER: The Government has no plans to change the clean slate legislation.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that Mr Garrett’s actions from over 20 years ago show why we need a justice system that has a quality of mercy and that allows for the possibility that people can change?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call on the Minister to answer, he has made it very clear that he has no responsibility for any actions of Mr Garrett. The member may just rephrase that question a little to try to bring it more within the Standing Orders.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that the actions of people who have done things many years ago that they have since come to regret show why we need a justice system that has a quality of mercy and that allows for the possibility that people can change?

Hon SIMON POWER: I have already said that broadly, where appropriate, that is the case. But as members will be aware, Speaker’s ruling 152/4 indicates: “Members can ask hypothetical questions but Ministers do not need to respond to the hypotheses.”

Dr Russel Norman: Does he believe that everyone is human and that the justice system needs to give everyone the opportunity for redemption, even when their actions are offensive and hurtful to the families affected; and does he believe that his Government’s adoption of the “three strikes” policy reflects those beliefs?

Hon SIMON POWER: Most people I have met are human.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that although it is a natural and human reaction to want revenge when someone close to us is hurt by crime, we cannot build a justice system that is effective at keeping people safe, by basing it on a philosophy of an eye for an eye, and that his Government policy is taking us down that route, led by the ACT Party?

Hon SIMON POWER: No, I do not believe that Government policy is leading us down that route, at all. There is a combination of different policy strands, some of which are preventive, some of which are rehabilitative, and some of which relate to sentencing and the punitive end of the justice system.

Hon Annette King: How many chances to change does he believe people should get, and does he agree with David Garrett MP, who stated: “after receiving two warnings of the consequences we must assume that” the offender “will go on committing similar offences”?

Hon SIMON POWER: In respect of the first part of the honourable member’s question, the number of chances will vary on a case by case basis.

Earthquake, Canterbury—Progress of Recovery

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Canterbury

Earthquake Recovery : Is he satisfied with progress on the recovery from the Canterbury earthquake so far?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury

Earthquake Recovery: Yes. The member will know that on Tuesday night we passed the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010 with the support of that member, her party, and, indeed, all parties in this House. In that sense, we have set in place the ability for Canterbury to now progress on its path to recovery.

Hon Annette King: In light of the Prime Minister’s statement on 7 September that “The Government is prepared to step up financially to rebuild the region.”, does that include regional roading? Local authorities are now sayingthey will require a rate rise and a loan facility to pay for the repairs to regional roads. Was that what the Canterbury people understood would happen from the Prime Minister’s statement?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Yes, the Government is aware of the issues relating to roading—and, indeed, infrastructure—and we will continue to discuss those matters with the people of Canterbury, walk alongside them, and give them assistance where it is needed and where we can.

Hon Annette King: Has he received a report from the Insurance Council of New Zealand stating that an emerging problem for the reconstruction in Canterbury is the shortage of labour and materials; if so, what planning is taking place to ensure that sufficient labour is available in Canterbury, and that other regions that also have urgent needs for labour and materials at this time are not significantly disadvantaged?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Yes. Again, we are aware of those issues. We are working with the construction companies and the likes of the Canterbury Registered Master Builders Association and the Certified Builders Association to ensure that as best as we are able we can organise the labour force, both in Canterbury and across this country, to provide the resources that are necessary. We are also in discussions as to whether there is a need for us to bring in people from overseas to assist. Again, those decisions are under discussion and will continue to be made as we make progress.

Hon Annette King: What progress has been made on requiring building companies involved in the reconstruction to include training for the over 1,000 unemployed people in the region who

already have some experience in construction and building, as identified last week by the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who said the Government was working on such a policy?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Again, it is under consideration. We are just 12 days out from the event, and those matters are being considered. All forms of resources are being considered.

Hon Annette King: In light of a question raised last night at a public meeting in Kaiapoi attended by over 1,000 people, will the Government put together a package to compensate homeowners who have suffered major capital value loss; if so, what will that package include?

Hon JOHN CARTER: I wish I had the specific answers to all the member’s questions, because of course those questions have been asked by the people of Canterbury. We are working as hard and as fast as we can to get specific answers to all those sorts of questions. The member is right to reflect them, because they are the sorts of things the people of Canterbury want to know. As a Government we have to be careful about the way we progress this matter, but we are working with the Insurance Council, the insurance companies, and the banks to see how we can assist in that regard.

