7. Dr PITA SHARPLES (Co-Leader—Māori Party) to the Minister of Education: Is he aware that the IHC has taken a complaint to the Human Rights Commission, claiming that Government action creates barriers to disabled students learning on the same basis as other students, and how can such action occur when the Education Act 1989 requires that people who have special educational needs have the same rights to enrol and receive education in State schools as people who do not?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) : Yes. I have received a letter from the IHC advising me that it intends to lodge a complaint under Part 1A of the Human Rights Act 1993.

Dr Pita Sharples: What response has the Minister made to the report Human Rights in New Zealand Today: Ngā Tika Tangata O Te Motu, which found that the participation and achievement levels of some groups, such as disabled children and young people, are not known?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The Ministry of Education is working with me at the moment on guidelines for boards of trustees and principals, to ensure that every child has access to his or her neighbourhood school. The Labour-led Government put out our New Zealand Disability Strategy in 2001, which focused very much on ensuring that children have the right to go to their neighbourhood school.

Hon Mark Burton: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that all students with disabilities can access educational opportunities that meet their needs?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: In 2007 and 2008 the Government will invest $437 million in special education services, which include school transport assistance, targeted funding for special needs, specialist teaching positions, and school property modification for students with special needs. The Ministry of Education and the IHC will work together in mediation before the Human Rights Commission, should the letter be lodged, to identify those areas where the system needs to be improved. I assure the House again that the Government is absolutely committed to seeing that children can go to their neighbourhood school.

Dr Pita Sharples: In the light of the Minister’s last answer, what action has he taken following last year’s submission from the Inclusive Education Action Group, which advised him that disabled children and their families continued to experience discrimination and a second-rate education at school, forcing some disabled children to move back to more segregated settings as a result of ineffective educational practices that do not meet the challenges of inclusion?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have twice met personally with the IHC to discuss those matters. I have directed ministry officials to work on legislation that we hope to bring to the House that will give greater clarity and guidance to boards of trustees about how they can ensure that children have access to their school if they live in their school’s area.

Dr Pita Sharples: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. My question referred to action regarding the conditions for intellectually handicapped children within open, mainstream schools, not to the meetings that the Minister has had. So could he respond to that question, please.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I was trying to assure the member that we are taking very concrete actions. I laid out in one of my previous answers the work we are doing in providing teacher-aide support and physical modification of schools for children with disabilities. We are also looking at transport. Many of the students whom the member refers to are not able to travel on public transport, so they are provided with special transport. What is most important is that we give guidance and advice to boards of trustees and principals about the necessity of making sure that their school is accessible to all of the students in the area.

Dr Pita Sharples: What work plans has the Ministry of Education introduced to implement the New Zealand Disability Strategy—Making a World of Difference: Whakanui Oranga—with the objective to promote the participation of disabled Māori?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I have made reference to the $437 million of special education funding that is currently going into our education system to ensure that the very point the member is making is addressed: that students with disabilities have access to the public education system.

8. ANNE TOLLEY (National—East Coast) to the Minister of Education: Can he confirm that the truancy rate increased from 2.9 percent in 2002 to 4.1 percent in 2006 according to the Ministry of Education’s attendance, absence, and truancy reports; if so, what are the reasons for this 41 percent increase in the truancy rate?

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) : Yes, I can confirm those figures, but I would like to remind that member and make clear to the House that had she read the document carefully, she would have seen that it explains in very clear terms that taking a snapshot of a particular time period in the education system can distort the figures totally, with the circumstances often compounded by particular events that are happening—weather conditions, and so on. We are moving towards an electronic system, now in place in every school in New Zealand, which will give us an accurate account for the very first time of just how many students are truanting.

