(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Accident Compensation—Levies

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Will he accept Labour’s offer to work together to reduce ACC levies for hard-working New Zealanders facing increasing costs?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): As the member knows, the Government has been working with its support partners to secure the changes necessary to rescue the accident compensation scheme. This afternoon, I welcomed the Māori Party’s intentions to support the bill going to the select committee. The National Government will continue to work with its other support party, the ACT Party, as the Government looks to reform the scheme. I can say that the Government is committed to preserving a 24/7 no-fault scheme, unlike the previous Government, which seemed intent on destroying the scheme by failing to disclose massive shortfalls in its funding. What a disgrace it was.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Government adopt Labour’s bill to extend out fully funding accident compensation until at least 2019, a measure that would reduce the costs faced by hard-working Kiwi families, and a bill that could be passed right now; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Government’s intention is to extend fully funding the scheme until 2019, with or without the support of the Labour Party. As the member knows, that is only a small part of the answer. Interestingly enough, in the letter that was written by the Leader of the Opposition to me he finally acknowledged that there were very serious problems facing the accident compensation scheme, and that “an honest conversation is needed about the trade-offs between the scope of the cover and levy costs”. In other words, it has finally dawned on the Opposition that there is a serious problem with accident compensation.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister think it is fair that motorcycle riders are facing levy increases of up to 300 percent; if not, will he work with Labour to ensure that that massive increase in costs faced by bikers will be substantially reduced?

Hon JOHN KEY: I guess the first thing I would say is that Mr Goff should rest assured that people do not have to pay that big increase if they only borrow a motorbike, and do not actually own it. The second point I might add is that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is proposing what it is fair enough to say is quite a significant increase for owners of larger motorbikes, with a proposed levy increasing by about $500, to $781. As I said yesterday at my press conference, it is worth remembering that on the advice we have had from ACC, a full cost recovery levy for motorcycle-only accidents is $2,215 and if we take into consideration accidents where a car is involved, the levy should increase to $3,770. Yes, it is a big increase, but other New Zealanders should know they are already substantially cross-subsidising motorbike riders.

Hon Jim Anderton: At what point along the path of accident victims paying an excess on claims of up to $100 and/or reducing compensation for workers from 80 percent to 60 percent of pre-accident income will the contract made between the Government and the people of New Zealand in 1974 be breached, and the whole basis of the Woodhouse no-fault accident compensation scheme have to be abandoned and the costly legal battles to win compensation for work injuries begin all over again with the reinstatement of the right to sue, with lawyers as the main beneficiaries?

Hon JOHN KEY: The member can rest assured that this Government has no intention of abandoning the Woodhouse principles and the 24/7 no-faults scheme; nor do we have any intent of restoring a scheme whereby New Zealanders could sue.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister received any apology or explanation from the previous Government for its decisions in August and in October last year to extend accident compensation for seasonal workers, for victims of suicide, for part-time workers, and for superannuitants, despite the corporation in the year to June 2008 disclosing a loss of $2.4 billion?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Prime Minister, I must remind him that he is not responsible for the previous Government’s policies.

Hon JOHN KEY: No I have not, but I believe the public is owed an explanation after the corporation lost $2.4 billion in the year to June 2008. It was quite reckless of Labour to have made further extensions to the scheme, with no funding. It was inevitable that that would only make the problems worse, but I guess June 2008 is before October 2008 and we all know what happened in October 2008.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept that ACT’s privatisation proposals would substantially increase the costs imposed on accident compensation users, and does he accept the employers’ belief that this form of privatisation would be unwelcome and would add to their costs?

Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon Phil Goff: In light of that answer, has he seen the statement put out by the Employers and Manufacturers Association today, which says that it is wary about the reintroduction of an open competitive market, and that last time National tried to impose that it would have resulted in large premium increases?

