Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) : I seek leave for the Primary Production Committee to meet outside New Zealand with its counterparts in Australia from 10 to 14 August 2009 as part of the annual joint committee exchange with Australia. That is a resolution from the Business Committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course of action being followed? There is none.

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The Standing Orders provide for 8 hours of debate in Committee on the Appropriation (2009/10 Estimates) Bill. Each member may have no more than two speeches of 5 minutes on each vote. The estimates debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. As each vote is reached, a question will be put that the vote stand part. Should it be the wish of the Committee, a question may be proposed on two or more of the related votes for the purpose of debating them together. At the conclusion of the 8 hours of debate, any remaining votes and the remaining provisions of the bill will be put as one question. The Government indicates which votes are available for debate. I understand all votes are available, and will be called in order of seniority of Ministers, commencing with the Speaker’s votes. A compendium of the reports of select committees on the votes to be considered is available on the Table.

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) : I am most anxious to make a contribution to this estimates debate on Vote Tourism. I am most anxious to make a contribution to this debate because of the good news that is contained within the tourism estimates appropriation for 2009-10. I will talk about two aspects, and the first one has to be the great decision of the Minister of Tourism to seek an appropriation of $50 million over 3 years towards the development of a national cycleway. What good news this is. I know there have been and still are doubters on the other side of the Chamber. They cannot see the value to regional tourism of the cycleway, but I can. I will tell members why. It is because we have the Otago Central Rail Trail in my electorate of Waitaki, and I tell members that it brings $7.5 million per annum into the local economy. That is good news. But more than that, it brings in some 300 jobs per annum. There are many people in Central Otago who have been looking at bleak times, particularly under the 9 years of the previous Labour Government, but we are not here to talk about that this evening.

Hon Nathan Guy: Kelvin agrees with it.

JACQUI DEAN: Yes, a number of members acknowledge that 9 years of a Labour Government meant stagnation for regional tourism. Luckily the National Government is prepared to invest in cycleways.

The good news goes on, because this year a number of cycleways look set to benefit from this appropriation. I think it is worth saying where they are. They are spread around New Zealand. There is the Waikato River Trail, and I know that my excellent colleague David Bennett is very excited and involved in that project. There is the Central North Island Rail Trail, and if it models itself on the Otago Central Rail Trail then it will be doing very well indeed for the local economy. There is the Mountain to the Sea—the Mount Ruapehu to Wanganui trail—and the St James Great Trail in the South Island. What good news for people in that part of the country! That will indeed be beautiful. There is also the Hokianga to Opua/Russell trail, the Hauraki Plains Trails, and not forgetting the Southland/Queenstown Lakes Around the Mountain Rail Trail. All these initiatives will bring benefits to their local communities and the wider New Zealand economy, thanks to our excellent Minister of Tourism, and I congratulate the Hon John Key and the Hon Jonathan Coleman on their foresight and preparedness to invest in regional tourism economies throughout New Zealand.

A number of people have spoken well of this proposal. The Labour members across the Chamber do not understand or appreciate the benefit to New Zealand of these proposals, but a number of people do. I will talk about just a couple of them. The President of Local Government New Zealand, Lawrence Yule, said the “plan is a welcome boost for local communities.” He said: “This is an exciting initiative coming out of the Prime Minister’s February Job Summit …”. What an excellent initiative that was, in the economy we are facing, as out of the Job Summit came benefits to regional tourism in New Zealand. Mr Yule goes on to say “our member councils are delighted to play a part in it.” This is a welcome initiative on behalf of the National Government, investing $50 million over 3 years into regional tourism. The major benefit is that the local communities throughout New Zealand are energised by this initiative. I and my fellow members in their constituency seats have had a number of community groups saying they are working on cycleways and have been working on them for a wee while now, and asking where they can go. I am very happy to direct them to the Minister of Tourism’s office, where they will find encouragement. That, I suggest, is exactly what we need in New Zealand.

I will touch on one more aspect of this tourism appropriation, and that is the funding towards the Winter Games NZ. I am so pleased that this Government has had the foresight to invest $1 million in this year’s inaugural Winter Games to be held in the South Island. How exciting this will be.

Hon David Cunliffe: You need to get out more.

JACQUI DEAN: Oh yes, the short-sighted member on the other side of the Chamber says I need to get out more. That is David Cunliffe.

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) : Today I was down in Nelson at a tourism conference where the issue of the cycleway was raised by a number of highly respectable people within the tourism industry. No one was really saying that the cycleway is a bad idea, but certainly no one at the tourism conference was saying it is a good idea. They were saying that, OK, jobs will be created over the course of 10 or maybe 15 years, but right now we are in the middle of a recession that is demanding jobs be created now, not 280 jobs created over 10 or 15 years.

I am not opposed to anything that over time will allow people to lose weight, to get out and cycle and exercise. The cycleway will help with obesity, diabetes, and all those health issues. It will help people to get out and about and see our beautiful country. I am not opposed to anything like that, but I am opposed to an idea that was dreamt up on the back of a napkin with a price tag of $50 million. Absolutely no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever went into this wonderful cycleway idea. We are in the middle of a recession; jobs are hard to come by. We are told there will be something like 3,700 to 4,000 jobs created out of the cycleway. That would be wonderful if it were actually going to—

Hon Steve Chadwick: How many?

KELVIN DAVIS: From 3,700 to 4,000 jobs. That is a lot of jobs, except that that will not happen. We have seen only about 280 jobs created so far, and 280 jobs is about one-fifth of the number of jobs that are being lost every week—one-fifth of the number of jobs that are being lost every week. This cycleway idea came out of the Job Summit.

Hon Steve Chadwick: One of the three bigs.

KELVIN DAVIS: It was one of the big ideas that was going to create jobs and bust us out of this recession. It is not a bad idea in itself, and I do not want anyone to think I am standing here criticising a cycleway that will allow people to get out and exercise, as I have already said. But this is not a recession-buster, and we have to admit that it is not a recession-buster.

In the select committee, when I asked the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman how many cycleways we were talking about, and how many miles of cycleways, the answer was that the Government does not know. The cycleway is about creating jobs, but the Government does not know how many cycleways there will be, how far they will go, or where they will be. There is no detail, and that is what I am opposed to. I am opposed to pretending there is a plan and pretending the Government has a solution for jobs, when there is not any plan and not any solution.

If we look at the Greens’ press release from a few weeks back, we see that it said that in 1995, £43 million was assigned by the Government in the United Kingdom to build a cycleway in the United Kingdom, and £43 million equates to about NZ$150 million now. We have to ask the question whether we are getting value for money at only $50 million, or whether we are just being fed a line. We do not yet know how much the cycleway will cost. As I have said, nobody is really disputing the fact that a cycleway, with all the health benefits, and with all the tourism benefits and spin-offs over time—over 10 to 15 years—will be a good thing. But right now we need a recession-buster. We do not know how many jobs this cycleway will create before the recession ends. So I am opposed to a half-baked idea that was born on the back of a napkin, and then put out as if it were the next best thing for New Zealand.

I have questions for the Prime Minister. First of all, does he still agree that the purpose of the Job Summit was to create jobs to beat the recession? It does not appear that he does, because we have only about 280 jobs formed out of this cycleway idea. How many jobs will this cycleway create before the recession is over? We do not know the answer to that question, either. I wonder whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement, that when it comes to the cycleway, it is difficult to quantify the number of jobs it will create. If that is the case, why does he not spend the taxpayers’ money on projects that will create a certain number of jobs?

If the National Government was looking for an out-of-the-box idea, why does it not just divide that $50 million by 2,000, and give those amounts to entrepreneurs who would get about $25,000 each? They could use that money to seed an entrepreneurial, enterprising idea, as long as they created a business or enterprise that created jobs for two other people. In that way, for that $50 million we would have 6,000 people employed immediately. But that is thinking outside the square, and not thinking on the back of a paper napkin.

I have a final question for the Prime Minister. I see that in the Dominion Post of Saturday, 1 August, there is a position for a project manager for the New Zealand Cycleway Project. The question is: is that position a front-line position or a backroom position? It is hard to know. I congratulate the person who will get that job. That person is one person who will benefit from the cycleway project before this recession is over. Thank you.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Tourism) : Well, I think that that contribution from Kelvin Davis really shows where the Labour Party is at. He started off his speech by saying he was in favour of the cycleway, but by the end of it he was not quite sure. I think that is pretty indicative of a party that does not have any ideas of its own. It is a bit like what happened with the super-city. Labour started off by saying it was opposed to the super-city, but now we have got to the point where Labour is in favour of it. So we can see who has the ball and is running with the play in the wider political debate.

That situation is a bit like the situation on Saturday, when we announced funding of $152 million for Job Ops. Labour said that it was OK but that it did not go far enough—

Hon Steve Chadwick: It doesn’t.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: You see—she says it does not go far enough. Of course, part of that funding is the $5.3 million that will go into jobs for youth—created by the cycleway. I assume Labour members think that does not go far enough. There is a certain illogical thinking going on here, because they are saying that Job Ops does not go far enough, but the cycleway is part of Job Ops and they are saying that the cycleway goes too far. There is completely muddled thinking on that side of the Chamber.

Those members do not have an idea between them. All they can do is rather flaccidly oppose anything that the National Government puts up. Quite frankly, those guys are over a barrel and in deep trouble. If we look at this estimates debate, we can see that the $50 million the Prime Minister has appropriated for the cycleway will contribute very positively to the economy. Those guys said today that they do not actually oppose the cycleway. They can see that it is popular out there. It is popular in a pan-political sense: it is popular with the left, it is very popular with the Greens, and it is popular with National supporters. Even Trevor Mallard loves it, although I do not know whether that is actually a recommendation for anything. It will create jobs; there is no question about that. It will have a number of benefits.

In respect of the cycleway, seven Quick Start projects have been announced. They will be started over the summer, and my colleague Jacqui Dean outlined where those projects will be. They will create immediate jobs for young New Zealanders, and some of those New Zealanders will be on this Job Ops programme. But all those Labour guys can do now is argue over the detail, because they have lost the substantive political argument. They have no alternatives. They want us to do something about jobs; here is $50 million that is doing something about jobs. It is producing jobs for young New Zealanders, but all Labour members can do is quibble about the detail. It is either too much or it is not enough. They cannot make up their minds.

I would very much like to hear from David Cunliffe. He has a lot to say about this stuff, but I have not heard Labour’s shadow spokesperson on finance say one single thing—not one single thing—about what Labour would do to create jobs for New Zealanders.

Nikki Kaye: Who is it?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, who is it—exactly! Labour members had 9 years managing this economy, and they left us with a real hospital pass. We are now in the situation where someone who knows what he is talking about is managing the country—John Key. We have a finance Minister who knows what the demands are in terms of getting an economy back on the track, and they are getting on with the job.