Anne Tolley: Why is it that despite truancy increasing by 41 percent since 2002 under Labour, we still have a Minister running a Ministry of Education who does not know how many front-line district truancy officers are actually out there dealing with truancy around New Zealand?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Why does that member never listen to the answers; she just follows her script in front of her. As I explained a few minutes ago, taking a snapshot, year by year, of how many students are away in a particular week is not an accurate way of reading truancy. In 2006, for example, which the member makes reference to, we had the tangi of the Māori Queen in that particular week, and we also had a severe storm experience in Dunedin. Those events naturally distorted the number of students who were in school in that particular week. We are moving towards an electronic system. ENROL, our new electronic system, is now in every school. At the end of this year we will know for the very first time how many students have been away from New Zealand schools. We have invested an enormous amount of money in truancy support services. The member, of course, never gives any credit for that. All she does is read her script prepared by the National Party research unit.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister like just to address the question of the number of truancy officers, which was—I think—the substance of the question.

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We have 89 district truancy services contracted to work in each of our territorial authorities. We have another six staff at the ministry who provide special support for schools.

Hon Member: “Wassup!”, Minister?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I would like to say that what is up in our schools is that we are dealing with truancy.

Dr Ashraf Choudhary: What steps is the Government taking to ensure secondary students are more engaged in education?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Very concrete steps have been taken. We have done a complete review of district truancy services, and school-to-work programmes like Gateway and Youth Apprenticeships have come into our schools to engage students in learning. The Schools Plus programme announced by the Prime Minister in February involves fundamental changes in secondary education. This revolution in schooling includes developing a much wider range of pathways to keep students engaged and achieving for longer. It will create stronger partnerships between schools and their communities, and provide better support for at-risk students. National’s answer might be boot camps; ours is education.

Dail Jones: Can the Minister confirm that it is absolutely vital to reduce the truancy rate of students using all means possible, because these truants tend to turn up in New Zealand prisons as inmates as early as their mid-teens at a cost of $80,000 per annum each to the taxpayer?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I can absolutely confirm that. We need to invest in services that provide support to schools, students, and their families to keep students in education; and we have to develop an educational programme and system for the 21stcentury that engages students in learning. Boot camps are not the answer; innovative, interesting, and effective programmes are.

Anne Tolley: Is the Minister honestly telling the House that this Labour-led Government is fighting a 41 percent increase in truancy and spending $4.3 million on district truancy services every year, yet he cannot tell us how many truancy officers are on the front line fighting truancy, and he cannot give any indication as to how well the district truancy services are doing their jobs, because they do not have to report against any performance measurement?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: I thought I had already told the House how many truancy personnel we have out there. We have 89 groups contracted to our territorial authorities, we have six officials at the ministry who are dealing with case by case support for schools, we have put $2 million into the schools with the greatest risk of truancy, and we invest $4.5 million a year in district truancy services. Why does the member never listen to answers?

Anne Tolley: What sort of responsible Minister has truancy increasing in his own electorate but still does not require schools to report to the ministry the number of prosecutions they carry out each year, which means that nobody knows how many prosecutions in total are taken against parents of truant children?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: Prosecutions for truancy are the responsibility of boards of trustees. Look, truancy is a serious business. That is why we did a complete review of the services, that is why $4.5 million a year every year goes into district truancy services, and that is why we have invested $2 million more in the most at-risk schools. We have the Student Engagement Initiative running in 100 schools for $1.8 million a year, we have six full-time staff at the ministry working on this, we have the electronic attendance register now in many schools so that we know instantly every day how many students are there, and we have the $6.4 million ENROL scheme. What more does the member want? Truancy is a serious business; we are taking it seriously and we are doing something about it. Her party just wants to set up boot camps—that will really encourage kids to go to school!

Anne Tolley: Why is it that the Minister’s predecessor mused about raising fines for parents of truant children at the beginning of last year, and the Minister himself said in December last year that we should look into this, yet the Ministry of Education told the Education and Science Committee that there are no plans whatsoever to change the law and raise the fines from the ridiculously low level of a maximum of $400 for parents who allow their children to skip school repeatedly?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: We will bring an education amendment bill into the House in August. Let us hope that that member and her party support it, because it will address a whole range of issues, primarily about making the school system more effective and engaging for students’ success. I remind the House again that we have done a full review of truancy services and we have brought in all sorts of programmes, systems, and resources to try to deal with the problem. We believe in actually doing something about the problem, not giving out slogans like “Boot camps will solve truancy.”