Hon Annette King: Has he read the letter from the New Zealand Law Society that was sent to him a week ago, which asks for the Government to take a lead role in solving the emerging problem of transitional insurance cover for people who were in the process of buying and selling homes when the quake struck, and which is now leading to a logjam and having a flow-on effect on house sales in other parts of New Zealand; if so, is the Government considering acting as a transitional underwriter of insurance cover until this issue is sorted out?

Hon JOHN CARTER: I cannot say specifically whether the Minister has read the letter. I certainly have not. I cannot speak for him; I do not know. I can tell the member that the Minister is in discussions with the Insurance Council, insurance companies, and banks to see how this matter can be dealt with.

Television, Switch-over to Digital—Recent Announcements

3. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcements have been made regarding digital switch-over?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting): Earlier today the Government announced that New Zealand will complete the switch-over to digital television by 2013. Our election promise was to achieve digital switch-over by 2015, at the latest. With 70 percent of New Zealand households now watching digital television, we believe that it is time to make a formal announcement of the digital switch-over date, so that the public, broadcasters, retailers, and installers can make preparations for a seamless transition to the digital environment.

David Bennett: Why has the Government chosen 2013 as the completion date for digital switchover?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Digital television gives the viewer the benefit of enhanced reception, better picture quality, and more channels. The switch to digital television will free up radio spectrum, which will be ideal for fourth-generation mobile technologies. This will provide New Zealanders with access to faster mobile broadband services with improved coverage. Completing digital switch-over by 2013 will bring forward the economic benefits for New Zealand, which are estimated to be between $1.1 billion and $2.4 billion over the next 20 years.

Chris Tremain: Which regions will be the first to complete the switch to digital television?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The first regions to complete the switch to digital television will be Hawke’s Bay and the West Coast in September 2012. They will be followed by the rest of the South Island in April 2013, and the lower North Island and Gisborne in September 2013. The rest of the North Island will be completed in November 2013. A comprehensive communications campaign will be launched later this year to provide additional information and support about digital switch-over. The Government is allocating $37 million over 4 years to support a smooth transition to digital television.

Chris Tremain: What will the old analog spectrum be used for?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Digital television technology makes more efficient use of radio spectrum than analog technology does. Switching to it will free up a large amount of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band for new uses. We expect that one of the principal uses of the spectrum will be for fourth-generation mobile technologies, which will give New Zealanders access to faster mobile broadband services with improved coverage. This will allow New Zealand to keep pace with international developments in radio communications and information technology, and will be crucial if New Zealand is to increase productivity and enhance economic growth. Today’s announcement supports the Government’s economic growth agenda and is great news for the country.

Early Childhood Education—Policy Initiatives

4. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What policy initiatives has she developed for early childhood education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): As I announced in Budget 2010, funding of $91.8 million will be invested in participation projects in high-priority areas over the next 4 years. These will include intensive community-led participation projects like supported playgroups, language and culture projects, and targeted support for priority families. This is in addition to the Counties-Manakau participation project, which has placed hundreds of extra children into new early childhood education services. And there is more to come.

Sue Moroney: Is she proposing a group to undertake a full review of the value of investments in early childhood education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I certainly am, particularly because of the huge growth in expenditure for early childhood education. That cost has skyrocketed over the last 5 years, without a commensurate increased participation by children in early childhood education, particularly in some areas of this country. We are certainly looking at the costs of early childhood education.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. I asked the Minister whether she was proposing a group to undertake a full review of the value of the investment in early childhood education, but she did not answer that very specific question.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought she said there was an investigation of investment in education. I thought she confirmed to the member what she was asking. I might be wrong there, but that is what I thought I heard. The Minister is not disagreeing with me.

Colin King: What is the Government’s top priority for early childhood education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government’s top priority for early childhood education is to make sure that those children who are currently missing out and whom we know will benefit the most from attending, like the 25 percent of children in parts of Counties-Manukau, for example, get the opportunity to experience good-quality early childhood education. That is why we are spending almost $100 million on that initiative over the next 4 years.

Sue Moroney: Why have the group and its term of reference been planned in secret, without any consultation with the early childhood sector?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can assure that member that there is no group. I have announced no group. This Government has not decided on a group.

Hon Heather Roy: Is it Government policy that sessional kindergartens are to be phased out and replaced with full-day, licensed care, where the emphasis is on making a profit as opposed to the child-centred, family-based ethos of kindergartens?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, the Government has no such policy. But kindergarten associations make the decisions about which services they provide and how they are provided.