Hon JOHN KEY: The advice I have received about the former National Government’s changes to accident compensation, where competition was introduced, was that it was very successful. It was the blind ideology of the incoming Labour Government that robbed New Zealanders of cheaper premiums.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table a press release by the Employers and Manufacturers Association at 12.41 p.m. today, which states that it is wary about the introduction, and the lower costs were trying to capture the market— Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister agree with Merrill Lynch that the privatisation of the work account in New Zealand would have given big Australian insurance companies $2.1 billion a year in premiums and income, that that would have resulted in several hundred million dollars in net profit, and that there would be costs loaded on to ordinary Kiwis and services reduced as a result?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, and I guess that is why Merrill Lynch went bankrupt. It was a much better firm when I was there, obviously.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table a document from Merrill Lynch entitled “Potential Privatisation of the New Zealand Casualty Insurance Market”—the casualties, of course, would be Kiwis.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon Phil Goff: I am concerned that what the Prime Minister said about a letter to me may have misled the House. I therefore seek the leave of the House to table the letter that I actually wrote to him, and reserve my rights about a breach of privilege action.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should not use a point of order in that way. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Allocations

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is it a coincidence that under the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme, forestry and fishing, which have significant Māori ownership, are being offered a fixed amount of free allocations for a limited time, while other industries are being offered an uncapped amount that will last for decades?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): These features of the modified emissions trading scheme are also true of the existing scheme that was supported by the previous Government and the Green Party, and they actually relate to the realities of individual sectors.

Fishing, which is important to Māori, is treated more generously under the changed emissions trading scheme, with a half obligation until 2013 and a 90 percent allocation, rather than 50 percent.

The allocation for pre-1990 forestry is to compensate for the loss of land-use flexibility. It is nonsense for the member to suggest that that be increased proportionately like the allocation for the agricultural industry is to be, as, by definition, there cannot be more pre-1990 forests.

Metiria Turei: Is it not true that such a disparity in allocations between predominantly Māoriinterested businesses and others will hold back Māori economic development, while providing a blank cheque to others, particularly foreign-owned firms?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The truth is quite the opposite of that, and I can give the member an example. One of the issues the Māori Party raised with me was where the quota should be allocated in terms of the fishing allocations. The Māori Party made a strong representation that it should go to quota holders rather than fishing vessel operators, for the very reason that a number of the fishing vessel operators are foreign owned. I also point out that Māori are one of the biggest operators in forestry. One of the biggest opportunities around the emissions trading scheme is with the post- 1989 forests, so there are very significant opportunities for Māori to earn carbon credits from the growth of forestry.

Charles Chauvel: Is it correct that he has agreed to support an amendment from the Māori Party to insert a Treaty of Waitangi clause into the emissions trading scheme legislation after submissions on the bill have been heard by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, and, if it is, will that clause resemble the one proposed by the Māori Party during the emissions trading scheme debate last year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the agreement between the Government and the Māori Party it is the intention to support a Treaty of Waitangi clause for the legislation, to ensure that Māori interests are recognised on an ongoing basis as New Zealand develops its long-term policy around climate change. I am working constructively with the Māori Party on those amendments and getting advice from officials to ensure that the clause works effectively.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table the Supplementary Order Paper that was tabled by the Māori Party in the debate on the emissions trading scheme legislation last year.

Mr SPEAKER: That is obviously on the record of the House already. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hekia Parata: I runga i te tangi o te ngākau mō te tipuna kōkā kua haere, tēnā tātou te Whare.

[Greetings to us, the House, despite the grief within for the grand ancestress who has passed away.] Has the Minister read criticism of the Government’s policy of aligning the New Zealand emissions trading scheme more closely with Australia’s, on the basis that Australia’s is unlikely to progress?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, there has been fervent criticism of Government policy along those lines from the Opposition. I note that in recent days the Liberal and National Opposition parties of the Australian Parliament have proposed support for the Australian emissions trading scheme in the Senate, subject to a number of amendments. I also note that despite all the angst over progressing our amendments through the House by December in time for the Copenhagen conference, the Australian Government is intending to do the same as that, but is yet to introduce those amendments to its Parliament.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a statement by the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator the Hon Penny Wong, containing a summary of the changes put forward by the Liberal Opposition, and the critique by the Labor Government of those changes.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

John Boscawen: Does the Minister agree with the Federation of Māori Authorities chief executive officer, Mr Rino Tirikātene, who told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last Thursday that the Government’s emissions trading scheme will result in the biggest destruction of Māori wealth since the land confiscations; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not. The truth is that the emissions trading scheme that was put in place by the previous Government imposes liabilities on all forest owners, Māori or otherwise, in respect of deforestation. That is consistent with the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. The Government’s view is that there is a need to change those requirements. In the agreement that the Government has made with the Māori Party, we intend to push very strongly for changes in the Kyoto rules to get greater land-use flexibility, which is the principal concern of the Federation of Māori Authorities.

