Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : Pursuant to an agreement in the Business Committee yesterday, I seek leave for the Māori Affairs Committee to have authority to meet in Australia, and with committees of the Australian Parliament, from 26 to 30 May 2008, and to adopt such practices and procedures as are suitable for the conduct of the business of the meetings.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : Further to another agreement in the Business Committee, I seek leave for the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee to have authority to meet on the evenings of 15 and 22 May 2008.

Madam SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that course being followed? There is no objection.

KEITH LOCKE (Green) : I move, That this Parliament extend its heartfelt sympathy to the Chinese Government and people following the catastrophic earthquake centred in Sichuan province, which has killed at least 12,000 people and destroyed the homes of hundreds of thousands of people; and is impressed by the large-scale mobilisation of relief teams to rescue those trapped in the rubble and to assist those in need.

• Motion agreed to.

NANDOR TANCZOS (Green) : I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I beg your indulgence of my drawing the attention of the House to the fact that noted Rastafarian philosopher Yasus Afari is in the gallery. He has today presented a book on Rastafarian philosophy to this Parliament through you, Madam Speaker. I wanted to bring the House’s attention to that fact.

Madam SPEAKER: I have received a letter from the Hon Tony Ryall seeking to debate under Standing Order 380 the safety of and risks to patients at the Grey Base Hospital, and the decision to send a senior doctor from Middlemore Hospital to investigate patient safety. For there to be a particular case of recent occurrence there must be a new situation of importance or a new development in the existing situation of sufficient importance in itself to warrant the debate being held. The decision to send a senior doctor from Middlemore Hospital to investigate patient safety is a particular case of recent occurrence involving the administrative responsibility of the Government. However, this is merely the announcement of a decision to conduct an investigation, and I do not believe that it requires the immediate attention of the House today. There will be other opportunities to debate the matter, especially as the House is about to debate the financial reviews of Crown entities, public organisations, and State-owned enterprises this afternoon. The application is therefore declined.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): When the Committee was last considering this matter it had completed 1 of the 3 hours allocated for the debate. Two hours therefore remain. The debate on the performance of Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises is a series of debates on individual financial reviews of Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises as reported by select committees. The debates on the individual financial reviews should be relevant to their performance in the 2006-07 financial year and their current operations.

A member may have no more than two calls on each financial review. A list of the financial reviews available for debate is appended to the Order Paper. Reports on entities yet to be reported, or those debated earlier, cannot be debated. I understand that members have indicated the Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises they wish to debate.

PAULA BENNETT (National) : Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to stand up and speak about the financial review of the New Zealand Teachers Council for 2006-07.

The first thing I wish to raise in terms of the review by the Finance and Expenditure Committee and the report back to the Committee is that it is incredibly unusual—certainly in my relatively short time in this Parliament, and from what I have heard from my colleagues who have been here a lot longer than I have—to have in a report back to the Committee such a statement as: “Some of us are dissatisfied with the quality of the responses by the New Zealand Teachers Council, and consider that they were evasive in their responses.” It was generally the consensus among the select committee members that the Teachers Council was evasive in its responses with regard to a number of issues of utmost importance, which are of relevance to this Committee and which I wish to raise in this debate.

The issue of serious misconduct must be of vital importance to all New Zealanders, because at the end of the day we are talking about our teachers. There have been many instances of misconduct that have concerned the House and indeed the general public during the 2006-07 financial year. During the financial review, the select committee asked when the Teachers Council is contacted about misconduct; what action it takes when it is contacted; whether the police are involved after there has been some sort of incident involving a teacher; and why the Teachers Council is not notified immediately and the teacher stood down.

We heard from the Teachers Council that immediate notification is usually the way things go, but we were certainly of the opinion—and we discussed this with the Teachers Council—that it should flag that a teacher is under investigation. That is not currently occurring when there may have been misconduct by a teacher—serious conduct in some regards—and that is of huge concern to schools across the board. We have heard in the last 12 months about teachers who have continued teaching even though they have been under investigation and some pretty hideous stuff has been going on. Fortunately, this is not happening too often—not very often at all. I do not wish to be alarmist and say that misconduct is rampant out there, but a few examples have come up.

Also of concern is the process around registration. The Teachers Council says it is awaiting legislation, so this is an opportunity for the Government to step up and do something relatively quickly—even though it has had 8½ years to do so. Here is the Minister of Education, Chris Carter, now. He will know that the council is awaiting legislation that will give it access to the Ministry of Education’s payroll database so that it can determine which teachers do not have practising certificates. The Government really needs to remove the barriers so that the database can be much more easily accessed and we can know who is registered and who is not.

The process for overseas-trained teachers seeking New Zealand registration has been of some considerable concern to the select committee throughout the financial review process, and it is something that the committee will certainly be taking a bit more time over. The committee has talked about the process and its costs. Many, many instances have been mentioned. In fact, I have lost count of the amount of correspondence I have received with regard to early childhood, primary, and secondary school teachers who have come from the UK or Australia, for example, and who want to teach.

Just the other day I spoke to a woman from Whangarei. We are missing out on some good teachers because the Teachers Council is taking so long to register overseas-trained teachers, and because it has not worked with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to come up with some simple guidelines about what is and is not acceptable. The woman I spoke to the other day had moved from teaching into recruitment because it paid her something more worthwhile—and she was not even on a full teacher’s salary, because she was not registered.

It amuses me that the UK and Australia take our trained teachers in a heartbeat—particularly early childhood teachers, which is my area of interest. In fact, schools in the UK and Australia are actively recruiting our teachers, because they are clever enough to know that our teachers are smart and have been well trained. Our teachers can move to the UK or Australia and start teaching really quickly, but we in New Zealand are not in a situation where we can take any of those overseas-trained teachers, and we are not looking at what we can do about it. We have not come up with a solution, and that is a challenge that the Teachers Council has raised. It has said it has not been able to fix those problems. That is something for the Minister, and he has indicated recently that he is looking at the registration process for international teachers.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : Speaking to the financial review of the New Zealand Teachers Council, I take the initial point made by Paula Bennett of the National Party about the quotation in the report back, which New Zealand First supports: “Some of us are dissatisfied with the quality of the responses by the New Zealand Teachers Council, and consider that they were evasive in their responses.” I have never heard a more surprising answer, and a more evasive response, than the answer to the question asked by Allan Peachey for the National Party. I made a note of what he asked the officials. He asked to whom they were responsible, and we could not seem to get a reply. It was quite extraordinary. There was a sort of dumbfounded silence, as if to say: “How dare you ask that question.”; “How dare you, as members of Parliament, ask us—officials, bureaucrats—to whom we are responsible.” I made a special note of that, and I was most concerned at their attitude.

I was also concerned, initially, that staffing levels at the New Zealand Teachers Council had increased from 17 staff to 40 fulltime-equivalents, but, to be fair, the council is virtually self-funded, as I understand it. So it must be employing staff in response to the requests that are being made for registration. We cannot be too critical of the council for having a bigger staff, if we require the council to have a quick turn-round rate in so far as registering teachers is concerned. Looking at the council’s responses in its report, I see that it has registered 10,537 new teachers, approved 16,769 renewals, processed 20,000-odd police vetting applications, and—I especially note this next point—consulted with the profession on the amendment of key policies: “good character and fit to be a teacher; limited authority to teach; and language proficiency.” I have been concerned about the need to improve the quality of the teaching profession, to get new people into the profession, and to encourage people to come in and be part of what is one of the most important sectors of our community—the teaching profession.

There has been a report issued about becoming a teacher in the 21st century that proposes that the New Zealand Teachers Council and key stakeholders in the sector work together to determine the process for assuring the quality of graduates and those teachers admitted to the profession, through provisional registration. It also proposes that employers’ and other stakeholders’ needs are reflected in these processes. There was some criticism in that report about concerns being expressed that many newly qualified primary and secondary school teachers lack knowledge about the curriculum, pedagogical content, up-to-date assessment and evaluation methodology, and management or guidance skills. It states that initial teacher education providers “are in a difficult position, because there has been no explicit statement of what newly qualified teachers are expected to know and to be able to do.” So in considering that, and looking at the answer that came through on “proposition 4”, there seemed to be support for that proposal—there were 37 in favour and only two opposed to the proposal. In considering that question, the first thing that the stakeholders will need to do is address the notion of quality. There seems to be some concern about that, and I heard Mr Peachey being slightly critical of Paula Bennett about the quality of teachers and suchlike. I quote again from the report: “The role of the Teachers Council and its relationship with providers was mentioned by a number of submitters. The Teachers Council was seen by some to be under-resourced”—which seems rather strange—”not representative or responsive to providers, or not accountable enough. Some submitters agreed that there needed to be more robust ‘entry to profession’ standards at full registration.”