Hone Harawira: What initiatives has she developed to respond to the Education Review Office’s research earlier this year that revealed that only 40 percent of all centres had processes in

place to identify and respond to the aspirations and expectations of the parents and whānau of Māori children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is an excellent question. I met just yesterday with a group representing about 45 iwi that have relationships with the Ministry of Education. Early childhood education is one of the five areas in which we are looking to work together to ensure that early childhood education services are culturally responsive. We are looking at how we can both provide—both iwi and the ministry—ways to work together to ensure that that happens.

Sue Moroney: For the sake of clarity, has she taken a proposal to Cabinet for a group to undertake a full review of the value of investment in early childhood education, without consultation with the early childhood education sector?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Earthquake, Canterbury—Canterbury Civil Defence States of Emergency Update

5. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What is the update on the Canterbury civil defence states of emergency?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence): I am pleased to say that the three mayors of the affected districts in Canterbury—that is, Selwyn, Waimakariri, and Christchurch—have today lifted the states of emergency in their districts. This was 12 days after the 7.1 magnitude earthquake hit Canterbury and left its trail of devastation, which, thankfully, did not involve any loss of life. A lot of things have happened in those 12 days to the people of Canterbury. With the ongoing aftershocks that they continue to experience, it must feel like a very long 12 days. However, given the magnitude of the earthquake, it is important to note that 12 days is quite a short space of time to have essential services restored to most people and life back to relatively normal. The civil defence emergency management group plan worked well in ensuring the safety and security of the people in affected areas. This was due to the incredible efforts of the Canterbury civil defence group and the Canterbury local authorities involved, supported in Wellington by the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management.

Aaron Gilmore: Why were the states of emergency in Canterbury extended yesterday?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The states of emergency were extended for 24 hours to ensure a smooth transition from a state of emergency to a state of urgency under the Canterbury Earthquake Response and Recovery Act 2010. There was still some legislative work to be completed yesterday, and the mayors in the affected areas decided to retain the declaration to ensure a smooth and safe transition to the recovery phase in Canterbury. The three mayors in the region, Bob Parker, Ron Keating, and Kelvin Coe, have shown true leadership during this difficult time in Canterbury. I commend them for their work above and beyond the call of duty. I extend this commendation to all the officials—civil defence, local government, armed forces, police, education, and health—as well as the many volunteers whose physical work and acts of kindness have shown the true spirit of Canterbury.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister aware that the use by civil defence personnel and the councils of green, yellow, and red stickers to identify immediate and apparent health and safety risks to occupiers of property is being treated as a status report on whether a residence can be lived in; if so, what steps is he taking to address this inappropriate and potentially dangerous situation?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Yes, I am aware of that issue. Indeed, I have had discussions about it today with representatives of the three local authorities. There has been ongoing publicity about that issue to try to get an explanation of what those certificates actually mean. They are certificates of the moment; just because a house has a green sticker today does not necessarily mean that it will have a green sticker tomorrow. That depends on aftershocks and other issues. Basically, their significance may change on a day-by-day basis. Unfortunately, there is not enough knowledge among the public about what those certificates represent. We are doing our very best to get that knowledge out. I have asked the councils today to give further explanation about what they mean.

The member is quite right to raise the issue and I am glad she has, because it gives me a chance to explain further that the certificates are of the moment. Basically, a green sticker means that a house is safe at the moment—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: No, it doesn’t mean it’s safe.

Hon JOHN CARTER: Well, it means that people can occupy the house at the moment, but it does not mean to say that that situation will remain; further studies will need to be done and information given to the owners and the occupiers.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that in asking that question I have allowed the Minister to repeat the error that is being publicly made out there. The green stickers do not mean buildings are safe—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot dispute the Minister’s answer by way of point of order. The member can use a further supplementary question to question what she believes may be an inaccuracy in the Minister’s answer. I am perfectly happy to let her ask a further supplementary question, but it will have to come out of Labour’s total number of supplementary questions.

Hon JOHN CARTER: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If it is helpful, I am very happy to discuss this matter with the member after question time. If she thinks there is an issue to be debated, I am happy to make further statements publicly so that information can be distributed.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the Minister’s contribution but it is not actually a point of order. Does the member wish to ask a further supplementary question to clarify the issue?

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Can the Minister confirm that the green, yellow, and red stickers identify whether a building inspector in a 10-minute check has perceived an immediate and apparent health and safety risk, and do not mean that it is safe to occupy a property? A green-stickered house may be dangerous and a red-stickered house may be safe.