The fact that John Key has take on the tourism portfolio is a sign of the importance of tourism to the New Zealand economy, and I can tell members that that is an extremely popular move across the industry. It recognises how important this industry is for New Zealand’s economic development. Tourism earns 9.2 percent of GDP and 18 percent of our export income. It is right up there with the dairy industry. [Interruption] Most important, I tell Mr Davis, tourism accounts for one in 10 New Zealand jobs. So down at the Viaduct Basin or down at Courtenay Place, the people serving us our lattes, the people driving cabs, and the ushers working in theatres all have jobs that are tied to tourism. Unless we get this industry going and unless we make sure it has the right support, those jobs will go.

If we look at what the Government is doing with tourism—the $96 million that has been appropriated to tourism—we can see that it is all about job creation. Essentially, the tourism industry is all about jobs. We have a great Minister of Tourism in the Prime Minister, John Key; it is good for the industry. The $50 million that is going into the cycleway will be great for regional economies. The project is popular with the public, and it is the right way ahead.

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) : I am pleased to be able to take a call on Vote Finance in this year’s estimates debate. The reason is that there can be no more essential vote in the current economic conditions than Vote Finance. I think we all agree that this country and the world are facing the greatest economic slow-down since the 1930s. We have seen up to $50 trillion wiped off world balance sheets. Management through tough times is why New Zealand elected this Government, because New Zealanders knew that National had the skills, the people, and the plan to deliver economic recovery. The reason that Labour members are on that side of the Chamber is that they patently have no plan. New Zealanders knew that; they knew that all Labour would do is spend money, so they turned to a party with economic know-how and economic muscle. They have banked on us to deliver them a way out of the recession.

Let me tell members what we did in Vote Finance to deliver that sort of recovery. The first thing this Government did was set three new priorities for Treasury. We made it clear to Treasury that we were interested in managing New Zealand’s path through the downturn, making New Zealand Government expenditure and investment productive, reflective, and effective, which, quite frankly, is something that has been missing from this House for the last 9 years. We were focused on improving the productivity of this economy, because without productivity growth New Zealand will not recover from the slump it has been in for 9 years, with anyone who is making a living and creating wealth getting kicked. Improving productivity is fundamental to our plans. We will be working very hard on that.

We have laid out six key elements that will help do that, and the first is productive infrastructure. We will not continue the infrastructure drought that this country has suffered under 9 years of Labour. There are bottlenecks all over this country in roading, electricity, health, prisons, and in schools. We are seeing a lack of fundamental infrastructure that stops businesses from getting ahead, so we will address that. We will address our Public Service. If there is one thing that we hear from the people of New Zealand it is that they are sick of the Public Service getting in the way of business and not helping business. When we came into office our excellent Minister of Finance very quickly sat down with the chief executives and made it very clear to them that he wanted a line-by-line review, not only of their expenditure, but also of their productivity and what they would do to play their part in lifting growth in the private sector. Public services are a huge part of this economy. If they are not working well and if they are slow or ineffective, it will slow down our economy, and that is what we have seen continuously. We will see a better, smarter Public Service delivered under this National Government.

We will improve education standards so that we have highly skilled people driving our companies. We will build a world-class tax system to encourage investment in New Zealand. And, importantly, we will improve the regulatory environment for business. [Interruption] The reason that members opposite do not want to listen is they have no clue how the regulatory environment affects business. They spent 9 years putting roadblocks in the path of business through more and more nanny State rules designed to do nothing more than clog the arteries of this country. Members opposite clogged the arteries of this country; this Government will focus on improving the regulatory framework. We have started with the Resource Management Act, we are working on the Building Act, and we are completing a full review of the Overseas Investment Act because we know that we have to have regulation that serves New Zealand and that does not hinder it. If Labour members had learnt that lesson then perhaps they would not be where they are.

We will put money into innovation and business growth, because innovation, development, and technology will help this country reach its potential—the potential that we aspire to, that John Key stood up for, and that New Zealand backed. We know that New Zealand is heading into its fourth quarter of recession, but in fact it is much worse than that. Our tradable sector, which has to be the backbone of our economy, has been in recession for 5 years. What did Labour do about that? It did nothing. It relied on domestic consumption and on spending public money to keep the economy going. The backbone of this economy, the productive sector, was in free fall, and what did the previous Labour Government do about it? Nothing. We now have a plan to do something about that.

Let us address the issue of debt. One thing that this Government is not going to do is burden future generations of New Zealanders with a debt millstone around their necks that will cripple them for years to come.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) : One of the pivotal moments for me this year was Budget day. I was privileged to be in the Opposition lock-up, which is a fairly scant and tawdry affair lasting about 50 minutes. I was thumbing through the Budget documents, and at about 10 minutes to 2 I had a sudden panic attack because I thought I must have missed a couple of chapters and it was almost 2 o’clock. I thumbed through the documents and, to my relief, and then to my concern, I realised that I had not missed any chapters and that a chunk was missing. The chunk that was missing was the action plan for recovery—the action plan for growth, for jobs, and for giving New Zealanders a clear sense of how to get through this time of challenge.

Amy Adams: Oh, what nonsense.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: No, it is not a rolling maul that we need; we need a game plan, and any rugby player can tell the difference. The member is from the South Island; she should know.

The mystery was explained to me this week when it was my privilege to meet with a very senior non-parliamentary member of the National Party hierarchy. After a couple of drinks he leaned across and said: “That John Key is quite a nice guy, isn’t he.” I said: “Yes, he is quite a nice guy, actually.” He said: “He’s a good tactician, isn’t he.” I said: “Yes, he is a good tactician.” He said: “He’s not much of a strategist though, in truth, and that’ll probably be his undoing.” I said: “Sir, I believe that you’ve hit the nail on the head.” John Key can read a map, but he has no compass. There is no compass in the Budget.

At the end of the day, Vote Finance is not about us; it is about them: the New Zealand people. Let me read a few stories about the New Zealand people. In recent months we have heard that we can expect another 60,000 to 79,000 job losses. We have been told that over 1,000 New Zealanders are joining the dole queue every week. In the last few weeks we have seen 60 fellmongery workers in Dunedin lose their jobs through redundancy, 190 workers in Gisborne, 17 workers in my old town of Timaru at Duncan Ag, 33 at Unilever, 50 at Formway Furniture, 40 at Freightways, and 20 at South Canterbury dairy shed builder Anderson and Rooney Engineering. And the Public Service Association says 2,000 civil servants have lost their jobs.

As unemployment grows and job prospects shrink, we expect to see coherent action from the Government, but we have not seen it. The reason the cycleway was emblematic in Vote Tourism was not, as Mr Coleman would have us believe, because we are trying to spin that it is a bad idea; it is just an insufficient idea. Anybody who says that a cycleway that reduces 1 day’s worth of job losses for $50 million is an answer to the recession has to think again.

Budget 2009, the subject of these estimates, proves that the Government has no ideas. National was in Opposition for 9 years. One would have thought that it had used that time to set direction. But, as people unfortunately said of the Labour Government in the mid-1980s, why do they not cut out the middle man and vote for Treasury? The only ideas we have seen came from the distinguished officials themselves. Leadership at the political layer has been so thin that National has had to rely upon officials to at least ask the hard questions. We may or may not agree with the prescription, but we sure as heck agree that the problem is real.

The Government member who just resumed her seat, Amy Adams, asked why the Opposition does not solve the recession. Excuse me! National was elected. New Zealanders are fair-minded people. They will give the Government a chance to lead and govern, and if it is done well, then they will give it another chance. Kiwis are fair and decent people. But if National blows it, like it is doing, by omission, then they will let the Government know at the ballot box.

Budget 2009 did precisely nothing to protect jobs. It failed to invest in people. It failed to develop research, science, and technology, and training. Members on both sides of the House have come from humble beginnings. They are the hard-working children of working-class or challenged families—

Aaron Gilmore: Like you, mate.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Mr Gilmore is one. But the difference between this side of the House—and I include the Greens—and the Government side, as has been amply demonstrated in the area of social development, is that when we climb the ladder of social mobility we do not pull it up after ourselves. We are here to make sure that the next generation benefits from the opportunities we have had. That is what we believe—not that we should sell State housing.

Above all, the Government has fundamentally undermined the well-being of our future by deferring New Zealand superannuation for a decade. The superannuation scandal was the big story of Budget 2009, and it is at the heart of Vote Finance today. The solution the Government came up with for the $10 billion problem was to simply kick for touch, suspend, and put on to future generations—Generation X and Generation Y—the burden of superannuation in the future. Right now one in 7.2 people is drawing that benefit, or 7.2 workers for every superannuitant. When the scheme resumes, the number will be one in 3.7. If we cannot afford the tax now, we will not be able to afford the tax burden then.

A decade of deferrals has left what will be nearly a $38 billion hole by 2030 and a $60 billion hole by 2050. It cuts in half—by 50 percent, according to Treasury figures—the total ability, at its worst, of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund to pay into the benefit stream required. It cuts the ability to pay by 50 percent. The truth is that superannuation was always going to be difficult. It will now be extremely difficult unless the Government takes the lead and says we have to start it earlier, otherwise the problems will come home to roost for our young.

Labour’s position is clear. We should continue to pre-fund, because through pre-funding we continue to invest dollar cost averaging in markets when they are low. As they build up, we will ride the benefit of that investment. Here is the acid test for the Government: it allowed a boat to be floated 2 weeks ago about using the Superannuation Fund capital for investing in social infrastructure. If the Superannuation Fund is such a good idea, why does the Government not keep paying into it so it stays strong? National cannot have its cake and eat it too.

Do members not love the pledge card? The pledge card was the signed promise from Mr Key that he guaranteed 3 years of tax cuts. That promise was made 6 weeks after Lehman Brothers folded. It was after Merrill Lynch, the Prime Minister’s old firm, got in trouble, but he kept the charade going. National threw Parliament into urgency before Christmas to deliver a third of the benefits to the top 3 percent of income earners, and to pass a law that stated that 71 percent of New Zealanders get nothing. I repeat: if people did not earn over $40,000, they did not get a penny out of the incoming Government. It was all to be in the next 2 years, but that suddenly melted away. I believe that in their heart of hearts the incoming National Government knew that it could not deliver those tax cuts, hence the urgency to get the charade bedded in before Christmas.

Budget 2009 lifted the veil of ignorance from the eyes of New Zealanders, and most Kiwis, being decent people, said that the tax cuts were a bad idea at the start and good riddance to them. They realised the pledge card promise was a con, but now they ask themselves how if that promise was a con they can believe anything the Government says. If its credibility looked a bit shaky after the broken tax promise and superannuation promise, it was not looking too crash-hot by the middle of this week, for reasons we do not need to go into today. The Government’s credibility does not look too crash-hot this week, does it?

New Zealanders are starting to lose trust in the integrity of a Government that came in promising them that nothing much they liked would change, except KiwiSaver. National thought KiwiSaver was a good idea, but it gutted it in half. It liked economic development, but it cut the vote.