Metiria Turei: Did the Minister explain to the Māori Party, when he was negotiating support for this bill, that the Canadian-owned Methanex would get $85 million in subsidies each year for well over a decade, whereas iwi fishers and foresters would get subsidies for only 3 years?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will point something out to the member about the language of subsidies. What is actually occurring with an allocation is not— Metiria Turei: Is that a problem?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, the difficulty is that under the Kyoto Protocol, New Zealand gets an allocation of units. It would be true to say there was a subsidy if taxpayers were having to fund the purchase of units that the Government would then pass on. If that was the case, the member’s assertion would also be exactly true of the emissions trading scheme that she and her party voted for, because it too provided a free allocation for companies like Methanex.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has completely failed to answer the question. The question did not ask for a description of subsidies; it was a question— Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. I heard the member dispute whether the Minister answered the question. The Minister actually disagreed totally with the assertion in the member’s question. By doing that he answered the question, because he pointed that one of the statements the member included in her question was, in his view, not correct. That answers the question.

John Boscawen: Does the Minister agree with Mr Eru George, who is a director of Te Arawa Group Holdings, which owns central North Island forests, and who told the Finance and Expenditure Committee last Thursday that the new Government’s emissions trading scheme would

result in additional losses for Te Arawa of over $30 million greater than those under Labour’s scheme, bringing the total losses for Te Arawa to a figure in excess of $600 million; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I have not had a chance to study its submission to the select committee, but I would be surprised by that. The reason is that in terms of the forestry provisions, which are where the greatest change in land value arises from the emissions trading scheme, the amendments that the Government is making are very, very small. I also point out to the member that the alternative position to take is that there be no control on the deforestation of pre-1990 forests. If that is his party’s position, he needs to acknowledge that that would incur a very large cost to the taxpayer.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister proposing to hold hui around the country to discuss directly with Māori the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme and whether they are fair for those communities and industries, as the previous Government did with the last emissions trading scheme, or has all proper consultation been cut because of his rushed process?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The tight timetable is a consequence of the existing emissions trading scheme coming into effect on 1 January, which would impose very high costs on New Zealanders, with a 10 percent increase in power bills, and would put at risk as well the jobs of a large number of New Zealanders in the industries that would be affected. I also believe that it would be highly desirable for New Zealand to have our emissions trading legislation settled by the time of the Copenhagen conference, as is the case with Australia. I am surprised that the Green Party is so opposed to what I think is an important position in terms of New Zealand’s reputation.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister have sufficient support in the House to pass this deeply flawed bill through all its stages, despite the fact of its blatant discrimination against Māori?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I find the assertion made by the member very difficult, because the bill is more generous to Māori than the bill was that she voted for. So for her to claim— Hon Parekura Horomia: Rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, there is more generous compensation for the fishing industry and it is better in terms of the impacts on agriculture, which is why the iwi leadership group has lobbied the Government and the Māori Party very hard for their support for it. I say to the member Metiria Turei that the assertion she makes is grossly incorrect.

Crown Accounts—Year Ended 30 June 2009

3. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What did publication of the Crown’s accounts for the year to 30 June 2009 reveal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Crown accounts confirm that the Government’s financial position has deteriorated significantly in the past year. In the year ended 30 June 2009, there will be an operating deficit of $10.5 billion, and cash deficits over the next 4 years will average between $10 billion and $12 billion. We will have to borrow an average of $250 million per week every week for the next 4 years to deal with these cash deficits.

David Bennett: What impact will this sharp increase in debt have?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The sharp increase in debt is driven by the big increases in expenditure under the previous Government, and by a decrease in revenue because of the recession. The Government’s finance costs will more than double. Currently, about $2.5 billion a year is spent on servicing debt. Over the next 4 years that sum will rise to $5 billion—just to service the debt. That $2.5 billion represents more than what the Government currently spends on the police and corrections services in total.

Hon David Cunliffe: What does the Minister say to the hard-working New Zealanders who are seeing prices for gas, electricity, and food increase while their weekly wage has not moved at all?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those hard-working New Zealanders and a number of New Zealanders who have lost their jobs are paying the price for two things: one is the global recession and the other is 10 years of mismanagement under the previous Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: In respect of the Minister’s primary answer, can he confirm that at the start of the financial year in question—June 2008—New Zealand had zero net debt, half the gross debt it had in 1999, the world’s lowest unemployment rate, and 8 years of unstinting economic growth; and, in the words of Winston Churchill, will he stop telling lies about us before we— Mr SPEAKER: The member must withdraw that last part, because the implication was very clear that he was accusing the Minister of telling lies. He knows that he cannot do that. I ask him to withdraw that last part of the question from the record.