Hon JOHN CARTER: I will endeavour to clarify this matter, because it is important, and I am sorry if it takes a moment to do so. As I said, these stickers are of the moment. A green sticker means that when a house was last inspected it was considered able to be occupied. If a house has a yellow sticker, it means that it is dangerous to enter; people can, but they must not occupy it. If a house has a red sticker, people must not go in that property. The point is that, with all of these things, there has to be further examination: there has to be structural examination of the houses, and there has to be examination of the foundations of the properties. All of that work is being carried out now as methodically and as rapidly as we can, but we do not yet have all of the information to be able to say for certain whether a house is absolutely safe. The green sticker is merely an indication of the situation at the moment. It is really important for people to understand that. The member may be right: it may well be that a house that at the moment is considered to be safe may not necessarily be so in 5 minutes’ or 2 days’ time. We are still endeavouring to ascertain that information.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister aware that the stickers are being used as a marker for eligibility for emergency grants by the New Zealand Red Cross Canterbury Earthquake Commission; and what steps will he take to ensure that this is rectified?

Hon JOHN CARTER: No. I must say that that is the first I have heard of that issue. If the member wishes to give me further information, I will certainly explore that. That is the sort of thing I need to know so that I can address it, and I thank the member for bringing it to my attention.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the fact sheet “Emergency Grants”, which requires people to have been issued with a red or yellow inspection certificate to qualify.

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.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I seek leave to have this question held over until the Minister of Finance is present in the Chamber, on the grounds that the material is both technical and important to the status of South Canterbury Finance under the deposit guarantee scheme.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

South Canterbury Finance—Treasury Evaluation for Acquisitions

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Did Treasury evaluate the net effect on South Canterbury Finance’s position of the February 2010 acquisition of Helicopters (NZ) Ltd and Scales Corporation shares, including the effect of the transaction on the recoverability or impairment of South Canterbury Finance’s $75 million loan to its parent company, Southbury Group Ltd?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes. In this transaction the assets mentioned were to be acquired by South Canterbury Finance and paid for by the issue of shares. Under the terms of the deed of guarantee, such transactions can proceed where a Crown-approved independent expert provides written certification that the transaction is on arm’s-length terms. In February 2010 South Canterbury Finance approached Treasury about the transaction. Treasury approved separate experts to review each transaction and received favourable responses on 28 February. Treasury’s view of the transaction was that at worst it made no difference to the Crown. It boosted the equity in South Canterbury Finance, but lessened the equity in Southbury by an equal amount. That view has proven to be correct, and I do not believe the cost to taxpayers was impacted by this transaction.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did the independent reports provided to Treasury by Simmons Corporate Finance and Northington Partners, certifying that the acquisitions by South Canterbury Finance of Helicopters (NZ) Ltd and Scales Corporation were on arm’s-length terms as stated in South Canterbury Finance’s Prospecus Number 61, not also include an evaluation of the effect on pre-existing loans and exposures to Southbury Group and on South Canterbury Finance’s position as prior charge secured guarantor of Southbury Corporation’s pre-existing convertible notes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can only confirm again that under the terms of the deed of guarantee, such transactions can proceed where a Crown-approved independent expert provides written certification that the transaction is on arm’s-length terms, and that was the basis on which the independent experts were asked to look at the transactions. As I said in my answer to the previous question, Treasury’s view of the transaction was that at the worst it made no difference to the Crown, by boosting the equity in South Canterbury Finance but lessening the equity in Southbury by an equal amount.

Hon David Cunliffe: In reaching the conclusion that the transaction made “no difference to the Crown”, did Treasury consider whether, after the acquisition, Southbury Group and Southbury Corporation would be in a position to repay their loans to South Canterbury Finance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Once again I say Treasury was in the position of evaluating its view of the transaction in terms of the exposure of taxpayers, which was its focus throughout this exercise, and it was Treasury’s assessment that the movement of those assets into South Canterbury Finance was at worst neutral, in terms of the exposure that the Crown had under the deposit guarantee scheme.

Hon David Cunliffe: Let me try again. In the event—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Comments are perhaps unhelpful, but the member is asking a serious set of questions, and it is important that they be heard clearly.