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) : Following that speech from Opposition member David Cunliffe, who attempts to know about finance and tell the world how things should be done, let us just have a look at what Labour left the New Zealand economy after 9 long years. It left us with some of the highest interest rates that we could find, and what has National done? We have reduced interest rates for New Zealanders. Labour left the New Zealand public with negative growth, but we will go into the next election with an economy that is growing through the toughest economic times we have seen in this generation. Labour had the commodity boom of a generation, but it delivered our country negative economic growth. Labour squandered the perfect chance for New Zealand to go up the next level of the OECD, even though that was its promise. We went down. Labour did not deliver for the New Zealand public or the New Zealand economy, and it gave us Budget deficits into the future to pay for its election promises.

National, on the other hand, will work towards a strong economy that will give us the ability to fund our social services and deliver a future for New Zealanders. That is what Bill English did in the Budget. He delivered a Budget that brought certainty and security to a public that needed it at the most uncertain time in our history. He brought in a Budget that will give New Zealanders confidence in their future. It gives them direction and lets them know they have a Government that is competent when it comes to financial matters. This is a Government that wanted to see the best for them, and maintained social spending at the same time as delivering an economic future. That is a very difficult balance to get, and no other country has managed to get that. We got an upgrade from Standard and Poor’s the afternoon of the Budget. No other country in the world was able to do that at that time. That shows great economic management, and that we are willing to look after our people not only by delivering them consistency but also by showing them a future. That future is bright and strong. It is one that New Zealanders voted for and are happy with. The public has shown their acceptance of and support for the Budget, and their support for this Government through the polls. The Labour Party needs to look at what the people are saying, because they love the Budget, they understand it, and they support it.

The interesting part is that the Labour Party is going around and saying that we should be spending more. Those members come into this House and say, with regard to some of our initiatives, that we should be spending more, because, in the words of Mr Cunliffe, this is “an insufficient idea”. So he wants to spend more money at a time when we have not got any money. Where will he get this money from? Before members tell me where he will get this money from, I have a question for them. I want to know how much more money he will spend. If he is the economic genius he purports to be, he needs to put some numbers on the table. He will not do that; he is not putting any numbers down, and he is not saying where he will get the numbers from anyway. He does not know. He has no idea. Labour members have no strategy. Labour’s strategy is to spend more and do more. Well, Labour members do not show us what they will do, and they do not show us how they will fund it. They do not know what they are doing, and they would not be able to deliver anything more.

The National Government has delivered key infrastructure for this country, and a productive region like the Waikato is getting the biggest payback we have ever had from a Government, and it is from the National Government. It is the building of the Waikato Expressway, something that the Labour Government would not do. It had 9 long years and would not do it. We made a commitment to do it, and we will deliver on it. That will be one of the biggest infrastructure spends in our region, and it will deliver economic growth in the heartland of New Zealand for our export economy. It will provide the incentive for people to invest in those regions. It will link us with Auckland and take advantage of our economic reforms. That is the opportunity.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) : It is with pleasure that I take a call on Vote Finance in the estimates debate. There are a number of issues that I could talk about in this particular debate: the chronic current account deficit, the trade balance, and overseas debt, which is now at about 100 percent of GDP. But I want to focus on the relationship between climate change and New Zealand finances and the New Zealand economy. I think this is one of the most pressing issues we face.

Today we have a climate change Minister who has tried to obscure the debate by talking about a $15 billion cost to the New Zealand economy of meeting a 40 percent responsibility target under the Kyoto Protocol, based on a whole bunch of crazy assumptions. But I will put that to one side, because regardless of the exact outcome of the Copenhagen meeting and regardless of the exact reduction target for which New Zealand ultimately takes responsibility, one thing is for certain as a result of this ongoing debate and the international agreement that is coming our way. We will need either to reduce our domestic emissions, increase our domestic greenhouse sinks, or we will have to purchase credits from overseas. They are the only three options New Zealand has. All of those three options have significant impacts on the New Zealand economy and New Zealand finances.

Those who think there is some magical way out of this, that somehow New Zealand can put its head in the sand, that somehow through politics we can make this whole greenhouse problem go away, are kidding themselves. It will not go away. We have only three choices. We can reduce domestic emissions, we can increase sinks in New Zealand, or we can buy overseas credits. All three of those options will have significant impacts on the New Zealand economy.

If our objective is for the New Zealand economy and society to prosper in the world, then we need to reduce our greenhouse emissions domestically or increase our sinks domestically. That has to be the first option, because every tonne of emissions we cut in New Zealand and every tonne of sinks we have in New Zealand is a tonne of carbon dioxide we do not have to purchase overseas, at great cost to the New Zealand Government and/or the New Zealand economy. Every time we reduce emissions in New Zealand, it is an advantage for the New Zealand economy and the New Zealand Government. For a country with a persistent trade deficit in goods and services, for a country with a net international investment position that is now approaching a 100 percent negative position—100 percent of GDP—it is incredibly important that we do not add to our international obligations by having to purchase more and more carbon credits from overseas.

There is no way we can fudge and weave, and pay lip-service to this issue. There is no way we can go to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and pay lip-service, without it costing us. There is a way of thinking in New Zealand, which has been promoted by National and by the ACT Party in particular, that somehow we can dodge and weave our way out of this. There is a reason why New Zealand farmers are going around saying: “This is all bunkum. We don’t have to do this.”, and it is in part because National and ACT are telling New Zealand farmers that this thing is all bunkum. Well, it is not bunkum. There is no way out of it. The only question for New Zealand now is whether we reduce emissions domestically and save ourselves some money or whether we will have to purchase emission reductions from overseas, and have to pay for it.

If we want to have a prosperous economy in the future we have no option but to go down a low-carbon route. The sooner we get our heads around that and stop prevaricating and trying to avoid it, and saying we will try to have a low target or whatever, and the sooner we get our heads around the fact that we have to have a low-carbon economy if we wish to be a wealthy society, the sooner we will start going down that path and actually put ourselves on a path to having a prosperous economy. Currently, we are hoping this thing will go away, but it will not.

A few days ago the Green Party put out a study that showed the ways in which New Zealand can have a low-carbon economy, reduce domestic emissions, and increase domestic sinks. Roughly speaking, the way we said we could have a 40 percent target was that a quarter of it would come from overseas—we acknowledge that—a quarter of it would come from forestry, a quarter of it would come from the better management of the Department of Conservation estate, and a quarter of it would come from a whole bunch of other measures. If we implement those measures we will put our economy on a low-carbon direction, which means having a prosperous economy.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : I am reminded of some words said by John McCain, the senator who ran against Mr Obama in the presidential election. He said many years ago—I think it was during Ronald Reagan’s election campaign—that elections have consequences. The summary of his words was that the winner gets to pick, and he is right. Elections do indeed have consequences, and the winning side gets to pick. But it is very interesting to look at what is going on around the world in respect of the global recession, and at Mr Obama, Mr Rudd in Australia, and Mr Brown in the UK. They have a thing called a plan and a strategy. It is very interesting that each of those leaders, especially Mr Obama, is using the recession as a tool to motivate their populace to make some structural change and some positive reforms within their economies, and those reforms are needed. Whether they are in the banking industry or the environmental field, they are needed. This recession, which is the worst in our lifetime, serves—because it is here with us—as a tool that they can use to promote positive reforms in their economies.

Then we come to the economic outliers, one of which is this country. I have to say that the National Government is consistent in using the recession, but not as a tool to motivate. National uses it as an alibi to put forward and boot around the most vulnerable. Let us look at National’s great set of achievements, which the member David Bennett, who is from Hamilton, I think, waxed eloquently about. He talked about the uplifting of our rating by Standard and Poor’s, but 24 or 48 hours later he had forgotten about the word Fitch. Fitch dropped our rating, but the member had selective memory about that. He forgot that the employment platform his Government inherited from Labour was around the 3.4 percent to 3.6 percent mark. It will be very interesting tomorrow to see whether the unemployment figures move past 5.3 percent, 5.5 percent, or 5.7 percent. We wait and we hope that they will be more positive than others suggest.

This Government uses the recession as an alibi to make deep cuts for the most vulnerable. I talked this afternoon about special needs funding, and Government members rolled their eyes. Mr Quinn said “Rubbish!” when I talked about a 12-year-old constituent in my area who has cerebral palsy and who will be on the scrap heap because of a $2.5 million cut in the Budget. Mr Quinn rolled his eyes and said “Rubbish!”. I invite him to lose his arrogance and to go and see Brittany Graham. I invite him to look that 12-year-old and Julie Baker, her mum, in the eye and tell them that they are rubbish. Oh no, there is a bit of silence over there. There is a bit of reflection, perhaps. Oh no, I do not think I will see that. I will be dead before I see that member retract what he said about that family.

Then the Government is making other cuts, using the recession as an alibi. If there ever was a need for training in this country, second-chance opportunities for older folk and for those on scrap heap and down the road, it was a thing called adult and community education. But, oh no, Anne Tolley gets up and wears it as a badge of honour that in her Budget she has slashed 80 percent of the funding. She almost says it with pride, with a robustness. She is proud of the fact, and she belittles people like those in Oxford, in my electorate—for example, a man who was made redundant some years ago who did what she would term a “hobby course”. It was a DIY course. That gentleman today has a home handyman business and is surviving. He is not on the scrap heap. And, by the way, the taxpayer is not paying him a benefit.

Another example is a woman in Kaiapoi who did another Tolley special “hobby course”. She did cake decorating. She is now employed in one of the biggest bakeries in New Zealand, which is involved in producing bakery products that are sent all around this country, and the bakery is looking to export to Australia. She has got a job out of that course.

Another example is a woman in Rangiora who did another Anne Tolley special “hobby course”, quilt making. The member over there Mr Gilmore has done more in his short lifetime than three or four people have. He has conquered Mount Everest and invented rugby. He has done everything, that boy. The woman from Rangiora did a quilting course—a hobby, the National members would say—and is now working full time making quilts and selling them in her own business.

National is using the recession for an alibi to make cuts. We have the example of 2,800 apprentices. When the Labour Government left office, 14,000 young people were in trade training. Back in 1995 the previous National Government abolished the Apprenticeship Act. Thanks to National, 2,800 young people are on the scrap heap midstream in their apprenticeship.

Then we get to the jobs package. I am in favour of any resource being put in place, especially for young people, to try to keep them in jobs or to get them in jobs. But here is the rub: with the money that was put up, 9,000 young people may be lucky to get a job for 6 months out of that jobs package. If we look at the statistics, information, and data we see that that leaves another 49,000 people between the ages of 16 and 24 who will be in exactly the same position as they are in today: down the road.