There was also a “proposition 7”, and I should make the point that the people who responded to it said that there needed to be more research into teachers’ status, better sharing of information and findings between sectors, and increasing pay. The issue of pay is always a problem for the profession at all levels, and our teachers go overseas because, on the face of it, they can get paid better. I repeat the view that perhaps those with student loans should be allowed to work off their loans over 3 years, or so, to keep those people in New Zealand.

Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) : I rise to speak to the issues raised around the Teachers Council and around teaching in general. I begin my remarks by noting that yesterday in Parliament we had a very interesting education lunch where 20 teachers were recognised for their outstanding contribution to education in New Zealand, in receiving the excellence in education award, which is done annually. I spoke, as education Minister, at that lunch and I noted that New Zealand teachers generally are among the world’s best. That is very much evidenced by the fact that New Zealand 15-year-olds score very highly in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment. We are the top-scoring country in the English-speaking world in literacy, numeracy, and science; and only Finland, Korea, and Singapore beat us overall. But we are in the top layer of achievers, or, at least, should I say, some of our 15-year-olds are.

So we have some real quality teaching and learning going on in our schools, and, of course, even if one is the best, one still wants to do better still. We are talking about educating the next generation of New Zealanders, both for their own potential and for the potential of our nation.

The Teachers Council is an important component in ensuring that teacher standards in New Zealand are the very best. The Teachers Council has been dealing with quite a range of issues such as disciplinary matters involving teachers who contravene regulations around their work in schools, and although it is a very small number, nevertheless it does happen; and also competency issues, and the registration of beginning teachers in New Zealand, and overseas-trained teachers.

As the previous speaker, Mr Jones, just noted, there were about 8,858 applications for the various categories of teacher registration during the last quarter. The speed of processing of teacher applications has increased considerably, which is a very heartening sign. About 90 percent of applicants are processed within 6 weeks.

A number of speakers mentioned the delays, sometimes, around the registration of overseas-trained teachers. Generally there is not a problem, but where there is a problem of equivalency, often in the training process, then there are some difficulties around getting a speedy resolution as to whether that teacher is competent to teach in a New Zealand school. I am sure no member of this House would want to see any child in New Zealand being taught by somebody who did not have the competent pedagogical skills to be able to teach properly.

I know that Madam Chair, like me, was a teacher for many years before coming into Parliament, and I see a number of other ex-teachers sitting in the Chamber. We all know that the best possible resource in education is a skilled teacher. No matter how much is put in by way of equipment—information and communications technology infrastructure, reading materials, equipment for teachers—still the most effective learning outcomes are created by effective teachers. So we want the very best teachers teaching in front of New Zealand students.

The Teachers Council has a very important role to make sure that any overseas-trained teacher has sufficient skills to be registered in New Zealand. To make that process flow more easily, we have ability for a temporary teaching registration to be in place. The individuals are given those, and they are able to upskill themselves to reach equivalency and to be able to be effective teachers in the New Zealand teaching environment. So that is very important.

We also have a little bit of an obstacle, sometimes, where we have overseas-trained teachers, getting overseas institutions to respond, to send verification of qualifications. I have been working very closely with the Teachers Council to try to make sure that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority, the body that deals with registration of equivalency in qualifications, is working more closely. We have been having very regular meetings.

I have been getting regular reports, too, as I move around schools, particularly those in rural areas where there are shortages in areas like technology and second-language teaching and they are unable to get sufficient specialists in those areas. Often overseas-trained teachers are keen for a lifestyle change in New Zealand, so rural areas, particularly the more remote ones in New Zealand, are often very attractive destinations for those teachers to live in. We need to make sure those teachers are registered and able to teach in our classrooms.

We have also used the council to try to give greater guidance for beginning teachers, so a code has been developed so that teacher training providers—the universities mostly, but not always—have a greater clarity about the skills that a beginning teacher needs to take to the classroom. That has been a very important function of the New Zealand Teachers Council and I think it has done some excellent work there about making sure that our young beginning teachers have sufficient focus and sufficient skills to be able to be the most effective teachers they can be for young learners in our country.

I would like to say that I feel the Teachers Council is going well, but, as we all know, every organisation can do better. I am working closely with it and I am working closely with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority to streamline these processes so that we can maximise the use of our migrant teacher community, give greater guidance to beginning teachers, and to make sure we have in place the structures to ensure that we have a quality teaching profession in New Zealand.

• Report noted.

JO GOODHEW (National—Aoraki) : I am grateful for this opportunity to debate the performance and current operations of the Canterbury District Health Board in its most recent financial year. To put this in context, the importance of this health board is that it is New Zealand’s largest, it serves a wide geographical area and a large number of people, and it employs some 8,000—I am not mistaken—employees. So it is a very large provider—and funder as well. It is a very important district health board in the context of the South Island’s provision of health services.

The audit report to the select committee noted two aspects of this district health board review where the grade for the district health board was “good”. Now “good” may sound OK but in fact “good” means that we recommend that improvements would be beneficial and that the entity addresses these. One aspect that I particularly want to make note of tonight is that our review of the board’s procurement policy indicated that although there are areas of strength, it does not cover all the areas we would expect. Quite chillingly we recommend the inclusion of greater detail in a number of areas including fraud, conflict of interest, whole-of-life costs, risk management, and procurement planning and methods. Additionally, recommendations for improvement being beneficial to the entity were also around financial information systems and controls.

That was the gutsy audit side of things but in fact when we reviewed this district health board there was another picture. That particularly dry picture is not really the picture for the people of Canterbury—the people who rely on this district health board for health services. The picture that they have had over the period under review is what they often read in the headlines and see in the devastating photographs in the media. And what is that picture? It is a picture of repeated headlines about gridlock—the worst gridlock in the hospital’s history. It is a picture that is also about problems with the emergency department, and of course they are both quite closely linked. The worst hospital gridlock is not only about patients but about staff. There may be 8,000 staff, but at the time that they were experiencing red gridlock there were 50 nursing vacancies. So serious was it that the district health board was trying to recruit some 60 British nurses to Christchurch.

In fact the whole picture around New Zealand is very similar. We have 7,700 foreign-born nurses working here and a matching 7,500 New Zealand - born nurses living and working overseas. One nurse contacted the media and said that she and her colleagues were frightened for the services within Christchurch Hospital because she knew of times where the most senior nurse in charge on the ward was a bureau nurse—a qualified nurse, yes, but with no experience of the ward’s speciality, be it surgical or, in some cases, coronary care. There are 1,500 nursing graduates each year and about half of them are leaving to go overseas.

Although the Minister of Health in this Parliament is telling us there is no crisis, that is not quite the way staff see it. In fact Alan Pithie, the Canterbury District Health Board chief of medicine for medical and surgical services, said that this red gridlock is a crisis. This is exactly the symptom we have seen over and over again. This Government says there is no crisis. It does not listen to the doctors and nurses and it does not see them as part of the solution; it sees them just as part of the problem, and we repeatedly hear about that.

Hospital treatment figures were also in the headlines during the year under review. We found that when it came to triage levels, happily this hospital is not one of the two that are not meeting the most serious triage levels—that is, patients who need to be dealt with immediately. In fact it is meeting that target 100 percent. But when we come to triage level 2—that is, patients who should be seen within 10 minutes—there is abject failure. Only 48 percent of those patients—and in March they numbered 2,228—were seen, so 1,114 were not seen within the required time frame. If we go to triage level 3 we see the same happening again—only 49 percent were seen.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) : I thank the member for the opportunity to briefly comment on the Canterbury District Health Board. The member is indeed correct; it is one of the largest health boards in the country and I think, overall, one of the better run health boards. It has a very competent board and, as far as I can tell, a competent management and clinical team. It has been the beneficiary, as have many other health boards, of the largest capital building programme in New Zealand’s history, which has been mounted by this Government over the last 7 or 8 years, and it has, like the rest of the system, seen a significant increase in its baseline budget through the objective funding formula that is rolled out nationwide, which provides for an increment based on demographic change and forecasted costs. It is called FFT/Demo and is rolled out to all district health boards around the country, including Canterbury.

The district health board has also been the beneficiary of a more sustainable workforce position, which has resulted from considerable investment in the health workforce under this Government. Indeed, 60 percent of costs in our district health boards arise from the payroll of doctors, nurses, orderlies, and those support staff who are in the back office, including those few in management positions. One wonders where this health system would be if it had not had the kind of investment that the Government has ploughed into it, and whether the occasional complaints that we hear, which by no means indicate any kind of system crisis, would have swollen to some kind of avalanche without the investment that has been made. I think the Opposition needs to be a little clearer about whether it is suggesting that the Government has been in some way profligate with this investment, or whether it is suggesting that it is not enough, because occasionally I hear both sides of that argument being raised by the Opposition.