Hon David Cunliffe: I withdraw that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: At 30 June 2008 the New Zealand economy was in recession—before the rest of the globe. Government spending was growing at more than twice the rate of the economy, and, despite Labour’s protestations, we still had $35 billion worth of debt. Through those 10 years, the previous Government did not pay off any debt.

David Bennett: What progress was made in paying down Government debt over the past 10 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is pretty important that people understand what actually happened in the last 10 years. Gross sovereign debt at 31 December 2008 was $40 billion, which was $3 billion higher than when Labour took over in 1999. Along the way, of course, we had accumulated some fantastic assets, like KiwiRail.

David Bennett: Apart from the poor shape of the Crown’s finances, what other economic challenges did the Government inherit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There was, of course, a recession, which began in New Zealand at the beginning of 2008, well before it began in the rest of the world; an unexpected extra liability of $1 billion to be paid from the Government into the accident compensation earners account; an export sector that had been in recession for 5 years; and Government spending that was out of control.

Hon Jim Anderton: If things are so bad, having been disastrously handled by the previous Government, why did the Minister of Finance say on Radio New Zealand National that the reason New Zealand had come through the recession better than most countries was the good state of the Government accounts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The last 10 years were a tale of lost opportunity. Despite the fact that the previous Government had record surpluses, it did not pay off any debt. That is why this Government is spending $2.5 billion to service $35 billion worth of debt that the previous Government left behind.

Adult and Community Education—Response to Petitioners

4. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What does she say to the over 53,000 people who signed petitions seeking reinstatement of funding to night classes delivered through high schools and community groups about their future lack of access to secondchance education, including literacy and numeracy skills, resulting from her funding cuts?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education): Fifty-three thousand? That is about twice the number of people who know who Phil Goff is. The Government remains committed to adult and community education. That is why in these tough times we are investing $124 million in adult and community education over the next 4 years. But we have made the decision to prioritise some funding towards 2,000 places under the Youth Guarantee for the young people of New Zealand, who are the most affected by an economic recession.

Hon Maryan Street: Does she now—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. The House is being quite noisy. I accept there are issues that members feel strongly about, but when I call a member to ask a question, I ask that the interjections cease on both sides, please.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You equally call on Ministers to answer questions, but you do not seem to apply quite the same rigour to the way in which the Opposition members barrack during Ministers’ answers. It does not really bother us, because we watch the TV and we know— Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I think it does not take a lot of thought to realise that if an answer is provocative the Minister cannot expect the Speaker to prevent the other side of the House from responding. However, I accept that I have allowed a bit more noise than I usually do, and I apologise if that has caused a problem. I will try to tighten up on it a bit.

Hon Maryan Street: Does she now agree that if she cannot see the significance of 53,000 New Zealanders signing these petitions, and if she does not listen to their concerns and reverse the decision to cut funding to adult and community education courses, she will be failing communities all around New Zealand and failing as the Minister for Tertiary Education; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member asking the question has asked those questions in the House for months now, and the answer is the same. Providing second-chance opportunities for people in the community is a priority for this Government, which is why we are providing $124 million to adult and community education. But second-chance learning also occurs at universities, polytechs, wānanga, and private training enterprises. They all got an increase in funding in the Budget.

Allan Peachey: What were the drivers behind the decision to reprioritise adult and community education funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: One of the primary drivers was the $521 million of unfunded commitments that the member asking the primary question, as Associate Minister for Tertiary Education in the previous Government, left for the incoming Government to find. We had to find half a billion dollars worth of unfunded commitments out of the tertiary budget before we started.

Darien Fenton: Is she aware that there will be no adult and community education classes north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge in 2010; and what representations have her colleagues made to her about this?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: A number of people have raised a number of issues around the changes that we are making to adult and community education. In fact, I met with representatives of Wellington High School, including the Spanish teacher, who was concerned that his classes, taken by people who had since written to him from Chile and Bolivia saying how helpful the classes were, would not be able to continue. The taxpayers cannot continue to support the funding of such hobby courses. Literacy and numeracy are the focus for the $124 million of adult and community education funding that this Government is supporting.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague Darien Fenton asked a question about services in the area north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge, which most people refer to as Auckland. The Minister, in her reply, told us what a Wellington provider thought. She did not answer the question, which asked whether there would be services north of the Auckland Harbour Bridge.