I say to the Government that there is goodwill on this side to join with National with appropriate policies to assist the young, the aged, those out of work, and those who need support. But I say to that side that they should not con the public. A jobs package of $152 million that will eventually help 9,000 young people to get a job for 6 months—maybe, if they are lucky—is trumpeted as being a huge, great event and a silver bullet, but nothing changes for those other 49,000 people aged 16 to 24. I am after a policy, I am after a solution, and I am after an answer from National.

Then we get to the great lie and the great con. Again, the recession is being used as an alibi to rip the guts out of the Cullen fund. I have said in a speech before with regard to that crew over there that over the last 40 years the biggest con was Muldoon, when he pulled out the rug and bribed people with their own money in the 1970s. Then we had the Bolger Government, which said it would not raise the age of eligibility from 60 to 65—“no ifs, no buts, no maybes”—and then what did it do? It did it. Then we had Mrs Shipley in the late 1990s, aided and abetted by Bill English, her Treasurer, who cut the pension three times, did not inflation-proof it, and ripped the guts out of support for pensioners. National members sit there today congratulating themselves that National has not altered the age or entitlement for superannuation—yet—but what it did was to nip round to the back door and suspend payments into the Cullen fund for 11 years.

We had Dr Bollard saying last Tuesday that we need to encourage a culture of saving in this country in order to offset our reliance on foreign funds. Of course we will always need foreign capital, but he said that we need to try to provide some balance. What is the Government’s response to that statement? National does not need superannuation. National will never need superannuation, and its core constituency will never be reliant on national superannuation in the years to come, will it? But the core constituency, the vast majority of Kiwis themselves—a quarter of a million of them—had 10 years of certainty and knew the rules. Those people were generous and stepped up through KiwiSaver and were prepared to put up their dough and make their contribution. But now, after a decade of certainty, of people knowing what their retirement plan would be and what the Government would come to the party with, we are having debates in National about age and with commentators. Now we have people in their late 40s and early 50s saying “Hey! What about me? What do I do?”. The Government has changed the rules. Will there be a superannuation scheme for people when they retire?

I say to that crew over there that there is no reason to do what National has done. It has used the recession as an alibi to put the boot into future generations. In fact, some could say that this is privatisation of superannuation by stealth, because we know what the debate will be. The debate will be whether we tax future generations. National members will ask: “Do you want us to tax you to reinforce the fund and repay the money we did not put in? Or shall we just forget about it?”. We know what the populace will say in those circumstances.

The Government should not be so smug after 9 months in office. People are listening to the Government and they are not particularly happy with some of the things they are now learning about it. I have seen polls going up and down; they are all over the show. But I tell the Government that it is not about Standard and Poor’s and it is not about the polls. It is about the people aged 50-plus who are worried about superannuation. It is about Brittany Graham, a 12-year-old, whose mother, Julie Baker, is worried about how the hell she will look after her daughter when the special needs funding gets ripped out from under them. It is about people, actually. It is not about crowing about numbers and Standard and Poor’s; it is about people.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) : I rise to take a call on Vote Finance. I am calm; I am not going to get angry, like the previous speaker, Clayton Cosgrove. I am not going to comb my hair during my speech, but I am going to talk about the legacy that that mob over there left this country. The previous Labour Government left behind falling economic growth. We are in a recession, but that gentleman over there did not hear that we are in a recession and that we have to be prudent in our finances, not tax and spend. We are not going to borrow extravagant amounts of money in order to fund a superannuation fund or social programmes that do not work.

From that party over there we were left with rising unemployment, some of the highest inflation rates in the world, and a promise to take us to the top 10 of the OECD countries. After 9 years, where did we languish? Clayton Cosgrove is silent now. We are 22nd on the list of OECD countries. The legacy that that mob left us was 5 consecutive years of tradable sector contraction. That is right. The Labour Party does not realise that it is about both the public and private sectors leading us out of the recession.

I am not here to talk about Labour and its $1.5 billion hole in the Accident Compensation Corporation, but I will talk about the programme that this National Government—this Government of action—is proposing and putting in place. After 9 months we are quite proud of the fact that we can boost health spending by $3 billion over the next 4 years. We are focusing on education, which is the critical plank to productivity in the future, and on upskilling people.

Paul Quinn: They can’t take it.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: No, they cannot; that is right. What makes me sad is that that lot, who profess to speak for working people, have totally neglected working people. They have turned their backs on them, as Mr Cosgrove has turned his back on me. That shows what little respect he has for other members of the House.

What is National focusing on? We are focusing on infrastructure spending that will increase the likelihood of productivity in this country. We have transport programmes and roading programmes that will enable our businesses to operate in more effective ways. We also released over the weekend a package aimed at reducing youth unemployment, because we care about those youths who are underprivileged and underskilled, and we want to fund them to get into jobs. It is about jobs.

I am proud of the fact that this Government has put an investment into the Tāmaki Transformation Programme. We did not talk about it for 6 years, writing business cases and holding false consultations with the community. The community just said: “Give us some action!”. So what did we do? Three weeks ago the Prime Minister, the Minister of Housing, the Minister of Māori Affairs, and myself were at Ruapōtaka Marae, saying to the people of Tāmaki: “We support you. We believe in you. We will give you jobs, we will give you opportunities, and we will give you the standard of housing you deserve as New Zealanders.”

It is not about hot air and promising things that Labour did not deliver on over its 9 years. It is about the fact that we made promises and undertakings around entitlements. We made promises and undertakings around benefits. And we have kept our promises. We are happy to keep our promises, because we are a Government of integrity and honesty. We will not set up false inquiries, bringing in QCs in order to give bogus decisions. We will not do that. We are a Government that keeps its integrity and its honesty in what we do, every day.

It is about demanding much from our public services. It is about saying that we cannot increase prices and decrease return on investment, and expect to get away with it. We will hold the Public Service to account. We will demand of the Public Service the same rigours as would be demanded in the private sector. We are a Government that cares. We are a Government that listens. We are a Government that is out in the community hearing what the people of New Zealand have to say. We are not about bagging other people. We are not about accusing other parties of making false promises. We are about keeping our own promises. Thank you, Mr Chairperson.

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) : I was very pleased to hear Mr Sam Lotu-Iiga say that we are a Government that listens. Well, I say that we should listen to the 91 percent of people who tell the pollsters that they are National supporters, that they will be voting in the referendum, and that they will be voting “No”. I say that if the National Government does not listen to those people, then it does not listen at its peril.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): I do not think the member needs to tell me. When we began this debate, I prefaced it quite clearly with what the rules of the debate would be—that the debate should be relevant to the Government’s current spending plans as contained in the Estimates of Appropriations. I think the member has strayed well beyond that.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: Thank you, Mr Chair. I actually intend to continue. It was interesting that Mr Cosgrove should have a point of order—

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy): The member cannot refer to a point of order once I have ruled on it. We just need to keep these things tidy.

JOHN BOSCAWEN: I was going to congratulate Mr Cosgrove and the Labour Party, because earlier this afternoon we heard from David Shearer. He said that the Labour Party was a bold party, and that it was a party of reform. He said that most major reforms had taken place under a Labour Government. I do not totally agree with that, but I certainly support what the Labour Government did in reforms from 1984 to 1990. In particular, I support the reform of introducing KiwiSaver.

I will address my comments on this discussion to pages 213 and 214 of the Estimates. Those pages relate to savings and the contribution to Government superannuation, or the Cullen fund, as Mr Cosgrove called it. The Finance and Expenditure Committee, of which I am a member, questioned Mr English at length on the issue of savings, and I found it very interesting that Mr English said the Government had made a commitment to reduce its contribution to KiwiSaver from 4c in the dollar to 2c in the dollar. The reason Mr English gave for reducing that contribution was that the Government should not have been borrowing large sums to fund New Zealanders’ savings. The Government should not have been borrowing large sums of money to fund New Zealanders’ savings. Well, I say there is a far more important reason to reduce that subsidy, because that subsidy is a subsidy from the have-nots to the haves. It is a subsidy by way of tax from people who cannot afford to save but who are still required to pay taxes. Those people cannot afford to contribute what was 4 percent, and is now 2 percent, to KiwiSaver. Previously we had a massive subsidy to save from those who could not afford to save. But I give full credit to the Labour Government for introducing KiwiSaver; it has laid the foundation. But the subsidies were far too generous. They have been reduced. But the foundation has been laid of over a million people who have joined that scheme.

I also find it interesting that Mr English, in his evidence to the select committee, went on to say that New Zealanders should increase their savings by reducing consumption. They should increase their savings by reducing consumption. I say to Mr English that a very simple way to increase savings in this country is to look at the experience overseas. We have to look no further than our near neighbour Australia, which has a compulsory savings scheme that stands at 9c in the dollar for every dollar earned that is paid into a savings scheme. The scheme is compulsory. It was interesting to hear from Mr Ralph Norris, when he was speaking at a function on Monday night. He told me that he was previously opposed to compulsory savings. Having been the chief executive of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia for the last 4 years, he talked about flexibility. He has seen so many people retire from the Commonwealth Bank in the last 4 years, and he talked about the flexibility with which they left. So I say to Mr English and the National Government that they can reduce that subsidy further. They can reduce it from 2c to zero cents. They can cut it out. The Government can cut out the subsidy from taxpayers who cannot afford to save, who are subsidising taxpayers who can afford to save. In my view, we should cut that subsidy to zero and we should make KiwiSaver compulsory.

That is an issue that I intend to talk about into the short, medium, and possibly long-term future. I see Mr David Carter looking at me, but I need to convince him and his Cabinet colleagues that we need to go down the route that was taken in Australia. We can also look at Singapore, which has had compulsory savings since 1952. Those savings laid the foundation for the redevelopment of Singapore following the Second World War.

Mr Cosgrove talked about cuts in the contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, dubbed the Cullen fund. Some members on the Finance and Expenditure Committee have said to National members that now is the wrong time to cut those contributions—now is the wrong time; the market is at an all-time low.

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : I am glad of the opportunity to make some comments on what should be a very important debate. It would have been a golden opportunity, I think, for the Committee to hear some sensible criticism, some constructive ideas, from the Labour Opposition, but on this occasion we did not. I can offer some advice to Mr Cosgrove and to Mr Cunliffe: when members have very little to say, it is silly to take a second consecutive 5-minute call and continue the shrill.

I congratulate our members—Amy Adams, David Bennett, and Sam Lotu-Iiga—on brilliant contributions to the debate. I also pick up on the contribution from Dr Russel Norman. He correctly pointed out that one of the biggest challenges we have to face in the near future is around climate change. He correctly analysed the three things the Government must consider: ways to reduce our emissions, ways to increase the sinks in New Zealand—in other words, the planting of trees—and our preparedness as a Government to buy credits from overseas. Dr Russel Norman is quite right.