In any complex system there will always be areas for improvement. In any hospital system there is always a juggle between acute admissions and elective procedures, and the constant process of triage—and I am pleased that the Canterbury District Health Board has had a 100 percent success rate in meeting its triage 1 targets. Like the member, I am not pleased that the board’s percent success rate for triage 2 is only in the 40s; it is not at a level that the Government expects, and the ministry will be working with the district health board to get those numbers up. But, again, I think if we see this in perspective—if we see it against the reputation that the Canterbury District Health Board has in many ways for being a centre of medical excellence—then we will see a picture that overall is robust, healthy, and positive.

There is a bit of a tendency for the Opposition members to perhaps run down a little the efforts of clinicians. I want to acknowledge that clinicians are the backbone of our system, and that they go to work every day to try to make the lives of their patients better. I remember the words of Heather Roy, who is not a member of the National Party—and on this occasion they will be very thankful of that—when she described a Capital and Coast District Health Board’s Wellington hospital as a “killer hospital”. If I had a dollar for every email or letter I had from distraught clinicians and that community in response to that kind of cheap political name-calling, I would be a wealthy man.

We have to work together to search out the improvement opportunities and make the system better and stronger than it is. It is certainly a lot better than it was when this Government took office, when it was funded at about half of what it currently is. Thank you.

• Report noted.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (National—Northcote) : It is very pleasing to be following on from that rather patronising lecture from the Minister of Health telling us all is actually well in health in New Zealand. It is rather apt that we are now going to be debating the Waitemata District Health Board, because, of course, the poor people of New Lynn whom the Minister represents actually have to go to that health board to get their care. Of course, the Minister himself does not go there, because he chooses to domicile himself in the rather more grandiose area of Herne Bay. So he really does not have to suffer the privations that his own constituents suffer when they have to go to Waitakere Hospital or North Shore Hospital for their own health care.

I am really looking forward to another dose of condescension and maybe a little more patronising patter from the Minister as he gets up and tells us about the wonderful things he has done for the people of west Auckland, for the people north of the bridge, in terms of health care. Because when we are looking at what has gone wrong with this Government in terms of its performance in health we do not have to look any further than the Waitemata District Health Board. It is amazing; the Waitemata District Health Board has the worst patient satisfaction level of any district health board in New Zealand—the worst—yet that hospital should be performing as one of the best. In terms of triage times it is right down at the bottom. It is in the bottom quartile of district health boards on every single measure. There are problems right through that district health board, and I can tell members what the problems are. They come down to a failure of planning and a failure of management by this Government, and this Minister is responsible.

Do members know all that this Government has actually done at the Waitemata District Health Board? Do members know what the response to the problem has been? The response to the problem has been for Helen Clark to turn up on the lawn of North Shore Hospital and erect a great sculpture on the front lawn that is meant to represent the giving of light in places where despair reigns supreme—rather like the Labour Party caucus room. That is the only contribution this Government has come up with constructively to try to solve the problems of the Waitemata District Health Board. I can tell members that I am being inundated in my electorate office in Northcote with complaint after complaint about what goes on at that hospital. If this Minister says that we get only an occasional complaint about the health service in New Zealand, I tell members that I think he is spending too long in restaurants in Herne Bay. He needs to get out to New Lynn and actually talk to some of those constituents.

If the Minister goes out and talks to those blue collar, decent New Zealanders whom he is meant to represent, rather than hang around on Jervois Road, they will tell him what the reality is, and I will give him a taste of this. This is what I got just recently from one of my constituents. He tells me about Waitemata District Health Board: “Some weeks ago I was admitted through the A & E department and I thought then that this was a shambles with all the corridors and aisles full of beds. I saw elderly men and women, middle-aged, and young children lying there without any dignity, respect, or privacy. I saw these patients having their observations taken and questions asked of them regarding their illnesses and injuries sometimes with absolutely no privacy. They were bodily examined, bloods taken, samples taken etc. The place was filthy.”

For this Minister to get up and give us a lecture about the state of health care in New Zealand is beyond a joke. I would invite him to come out to North Shore Hospital and see what it is really like. In fact, I walked into the accident and emergency department the other day with the Hon Tony Ryall. We went up to the reception desk, and do members know what was sitting there between ourselves and the receptionist at the counter?

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: A box of cigars.

Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, it was a patient. That guy from Waimakariri wants to joke. I tell members that if that member were 6 inches taller, he would have a totally different personality and approach in Parliament. There is no question about it. He should be taking this a lot more seriously than he is, because this is a serious issue.

Labour has failed in health. Labour members have failed abjectly and it will cost them. They will get kicked at the polls on this. If they think they are performing, and if they think they have done a good job in health in New Zealand when elderly former Labour voters are lying on trolleys in the corridor at North Shore Hospital, well, they are in la-la land. This Minister gets up and talks about the investment in health, about the money that the Government has put into it. If members opposite come out of their ivory towers and ask any person in the street, they will find that people do not think this health system is any better than when Labour took over 9 years ago. The spending has gone from $6 billion to $12 billion and less elective surgery is actually being done. Is that not incredible? Less elective surgery is being done and there are fewer operations. There is no question that Labour has failed in health and it will pay the price at the ballot box.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) : What a well-timed intervention from that new member! As it happens, only a week or so ago I did a full tour of the Waitemata District Health Board, not wearing my hat as a local MP, but wearing a ministerial hat. I can tell that member that I saw plenty of evidence of the investment that this Government has made.

If that member cared to get his hands dirty, to go back and see the Mason Clinic in its new form, to go and see the splendid new Waiatarau mental health care facility on the Lincoln Road campus, to spend some time in the new high-dependency unit at North Shore Hospital, and to look at the investment now going into the emergency centre at that hospital, where a new station is being built to take the overflow, and if he bothered to read the new data on vacancy rates that show that the district health board consistently managed down vacancies over the last 3 years, he would not be making the kind of prattle that is, frankly, indicting him as the same kind of lightweight MP as Ann Hartley was, about whom the people of Northcote are now asking: “Where the hell is Ann Hartley when you need a decent MP?”. That is what they are saying. So that member is going to have a very interesting time in the polls, I think.

The best he could do was to try to throw personal insults about where people live, as if he is not part of a party whose leader was registered to vote in Helensville but lived in St Stephens Avenue, Parnell. At least I am only 10 minutes from my electorate office; he has to virtually catch an international flight to get to his. He is all the way across the other side of the harbour.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: He is not a Chardonnay socialist!

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Would this by chance be the same John Key who, on his DVD—which is not authorised, anyway—over the sound of violin music playing, tells us about how he was a poor kid from nowhere who grew up in a State house, then devoted his professional life to making it harder for other poor kids to get a State house?

Dr Jonathan Coleman: I raise a point of order, Madam Chairperson. I cannot see what this has to do with the financial review of the Waitemata District Health Board.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Speaking to the point of order, I think a rebuttal is fair when the member himself raised the issue of the Minister’s domicile. The pot cannot be calling the kettle black.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Marian Hobbs): In actual fact a number of people on both sides have gone off the topic, in both the first speech and in reply. I would ask the Minister now to come back to the topic. This is about the Waitemata District Health Board.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: Fair enough. To take account of the pressure on the emergency centre at North Shore Hospital, some 70 additional beds are in the process of being put together through a combination of an expansion of a ward on the Waitakere campus and additional beds on the North Shore campus. I am confident that that is going to alleviate the kind of problem we had last winter with very high presentation rates. The new cardiac unit at North Shore Hospital and the new high-dependency unit will make a significant contribution to that. I think it is fair to say that the Ministry of Health has given the district health board a clear message that we expect the winter flow to be well managed, and that we look forward to seeing proposals from it as to what further measures it can take that will ensure it is well positioned.

But I would remind the member that I am advised by the member for New Lynn, formerly the member for Titirangi, that before 1999, which is when this Government came to office, all that existed on the Lincoln Road campus was the run-down building known as the Snelgar Building and a few prefabs. It was this Government that invested some $70 million in upgrading Waitakere’s hospital facilities. There are new facilities there—the new maternity unit, the new out-patients unit, the new general unit, and of course the new mental health units. So I think the member should visit the area and acquaint himself more thoroughly with the district health board before he makes speeches in the House that are without foundation.

This district health board’s area has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country. It has a higher than average rate of high-needs individuals from both the Pasifika and the migrant communities, as well as an about average rate of Māori participants in its boundaries. It has a very high rate of primary health organisation enrolment, with some very competent primary health organisations. It is fortunate to draw upon a community that has extensive and well-integrated community networks, and therefore has a strong array of non-governmental organisations that provide community support. For that reason, it was the site of the Government’s Wellbeing Summit conference, and has in many respects provided a leadership role in sharing best practice around the country in relation to primary health care.

I should say that the Mason Clinic in west Auckland, which is administered by that district health board, is a world leader in forensic mental health care, and of its first 100 patients, I am told, there was no recidivism on discharge. That is a truly astounding—astounding—achievement.

• Report noted.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : I would like to congratulate you, Madam Chair, on your appointment as Assistant Speaker. I think it is the first opportunity I have had to speak during one of your sittings since your appointment. In company with my caucus colleagues, I am sure it will be a pleasure working with you, and I expect to enjoy your sense of correctness, fairness, good order, and sense of humour.