Hon David Cunliffe: In the event that those loans were not able to be repaid, how could it possibly be that the net impact of that series of transactions was neutral?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: When I went to school all of those things had to be assessed on the basis of the balance sheet of the companies. The reality is that Treasury was in the position of having to make recommendations to the Crown, based on its knowledge of the companies and the various loans that the member speaks of. In its view, the movement of those assets would, at worst, have a neutral impact on South Canterbury Finance and its equity, and that is the advice it gave to the Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can both of the Minister’s statements to the House on 15 September be true: first, that a significant proportion of the $831 million provisioning in the 30 June 2009 Crown accounts was related to South Canterbury Finance, and, second, his statement the same day that work done on statutory management and receivership options for South Canterbury Finance “probably did not occur until this year”; and can he therefore clarify to the House when work started on statutory management or recapitalisation options for South Canterbury Finance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Treasury assessment of the impairment to the Crown’s accounts that could be caused by the deposit guarantee scheme was in place, as the member knows, in August 2009. I do not have any information to hand that suggests that any of the discussions in relation to statutory management or anything else are different from what the Minister has previously advised the House.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I fear that the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House, because he has just told—

Mr SPEAKER: Well—

Hon David Cunliffe: It is a serious point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the member plans to raise a serious point of order, but he should not preface it in that way. I will listen to the issue of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: The Minister has just told the House that that provisioning was done in August 2009, but it was in the Crown’s accounts to 30 June 2009. Both statements cannot be correct at the same time.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that the member is raising a serious issue, but he cannot litigate the answer by way of a point of order. The member could seek a further supplementary question from his team and question the Minister specifically on that issue. I hear the issue that the member is raising, and he could use another supplementary question to explicitly question the Minister on that.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table Prospectus Number 61 of South Canterbury Finance Ltd dated 20 October 2009, which sets out the relevant background and provisions on the Scales Corporation and Helicopters (NZ) Ltd transactions identified earlier.

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.

Earthquake, Canterbury—Homes with Damaged Chimneys

7. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will Cantabrians whose chimneys have been significantly damaged by the recent earthquake be covered by the Earthquake Commission to replace their old log burners or open fires with new, efficient heaters?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Energy

and Resources: Yes. The Government thinks it is important for both air quality and future earthquake safety that we replace as many old chimneys as possible with efficient gas heaters, pellet heaters, clean log burners, or heat pumps, using Earthquake Commission recovery funds. Christchurch has long had a significant air pollution problem, and statistics from all of New Zealand’s major earthquakes—Murchison, Napier, Īnangahua, and now Canterbury—show that

more deaths and injuries are caused by brick chimneys than by any other cause. This is an opportunity to rebuild a safer and cleaner Christchurch.

Louise Upston: Has the Minister received any reports on the number of chimneys that collapsed due to Canterbury’s earthquake?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. The Earthquake Commission reports that 15,000 chimneys came down during the Canterbury quake. Also, a number of injuries from collapsing chimneys have been reported to the Accident Compensation Corporation. This initiative involving potentially 15,000 households, at a cost of $7,000 per home, is an effective investment of up to $100 million in making Christchurch both safer and cleaner.

Education, National Standards—Support for Schools with Poor Numeracy Results

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What support will be available in 2011 to schools that have very poor numeracy national standards results in 2010?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The implementation of national standards is a 3-year programme, and the ministry will not have that data until the third year in 2012. However, for schools that self-identify as having a number of students with very low numeracy results in 2011, professional development in numeracy will be available. The new student achievement team will also be operating in 2011, and focused on front-line targeted support in schools.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When will she announce her milestones for progress towards her objectives for the proportion of students achieving the national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: When they are ready.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Minister decided the milestones for progress towards national standards that she will announce when she is ready?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, these are not my milestones. These are milestones that that member has been asking for, and I have no intention of announcing them before we have decided, using the independent advisory group that is advising me on what milestones might be appropriate.

Allan Peachey: How will the $36 million announced for national standards in Budget 2009 be spent?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The $36 million will go towards new intervention programmes currently being developed for students who need extra support in reading, writing, and maths. We need programmes in place that provide tailored, specific, and concentrated support for students and teachers. These programmes will be monitored closely to ensure that they are making a difference for students.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it still the Minister’s medium-term objective that all students, other than those identified by the Ministry of Education as having special needs, will achieve the numeracy standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is the intention of having standards. Evidence is clear that if clear goals and clear steps to achieve those goals are set, then we can lift student achievement.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When will that happen?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That will happen at different rates for different students over the next few years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Minister taken to Cabinet any paper that includes milestones for her objectives, as she has indicated to the House today?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that progress towards good policy is measured by milestones?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If that is what the Prime Minister said; I always agree with what the Prime Minister says.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is she therefore being consistent in saying that she agrees with the Prime Minister on milestones but has none for her own most important policy?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat for that member: this is a 3-year implementation programme. We are not even through the first year of that, so the member should give the sector a break. There will not be any results going to the ministry before 2011, and the system is being rolled out as we speak.