Anne Tolley: How does his ministry plan to reduce truancy by 20 percent over the next 5 years, when although the Minister seems to know how many people are working on it in the ministry, he does not actually know how many people are out there on the front line in the offices—that is, the number of officers fighting truancy—does not know how well they are performing, and does not know how many prosecutions any or all schools throughout New Zealand are undertaking, and one can get a larger fine for littering in some areas than for allowing one’s children to repeatedly miss school?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: What I do know is that this Government has invested $4.5 million in district truancy services, which are working in every territorial authority in the country; we have put $2 million aside for extra staff to work in the most at-risk schools; we have the Student Engagement Initiative running in 100 different secondary schools in the country; we have six full-time staff at the ministry working with those schools; we have the electronic attendance register going in schools so that we know on a daily basis whether the students are there; and we have set up for the first time ever an electronic system called ENROL, which every school in New Zealand is now on. Why cannot the member just give us some credit for the actions we have taken? All she and her party have come up with is boot camps for naughty kids.

Ron Mark: Why is the Minister speaking in such derogatory terms about military-style training for young people, when currently Judge Becroft is hailing as a success the Youth Quest operation, which is run along military lines in Paraparaumu; when Graeme Dingle, who received so much funding from the Ministry of Social Development, has been asked by the ministry to assist in establishing further such programmes; when the Canterbury Youth Development Corporation is working with the Ministry of Social Development right now to set up another military-style training facility in the South Island; and when I have just heard recently of another one being proposed in Auckland? Why is this Minister the only one out of all the Ministers who seems to have such a derogatory and negative view of the Limited Service Volunteers scheme and all the good work his people are doing out there in the community?

Hon CHRIS CARTER: The initiatives the member has just raised are all excellent initiatives. Indeed, in my own electorate of Te Atatu, Kelston Boys High School runs a really good service academy. These are opportunities that students opt into. The sorts of students we are talking about here are opting out of school. These students are disengaged from learning; they have not chosen to go into the opportunities that the member raises. To drag those kids off the street and throw them into a boot camp, as the Leader of the Opposition has suggested, will not engage them in learning. We are talking about opportunities that capture the attention and interest of young people, rather than punishing them.

Ron Mark: I seek the leave of the House to table information that shows that Judge Becroft actually used Youth Quest as a sentencing option—

• Document not tabled.

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table answers to written questions from May showing that the Minister of Education does not know the number of truancy officers who are currently employed.

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

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table the Minister’s answer to a written question, showing that district truancy officers do not have to report against any performance indicators.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

Anne Tolley: I seek leave to table answers to estimates questions showing that the Ministry of Education does not have any plans to change—

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? Yes, there is.

9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What reports has he received on employment relations?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister of Labour) : I have seen a report showing that, under a Labour-led Government, incomes for New Zealand’s lowest paid have gone up by 71 percent—more than four times what they went up in 9 years under the former National Government. I also note that the increase in the minimum wage was opposed by the National Party. The report further states that, since 2002, 130,000 parents have taken advantage of paid parental leave—again, opposed by the National Party—millions of working Kiwis now have 4 weeks’ leave a year, which is something that John Key has promised to abolish, and the real incomes of New Zealanders have increased by 25 percent since 2000.

Darien Fenton: What other reports has the Minister received about employment relations?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I have seen recent reports that show the National Party, in a partly secret agenda, would review the Holidays Act, especially the issue of relevant daily pay—even though Kate Wilkinson has said that would result in a reduction of pay for sick people—and that it would introduce “fire at will”. The National Party will not spell out all of the details of its secret agenda, but it is plain to see who is to be trusted.