Transpower keeps New Zealand’s energy flowing. It takes bulk electricity from where it is generated, by companies such as Meridian Energy and Mighty River Power, to 35 lines companies and directly to 10 big users. Electricity is delivered whenever and wherever it is needed, 24/7, through 11,806 kilometres of high voltage transmission lines, with 41,195 towers and poles, 173 substations, and 1,122 transformers. Transpower does not buy or sell electricity; it just ships it and owns the assets of the national grid.

So what point in particular do we wish to raise on the performance and current operations for the Minister to respond to? There are a number. We could start with Pole 1. The Pole 1 high-voltage direct current electricity cable, which links the North and South Island, was shut down suddenly late last year after a report was commissioned by Transpower, the Marsh report. The report found that there was a serious risk of catastrophic failure in the pole, which would lead to mercury vapours and fires in the facility. The Government said it found out that Pole 1 was being shut down only the night before, when the Minister got a phone call from the then chief executive officer. The pole is an ageing, creaking piece of equipment that was built in the 1960s. It desperately needs replacing, but Transpower has only just lodged an application with the Electricity Commission to build a replacement. Assuming that that is approved, it is still likely to kick into service only, at the quickest, in 5 years’ time; it should have been replaced years ago. Pole 1 is currently in partial service, running in one direction only, because without it we could not get enough power between the islands.

In relation to transmission generally, I say to members that as New Zealand moves towards renewable generation of electricity, the need for new and upgraded transmission will increase. New and renewable generation sites, such as wind farms, will increasingly be located in more remote places. With regard to negotiations with rural communities, I say that Transpower has not had a happy recent history in its dealing with landowners. One of the prices of upgraded transmission capacity is increased use of private land, which is frequently extremely valuable. Transpower has on some occasions not been willing to negotiate in good faith with local communities, and has managed to attract the ire of those communities. This is not good.

Hon Shane Jones: What about the public interest?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Is the Minister really going to interject while I am speaking? That is unusual, but perhaps he does not know he is not supposed to do that. He will have his turn, and I hope he will have a lot to say about these points. But he should wait, because there is more. Good examples are the farmers in the Waikato, where Transpower wants to put in new pylons to boost transmission to Auckland, and the farmers who are on the new Roxburgh to Islington line in the South Island.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Rigor mortis has set in.

Bob Clarkson: Better than being a motormouth.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Indeed!

Then there was the land lease deal. In 2003 Transpower set up a complex tax deal where the Wachovia bank in the US transferred ownership of the South Island grid to a company registered in the Cayman Islands and leased it back. This is very, very serious, and it should occupy the mind of the Minister, because he is well exposed to, and well familiar with, financial transactions. Transpower says it retains the legal title to all transmission assets in the South Island. US newspapers reported in April that Wachovia had been hard hit by the financial crisis related to the mortgage market. It had to raise extra money, its share prices plummeted to less than half they were at this time last year, and it posted a first quarter loss of US$393 million. This raised fears in some quarters that the South Island grid was in danger. These are very serious issues, and the Minister should respond and address each one.

Transpower has a huge strategic responsibility and is regulated by the Commerce Commission and the Electricity Commission. The expectancy of the New Zealand public towards the results of Transpower is now tinged with considerable apprehension. Is it overly restricted? Is the Resource Management Act a problem? Is there a good fit between Transpower, the Electricity Commission, and the Commerce Commission? Standard and Poor’s consider that on an international comparison we are negatively regulated.

• Report noted.

JUDITH COLLINS (National—Clevedon) : I rise to speak to the report of the Social Services Committee on the Families Commission. To many people, the Families Commission has been somewhat of a disappointment—certainly, to many families in New Zealand who thought that it meant they would have advocates who would represent them, and, particularly, to parents. The Children’s Commissioner says that she represents children, but many parents want a Families Commission that recognises the role of parents and actually values them.

What we have is a Families Commission that at the moment is spending an awful lot of money. It would be great if it were spending that money on parenting programmes such as the Home Interaction Programme for Parents and Youngsters, or Parents as First Teachers; if it were spending it on the sorts of things that parents want to know about, such as the best way to bring up their children. I do not know of any parents who do not want to be good parents. I certainly know of some parents who do not know how to be good parents, but I have never come across parents who, when their children are born, in their heart of hearts do not think they will do a better job than their own parents did. Often they do not, but certainly all parents try.

Yet we have a Families Commission that has, unfortunately, been spending an awful lot of taxpayer money on finding out how to spin its message about how valuable it is. It is spending $883,000, which is almost $1 million, on a programme called Valuing Parenting—something that the commission itself has described as being pretty self-evident. The programme tells parents that we should be valuing them. Well, as a parent, let me tell the commission that it is not a mystery. We parents try to do the very best job that we can. I think that in many ways the Families Commission has been a huge disappointment.

I remember that it went through all sorts of angst about what a family actually was. Well, anyone involved in a family knows exactly what a family is. It is whatever we think it is, frankly. If we have a family of mum, dad, and two kids, then that is a family. If we have a family of mum and two kids, then that is a family, too. A family is whatever we think it is. For kids, it does not really matter what we—I, you, or somebody else—think a family is; it is what that family thinks a family is that is important.

That particular organisation has become obsessed with spin. The number of people employed in the communications department staggers belief. It is almost as bad as the situation in some of the big Government departments. For instance, why did it appoint a public relations company to “review the Families Commission’s reputation and communications as part of its planning for a new approach to public relations for the Families Commission”. Why did it do that? Why did it spend that sort of money? Why is it worried about that? Why is it not worried about parenting and children, and about helping parents to do the best job they can? Why has it spent tens of thousands of dollars on a website called The Couch in order to find out what families want? It got about 2,500 replies. Actually, my Celebrating Families website page has a database of about 3,000. I would have given it to the commission for nothing. But, unfortunately, the commission is spending taxpayers’ money, and for many families whose taxes pay the bills of these communications experts, it is a waste of money.

I think many people in this Chamber would think that the $9 million that the Families Commission gets each year could be better spent. By the way, it cannot spend it, because it does not have enough to spend it on; in fact, it gave some to the Children’s Commissioner last year, because she has so much to do all around the world. People would like to see a lot better spend in relation to parents and to what works in helping parents to be good parents. It is not a mystery. All the commission has to do is to start to look at the really great research that is already being undertaken at Otago University and Canterbury University, and that is now being undertaken at Auckland University, as well. The longitudinal studies have shown what works for children and for families, and what they need. You know, it is not much more than good common sense. It is about parents putting their children first, about helping their children get a good education, about good health outcomes, about not being violent towards our children, and about putting them first.

• Report noted.

JUDY TURNER (Deputy Leader—United Future) : I will comment briefly on some of the concerns that I think the Social Services Committee still has around this board. We certainly welcome the opportunity for social workers to become a registered profession, and I understand the need for the current provisions to provide for social workers to choose to register voluntarily. We are looking forward to the day when possibly that can become a mandatory requirement, because I think that we have a large number of people now who, technically, would call themselves social workers but who, I suspect, are not, and who would not meet the requirements to register with the registration board. The board does not currently require people to have a qualification in social work, but some provisions were put in that allowed people time to prove their competency. Those were people who had worked in the area of social work for years and years without qualifications but who did a very fine job, and who would have been lost to the profession if they had been required to get a qualification. Those people should be registered, so there is, I think, a 6-year period that we gave originally for the mop-up of that situation so that those people could become registered. But I think that we are fast approaching the day when we need to see that situation change, and when we need to step up with this profession and have it as a fully professional body with a real clarity around who can call themselves social workers.

The concern I have is that this profession, for me, can beggar belief a little bit. I will start off by saying that I am very supportive of the work social workers do, particularly those who have statutory powers and who work for Child, Youth and Family. They do an unenviable job, dealing with some extremely difficult cases, and most of us admire hugely the people who put their name forward to do that kind of work. So what I say now is not in any way denigrating that role and the need for it, but I have a real concern around the fact that the culture—not just within Child, Youth and Family but also around social work—seems to me at times to be characterised a lot by uncertainty and fear, where social workers are unsure of what risks there may be for them personally if they make a wrong decision.

Although the Social Workers Registration Board also has a disciplinary function, currently very little of the money that is put aside for disciplinary purposes is used. The hope is that in future there will be a greater uptake of that as some of the complaints we hear about as MPs filter through and the board is able to deal with them. But one of the problems—and I know that it is a problem that the Minister is setting about fixing—is that there have not been clear processes, particularly for Government-employed social workers and social work to complain through some sort of official process. Therefore, there is not a clear path currently in place to have complaints directed through, where necessary, to the Social Workers Registration Board. That needs to be fixed. I know that the Government has contracts only with providers that can demonstrate they have a complaints process in place, but even then it seems unclear to those who work with the board that there is any flow-through of those complaints to them for professional assessment. I think that that is something that needs to be strengthened over time.