But I take exception to his comment suggesting that ACT and National MPs are going around the agricultural sector saying that climate change is “bunkum”. The ACT Party can speak for itself, but under no circumstances is any National member of Parliament I know of going around the country telling farmers that they have nothing to worry about with climate change. That is simply not fact, I say to Mr Norman. I probably have more contact with farmers than any other member in the National caucus, simply because I am the Minister of Agriculture, and I can tell members that farmers are on board and prepared to face the challenges. They know that the climate is worsening. They know that they face challenges. What they are looking for is solutions. At this stage, we can cut emissions in agriculture in one way and in one way only, I say to Dr Norman, and that is to cut the number of stock we run in New Zealand. I do not advocate that, which is why this Budget seriously addressed the amount of money we are putting into research. We are putting money into this area through the Budget. Funding the Primary Growth Partnership was one of the most important things we faced in the Budget. We need time to find solutions. They are not available now, but in no circumstances can that member argue that the National Government does not accept climate change as being one of the most important challenges we face.

We had Mr Cosgrove saying that National was using the recession as an alibi. I say to Mr Cosgrove that he needs to wake up, smell the roses, and realise where we are. Whether or not the member wants to recognise it, we are facing the most incredibly challenging economic conditions the world has faced for 80 years; I tell Mr Cosgrove that there is no way—no way—that New Zealand is immune from that. In fact, the situation for New Zealand is worse, in that after a decade of mismanagement and lost opportunities by the previous Labour Government, we were in a recession even before the rest of the world had caught up. We do face challenges, and this Budget was a very balanced Budget in order to accept those challenges and to face them. So for Mr Cosgrove to come into the Chamber and suggest that the current Government thinks that the recession is an alibi, shows how out of touch the Labour caucus is. He suggests that we are being smug on this side of the Chamber, but I suggest that he will remain in Opposition for many, many decades yet if he remains as arrogant as he was in his contribution tonight.

We must deal with reality. What Dr Michael Cullen presented to the nation in the pre-election fiscal update was the revelation that we faced 10 years of deficit. That was the legacy of the management of the economy by Dr Cullen and the Labour caucus. So it was important that we balanced this Budget carefully, and that is why it was balanced. It still increased borrowing, but it did it with care to make sure that we were not downgraded by Standard and Poor’s, because that would have affected every business in New Zealand. It would have affected every homeowner with a mortgage.

Hon Steve Chadwick: That’s who it was for—not the people of New Zealand.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Steve Chadwick may not care about that, but I, as a member of the National caucus, care about it deeply. There are a large number of measures. Those members opposite who are interjecting are also critical of superannuation.

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) : It is great to talk about the mighty achievements and the great story that we have to tell in Vote Justice, and to say what a great Minister of Justice we have in Simon Power, who has been working indefatigably hard—I think that is a word I can use—in this area. Over a period of months now he has been delivering, and he will continue to deliver in a number of ways. As a junior member I am very proud to be part of this Government, because of the way it is delivering on justice. It is very clear to me that this is an area where the people of New Zealand wanted to see a change, an area they believed in, and an area where they did not think they were getting results from the previous Labour Government. Ordinary Kiwis felt very strongly that safety on the streets needed to be improved and that violent crime needed to be dealt with, and they felt that Labour was not providing the answers.

The money involved in Vote Justice is serious. The total appropriation was $400.85 million. That is more money than even Chris Carter would know how to spend. It is a lot of money. It is a serious amount of money.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Be very careful.

SIMON BRIDGES: Oh, I am being careful, I say to Mr Cosgrove, because this is a serious matter that requires care. I am proud of what has happened, and I am proud of what is coming.

In talking about what we have done, I think a lot has already been achieved. In the first 100 days a huge amount was achieved. Sentencing for offences involving children was beefed up, and that is important. In many communities around this country, unfortunately, child abuse is still with us. We have taken action on that issue quickly. We have reversed the 2007 changes to the bail laws, where Labour—and those members do not like to hear this—had liberalised the laws, making it easier for those accused of crimes to get out on bail. We have tipped the balance back in favour of public safety in borderline cases, and that is significant. We have introduced police-issued safety orders to protect victims of domestic violence, by removing those people who pose an immediate threat to them. That is a significant change and it will have a good effect on the streets. We have introduced the Gangs and Organised Crime Bill to clamp down and to get tougher on gangs. Again, that is something that the public very much wanted to see happen. They asked for an effective response during the election campaign, and we have been delivering on that. We have introduced the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill, which limits parole for the worst repeat offenders. I ask Grant Robertson how good that is; I think it is very good. We have made wider use of DNA sampling in a bill that will come back to the House shortly. We recognise the power of DNA and the need to use it more efficiently and effectively, and in a broader way than used by the previous Labour administration, including Clayton Cosgrove when he was in Government.

What else will we do? We have already held a thoughtful, thought-provoking conference on the drivers of crime. One thing that came out of that conference quite clearly was that we need to take a new approach to reducing crime and victimisation. Through the work of Minister Simon Power and Dr Pita Sharples we have already seen some very good work being done on that. There was a remarkable degree of unity at that conference, and it has been very good to see things coming out of it. In the coming months the Government will consider a number of the priorities coming out of that conference, and that is exciting to see.

The sale and supply of liquor is another key front that the Ministry of Justice will need to be working on, and that will be good to see. I think that members on all sides of the Chamber would agree that that is a significant issue. There has been abuse for a long period in the area of the sale and supply of liquor, and solutions are needed. The Law Commission has produced a significant work on it, and change is coming.

Legal aid reform is coming. Again, that is significant, because it is not just about the actors; it is also about victims of crime.

PAUL QUINN (National) : Mr Chair—

Chris Hipkins: The real heavy-hitters are up tonight.

PAUL QUINN: Yes, it is a heavy-hitter, because this is a very heavy subject. I say to Mr Hipkins, in case he is unaware, that it is a very important subject that the community and society of New Zealand takes very seriously in terms of equal justice for all. It is an area in which the previous administration failed miserably. In terms of our election promises, that is one of the very key reasons why the people voted for this Government.

We set out a number of targets in terms of our justice policy, and we have achieved all of them. Let me remind members on the other side of the Chamber what some of those targets were. We said we would remove the right of the worst repeat violent offenders to be released on parole, and that was achieved. We said we would introduce legislation to clamp down on criminal gangs—achieved. We said we would introduce legislation to toughen the bail laws, to make it harder for criminals awaiting trial to get bail—achieved. All of those things have been achieved. My friend and colleague Simon Bridges covered other things. Our policies were all laid out before the community and the electorate, prior to the election. We said that we would achieve those things and that is exactly what we have done.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Check your Hansard.

PAUL QUINN: We have kept our promises, I say to Mr Cosgrove, as we will continue to do throughout our term of office. Whether those promises concern superannuation or anything else, we will keep them. We will be able to stand at the next election and say that with our hand on our hearts, and those members will have nowhere to go.

A number of other exciting Budget announcements are contained in these estimates. Increasing police numbers was a magnificent policy that the people really responded to. There are 600 new police officers on the streets. There are 300 extra police in Manukau City, who are bringing order to the streets. They are working amongst the community. The previous administration failed in that area. In fact, the previous Minister of Justice and Minister of Police, Annette King, had no idea about the answer to crime. We laid out our platform, and, as promised, we are delivering with the estimates that are now before us.

Let us talk about providing new instruments to the police, to the law and enforcement sector, to enable them to carry out their jobs better than they were able to do under the previous administration. I refer to the use of Tasers. We are addressing a very serious issue. We are instituting more security at the courts. These are very important issues. We need to provide security and confidence to judges, to other court staff, and to witnesses who go to court. We have a rolling programme going out, in terms of enhancing the security of the courts. These are all practical, easy-to-implement measures that the previous administration had the opportunity to undertake over 9 years. What did it do? It did nothing. Crime continued to rise, waiting lists at the courts continued to lengthen, justice was stretched out, and people did not know what they were doing. Justice delayed is justice not done, and this Government is attempting to do something about it.

Another area we are boosting is the probation service, with $153 million to provide better probation services and psychological services to the community. We are increasing prison capacity, under the magnificent leadership of the Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins. She is doing a magnificent job. The law and order spokesman on the other side of the Chamber, Clayton Cosgrove, was flummoxed during question time today. He had nowhere to go, because of the outstanding leadership of the Minister of Corrections. It is all because our policies are reducing the number of prison escapes. He had no answer for members on the other side because of the leadership being shown by this Government.

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) : I congratulate the previous speaker, Paul Quinn, who personified the way that debates on justice must be carried out—with dignity and coherence, and in a very planned and logical manner. It is very important that some forethought is given to justice, and that there is some understanding of the causes of crime and the way to approach those causes. It has been very good to have been part of a National Government with a Minister of Justice who has taken a cautious and programmed approach towards bringing legislation before the House, the manner in which it is debated, and the procedures that address it.

When the National Government was first elected on 8 November, we set about a 100-day plan. We got a lot of flak from members on the other side in respect of that 100-day plan. The reason that it was so unpopular with those members was that it set about, in a cautious and determined way, to achieve the things that we had campaigned on and that we had received a lot of support from the public for. They were not headbanging, knee-jerk reactions. They took a considered approach, and we aimed at achieving various things, including the justice sector. They were outlined very well by the previous speaker, Mr Quinn.

The Minister of Justice talked about four stages to the justice legislative programme. That was the first stage The second stage was to convene a Drivers of Crime seminar with the Hon Pita Sharples, the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Associate Minister of Corrections. A number of us in the House were there, and a number of members of the public working within the sector were also there. What a wide-ranging debate it was. The report on that seminar is due out any day. It looked at what those drivers of crime are, how we could address them in a logical and determined way—the way we should address them in a civilised society—and picked them off, one by one.

The next programme, stage 3, was speeding up the court process. We heard the Minister of Justice announce, and set about introducing, processes that will speed up the delays. As my friend Paul Quinn said just a few moments ago, justice delayed is justice denied.

Hon Member: That is not what he said.

CHESTER BORROWS: There have been a number of hiccups. Well, he said “justice not done”, but I picked up exactly where he was heading.

We are taking out some of those little hiccups within the system that delay those processes, and are seeking to penalise those people who, for their own gain, would tend to slow them down in order to milk the legal aid system. I think the point has to be made that lawyers have to eat. I am very disappointed when I hear people say that the only people making money out of this are the lawyers. Well, lawyers have to eat. I think that is a fair enough comment to make.

The fourth stage will be to look at some of the defences we have—for instance, provocation. We have had some discussion about that in the last week or so, and we will be addressing it shortly, as well.

The work in the justice area is wide and has taken some creative initiatives over the last little while. Some of them were implemented by the previous Government. They require evaluation. It is particularly difficult to get hold of those evaluations while the funding stream is running, if those evaluations that are already set down are not being run in a parallel way. Across the portfolios, we have found that a lack of forethought and planning on the part of the last Government has seen that the evaluation of some of the pilot schemes—for instance, the one doing very well in my electorate on early childhood low-decile education—did not start until after the funding had run out for the pilot. It is very difficult to maintain that pilot, especially in tough times, because the evaluation has not been running in a parallel way. We are concerned about the way that it has been set up. That is what we have found in opening up the cookie jar that is justice delivery within this country.