Hone Harawira: Has she read the report Creating strong achievement gains for Māori children in English-medium mathematics classrooms, which shows that a focus on developing the relationships between students and teachers produced strong achievement gains for Māori students; how will cultural competency be factored into national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There is very good evidence that shows now that the recognition of a child’s culture and language, and the relationship between teacher and student, can contribute strongly to lifting student achievement. The purpose of the national standards is to provide benchmarks so that we get early indications of where students are not progressing as they should be, and that will have an enormous effect on young Māori, for whom the last 9 years of a Labour Government have seen very little progress in lifting their achievement.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not tell, then, whether in answering the question for my colleague the Minister was quoting from an official document with the milestones in it. If she was, I ask for the Māori milestones to be tabled, even if the Pākehā ones do not exist—

Mr SPEAKER: I will check with the Minister about whether she was quoting from an official document. No, she was not.

Earthquake, Canterbury—Department of Corrections Support

9. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: What support is the Corrections Department offering to Canterbury community groups and individuals to help with earthquake recovery?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): The Department of Corrections has a labour force of around 2,400 offenders on community work who are available to help with the earthquake clean-up. The department has set up a special 0800 number for people in Canterbury to call with job requests. The number 0800 COMWRK—that is, 0800 266975—can be used by both community groups and individuals who need assistance.

Sandra Goudie: What sort of assistance have community workers in Canterbury be providing so far?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: To date, the community workers have mainly been helping civil defence to clear debris and heavily silted areas in Kaiapoi. Today they are working alongside civil defence and the army to clear debris from State housing properties in Christchurch and St Paul’s Church in Kaiapoi. Tomorrow workers will be helping clean up one of the school properties at Kaiapoi, which has remained closed since the earthquake. I encourage people who need help to call 0800 COMWRK.

Employment, 90-day Trial Period—Rights of Workers

10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 14 September 2010 that the 90-day trial provisions “do not take away rights”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: Yes.

Darien Fenton: Does the 90-day trial remove the right of an employee whose employment agreement is terminated in accordance with the 90-day scheme to bring a personal grievance or legal proceedings in respect of that dismissal; if not, what does section 67A(2)(c) of the Employment Relations Act mean when it says: “the employee is not entitled to bring a personal grievance or other legal proceedings in respect of the dismissal.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The full Act is not in front of me at this point, but the point of the trial period is that employees have the opportunity to voluntarily enter into a trial period. We see the fact that people are getting jobs as a result of these trial periods, where they previously did not have them, as an expansion of their opportunities.

Darien Fenton: Does the 90-day trial period remove the right of an employee who is hired and fired under the scheme to request the employer to provide a statement in writing of the reasons for dismissal within 60 days after being advised of his or her dismissal?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government made sure there were a number of protections in this law: it requires any trial period to be entered into by written agreement, it allows the trial period only for new employees, it retains good faith, it protects employees against discrimination, and it ensures employees on a trial period are treated the same as all other employees as regards leave, wages, and other entitlements. I think the good-faith provision answers the member’s question.

Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a fairly straightforward question about whether the 90-day trial period removes the right of an employee to request the employer to provide a statement within 60 days of being dismissed. I do not believe the Minister answered it.

Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the member to repeat her question, because it was quite difficult to hear both her supplementary questions. I accept that they were quite detailed. It was probably not the member’s fault; I am not happy with the performance of the sound system at all. I invite her to repeat that question without loss of any supplementary questions. I realise she is trying to ask some quite specific questions.