We talk all the time about the fact that the general public who have dealings with Child, Youth and Family particularly are currently a little hamstrung if they want to lay a complaint, but I also suspect that if social workers felt a lot safer in their job, then they would have less to fear. I think that some of the relationship falls down between the Government department and a particular client often because there is no clear process and advocacy for people who want to lay a complaint. Often those people have an ongoing relationship with Child, Youth and Family; the service has their children in care and it determines how often they get to visit their children and under what circumstances. Therefore, for people in those circumstances to go and lay a complaint is a very scary thing because of the power that social workers have over them. But, on the other side of the coin, I think that we have a profession that does not always feel clear that it is protected.

• Report noted.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National) : I am delighted to see that the Minister David Parker is here for this debate. It would have been really good if he had been here for the debate on Transpower, but he may wish to field some of the questions that were asked then.

The current power crisis facing us this winter brings into stark relief the failure of the Electricity Commission—the grand-sounding body that was set up in 2003 by the then Minister of Energy, Pete Hodgson. He said then, as did the Prime Minister, that the commission would guarantee New Zealand’s security of electricity supply into the future. Much rhetoric was engaged in by Government Ministers as to their wonderful new creation, and this is something we are getting used to.

What a failure the commission has turned out to be. It seems that every year is now a dry year, a famous one-in-60-year event, where New Zealanders face the prospect of cold showers, brownouts, and industrial shut-downs. Already the commission is asking industrial users to use a little less electricity. Is this First World country stuff? We had an electricity crisis in 2004 and in 2006, and now we have another one in 2008. The commission was set up by this Government to try to avoid situations like this, and it has singularly failed in its goal. It has failed to meet its mandate, and the result is spiralling prices and industry cutting production. Goodness knows what it is doing in turning people off from ever coming to New Zealand to invest.

Let us not be in any doubt that the commission is very much a creation of the Labour Government. It dreamt it up. It is, and has been, filled with Labour lackeys, such as David Caygill, a former Deputy Prime Minister and a deputy leader of the party; Stan Rodger, a former Labour Cabinet Minister; and Peter Harris, a former adviser to Michael Cullen. It has been stacked. Minister Rick Barker might be hoping for a future there himself.

While the commission has failed to future-proof New Zealand’s electricity infrastructure, it has also overseen massive residential price increases for consumers. It costs 48 percent more than it did 5 years ago to power the average residential home. Prices are heading upwards at the moment because of the lack of generation capacity. I do hope that the Minister, if he takes a call, will not say that they have kept the prices down. Goodness me! Prices are heading upwards at the moment because of the lack of generation capacity. Spot prices have trebled on occasions in the last few months. The ultimate insult is that the Electricity Commission, while it has watched that happening to consumers, has cost taxpayers $230 million since it came into existence—$230 million. There is very little to show for this massive transfer from taxpayers’ back pockets to yet another Government entity, and a stacked one at that.

The commission has also been woefully slow at confirming new transmission projects. Members will know that New Zealand desperately needs more transmission capacity and investment, both because of a lack of investment in the past and because of new renewable projects coming online. However, the Government has managed to create an incredibly confusing regulatory mess around transmission upgrades, with the Electricity Commission, Transpower, and the Government all having a role to play. This is very important for the Minister. There are numerous examples of delays in necessary transmission upgrades because of this situation.

I ask the Minister why it is that Standard and Poor’s says our electricity infrastructure lacks certainty of regulation. Why does it say that? These are real issues regarding the relationship between the Commerce Commission, the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority, and the Electricity Commission. This Government has been very keen on creating new statutory bodies, but it is very much less keen on making sure that their jobs are properly defined and that they carry out their duties effectively. The Electricity Commission is a perfect example of this malfunction. We ask the Minister to lift the veil, to see the reality, and to be prepared to tell us about that reality. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hon DAVID PARKER (Minister of Energy) : I am used to some level of ignorance on the part of the National Party spokesperson on energy, Gerry Brownlee, when it comes to the Electricity Commission and other matters of detail. But having pointed out those mistakes in a radio interview with Sean Plunket on Radio New Zealand National about a week ago, I thought that by now the speech notes that Mr Auchinvole read from would have been corrected.

Before I return to some of the misunderstandings that the National Party has in respect of the Electricity Commission, I would like to correct the power crisis myth. One would think that the lights had gone out in New Zealand under the Labour Government. When was the last time New Zealand had lights going out because of a shortage of power?

Sandra Goudie: Last year.

Hon DAVID PARKER: No, it was actually way before then. It was in 1974. New Zealand has not suffered blackouts since 1974. When was the last time street lights were dimmed—not residential lights, but street lights? Street lights were last dimmed because of a shortage of electricity in 1992, under a National Government. I am not blaming that Government, because in 1992 we had very, very low inflows into the hydro system. It was not the National Party’s fault that the rain did not fall in 1992, but even in 1992, when we had the lowest rainfall pattern for about 60 years, the lights did not go out but we did have to dim the street lights. That is the worst it has been since that time. We have not had a repeat of that since 1992.

Chris Auchinvole: What about the CBD in Auckland?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Under a National Government the lights went out in the CBD in Auckland. It was not because there was a shortage of generation but because the transmission assets failed, under a National Government. I thank Mr Auchinvole. I understand that he is the deputy spokesperson on energy for the National Party, and he does not know that basic fact. That is so typical of the member’s ignorance of these energy areas; it is second only to Mr Brownlee’s.

We have heard this claim that the Electricity Commission does not do anything. Well, of course, the Electricity Commission was established in 2003 because the industry could not agree on what it needed to do to regulate itself. It was the failure of the self-regulatory model that led to the commission being set up. No progress had been made on transmission investment, very limited evolution of the market arrangements had occurred, anti-competitive practices were getting worse, and there had been little development of the grid. There were stalemates on a number of issues.

Chris Auchinvole: What’s changed?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I will tell the member what has changed. Please listen, because a lot has changed. The commission has focused on three areas. Firstly, it is enabling transmission investments. The member says that nothing has happened. A total of $1.25 billion of grid investments was approved to March 2008—$1.25 billion. The rate of expenditure on the grid has gone up, from $60 million per annum on average when that member’s party was last in power, to over $300 million this year, and it will rise to about $500 million next year. Grid investment has gone up hugely, and the security of the New Zealand transmission grid is improving year by year as a consequence.

Some of these reviews have saved New Zealanders hundreds of millions of dollars. The Electricity Commission has oversight of Transpower’s grid investments. It did that in respect of the Waikato upgrade, and it actually knocked $150 million off the net present value—a cost that would otherwise have been paid by New Zealand consumers. There was a $150 million cost saving in respect of that one proposal alone, yet Mr Auchinvole would demolish the commission; he would actually take us back to that failed system of the past.

The commission has also completed grid reliability standards, which New Zealand has never had before. We have transmission pricing methodology, which is absolutely fundamental to determining who pays for what—[Interruption] Sandra Goudie rolls her eyes, makes a smart comment, and says that it is unimportant. Well, these are multibillion-dollar assets, and who pays for them is important—critically important. This had been an unresolved issue for more than a decade under the prior, unregulated mess left by the National Government and Max Bradford. The Electricity Commission has fixed it. It was a tortuously complex issue and it has fixed it. In addition to that, it is investing in electricity efficiency and it is also overseeing different aspects of the system.

The total amount that the Electricity Commission costs consumers is 1 percent of their bill, not 10 percent of their bill. If we look at the bill that people pay every month, we will see that it is less than 1 percent of the bill. No one would say we have hugely vigorous competition in the electricity sector, as we have only five main players. In fact, we really have only four big players and TrustPower, which is much smaller. So we have limited competition at best. Removing the Electricity Commission would take out one of the oversights and, of course, that would have the effect of putting people’s prices up by more than the 1 percent that the Electricity Commission costs.

Chris Auchinvole: So what do they do with it? What do they use the $230 million for?

Hon DAVID PARKER: I answered that question on Radio New Zealand National the other day, and I wish that National’s leading spokesperson on energy had pointed out what I had said, because I pointed out the fundamental mistake in National’s logic. Most of the things that the Electricity Commission pays for have always happened, will always be necessary, and will always need to be paid for. Consumers pay for those things through the Electricity Commission.

Sandra Goudie: What are they?

Hon DAVID PARKER: Power is dispatched. Someone has to control which hydro station or other generator is turned on and off, and which lines the power runs over. That is the system operator contract. That is how the whole system works. I am surprised Sandra Goudie and Chris Auchinvole do not know that. They asked me the question because they do not know the most basic things in respect of the electricity system. This is done through the Electricity Commission paying for these services, which it contracts to the system operator. If we were to dump the Electricity Commission tomorrow, those things would still need to be done, otherwise our lights would go out. There would be no saving of costs. That costs $28 million per annum, and it is 32 percent of the Electricity Commission’s reserve. It funds reserve energy—Whirinaki power station is funded by the commission. It costs $27 million per annum and is 28 percent of its cost. Again, if we did not have the Electricity Commission, we would still need that and it would still exist. If that were abolished as well, then maybe the lights would go out under a National Government.