Darien Fenton: Has the Minister seen any further reports about employment relations?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Yes, I have seen an enormous debate, and it goes to the length of the secret agenda. Yesterday Colin James reported that John Key said the agenda had 34 pages, but yesterday John Key’s media people were running around the press gallery telling members of the press that it was only 14 pages. So what is the debate? Was there really a 34-page secret agenda, which has now been edited down to 14, or was it just another case of John Key getting the details wrong again? The related question is why he was so scared to have the media at his Ōrewa speech. Was he outlining the secret agenda again, or is he just generally a chicken?

Gerry Brownlee: That’s out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: It is out of order. [Interruption] It is very difficult to hear. Does the member take offence? [Interruption] Would the Minister please withdraw his last reference.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I withdraw.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

10. Hon Dr NICK SMITH (National—Nelson) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he satisfied with the Government’s management of the chemically contaminated site at Māpua, noting yesterday’s critical report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Minister for the Environment) : As the House is aware, I have very high standards and there is always room for improvement in the ministry’s performance. However, if we look at the “before” picture and the “after” picture, I think people would agree that significant progress was made at Māpua.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Does the Government accept responsibility for this botched clean-up at Māpua, noting that it was meant to take 18 months but took over 3 years, that it was meant to cost $6 million but ended up costing over $12 million, that the consents held by the Ministry for the Environment were breached, and that there are ongoing pollution issues around contamination by both mercury and copper?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: In answering that question I think one has to point to Dr Smith and ask him whether he supports the clean-up, because he voted against the funding for it, just as he voted against the funding to clean up the Tui mine and the Waiwhetū Stream. One has to ask whether the National Party has a secret agenda on contamination as well, and that it is just to keep it all dirty.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I thought that this was question time where we asked questions of Ministers. The Minister chose to ask questions back and not to address the fundamental question, which was very simple and asked whether the Government accepts responsibility for the failings identified by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes. Would the Minister like to address the question.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I think there are at least four reports yet to come: one Occupational Safety and Health Service report, one report from the Ministry of Health, a final validation report, and a final report from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, which has not yet been received. When those reports are received they will be considered by the Government, and we will consider action as a result.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Could the Minister explain why the Māpua toxic site was left to contaminate the local environment, without any attempt to remediate the problem, under 9 years of a National Government, while Nick Smith was MP for Tasman, was Minister of Conservation, and did nothing about it?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report, which states the decision to proceed with the clean-up was made in 1999 by me as a member of Cabinet.

• Document not tabled.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I entirely agree with the member. There was a useless member for Tasman, who could not convince the Government to spend the money—

Madam SPEAKER: The member knows the Standing Orders, and in future would he please just address the question without his superfluous comments, particularly adjectives.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister’s ministry allow releases of DDT, Lindane, nitrate, and ammonia nitrogen, in excess of the limits in the resource consent?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There is some validation work to occur to see whether that happened at all, and I think—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The parliamentary commissioner said, yes, it did.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, the parliamentary commissioner suggested that it might have happened.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister think that the Ministry for the Environment should have advised that there was a conflict of interest in that the council that owned the land, and stood to benefit from maximising the value of the land by cleaning it up to residential standards, was also a decision maker as to whether it should be cleaned up to those standards—a process that increased the risk that the toxins would simply be transferred from the soil to the air and the water, as it appears they probably were?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I understand that it is even more complicated than that, in that the local authority was the original applicant for the original consent. It is fair to say that this was more of a rescue mission on the part of the Ministry for the Environment. I think that it is something that could have been better managed right from the beginning.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What is his response to the president of the Māpua and Districts Community Association, which accuses the Government of using residents as guinea pigs, and a concerned neighbour of the contaminated site, Annette Walker, who trusted the Government to carry out the clean-up properly, but says they have been betrayed?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I will supply both those people with the final reports when they are available.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: To the—[Interruption] Oh, I know that Minister has gone. This is the death of him. He is gone. Chris will be happy to take Damien’s job; this is the final nail in Damien’s coffin! What action will be taken in respect of the breach by the Ministry for the Environment of the resource consent by the adding of over 13 tonnes of copper sulphate to this fragile estuarine environment; if no action is taken, what signal does this send regarding compliance with resource consents?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: That is an allegation that has been made, and it is something that will be considered—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The PCE concluded.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Well, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has a report that is effectively an interim one, which will be considered when it is finalised.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Why did the Minister approve of the resource consent being held by the ministry—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Because you’re hopeless.

