Estimates Debate

The CHAIRPERSON (Eric Roy) Link to this

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

JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) Link to this

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

KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) Link to this

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

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

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Tourism) Link to this

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

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

AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) Link to this

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

DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) Link to this

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

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

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

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

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) Link to this

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

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

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

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) Link to this

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

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) Link to this

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

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

PAUL QUINN (National) Link to this

Mr Chair—

CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) Link to this

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

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

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

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

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) Link to this

I think I should make a few responses to the comments made by Clayton Cosgrove as we discuss Vote State Owned Enterprises. Mr Cosgrove’s frustration was evident in his speech. I guess it was his frustration that caused him to be so confused.

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

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

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

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

Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) Link to this

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

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

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

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) Link to this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) Link to this

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

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