The commission also funds electricity efficiency programmes. We all know that we need to spend more on efficiency in New Zealand. It actually saves us all money—it is cheaper to spend money on efficiency than it is to build more generating capacity. That costs the commission $18 million, which is another 19 percent of its budget. That cost would not go away unless we stopped spending money on electricity efficiency, in which case everyone’s bills would go up. The commission’s own operations cost $20 million, which is one-fifth of its total budget. That one-fifth of its cost is less than 0.2 percent of our power bill. That is the cost of running the Electricity Commission. Other things are paid through them. The bill for consumers would go up by far more than that. I am afraid that this sounds like the National Party’s electricity policy for the next election. It will obviously come along and say it will dump the Electricity Commission. The last time National was in power Max Bradford and the National Government ruined the electricity system. National really is a risk, as shown by its members’ ignorance on what is an absolutely fundamental part of the electricity system.

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Minister of Immigration) : I was not going to take a call, but I will take just a short call. Tonight we have made history in this Parliament. Tonight, as the Minister has pointed out, the level of—I do not think it is ignorance, or to be charitable maybe it is—commitment, research, and intelligence from the National Party about things to do with energy, especially in respect of the review of the Electricity Commission, has been exposed.

Mr Auchinvole—I think I pronounced his name right; he is rather sensitive about it—who I am told is National’s deputy spokesperson on energy, got up and lambasted the Minister, the Government, and the Electricity Commission. In the course of doing that—and I give him credit for this, as it is a serious issue—he expressed a fear about, as he would put it, the lights going out. For the benefit of those at home listening to this debate, Mr Auchinvole tried to feign concern about what would happen in the energy industry, and he then demonstrated the absolute precision of his knowledge on the issue. He decided to lambaste this Minister and this Government for a power crisis when the lights almost went out and there was almost a blackout. I can remember, and members will remember, the mobile generators down the road in Queen Street and all over the country. He decided to lambaste this Government for that.

But I do not think there was a DNA match in the brain of that member, or perhaps his lights had gone out or somebody had pulled the wires out from somewhere. Perhaps the pacemaker had not gone off—I do not know. He forgot that that event occurred under a National Government. That is the exact precision, intelligence, and grasp of the energy portfolio that the New Zealand public would be presented with if ever, God help us, that member made it to the Treasury benches as an Associate Minister, as a deputy Minister, or possibly even—given Gerry Brownlee’s lack of performance—as an energy Minister.

Tonight the New Zealand people have actually seen the depth of knowledge that that member and his ilk have when it comes to energy. In respect of the Electricity Commission, we would have to say that we know what that member would do if he took the Treasury benches: he would get rid of it. But he will not tell us what he would replace it with.

Of course, that member, in his dissertation about what the previous National Government did—he thought it was a Labour Government that blacked out New Zealand, but it was a National Government that did so—forgot to remind the New Zealand people about the devastating effect that Mr Max Bradford, his former colleague and energy Minister, had on this country. We all recall the great claim that electricity costs would go down, that people would be better off, and that it would be cheaper under a Bradford regime. But he tore apart an electricity regime that I think worked pretty well. Most pensioners who remember it would agree with that, and most New Zealanders who remember it would agree with that. But, of course, when Mr Auchinvole got the time frame and the Government wrong in his dissertation, he did not have the ability or the intestinal fortitude to lay claim to that policy that was his, and that has his fingerprints all over it. He was part of it; he may not have been in Parliament then, but he was part of it and he takes the credit for us now. But I tell members that every Kiwi remembers what it used to be like, and every pensioner remembers what it used to be like before his ilk got hold of it and effectively gutted and destroyed an effective Electricity Commission.

What this Minister has done, and what the electricity commissioner has done, is put in some frameworks to encourage competition and to get a real market situation working. What he failed to do was to tell us anything tonight about what he would do if he were in Government—not one thing. He even got critical dates and times in history wrong. I invite the New Zealand people to get on the parliamentary website, get that member’s Hansard—which was from about 20 minutes ago, at about half past nine—and read, word for word, a silly speech from a silly member.

• Report noted.

PHIL HEATLEY (National—Whangarei) : I sat on the Social Services Committee that considered the annual review of the Housing New Zealand Corporation. By way of a backdrop, I point out that about eight or nine members of Parliament sat on that committee, and it would be fair to say that their ears were ringing after 12 months of stories about million-dollar State homes worth about the same as two or three average State homes in average streets—homes that tenants would be more than happy with. Members’ ears were ringing with stories of State house tenants earning $80,000, $90,000, or $100,000 after tax, and their ears were ringing with evidence of blatant vandalism in State houses by a very few State house tenants, which Housing New Zealand and the Minister have turned a blind eye to time after time. It was quite difficult in that select committee to know that one had several colleagues from across Parliament who were aware of these stories of million-dollar State houses, very high income State house tenants, vandals in State houses, and also cases of a few State house tenants—nowhere near the majority; in fact a small minority—who actually sublet their State homes while owning baches in Russell in the Bay of Islands and living somewhere else.

I said to colleagues on the select committee, and I said to Labour colleagues who were also concerned about this—and concerned about the hush job done on this issue—”Let’s treat Housing New Zealand objectively in front of the select committee, even though we all have this baggage of knowing of houses in lower socio-economic areas of Wellington where the carpet is mouldy, where there is plastic over the windows, and where curtains are drawn and no sunlight can come in because families are suffering in the cold. I essentially said to colleagues across the select committee that we should try to be objective, try to park that information, and have a fairly robust investigation of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and its practices.

I would have to say that colleagues generally felt that Housing New Zealand provides an essential function in this country, which is to provide housing for those who are in need of housing—sadly, quite often in desperate need of housing—who cannot afford market rental housing, and who certainly cannot afford to buy their own homes. But it would also be fair to say that National members on that committee, and also members from other parties, said that that is not actually where our aspirations are for State house tenants. Our aspirations are not that they will remain in State houses for the rest of their lives, and that we will somehow wipe them out and tell them: “Well, you know, you’re stuck on an income-related rent, you can stay there for your lifetime, and your kids can inherit the house, and maybe your grandkids, as well.” Our aspirations for State house tenants are that maybe one day they will have a choice about where they rent, and even, perhaps, the opportunity to buy their own homes.

Housing New Zealand carries out a very important function in this country. It manages about 67,000 State houses. That stock has been building in recent years, and that is a good thing. Probably about 1,000 State houses have come online each year. About 60 percent of those have been bought or built and about 40 percent have been leased off the private sector, and that is a pretty good formula. We had the corporation before the committee, and we were concerned about a number of things when we interviewed it. That was partly to do with the whole issue of who the target people were that the commission was trying to house. Clearly, from the committee’s perspective, it was generally thought that the corporation worked first with the most needy families on the waiting list, and then moved on through those to a point where it could house as many as possible with the resources it had. But, even so, we discovered that Housing New Zealand said, in respect of the Weymouth development, that it was “ensuring that opposing gangs”—patched gangs—”are housed sensitively.” And we must remember that this quote is from a select committee report written by and agreed on by National and Labour members, and members of other parties; it is not a statement just from the National members.

Chris Auchinvole: That’s nice!

PHIL HEATLEY: It is nice that Housing New Zealand is housing opposing patched gangs sensitively, but the select committee, and certainly the National Party, would like to think that the corporation is housing desperately needy families sensibly in houses that do not have ventilation or heating problems. We would like to think it is caring for those people, rather than worrying about the fighting of opposing gangs in Weymouth.

We also talked about the housing affordability issue. It was quite amazing, really, to get the admission about the Housing New Zealand project in Hobsonville, which will build 3,000 homes. There is an economy of scale of 3,000 homes at Hobsonville, and 500 of them will be affordable for first-home buyers. When we asked how much those 500 affordable homes would cost, we were told not to worry because first-home buyers would be able to buy them for $350,000 each. A very keen, sharp-minded member of the select committee—I recall this; his question is echoing even now through my mind—asked how it was that Housing New Zealand and the Government expect builders to be able to build affordable homes at a cheap price when even the Government cannot do it for less than $350,000 with the economy of scale of a development of 3,000 houses. So Housing New Zealand has an economy of scale of 3,000 houses, and the cheapest home is $350,000, yet the corporation asks builders and developers to build cheap homes when even it cannot do that.