But I can say that the justice initiatives taken by the Hon Simon Power show a lot of forethought and a lot of understanding of the justice sector, and it is a pleasure to be working alongside him in this area.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) : This is a very interesting section of the estimates. Before I talk about the Government’s proposals for State-owned enterprises, I want to look at page 507 of the Reports of Select Committees on the 2009/10 Estimates.

It is interesting to note that the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Simon Power, embarked on his new career—as we will recall—by hauling in all the chairs and, possibly, chief executives of all the State-owned enterprises. He jumped up and down and stamped his little feet saying that the Government wanted more money. At the same time as Simon Power—I am sure he will take a call tonight, diligent Minister that he is—was calling for more money and higher dividend performance from State-owned enterprises, especially the energy State-owned enterprises, Meridian Energy had lifted its prices over a short period of time by about 16 percent.

The Minister of Energy and Resources, the Hon Gerry Brownlee—according to the Christchurch Press, the third most powerful man in New Zealand—was described by his best mate, Dave Henderson, as absolutely “useless”. It is very interesting that at the same time as Mr Power was demanding more dividends, especially from energy State-owned enterprises, the Minister of Energy and Resources was attempting to jawbone down prices, and stamping his larger feet saying that it was terrible that consumers had to put up with high energy prices. He cited Meridian Energy. In fact, I think—he will correct me if I am incorrect, and in that case I will concede—that he changed his personal arrangements in respect of his own power company from Meridian Energy to Mercury Energy. [Interruption] No, that is not correct; well, I stand corrected. But as he tried to jawbone down prices, and said that it was outrageous and that the energy State-owned enterprises, especially Meridian Energy Ltd, should consider the recession we were in, his counterpart was hauling in chairpeople from State-owned enterprises and demanding more dough.

It is interesting because I remember before the election Gerry Brownlee used to get up and give a stock speech. Every time the previous Labour Government announced an initiative or a review he would say: “Oh, another review.”, “Oh, another task force.”, or “Oh, another study.” There is a very interesting passage on page 507 of the estimates reports about what the Minister for State-Owned Enterprises was asked: “We asked the Minister whether in view of the concerns about electricity pricing, he had considered using his power as the Minister for State-Owned Enterprises to signal to boards that he shared these concerns. The Minister responded that the Government had made some broad statements in that area, and he did not think any further step would be appropriate.” That is interesting. He had said that it would be nice if they pulled their heads in and helped the old consumer out, but that is about all they would do. Then it is interesting: “The Minister told us that the Minister of Energy”—the Hon Gerry Brownlee—“has signalled a review of the electricity market.” This was from the man who said that he would take action in this area and look after the consumer.

It is interesting to note that the task force that the Minister set up was due to report last week. It did not quite know what to report on so we have no report today. I am told that it received no direction. It is very interesting, is it not? I say to the Minister of Energy and Resources that he should get his story straight, and that the Cabinet Ministers should meet. I invite him to talk to Simon Power and get the plan for energy State-owned enterprises right. On the one hand he said to pull the prices down, and then on the other hand Simon Power said that the Crown wants more money. I say to Simon Power that if he is really serious—as Gerry Brownlee appears to be, at least in print—about giving consumers a fair go in the electricity sector through the State-owned enterprise dividend process, he could do one very simple thing. He could say quite clearly to the energy State-owned enterprise that we do not want any more done. We will take the status quo in dividend, and we do not require the State-owned enterprises to give us a higher dividend this year. He could inject money immediately into the pockets of consumers. If Simon Power, as he has done, demanded more of a dividend—

Sandra Goudie: This from a man who couldn’t manage a piggy bank!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Sandra Goudie might understand what a business does. A business will respond like this if the shareholder demands a higher dividend. It will either cut costs through staff or it will raise prices to increase revenue, thereby increasing dividends. So it would be good if the Minister of Energy and Resources could take a call, and have a chat with the Minister for State Owned Enterprises beforehand so they can get their stories straight.

Now we get to the other matter that is in the minds of the public, which is that of privatisation. It is very interesting that the National Party’s stated position prior to the election was that it would not flog anything off until after the next election. That position started to wobble a bit, because Mark Weldon came out and effectively said that State-owned enterprises should think like a business and act as if they face part-privatisation in 2 to 5 years. Then we had the appointment of Don Brash to the productivity task force. Don Brash has believed in selling off State-owned enterprises his entire career, but at least he is up front about it. Then we had the speech from the Secretary to the Treasury, who signalled a similar thing. Well, it is interesting because there is another inherent contradiction. On the one hand, the Government said that it wants to preserve jobs. That is an admirable and laudable aim. On the other hand, of course, it is demanding a greater dividend stream from a State-owned enterprise, which will force two actions, as it did at Meridian Energy: it upped the price, and now appears to be restructuring to shed over 100 staff in Christchurch alone.

A business has to cut cost or raise price in order to deliver back a greater dividend stream to the shareholder, in this case the Crown. We see that State-owned enterprises are indeed cutting jobs. Ninety jobs are to be cut from Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ); 52 jobs from Quotable Value. There are nearly 400 redundancies at New Zealand Post, and at Meridian Energy there are more on the way. It has been called the Meridian Energy strategic review of its core operations, which is double Dutch for shedding staff and shedding cost. This was all because it had been given the message that the Government wants more dough. Then other Ministers like Paula Bennett get up, wring their hands, and say that they actually want to preserve and save jobs. Well, one cannot speak out of both sides of one’s mouth.

It might be appropriate for the Minister of Energy and Resources, the Minister for State Owned Enterprises, and the Minister for Social Development and Employment to get together in a very large corner of the building and have a wee chat. We know, of course, what the agenda is: if these State-owned enterprises are raising prices and driving consumers to the brink of pain, then the argument will be put up sooner or later asking what the difference is. It is a bit like private prisons. The Government could not get it right and will not instruct the department to do what it wants on outcomes, so it asks why it does not flog them off to the private sector. That would have to be better! That is the sort of simplistic argument that is put up.

I say to the Minister in the chair, the Hon Gerry Brownlee, that the Government plays a very dangerous game. He would be better, as commentators and editorial writers have said throughout the country, to front up and be honest about what the Government will do. The signals are all there; they were in Mr Whitehead’s speech and in Mr Weldon’s comments. We know Mr Weldon is now the contemporary version of the acolytes of the Business Roundtable. He is the kinder, gentler face. He has the ear of the Prime Minister, he ran the Job Summit—the talkfest—and he is now waxing eloquent about his view on what State-owned enterprises should do. He says to bang them on the stock exchange—the NZX. Perhaps that is the agenda. I say to Mr Brownlee in the chair that there is a mass of contradictions between his position as Minister of Energy and Resources, Simon Power’s position as Minister for State Owned Enterprises, and Paula Bennett’s position in respect of saving jobs. It would be nice if they could reconcile those contradictions. It would be nice if Mr Brownlee could get up and utterly rule out the sale of State-owned enterprises, but I suspect he will not.

If the Government wants a State-owned enterprise, such as Meridian Energy, to be sold in year 1—if it wins the next election—it has to ready that State-owned enterprise now. It cannot go to an election, announce that the enterprise is sold, and then start readying it. It takes about 1 year or 18 months to ready a State-owned enterprise for sale, so the Government has to start now, and that is what it is doing. The way it readies a State-owned enterprise for sale is to try to ramp up the dividend stream, cut a lot of the costs out, and call the 100 people who are being gutted from Meridian Energy “fat”. That is something that—no, I will not go there. That is how the Government could restructure a State-owned enterprise under a sort of operational strategic plan. The enterprise would be readied for sale. If the unthinkable happens, and Mr Brownlee gets on to the Treasury benches next time round, we can imagine the scuttling of announcements of which State-owned enterprises will go on the block.

Sandra Goudie: Oh!

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE: Well, Ms Goudie might yawn and make other anatomical noises, but as for the 100 people who are being bucketed out of Meridian Energy, the 400 people who got bucketed out of New Zealand Post, and the 90 who have been bucketed out of TVNZ, I do not think they would respond well to Ms Goudie’s noises and aberrations.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) : I think I should make a few responses to the comments made by Clayton Cosgrove as we discuss Vote State Owned Enterprises. Mr Cosgrove’s frustration was evident in his speech. I guess it was his frustration that caused him to be so confused.

Very few people in this country who know anything about business would automatically confuse the price paid for a product with the overall performance of the business. Yes, it is an important factor, but no one should assume that simply because the price is high, the performance is as optimal as it could be. That is the very point that the Government has been making to the State-owned enterprises: make sure performance is at its optimal level before the price goes up for consumers. I ask what is wrong with that.

Do members know what the amazing thing is? Since the Government has embarked on this course of action, and since, for example, we have put in place the review of the electricity sector, there has not been a price rise that was not planned under the previous Labour Government. That is the hard, cold fact of it. That is what the board minutes will show. The Labour Government thought a price rise meant that the State-owned enterprises were doing well. So for 9 long years of suffering by consumers the retail price of electricity went up by 86 percent, and Steve Chadwick, Clayton Cosgrove, Winnie Laban, Ruth Dyson, and all the rest of them were absolutely chuffed, because they thought that meant the State-owned enterprises were performing well. Well, a price rise does not mean that. The attitude of those members shows a terrible blindness on their part.

I will also speak about Mr Cosgrove’s fixation with the idea that our demanding that the State-owned enterprises perform well for the people who own them means that they are being prepared to be sold off. I can only assume that he is going on the experience of a former Labour Government that managed to sell off 21 Crown-owned companies in one afternoon, which was an extraordinary effort on that Government’s part. For him to come into the Chamber today and start talking about job losses in the State-owned enterprise sector is utterly laughable when measured against that sort of record.

National has made it very clear that no State assets, no State-owned enterprises, are for sale until the people of New Zealand say it is OK—if they are ever asked. That is the hard part for Labour members, because asking New Zealanders what they want, asking New Zealanders what they think, and asking New Zealanders how they feel about things is not the way they operate. Their 9 years in Government were 9 years of saying “You must do this.”—not you, Mr Chairperson Barker; well, they probably did tell you what to do; in fact, there is no doubt about it. They told New Zealanders what they had to do, how they should do it, and how they should feel about it. That is why they got slung out of Government last November. That is why Labour is so down in the dumps in the polls at the present time, and the speech tonight from Mr Cosgrove typifies the problem that Labour has. All that Labour members are doing is going from one end of the country to the other, pouring out their paranoia. They are driven by a huge frustration: they were so good according to them, but so very bad according to the voters.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Hundreds are turning up to those meetings.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Ha! One does not normally recognise an interjection in a debate like this, but the Labour junior whip, Steve Chadwick, said that hundreds of people turn up to Labour Party meetings to hear Labour speakers. Well, I know of a meeting that was held in that member’s electorate where the Hon Phil Goff was due to speak. Great advertisements were put in the paper, billboards were erected all over the town, and radio advertisements were aired to say “Phil Goff is coming.” Guess what? Phil Goff turned up, and Steve Chadwick bought a ticket. One ticket! There we have it: Labour members talk about the performance and value of the State-owned enterprises, and Steve Chadwick tells us that she does not know how many noughts should go after a number when measuring crowds. Rather than one, she tells us there were 100. That is utter rubbish.