Mr SPEAKER: If that was the only question asked, that would be fine. But I invite the member to listen to the supplementary questions being asked. The supplementary question asked what representations the Minister had received on the matter. In the Minister’s answer she talked about representations she had received on the matter. The example she gave later on did not relate to Northland, but she had already answered. She only needs to answer one part of a supplementary— Hon Trevor Mallard: Further to— Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat— Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, sorry, I thought you were dipping.

Mr SPEAKER: What is more, he will not argue with me.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member asked about representations. She asked about representations from colleagues. That question was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister answered the question. She said she had received a number of representations on the matter. I think that anyone would assume that she was talking about what the member had asked her about. We do not need to get as pedantic as that. As far as I am concerned, she answered the question.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Does she think it is acceptable that there will be no adult and community education classes in the whole of the West Coast - Tasman electorate?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Tertiary Education Commission has not yet finalised that matter. It is my understanding that the initial discussions have been held and it has not yet been finalised; that is coming in the near future.

Chris Hipkins: Does she think it is acceptable that no secondary schools in the Hutt Valley will even be applying for adult and community education night classes next year; and has she communicated the details of her funding cuts to National list MP Paul Quinn, who told a public meeting in Upper Hutt that those who claimed that the funding had been cut had their facts wrong?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government is investing $124 million in adult and community education. That does not have to be provided through schools; it can be provided through a variety of tertiary institutions. I say again that the final decisions have not been made and they will not be made until a few weeks from now.

Kelvin Davis: What will be the impact of reduced adult and community education provision on Māori, who frequently access these classes as a route back into formal education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a lot of myths about adult and community education. Māori will benefit from the new focus on literacy and numeracy; I am not quite sure how supporting classes in ukulele playing and tie-dying silk scarves will help many Māori back into formal education.

Carmel Sepuloni: What will be the impact of reduced adult and community education provision on Pacific Island parents who rely on these classes to equip them to understand what their children are learning at school, to improve and increase parenting skills, and to improve their English?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Again, I say that there are a lot of myths about adult and community education. Those parents will benefit from the focus on numeracy, literacy, and foundation skills; again, I am not sure that the taxpayer’s continuing to fund hobby courses on things like Moroccan cooking, ukulele playing, belly dancing, make-up, and how to better one’s relationships will do those parents any good at all.

Accident Compensation—Counselling

5. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for ACC: What evidence does he have that victims of sexual abuse suffer from clinical mental disorders; and why is he insisting that victims of sexual abuse will have to be diagnosed with a clinical mental disorder from the American Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, version four, before their claims for ACC-funded counselling are accepted?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): The law requires that Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) can only accept sensitive claims from those diagnosed with a mental injury.

This Government has made no changes, nor does it intend to make any changes in this regard. The changes that are raising controversy in this area arise from the implementation of new clinical guidelines based on comprehensive research from Massey University on the right care for sensitive claimants. I remain of the view that clinicians and not politicians should decide on appropriate treatments.

Rahui Katene: What was his response to the 200 protestors who marched on Parliament yesterday stating that the added stigma of a mental disorder would put off people seeking help; and

what support will be available for sexual abuse victims who will require counselling that is not related to clinical mental disorders?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would say to them, as I would say to all members of the House, that they should read the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act, which requires a mental injury to have occurred for there to be a valid claim. I quote section 27, which states: “Mental injury means a clinically significant behavioural, cognitive, or psychological dysfunction.”

[Interruption] Members opposite say that that is wrong; that is the law that stood in place for the entire time of the Act that they passed in 2001.

Lynne Pillay: What does the Minister say to the hundreds of counsellors who marched in the streets yesterday who say the new accident compensation guidelines are not best practice; is he saying that they are not qualified and are not expert?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, I can say, as the Minister, that this Government has made no decisions in respect of dealing with sensitive claims. The changes arise from a piece of work by Massey University that occurred under the previous Government. The decisions have been made by clinicians on the basis of what is thought to be the best standard of practice, and as a Minister I am very hesitant to overrule the decisions of skilled clinicians.