That point is what I would like to rest on. Essentially, this Government has lost touch with New Zealanders if it thinks that affordable housing is cheap at $350,000, particularly when people are trying to service a mortgage at 9 or 10 percent over that value, fill up the petrol tank, buy a block of cheese, pay the electricity bill—which has gone up year after year for the last 6 years—and do everything else for their young families, or for themselves as individuals, all at the same time. Government members have completely lost touch with New Zealanders if they think that a $350,000 house is affordable. I tell this Government that the cost of houses might worry them but there is a bigger Indian coming over the hill, and that is that rents are going through the roof. They have been doing so for the last 12 months and they will do so for the next 12 months.

Brian Connell: Are they affordable rents?

PHIL HEATLEY: They are rents that are not affordable, and a lot of families will be under serious pressure. So the Minister should solve that one with her Hobsonville development. I remind her that about 3.5 million people do not live in Hobsonville and do not want to live in Hobsonville. Her 500 houses in Hobsonville will not help those 3.5 million people. She should keep in mind that there is a bigger issue here in housing, and that little schemes in Hobsonville and a targeted shared equity scheme to help another 1,000 lucky people are not going to solve the problem for everyone.

It is time that this Government took much more of a holistic approach and looked at the problems for everyone, which are essentially take-home pay, interest rates, the cost of building, the cost of subdivision, and the cost of land. The Minister should be looking at the Resource Management Act, the Building Act, and the Local Government Act. If the Minister did that, she would start solving the problem for everyone, not just those people who live in Hobsonville.

Hon MARYAN STREET (Minister of Housing) : It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak to the housing section of this debate. I would like to traverse a couple of points. The previous speaker touched on his usual favourites. He likes to do what Tony Ryall does in the area of health, which is to wave as many shrouds as possible without ever on any occasion providing either vision or a future-oriented policy that could address the housing needs of this country.

I am proud of the work that Housing New Zealand Corporation has done in the last year. I am proud also of the work it is currently engaged in and will be delivering on into the future. There is no doubt that housing need strikes at the very heart of our society. I am very privileged to be the Minister of Housing. Housing is a portfolio that the Labour Party has always held very dear, and it is a privilege to have it.

State housing is an essential feature of our social make-up, and the previous speaker acknowledged that. For the first time in my hearing—and perhaps for the first time ever—he actually said he was pleased we were building and acquiring more State houses. That has to stand in stark contrast to the practice of the National Party when it was last in Government. National’s practice when it was last in Government, however much those members hate us repeating it, was to do away with 13,500 State houses. It sold them to its developer friends, and now the spokesperson on housing for the National Party feigns compassion. He feigns concern for the people at the bottom of the socio-economic scale in New Zealand. That kind of—there is a word here that I am not allowed to use—approach is not enough, and it is not credible for that member to take that kind of approach now.

I would like to traverse some of the things that this Government is doing and that Housing New Zealand Corporation has done in the last year in order to address the issue of housing affordability, which, of course, has become a hot issue. It has become a hot issue because in the last 5 years, between 2002 and 2007, house prices have increased by about 80 percent right across the country. That is extremely difficult even for a very progressive Labour-led Government to keep up with. It is extremely difficult for anybody to keep up with. So we have been seeing, for the first time, people who at this stage of their lives, and with their earning potential, ought to be able to buy their own houses being locked out of that over the last 5 years.

At every turn, with every piece of policy and every intervention, this Government is trying to address that issue. No one item will ever solve that problem; no one policy or initiative on its own will ever do that. The lack—the paucity—of ideas from the Opposition just makes me shake my head. I cannot believe that those members opposite think that all the solutions are to be found in the Resource Management Act. I cannot believe the stupidity of the impoverished idea that says solutions of that kind are to be found in the Resource Management Act. [Interruption] If that member could bring some vision, some contribution, and some possibility to the debate, then everybody might be better off. However, we will box on without him, because he is clearly unable to do that—as is his party—apart from approving of the fact that we are adding to the State housing stock, and I welcome that contribution.

I wish that members opposite had come to that realisation in the 1990s instead of introducing market rents. Where would we be now if the market rents policy was continuing today? Yes, rents are increasing, and how would we be dealing with our most impoverished in this country if we had the National Party policy of market rents? It does not matter how much members bleat from the other side. They absolutely know that they have never had a policy position that addresses housing need in this country.

The Government is looking to address the issue of housing affordability across a range of fronts. [Interruption] I am sorry if that is too complex for the member who is interjecting. She will get it eventually if we say it often enough, so I will continue to say it. Housing New Zealand Corporation is engaged not only in providing social housing but in promoting some of the most expansive programmes for addressing affordable housing that this country has ever seen, and I look forward to the implementation of those policies and to opening some of those houses in the near future.

• Report noted.

NATHAN GUY (Senior Whip—National) : I raise a point of order, Mr Chairperson. We just may have overlooked Internal Affairs. The National Party would like to make a contribution on the New Zealand Fire Service Commission, and I seek the leave of the Committee to go back to that please.

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I thank the member for raising that. We have not overlooked it; we are some way off it. Would you like to do it now?

Nathan Guy: Yes.

SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) : I rise to speak to the financial review of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission. A number of very serious matters were raised during the review, not the least of which was the concern around the fire appliance fleet replacement. When this concern was raised in questions to the Fire Service Commission, it responded that the responsibility for the detailed programme resided with the Chief Executive of the Fire Service but that the commission approved the capital budget annually, at the high level. The commission was cognisant of the problems associated with the capital budget, and had confidence in the chief executive that he had sound replacement programmes in place.

Essentially, the Fire Service Commission was saying that it had absolute confidence in the Chief Executive of the Fire Service, and that it was passing the responsibility on to him. One could be forgiven for thinking that in actual fact the commission was abdicating that responsibility. That is a concern for a number of reasons, the first being the operational risks identified in one of the Fire Service Commission’s quarterly reports. One operational risk is that the fire appliance fleet replacement programme does not meet Fire Service needs. The impact of that is seen in the increased operating costs as older vehicles are maintained for a longer period than planned, and in the increased risk of accidents through the use of appliances in excess of 25 years old. The Fire Service is also unable to take advantage of improvements to vehicle technology and safety. Those are some of the operational risks that were identified in a quarterly report of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission.

Other matters were raised in another audit report. One concern was that the reporting that took place to the audit committee in respect of financial and operational audits was confusing, in that it was difficult to ascertain the following: whether the issues identified were significant; the implications to the New Zealand Fire Service of the issues being raised; management’s response to the issues that had been raised; and whether the issues that had been raised previously had been followed up, actioned, or cleared. When one reads that, one has to ask whether the New Zealand Fire Service Commission actually knows what is going on. Real concerns have been raised about how it is following up on some of the concerns and risks that have been brought to its attention.

The concerns around the aged fire appliance fleet have consistently been brought to the attention of the New Zealand Fire Service Commission. It was noted with some concern that there were no new fire appliances in 2002, 2003, and 2004.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What about Roger Estall?

SANDRA GOUDIE: If the member is actually concerned about the New Zealand Fire Service fire appliance fleet replacement, then he should listen up. The Minister might like to answer the questions asked of the New Zealand Fire Service by the United Fire Brigades Association. They go back to 2005. The association’s newsletter stated that there was growing concern over the ageing of the New Zealand Fire Service fleet. One fire service representative asked how the 20 fire appliances delivered so far could meet fleet replacement requirements when there were 148 appliances over 25 years of age, out of a fleet of 800 vehicles, and when at least 40 new appliances per year were needed to meet the 20-year age limit requirement. How is that happening? In short, it is not.

In July 2006 Paul McGill, obviously responding a year later to the United Fire Brigades Association, was quoted on the front page of one of the association’s newsletters—it took up most of the newsletter. He was required to respond to the growing number of questions asked and concerns expressed by the association. One of the questions he was asked was how many new appliances would be delivered to brigades over the next 12 months—this was in 2006. The answer was 32. The next question was whether this number was sufficient. The answer was that the New Zealand Fire Service had around 800 appliances, and they were expected to remain in service for 25 years on average. To sustain that number, about 32 new appliances were needed per year, but for a number of years no new appliances were put into service. Paul McGill, who is a director of operations and training and responsible for new appliances, agreed that the Fire Service needed more than 32 new appliances per year. But is that happening? No, it is not happening. According to Fire Service reports, since 2004 there have been 16 type 4s, three type 5s, 13 type 3s, and 31 type 2s, plus three imports and one light response vehicle delivered. They have been delivered over 4½ years, which equates to about 14 new appliances per year—half of what is needed to replace the ageing Fire Service fleet.

That is a huge concern to United Fire Brigades Association personnel and has been raised time and time again. But the firefighters are not talking about it too loudly, for very good reason. So what is being done? The Fire Service Commission is saying that fleet replacement is the responsibility of the Chief Executive of the Fire Service and that it is comfortable with his plans, yet his plans are not meeting the necessary replacement quota to ensure that the service catches up with an ageing fleet. We have to wonder what the commission is doing—is it doing anything much? I am sure the Minister will take a call, but when we think about it, we realise he has not been doing anything either. After a Fire Service review, two discussion documents, and years of angst, what has he done? He has done nothing. That is pretty obvious.