Let us get back to the purpose of this debate, which is to ask how the State-owned enterprises are performing. There are 27 State-owned enterprises. They have a big task to play in lifting performance and productivity in the New Zealand economy, and we have asked them to do that. There is nothing unusual about that. Rather than telling them what they have to do and how they have to operate, rather than controlling them by putting all one’s manky mates on the board, and rather than leaving them in a position where they do not know whether they are coming or going— or, as Clayton Cosgrove would say, not knowing whether they were “Willy” or “Nilly”—this Government has decided to work with those boards in very, very difficult economic times. I predict that the results will be very, very positive for the taxpayer’s income base.

I will highlight one State-owned enterprise that I think is doing a really good job in the energy sector.

Hon Steve Chadwick: One of how many?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member over there, after 9 years in Parliament, after promoting herself as an expert on State-owned enterprises, and after chipping into the debate all night, asks how many of the 27 State-owned enterprises are energy companies. Well, I suggest to Ms Chadwick that she look at the Estimates book in front of her and counts them for herself. Mind you, when she has confused one and 100, I doubt whether she will come to the answer very easily.

The company is Mighty River Power, which is worth thinking about. It is a company that without any direction from the Government, and without getting excited about things, has decided to invest heavily in the renewable energy technology of geothermal production. One of the good things about that is that in the 1950s this country was recognised internationally as being the world’s leader in geothermal electricity production. Mighty River Power is putting us back into that space day by day. I think that is extremely good for a country like New Zealand, because the flow of technology from it is extraordinary. We should be congratulating that company on that, rather than the Opposition, when Ministers highlight the success of a company like that, saying that Ministers are talking the company up so that they can get a bigger price when they hock it off. Those Opposition members should say congratulations to all the people in those companies, which are doing a great job.

Steve Chadwick: Oh, we’ll see.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is what one gets from Labour members. They have an abhorrence of the idea that anyone should be thanked for working. That is why, for 9 years, they concentrated on making ordinary New Zealanders such extraordinary beneficiaries of the State. Well, this Government is not taking incomes away from people, but, by gosh, we are going to make sure that the economy grows, even in these difficult times, in a way that gives New Zealanders an opportunity to earn a living in the natural way that New Zealanders like to do, with a high degree of pride.

As this debate progresses tonight, we will hear more and more Labour speakers running the same theme—privatisation, etc. They know that it is utter rubbish. They know that they are fearful of their own record in this area. I will say it again: they sold off 21 Crown companies in one afternoon. They cut a quiet swathe through the balance sheet of the Government, under the guise of Labour doing the right thing for the ordinary people of New Zealand.

I will make one other comment. I have noted tonight that as we have gone through these estimates, party votes are being called on each one of them. The extraordinary thing about that is a party vote takes up time; it soaks it up. This debate is time-weighted, so that tells me that the Labour Party does not have enough speakers to fill up the time it has been allocated in this debate. That is utterly tragic. This is a Committee stage debate, and Labour is failing miserably.

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) : The National Party’s election slogan of “Better, Sooner, More Convenient” health care is turning into a Tui billboard, and a lot of people are looking at Tony Ryall’s and National’s election promises and are saying “Yeah, right!”. He said that resources would be moved to the front line of health. Time and time again, that has been shown to be completely untrue. All over the country there are now cuts to front-line health services and front-line health staff.

In Otago, as we heard in the House today, there are cuts to the number of staff of community health services for the rural elderly. Those people ensure that when elderly people who live on their own out in the country—maybe in Clutha or maybe just outside of Dunedin—are discharged from hospital, all the support is set up before they leave hospital. They make sure that those elderly people are discharged to a safe environment, but they are going to lose their jobs. When the Minister of Health was asked today how that would benefit him, he did his old washing of his hands trick—he can twitter and wash at the same time; he is a real multitasker—and said that it was nothing to do with the Minister of Health. He said that he was there to make only good positive announcements, and it was all the fault of that bad district health board. The district health boards make the bad announcements about health cuts, while the Minister washes his hands of all responsibilities and just gets on with announcing yet another new positive initiative in health.

The Whanganui District Health Board has announced that it is going to deliver the Minister’s “Better, Sooner, More Convenient” health services by closing hospital wards on the weekends. I am sure Chester Borrows is just delighted at that news! Michael Laws will be celebrating up and down the main street of Wanganui—

Hon Member: Without a patch.

Hon RUTH DYSON: —without a patch—and that must be great news for the people of Wanganui. In order to provide “Better, Sooner, More Convenient” health services in their town, their hospital will close wards on weekends. The Taranaki District Health Board has announced cuts in future mental health services and cuts in the provision of health services for Māori. I have not yet heard Māori Party members raising concerns about that, but, given their representation in Parliament and their close proximity to the National Party, I look forward to one of them taking a call tonight.

This is not about moving resources to the front line or having better support for health staff; this is just about cuts to front-line services and front-line staff. When I asked the Minister of Health whether he no longer thought that doctors and nurses were front-line staff, and whether he did not think that home support workers, community services for the elderly, X-rays, mental health services, and emergency departments were front-line services, the Minister said “What an odd question.” But X-rays are being cut by 10 percent at Timaru Hospital. That fact was denied by the Minister this afternoon, proving yet again how poorly he is keeping on top of his portfolio. Hospital wards are being closed on weekends, mental health services are being cut, and the emergency department at Timaru Hospital has decided to see 5,000 fewer patients. I asked that question because I want it to be on the public record that the commitment given by Mr Ryall and the National Party prior to the election—that there would be no cuts in front-line health staff or in front-line health services—is a lie. It has been demonstrated to be a lie by the cuts that have been signed off by the Minister himself. At Timaru Hospital there will be 5,000 fewer patients at the accident and emergency department, 200 fewer operations every year, and a 10 percent cut in the number of X-rays. The Minister of Health wrote to that district health board and said he was strongly supportive of those plans to cut front-line health services and staff.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) : I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important estimates debate. The John Key - led National Government can be absolutely, justifiably proud of these estimates, in the way that this Government has regarded health as a priority and cemented in funding of $3 billion over the next 4 years. That is an absolutely clear example of how the National Government has regarded health as a priority and stuck to its election commitments.

We have just heard a rant from the Hon Ruth Dyson. There is something I will never forget prior to my coming into this Parliament, and that is the spectre of none other than a former health Minister, the Hon Annette King, saying that it was criminal to have a waiting list of 89,000 people. That was before the dismal legacy of 9 years of the previous Labour Government. She said that a waiting list of 89,000 was criminal, yet waiting lists almost doubled under Labour. The lists almost doubled, and when they got as large as that, Labour scurrilously culled them by devious methods, thinking that it could fool the people of New Zealand. However, that certainly did not happen.

The legacy of the Labour Government in health is even worse, because we all know that it spent and it squandered. It spent more, and it squandered more, and it built up a bureaucracy that enmeshed it in an ever-increasing tangle of inefficiency. The work that has been done on health productivity clearly showed that under Labour there was minimal or no growth in productivity. Labour’s legacy is dismal, and it is inappropriate for the Hon Ruth Dyson to suggest that the National Government has not committed itself to efficiency in the area of health and to prioritising health services to ordinary New Zealanders as being absolutely important.

There is a tremendous amount of good news when it comes to the health sector, and I want to speak for a moment or two about some of the areas that have not been talked about so often that were announced in these estimates. First of all, I refer to the maternity area, which is an area that in many respects was neglected under the previous Labour Government. There is $40 million extra in resources for increased birth rates, and $38.5 million for longer stays in birthing facilities. For the last 10 years women up and down the country have said to me that they were being forced out of hospital when they were not ready. There has been little choice for women who desperately want to stay in hospital, or at least to have the choice to stay in, so the National Government has committed to an extra $38.5 million in that area.

Then, in terms of support services for parents, there is $14 million for a 24/7 PlunketLine telephone advice service and for other advisory and information services to support the Well Child Framework. Who was it who stopped PlunketLine? It was none other than the previous Labour Government. It is an iconic service that New Zealanders trust, and none other than the previous Government cut its funding. So it is great that the new National Government has restored funding for PlunketLine.

There is also funding of $9.9 million for an extra visit to the general practitioner or lead maternity carer in each trimester for mothers or babies at risk. This is a classic example of putting in money where it is desperately needed to ensure that early intervention takes place. If ever there was a basic law in obstetrics, it is to ensure that early intervention is secured.

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) : This year, 54c in every dollar of personal tax goes towards health care. The growth is scary. Two years ago, only 41c in every dollar of personal tax was required to pay for health care. In other words, in 2 years the figure has increased by 13c in the dollar of what we pay in personal tax.

Saying that the figure is 54c in every dollar of personal tax can hide what it really means. Let me explain. Someone who earns the minimum wage pays about $2,500 every year for health care. Someone who earns the average wage pays about $6,000 every year for health care. People say that health care in this country is free. It is not free. To me it seems that health care has never been more expensive. Health care is not free; it costs each of us. When health care costs a person on the average wage $6,000 every year, one would hope that it would at least deliver. Yet it does not deliver, and I want to know what the Minister intends to do about it.

Despite the enormous cost of health care, we ration it. Sick people are placed on a waiting list. While they are on the waiting list their health gets worse, and in some cases they even die. The suffering that takes place while people are on waiting lists is rationalised away, especially under a Labour Government, and by the Greens in particular, as if the goal of equality justifies denying health care to people who are in desperate need of it.

The most pernicious effect of socialised medicine in this country is the creation of a group of second-class citizens. It does that, firstly, by having a bizarre mixture of subsidies; some things are fully subsidised and others are not subsidised at all. Secondly, it allows pressure to be applied to the system in order to get treatments performed. For example, if people can appear on television—on a programme like Holmes—no doubt they will get their treatment. But if people are not in a group that can bring special pressure to bear, then they will suffer on the waiting list. The third way that we create second-class citizens is due to the fact that the wealthy can afford to pay twice via health insurance. So we have a situation in this country whereby the very people who miss out on health care are the very people whom universal health-care is supposed to help. While the poor die on the waiting list, the rich and the influential get treatment. No one would seriously say that the system treats people equally.