Hon Damien O’Connor: You did nothing.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: We know that those guys have goofed. We know the community is angry. [Interruption] Yes, that is right. Oh, so the Government is proud of Māpua?

Hon Members: Yes.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes? My question to the Minister—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I think he’s going to blow.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is there a question? They are so embarrassed.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I think they are a bit sensitive. Why did the Minister approve of the resource consent being held by the ministry, when as the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment concludes, this resulted in a clear conflict of interest and put the local council into the impossible position of not being able to take enforcement action against breaches of the resource consent?

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I submit to the House that it is less of a conflict than it was originally, when the local council was the organisation that held the consent.

Hon Darren Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that the outgoing Minister of Conservation in 1999 made a beeline to the incoming Labour Minister for the Environment in that year, and advised her to halve the costs of the funding that was available in order to make sure the clean-up of Māpua could take place, and that that former Minister was Dr Nick Smith?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I was right.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: Dr Nick Smith claims that he was right. I find it hard to believe that any member of Parliament would be that stupid.

11. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister of Energy: What reports has he received on investment in electricity transmission?

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : Transpower reports that it will spend $450 million this year on grid improvements. That is part of the $3.5 billion of investment in electricity transmission projects due in the coming years. It is on top of the billions of dollars that generators will spend on new renewable projects. Transpower says that investment in electricity generation and transmission infrastructure is on a scale that this country has not seen for 30 years. Under a Labour-led Government electricity security margins continue to improve.

Dave Hereora: What reports has the Minister seen on the Waikato to Auckland transmission project, which all of those in the industry agree is necessary?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I have seen an email, which I will seek leave to table at the end of this question, reporting on a meeting between a member of this House and the Waikato lobby group opposed to Transpower’s new pylons through to Auckland. This member has been telling the lobby group—and this is a quote from the email report of the meeting—“The only way to stop the pylons going ahead is to change the Government.” He has not said that to Aucklanders, who know that the project is needed to ensure Auckland’s security of supply. It is a case of one story for Waikato voters and another story for Auckland voters—different stories for different audiences. The member is well known for telling people what they want to hear: it is Mr John Key.

Peter Brown: Has the Minister read the recent report by the Electricity Commission entitled Market Design Review—Options Paper; if he has, how does he react to its stating, in essence, that network charges have remained relatively static since 1999, but, in contrast, the energy component of customers’ bills has been rising sharply, with the largest increase being felt by residential users?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I first respond by thanking the member for that question. I am surprised that it has not been raised earlier by other members, because, as I said at the select committee, I think it is a very proper concern to raise. I am concerned about prices, and I am particularly concerned about the matter that the member referred to, which is the ever-widening gap between residential and industrial prices.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that he just told the House that security of electricity supply has improved under a Labour Government, even though we have had 4 years of very tight supply in the period that Labour has been in Government; can he further explain why there has been a 48 percent price rise for domestic consumers over the last 5 years; and given his previous answer to Mr Brown, what does he intend doing about it?

Hon DAVID PARKER: In respect of security margins, there is absolutely no doubt that security margins are improving year by year. Indeed, I would note that the worst electricity disaster in the last couple of decades was during the time of the National Government, which oversaw a period when the lights went out in Auckland for 2 weeks.

Peter Brown: Does the Minister concur with the view that our electricity industry is in a sad state, when the same report that I have referred to states: “in winter 25 per cent of homes had living room temperatures below 16°C (compared to World Health Organisation recommendations for adequate warmth of 21°C in the living room, and 18°C for other rooms);”?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I do accept that there are problems with heating and fuel poverty for some people in New Zealand. I would note that that is one of the reasons why we have improved the minimum requirements under the building code—to make it more affordable for people to heat their houses. I would also note that in the last 9 years we have retrofitted approximately 42,000 houses in order to improve their heating efficiency. We have ramped those programmes up, and are expecting to do about 30,000 homes in the forthcoming year alone.