Darien Fenton: Does the 90-day trial period remove the right of an employee who is hired and fired under this scheme to request the employer to provide a statement in writing of the reasons for the dismissal within 60 days after being advised of his or her dismissal?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has always said that the good-faith requirements to be communicative and responsive with employees—which, I think, is what the member is alluding to—imply and include telling employees why a trial period has not worked out. In fact, in a recent case Judge Colgan agreed that the balance of good-faith duties in section 4 tend to favour a requirement on employers to give such explanations at the time of giving notice. Yes, it does.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Could the Minister explain why the Labour Party and its union friends are so adamantly opposed—

Mr SPEAKER: One as experienced as the Hon Sir Roger Douglas should know that he can ask the Minister whether he agrees with things, but the Minister certainly does not have to explain at all what the Labour Party may believe or say. The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for that; I would have expected the honourable member to know that better than anyone.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I say to my old colleague that he could probably rephrase his question by asking the Minister why he voted against—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. I am at a loss for words.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister agree with me when I say that the Labour Party and its union friends are adamantly opposed to young people whom the education system has failed getting a foothold on the employment ladder, and would he agree with me that the 90-day trial provision allows this to happen very easily?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I agree with the member that the 90-day trial period gives employees who are struggling to get jobs opportunities to obtain those jobs. Department of Labour research has shown that 43 percent of employers who use the trial period would not have—or were not likely to have—employed that person without the trial period, which tends to bear out the member’s assertion.

Darien Fenton: Does the 90-day trial remove the right of employees to have the opportunity to comment on information about their proposed dismissal to their employer before the decision is made?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I have said in answer to previous questions, the 90-day trial period requires the retention of good faith. The good-faith requirements are that employers be communicative and responsive with employees. That includes telling employees why the trial period has not worked out. Other good-faith provisions also apply.

Darien Fenton: Why rights does a former employee of HRV in Napier—who was sacked under the 90-day trial scheme and given no reason, and was then told by Work and Income that he will have a 13-week stand-down for the unemployment benefit unless he files a personal grievance claim—have when the 90-day scheme has removed all of his rights to take a personal grievance claim?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Obviously I do not have the details of that case to hand. I invite the member to bring that information to the attention of the Minister so that she can respond directly.

Earthquake, Canterbury—Government Assistance with Uninhabitable Homes

11. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Housing: What is the Government doing to assist people whose homes are not habitable following the Canterbury earthquake?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): Housing New Zealand Corporation has been working very well with private sector landlords, the community housing sector, and the Ministry of Social Development. However, we know that a number of people have been living with family and friends and will want some sort of longer-term options as their houses are being rebuilt, so we are wanting to increase the housing pool in Canterbury. Today I announced the Housing Emergency Lease Programme. In this programme we will be asking Cantabrians who have a second home—it might be a holiday home, a farm cottage, or a house that would otherwise be for sale—to see whether they are willing to lease that short term to Housing New Zealand Corporation for 2, 3, or 4 months. Housing New Zealand Corporation will carry the lease, pay the rent, and have a tenancy agreement. This way, it manages the tenancy and collects the rent, but it guarantees rent to the householder and provides a no-hassle tenancy service.

Chris Hipkins: Will funding that is currently budgeted for upgrades or replacements of State houses in other areas be reduced in order to meet the increased demand that is likely to flow out of the Housing New Zealand Corporation projects in the Canterbury region; if so, where does he envisage that money coming from?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It is fortunate that Housing New Zealand Corporation properties are covered by Earthquake Commission payments, just as normal properties are.

Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge what the Minister has just said, but it did not actually address the question that I raised. I asked him whether money would be taken from other regions in order to put it into the Canterbury region. Saying that the Earthquake Commission—

Mr SPEAKER: It seemed to me the Minister was saying that the Earthquake Commission would cover the cost with regard to Housing New Zealand Corporation properties. That is what I interpreted from what the Minister said. If that is what the Minister is saying, then the member cannot litigate it by way of point of order. He can ask further supplementary questions.

Chris Hipkins: But that wasn’t my question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member now seems to want to argue with the Speaker, which is not a very good idea. But just to make sure that I am not misunderstanding here, I believe that the member asked where the cost would come from. What I interpreted from what the Minister said was that it would be covered by the Earthquake Commission, so it would not come from any other Housing New Zealand Corporation regions. I might be wrong, and if I am wrong, then I hope the Minister will point that out to me. But he does not appear to be wishing to.

Auckland Transition Agency—Award of Computer System Contract

12. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: When he said in the House yesterday that the Auckland Transition Agency “ran a tender to deliver an enterprise resource planning system”, was he referring to merely the $14.3 million contract for the implementation of the Enterprise Resource Planning system or was he referring to the full contract of $53.8 million to deliver the Enterprise Resource Planning system?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Acting Minister of Local Government): The total cost of the Enterprise Resource Planning system is budgeted to be $62.3 million. That information was made public in May. A limited tender was run for the delivery of the Enterprise Resource Planning system. This includes meeting the entire cost of implementing the system. The total budgeted cost of $62.3 million covers both the pre and post - 1 November 2010 costs.