The solution offered to the problem by every party in this House, other than ACT, is the same. That solution is to throw more money at the problem. In 2 years we have increased the amount of money that goes into health care from 41c in every dollar we pay in personal tax to 54c in the dollar. Where will it be in another 2 years? Will it be 67c in the dollar? Is that really a system that is sustainable? Of course it is not. People say we can solve the problem by allocating more money, but that is nothing more than snake oil.

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) : The great poet and philosopher Virgil expressed one of those universal truths that reminds us that health is a basic human right. He said “The greatest wealth is health”. For the Māori Party, that wealth will be demonstrated in our people being healthy and living longer. It will be seen in the evidence that whānau Māori have access to quality health-care within a culturally competent health sector. Progress in health will also be evident in the strength of relationships between health professionals and whānau. It is about realising whānau health needs and about enabling whānau to take control of their own health and well-being.

We come, therefore, to the estimates for Vote Health with a focus on whānau ora, one of the seven priority areas for action identified by this Government. That, in itself, is a great start. We want to commend the Government on its approach to Influenza AH1N1. The health sector responded swiftly to the threat of swine flu and that was due, in many ways, to the fact that as a nation we were already well down the track about how to respond to a pandemic as a result of the strategy developed for avian influenza. We want to make particular note on the way in which Māori health providers have responded to the challenge. I am told that Māori providers have accessed Māori resources at a higher rate than general resources, which indicates to me that those providers are out there, doing the mahi, and getting information to our whānau. We endorse the positive comments of the Health Committee on this area and would add only that it will be a great day when we see this same level of commitment and responsibility taken for other areas approaching pandemic proportions such as obesity, diabetes management, TB, or chlamydia.

The report then drills down into health sector priorities. I want to make it quite clear from the outset that we are concerned at the possible insecurity around future funding. The indication from the Minister of Health that funding may not increase in out-years is concerning, as it could cause a significant reduction in outcomes right across the health sector. Although we support the injection of new funds into areas such as hospice care, maternity care, and Healthy Homes, we want to encourage a whole-system approach in which primary health care remains of utmost importance.

It is our firm belief that high-quality, comprehensive primary care makes a significant contribution to whānau ora. We know that improving the physical well-being of an individual will be less effective if it takes place in isolation from his or her whānau. Social, cultural, economic, and spiritual wellness must have equal importance if whānau ora is the goal. Every family must be given the right support to achieve their full potential, and to restore their confidence and competence to take back responsibility for achieving whānau ora. Within this, we would expect that an integrated approach across the health sector will be the most effective in creating enduring outcomes.

I want to refer to one of the district health boards within my electorate, Capital and Coast District Health Board, to demonstrate the local evidence of the importance of an integrated strategy to improve health outcomes. The June 2009 report of Primary Health Care in C&C DHB reports that this district health board has some of the lowest avoidable admission rates in the country. The emergency department attendance trends for the primary health organisation - enrolled population, including those in most deprived areas, have continued to decline since 2005. What is obvious throughout the report is that improved access to primary health care leads directly to lower avoidable hospitalisation, reduced emergency department use, and improved health outcomes. It does not get much clearer than that. Primary health care works.

When I look at the select committee report, I have to say we share very keenly the concerns around the proposed fee increase and the likely consequence that cost will become a barrier to access. The best information we have comes from the RAND Health Insurance Experiment. The RAND study was a randomised controlled trial that compared health sector utilisation amongst different groups. It revealed some key findings—namely, that fees matter, especially at the low end. The study demonstrated that the majority of patients’ responses to user charges occur with small changes. For instance, when free health-care was introduced in Britain, access increased between 10 and 16 percent. A similar move in Montreal led to a 21.8 percent increase in utilisation. In effect, the number of doctor visits increased just over 50 percent more when care was subsidised than for those who paid for all their care. By far, the most important finding was that children and low-income earners were more responsive to price changes than adults and higher-income earners. The reduction of the cost barrier has a marked difference in improving access for Māori, Pasifika, and high-deprivation populations, and will remain a key policy principle. Fees matter, and what we know already is that even small increases in fees have a disproportionate impact in reducing access for those who need it most.

Another key area of concern for the Māori Party is around the changes to the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action programme. I want to challenge the misconception that the Fruit in Schools programmes is all about apples and pears. Of course, the fruit itself is a vital component of change, but the fundamental difference is the energy required to create an integrated healthy school environment. All the fruit in the world will rot if there is not due attention given to health promotion, to teaching knowledge and skills to support attitudinal change, to improving the social environment of the school, and to developing meaningful links throughout the community. A health-promoting school sees the school as part of the wider community. It reaches out to promote the view that being healthy and being able to learn are closely linked. Interventions to promote healthy eating and physical activity, to prevent injury, and to promote mental health are effective when adopted in the context of a whole-school approach.

I am aware of some amazing things being done by schools in my electorate to make the difference. A typical example is Te Wharekura o Arowhenua, which is part of the Fruit in Schools programme and is a health-promoting school. They run an annual auahi kore iwi challenge, which is all about iwi getting together on Waitangi Day, celebrating healthy eating, physical activity, and being Māori. Port Chalmers School has created an edible garden to promote healthy eating while also drawing in the community to focus on their environment. So we were disappointed at the decision to focus on sport and physical activity at the expense of healthy eating and health promotion.

Finally, I want to draw attention to the very positive progress, which is described in the select committee report, in the work that my colleague Tariana Turia is advancing in whānau ora. Whānau ora is best described as supporting a whānau-centred approach that focuses firmly on the aspirations and priorities as determined by that whānau. It is about being strengths-based, enabling whānau to take the lead in managing their own futures.

In many ways, what we are seeking to achieve in whānau ora responds to some of the challenges I have laid out about the decisions made around the allocation of funding priorities in the health sector. A recurrent theme in the discussion of the most effective health investment is the need to sustain support for prevention and public health. Earlier this year Dr Margaret Chan, the Director-General of the World Health Organization, warned that we must protect health funding during the period of recession, realising that in the past social sectors have often been robbed during times of economic downturn. Primary health care must remain a priority if we are serious about health outcomes. We need to protect life and well-being, to maintain safety-net programmes to reach the most needy, to boost productivity, and to remain committed to the view that people are the ultimate target of economic recovery. It makes plain good sense—“The greatest wealth is health”.

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) : Warm Pacific greetings. I stand to say how proud I am to have been part of a Labour Government that moved to reduce disparities, particularly for Māori, Pacific, and low-income people in our country. It was responsible for a number of very positive programmes in schools, including Healthy Eating - Healthy Action and Fruit in Schools.

I will continue the theme I touched on in the general debate this afternoon, and that is care for the elderly. I quote a headline in the Southland Times: “Home support faces razor”. We all know that Tony Ryall’s razor is not blunt. That media release also pointed to the local regional manager’s response to try to meet deficits. He said that “reductions were most likely to be where the board funded domestic home help to elderly …”.

It is very important that actions follow the rhetoric. The Government said that it will move health services to the front line, yet some district health boards state they will make cuts to home-based services for the elderly. It is very clear that these cut-backs will be disastrous, particularly when so many elderly rely on these services to maintain a measure of independence in their own homes. The Minister of Health, Tony Ryall, promised to improve front-line services, but it has become increasingly clear that the current Government does not see home support services as being front-line or essential. Our senior citizens deserve to be treated with dignity and respect—not as a drain on resources, which is clearly the message being sent by these district health boards and the Minister of Health.

Financial arguments for reducing home-based support services are critically flawed. Providing support for people to stay in their own homes will always be a less expensive option than providing residential accommodation 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Our elderly deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. Sixty thousand of them receive home-based support, and 28,000 are in residential care.

I sought the support of my Labour colleagues last month and this morning to request a Health Committee inquiry into the quality of care for older people, to ensure that older New Zealanders receive appropriate access to health services both in the community and in residential care. The inquiry would have also encouraged greater public participation by families, medical professionals, churches and faith organisations, caregivers, and the wider community. The inquiry would have also ensured that there was greater transparency, it would have taken a good look at the costs and benefits of different models, and, more important, it would have ensured that we in society can collectively address the present and future care of our elderly.

No one is immune from accountability; we are all accountable. We, like our elders, are human beings. We all want to be assured of the facts and the right information. The bottom line is that our elders are safe, are well cared for, and are supported in the community or in residential care. It is really important that we ensure we do everything possible to meet the needs of our elders. We all understand resource constraints. Our elders have contributed—and they still do—and our job is to reciprocate.

The inquiry would have ensured that Government funding, which is in excess of $700 million, targets the right services, and that our elderly receive the most appropriate health services at the right time. Why did National members of the Health Committee vote down my two motions to conduct an inquiry into the quality of health care for older people? What have they got to hide? Where is the transparency?

As I said earlier, it is the responsibility of the Government to look after the welfare and well-being of our citizens. Our elders are a major vulnerable group. It is only right that their contribution be reciprocated and that they be supported and thanked for their contribution to building our society and economy, and to defending our nation. For the Government to say it is shifting resources to the front line, only to then cut home-based services, is wrong. Our elders and senior citizens deserve better, and we as a nation are better off as a result of their contribution.

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) : I congratulate John Key and Tony Ryall on making a real difference to people’s lives. There is much I could talk about in Vote Health. I could talk about Labour’s legacy of the health of the district health boards and their projected deficits. I could talk about elective surgery under Labour, which did not keep up with population growth. Or I could talk about the severe workforce crisis in the health sector, with critical shortages of doctors, nurses, midwives, and some specialists. I could also talk about National’s announcements in health and what we are doing in the eating disorders area. I could talk about how the Government has asked the Nursing Council to work with district health boards and the Ministry of Health to expand the training role of enrolled nurses in New Zealand, which is one way that that very important group can play a stronger role in nursing care.

Rather than that, I will focus on National’s policy to fund 12 months of Herceptin. To briefly recap, over the last term of Parliament the debate around Herceptin had a high profile. In early 2006 New Zealand was first out of the blocks, becoming the first country to provisionally register 12 months as a treatment, but then progress stalled. Although 12 months’ Herceptin treatment became the international standard of care, with well over 30 countries funding it for their women, Pharmac became focused on a Finnish trial that looked at only a very small number of women and a 9-week treatment regime. Subsequently, in early 2007 Pharmac committed to the Synergy or Long Duration trial, an international trial comparing 9 weeks with 12 months of Herceptin. Later, in July that year, 9 weeks became publicly funded. In mid-2007 eight women sought a High Court judicial review of Pharmac’s Herceptin decision, with the result that in April 2008 the High Court directed Pharmac to consult again on its decision not to fund 12 months of Herceptin. Pharmac declined to change its decision. In October 2008 National announced its policy to fund 12 months of Herceptin. The decision was not made lightly.

• Progress to be reported presently.

• House resumed.

• The Chairperson reported the Road User Charges Amendment Bill with amendment, and progress on the Appropriation (2009/10) Estimates Bill.

• Report adopted.