Gerry Brownlee: I seek leave to table a document produced by the Electricity Commission showing that security of supply has been declining for the last 5 years, during a period when the price for residential consumers has risen by some 48 percent.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Leave is denied.

Hon DAVID PARKER: I seek leave to table an email from New Era Energy concerning a private meeting between John Key and New Era that states that he said that a change of Government was the only way to stop—

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

12. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Can he confirm that elective surgical discharges since district health boards began have been 108,541 in 2001, 105,721 in 2002, 102,942 in 2003, 106,575 in 2004, 106,583 in 2005, 107,923 in 2006, and 114,098 in 2007?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) : Yes, I can confirm that the number of people receiving elective surgical treatment has increased significantly under this Labour-led Government, alongside increases in acute procedures, capital investment, and workforce investment, and despite changes to clinical practice and definitions.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is it that after 7 years and $5.5 billion of extra funding, the amount of elective surgery in New Zealand has not kept up with our country’s population growth, meaning that sick people have less chance of getting the surgery they need under Labour than they had previously?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: As I indicated in my primary answer, much of the significant investment made by this Government has gone into other areas of health care, such as capital investment, district health board budgets, workforce investment, and a whole raft of improvements to the system.

Jill Pettis: What steps has the Labour-led Government recently taken to increase the number of elective surgical operations actually undertaken?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: This year’s Budget allocated an extra $160 million, with that funding providing an additional 5,000 elective surgical discharges a year. The money will also give approximately 24,000 extra patients first specialist appointments, diagnostic testing, and community-based procedures. New Zealanders know that they can trust Labour to deliver on health—unlike the National Party, which apparently has a phone book - sized policy agenda that it is hiding from the public.

Hon Tony Ryall: Can the Minister confirm that under Labour’s district health board model, from 2001 to 2006 elective surgical discharges actually fell, and despite the panicked injection of $60 million by Pete Hodgson, elective surgical discharges under Labour have still not even caught up with New Zealand’s population growth?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: What I can confirm is that the proportion of the total adult population getting elective surgical discharges in 2001-02 was 199 per 10,000, and in 2006-07 that had grown to 207 per 10,000.

Hon Tony Ryall: How does he respond to a Dunedin ear, nose, and throat surgeon who says, in his words: “Many working-class people are struggling to borrow money to have operations privately, because they know they would never get seen in the public system.”, and is that how Labour treats the people whom it says it represents?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: The feedback I get from my colleagues who actually hold clinics with working-class people is that they have not had cases of people fronting up to complain about a lack of hip operations, knee operations, or cataract operations in many a long month or year. That stands in vast contrast to the queues of crippled Kiwis who were lining up under that member’s maladministration.

Hon Tony Ryall: If everything is so good, why do his own officials say that patients have to be more sick in order to qualify for surgery, and is that not more evidence of Labour using yesterday’s solutions for tomorrow’s problems?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would be happy to give that member a very specific answer to that question if he had asked anything specific in the question, but if he wants to trot out pure rhetoric and vague references there is not much I can say.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Would the Minister explain why fewer operations were performed in the Waitemata District Health Board area in 2007 than in 2001, and given that the district health board population has increased by 14 percent over 6 years, is he concerned that sick working-class people in Waitematā now have less chance of getting surgery than they had previously?

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: How nice it is to hear from the next National spokesperson on health. What I know from visiting that member’s district health board is that there has been a considerable capital investment programme in Waitematā that has seen the addition of new bed space, new wards and staffing, new rosters, vacancy rates going down, and operation numbers going up. The feedback that I get from the people of the Waitematā area is that they are very happy, in general, with their district health board.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table a schedule that shows that per head of population New Zealanders are getting less access to vitally needed surgery than previously.

• Document not tabled.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I seek leave to table a series of data summarising progress with elective surgery under this Government.

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