In actual fact, when I asked, under the Official Information Act, what fiscal analysis had been undertaken of the proposed funding for the New Zealand Fire Service, he could not give me any information—because there was none. In my view, that is a huge oversight on the part of the Minister. When I put questions to him about the concerns over the current fire appliance fleet, his replies always started with “I am informed by the New Zealand Fire Service Commission”. I wonder just how deeply he has looked into the concerns expressed by many, many New Zealand fire volunteers and personnel, and whether he is comfortable with the fact that the Fire Service is in no way able to meet the ageing fleet replacement requirements. In 2006 there were only 10 new appliances. Perhaps the Minister might like to take a call about that.

What has been happening to some of these new fire appliances? I will tell members what has happened to some of these new fire appliances. The Sockburn series 5 is yet to see a flame, and the Christchurch 211 was broken yet again. The Bronto HEM was broken as well. The Timaru Bronto was broken for 3 months, and the Invercargill Bronto had a cracked chassis. This is not to mention the demonstration in Blenheim using a new fire appliance whose tank had not been sealed so that the water leaked and left no water with which to do the demonstration.

Phil Heatley: You’re kidding!

SANDRA GOUDIE: No, I am not, that is true. The commission was asked whether it was satisfied that the fire appliance purchases were reversing an ageing trend. The commission did not actually say no, but it admitted that there would be a catch-up phase. Well, one wonders just how long that catch-up phase will take when there were no new appliances bought in 2002, 2003, and 2004. The commission is woefully behind in making the vehicle fleet replacements necessary to keep up with the required level of aged fleet replacement and to keep the age of the fleet much lower. My understanding is that the oldest vehicle was bought in 1973 and is in Christchurch.

I am sure the Fire Service Commission will be looking a little more closely at the issue, although it has been under quite a lot of pressure in terms of Official Information Act requests and members’ questions to the Minister. Perhaps now the Minister in the chair, the Hon Rick Barker, will start to take a bit of an interest in his portfolio and what is happening about fire appliance fleet replacement. Maybe he will do something in terms of his responsibility as a Minister, because to date we have seen nothing.

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Internal Affairs) : It is with great irony that National Party members stand in the Chamber and complain about the state of the Fire Service Commission. Let us remember it was the previous National Government that set fire to the Fire Service Commission, through the actions of Roger Estall. National set volunteer against professional; professional against volunteer. Let us remember it was the National Government that slashed and burned the budget for the Fire Service Commission. Let us remember it was the National Government that stopped the replacement programme for new fire machines in the 1990s. Let us remember that National never built or replaced another fire station in all the time it was in office, and that it had that live wire Minister responsible—Jack Elder! That was the leadership National showed for the Fire Service Commission. It is absolutely galling for National members to come into the Chamber and complain about that.

But not only are National members silly about it; they are plain wrong—plain wrong. We have just had it put on the Hansard record that Sandra Goudie said that no fire engines were replaced in 2002, yet in question for written answer No. 2275, I told Sandra Goudie that in 2001-02, 15 new appliances were put into the fleet. That is not none; that is 15. Sandra Goudie went on to say that in 2003 there were no fire engine replacements, yet in the same written answer I said that there were 16. She also said that in 2004 there were none, but in answer to the same written question I told her that there were 36. That is part of the written record. Sandra Goudie cannot even read the answers to her own written questions, let alone get things right.

I will now make another point that has escaped Sandra Goudie, as it has escaped the National Party. The point is there is a global boom on. People are mining, digging up parts of Australia and mining all over the world, so trucks are in incredibly short supply. It is hard to buy a new truck. The Fire Service has a stack of orders out, and in question for written answer No. 3084, I told Sandra Goudie that the Fire Service Commission had advised me it has 79 appliances on order. The people cannot deliver them on time. The Fire Service Commission has put into place 22 new appliances so far this financial year. It accepts there is a lag, but if people cannot supply us with the new engines, then we cannot commission them.

What is driving this talk, of course, is that some people want the Fire Service to go and buy second-hand trucks out of Britain or Japan. It is really interesting; they have a deal for the Fire Service Commission! Oh, boy, they have! The service is told that it needs trucks out of Britain and that those people can supply them. The problem with that—

Shane Ardern: We did that.

Hon RICK BARKER: That is right; Shane Ardern is saying they did that. It was not a good idea, because it means there is a huge variation in the fleet, maintenance costs go up, and there are all sorts of other problems. It is much better to have a standard fleet. So we have a very good model of truck and we are buying them in large numbers, and we will go ahead and do that.

But, of course, there is no point in supplying an answer to Sandra Goudie’s written questions, because she does not read them. She simply does not read them. That is another very good example of why the National Party should never ever be considered for the Treasury benches.

I say to Sandra Goudie that I am happy to argue our record of what we have done for the Fire Service Commission and what National did. We have built numerous new fire stations all over the country. Dame Margaret Bazley has attended over 80 new openings. We have put new fire engines all over the place. I went to hand over the keys to a new fire engine in Waipukurau. It was the first time they have had a new fire engine since the 1930s—the first time they have ever had a brand new machine. The volunteers turned up and they were admiring this nice, new, glossy, bright red machine with all the whizzes and stuff on it. It is a little beauty. We will go through and replace all the old buildings. We are commissioning fire trucks, building new fire stations.

The National Party also failed to note that we are recruiting new people as professional firefighters. The number of professional firefighters has gone up under this Government. Under the previous National Government the number went down. We have replaced all the firefighters to make New Zealanders safer. We have done the right thing: more firefighters, more volunteers, more professionals, newer trucks, and more fire stations. The National Government slashed and burned.

Members should remember just one name above all else—Roger Estall. He was the high point of the National Government’s policy on the Fire Service Commission, ably led by that intellectual genius Jack Elder! He was the best person National could get, and he demonstrated all the fine skills of a Tory Minister.

• Report noted.

DAIL JONES (NZ First) : It is a pleasure to be speaking to the report on the Arts Council, on behalf of New Zealand First. As we know, the council is required to comply with the collective duties and individual duties as members, and any directions made by the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage as determined by the Crown Entities Act. The Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage will be informed and engaged in discussions, as appropriate, on any proposals for significant changes in the way Creative New Zealand invests in the arts sector. So one presumes there are discussions between the Minister and Creative New Zealand when it comes to decisions made by the organisation.

Creative New Zealand’s strategic plan for 2007 onwards states that the three major components of its plan are vision, purpose, and values. When I look at that statement, and think about the discussions the Minister must have about the values that Creative New Zealand must consider, and look at some of the grants made in 2007, I see in particular “Choreographic Fellowship for acclaimed Auckland dancemaker and choreographer Lemi Ponifasio.” This gentleman was granted fellowships worth about $65,000. But I am also interested in a grant for $35,000, made so that he could invite certain people on a tour of The Tempest. Now, remember this grant was made in 2007, and I see that in the discussions with the Minister, perhaps, the “values of Creative New Zealand” indicate that this money should be spent on Mr Tame Iti and also Mr Ahmed Zaoui—the refugee. He is sharing in the $35,000 to travel around the world, as a result of the “values” attributed by Creative New Zealand to people like Mr Tame Iti, the well-known firer of shotguns in public places. I cannot refer to any other matters that are happening at the present time, but they are well known to the public.

Hon Judith Tizard: Art takes many forms.

DAIL JONES: The Minister is not supposed to interject, either. Now, $35,000 shows that Mr Tame Iti knows how to suck on the taxpayer. That is what I say. How can he and Mr Zaoui screw $35,000 out of the taxpayer, to have a world trip on Creative New Zealand? It is quite amazing. The Minister should have discussions with Creative New Zealand, as to the way it is established.

I ask the Minister what she does with her time. Does she have discussions with Creative New Zealand? Does it advise her that it is going to spend $35,000 on the likes of Mr Zaoui and Mr Tame Iti to travel around the world?

I agree with Sandra Zaoui and I presume her criticism is related to—[Interruption] It is Sandra Goudie—it rhymes, it was a slip of the tongue. I agree with her concern about Mr Zaoui. I was getting ahead of myself. But we also know that Mr John Key supports Mr Tame Iti’s trip around the world, and rubs noses with him whenever possible. I find it terribly, terribly disappointing that a man with the reputation of Mr Tame Iti should be encouraged by the leader of the National Party.

As far as New Zealand First is concerned, Creative New Zealand is not spending its money properly; it should be considering the values that are part of its charter. I say that if Mr Tame Iti does not come back it will be a great day for New Zealand—

The CHAIRPERSON (Hon Clem Simich): I am sorry to interrupt the member but the time for the debate has expired. The debate on the performance in 2006/2007 and current operations of Crown entities, public organisations, and State enterprises has therefore concluded. I will report the debate to the House presently.

• Debate to be reported presently.