Phil Twyford: How can he say that, when the Auckland Transition Agency’s own discussion document clearly states that the company SAP was awarded the contract on the basis of an internal evaluation and no competitive tender?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Because, as the member knows, SAP has been delivering services in Auckland. It has been in discussion with the Auckland Transition Agency. There was a discussion with nine companies, and four were selected to combine to deliver the service, and that is what has happened.

Phil Twyford: How will Auckland ratepayers ever know that they are getting value for money from the Enterprise Resource Slanning system when they were denied an open tender process, which would have saved them millions of dollars?

Hon JOHN CARTER: They will know when they contact the council and get the very efficient service that they will get post - 1 November.

Phil Twyford: How does he reconcile the failure to tender the full $53 million contract for the Auckland super-city with his statement that in setting up the Auckland Council “The emphasis throughout has been on ensuring no undue burden is placed on the ratepayers of Auckland.”?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Easily. The councils currently spend $90 million a year on services. There were always going to be some extra costs in putting a combined network across the council. That is costing $124 million as opposed to $90 million. The actual extra cost is minimal compared with the service that people will get. I have every faith that the Auckland Transition Agency, and particularly the new council, will deliver a grand service for the people of Auckland.

Question No 4 to Minister

Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of questions to Ministers, and I apologise to Ms Fenton for delaying her question to the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. I wish to raise a quick point under Standing Order 372(2) relating to questions being allocated on a basis that is proportional to party membership in the House. The roster I received this morning showed that question No. 4 was to be in the name of the Independent MP, Chris Carter. I see that question No. 4 was asked by a member of the Labour Party. I was wondering whether we could have some clarification about what arrangements are now in place between the Independent MP and the Labour Party.

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): They are similar to the situation that existed with the Hon Maurice Williamson, Brian Connell, and many other members of Parliament who did not remain with the party they were elected to represent. It is a matter between the parties when they reallocate questions. If a member is unable to be here and asks another party to take the question on his or her behalf, it is a matter for that party. Supplementary questions are often traded between the parties in this House; so, too, can primary questions be traded. We are grateful to the previous examples of National members who have run into trouble in this respect. It has been very helpful to research those as we have come to similar arrangements on this side of the House.

Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House): I wonder, then, whether the shadow Leader of the House might be able to give an indication as to when a Labour question will be traded back to Mr Chris Carter on his return. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Hon Annette King whether she has quite finished.

Hon Annette King: No.

Mr SPEAKER: I should not have to remind her that if she has not finished, the Speaker might ask her to leave the Chamber. But I will accept her peace signal. Members well know that there is a practice whereby parties can swap questions. It happens all the time. There is no need for them to be returned, or anything like that. It is a matter between the parties and does not involve the Speaker, although I fully accept the member’s desire to have that matter clarified. It is a matter for the parties, and I accept the advice of the parties where questions have been swapped.

Question No. 12 to Minister

PHIL TWYFORD (Labour): I seek leave of the House to table a discussion paper from the Auckland Transition Agency. It details the fact that no tender was given for a $53 million information technology project.

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

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)—Submissions

1. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial

Relations Committee: How many submissions have been received on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2)?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): The Transport and Industrial Relations Committee has received 279 submissions on the Employment Relations Amendment Bill (No 2) and numerous other form and letter submissions.

Darien Fenton: Can he confirm that every submission that includes individual comments, which includes over 3,000 of the submissions that he refers to as “form submissions”, will be treated as a unique submission that requires consideration by the select committee?

Mr SPEAKER: I would imagine that the way the select committee considers submissions is a matter for the select committee, not for the chair of the select committee. Therefore, I cannot accept that question as being within order.

Question No. 11 to Minister—Amended Answer

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): I need to correct my answer to the supplementary question asked by Chris Hipkins. High-value properties have separate insurance, and are covered by the Earthquake Commission. Others are covered by Housing New Zealand disaster insurance, on which there is a $10 million excess. That will not come from upgrade and maintenance costs from other areas.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate that from the honourable Minister.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence): Further to question No. 5, and the issue concerning the green, yellow, and red cards, I seek leave of the House to table an explanation that has been sent to the local authorities, which are publishing it today. I also seek leave to table documents from the website that set out very clearly the meaning of the green, yellow, and red cards, and their implications.

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.

ENDS

© Scoop Media