Rahui Katene: What response does he have to the situation described in today’s New Zealand Herald by an Auckland mother of three, who states that the psychiatric test set to be imposed on sexual abuse victims as a requirement for ACC support almost killed her?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the person referred to was actually assessed last year under the previous Government. This reinforces the fact that the legal test for a valid claim has not changed. I have confidence that psychiatrists can professionally do their assessments without putting people’s lives at risk. I stress again that we as politicians should leave clinical decisions to clinicians.

Accident Compensation—Proposed Increase in Motor Vehicle Levy

6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What is the proposed increase in ACC levy fees for a car and how much would it have been if the date for full funding of the motor vehicle account is not extended?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): The increase proposed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board for the average motor vehicle is $130.28, but with the Government’s amendments to the scheme, including pushing out the full funding date, that figure is reduced to an increase of $30. This is complicated by the fact that the levy may be imposed on the fuel or on the licence fee, that there are different models for extending the full funding date—and I note the differences between my own bill and the member’s, which make a difference—and by the fact that there is also a relativity adjustment for different types of vehicles.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the second day I have put this question down on notice. What the question seeks to do is to separate out the effect on levies of extending the date for full funding; that is all the question seeks to do. Again the Minister has not answered the question. He has not told us what is the consequence on fees of extending the date for full funding, and that is what the question asks.

Mr SPEAKER: I would dearly like to help the honourable member but I am at something of a loss, because I heard the Minister tell the House just now that under the status quo the increase would be, I think he said, $137 or something— Hon Dr NICK SMITH: $130.

Mr SPEAKER: —$130—and that with the extension proposed the figure comes down to $30. I do not see what it is the member is seeking to have me try to achieve. I realise that the member has a real interest in this question and that it is on notice, but it seems to me the Minister has answered.

He has given us two figures that depend on those two factors. If there is some aspect that is escaping my notice, the member has more supplementary questions to drill down into that.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table an extract from the briefing to incoming Minister, which shows that the extension of the full funding date to 2019 would be responsible for $83.70 of the lower increase.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that briefing to incoming Minister. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.

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

Hon David Parker: Why does the Minister not tell the Prime Minister that the majority of the lower increase in accident compensation registration and petrol levies is caused by the extension for full funding, because the Prime Minister, in answer to question No. 1 today, said that it was only a small part of the solution?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, the member is incorrect. It is true that a significant amount of the reduction in the motor vehicle account is from a full funding extension, and I have said that quite consistently. The thing that members opposite do not seem to understand is that there is actually no real saving collectively from pushing out the full funding date. The only thing we change is when we pay—that is, by pushing the full funding date out, we have lower levies in the short term but higher levies in the long term. The point this Government makes is that if we want real savings we have to make real savings. That is what the Government’s programme is about doing.

Michael Woodhouse: Why is it Government policy for the accident compensation scheme to be fully funded rather than to be a “pay as you go” scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The principle of full funding is that the accident compensation scheme should fund the full cost of accidents in the year in which they occur. The first reason for this policy is that it puts a proper focus on improving safety. If the costs are pushed out into the never-never, there will never be the same incentives for reducing accidents. The second reason concerns the incentives that apply to governance and scheme managers. It is easy to promise extra entitlements when another Government in the future has to do the paying. Full funding puts a better focus on the trade-offs between the entitlements and the actual cost to levy payers.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with John Key’s statement last week that an “honest conversation” is needed with New Zealanders about how to balance levies and the scope of cover; if so, how can it be honest for his Government to cut accident compensation scheme cover before that conversation takes place?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think it is important for us to have an open discussion about the tradeoffs for higher levies. What the Government and the country cannot have is the continuous argument from members opposite that we can have a whole lot of entitlements but nobody has to pay for them. That is irrational.

Michael Woodhouse: What changes is the Government proposing in response to the ministerial inquiry into the accident compensation scheme’s blow-outs, which concluded there was a breach by the previous Labour Government of the Public Finance Act in the 2008 Pre-election Fiscal Update over the finances of ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is making two important changes. First, new provisions in our amendment bill will require the tabling of an actual report into the accident compensation scheme’s financial situation. I note that actuaries back in 2006 expressed concern when the ACC board made some quite bold assertions about ongoing investment returns, but that never made it into the annual report that ACC tabled in Parliament. This change will ensure that that does not occur again. The second change we are making is around the timing of the budgetary process for the funding required for the non-earners account. We are shifting it to better fit into the overall budgetary process so that those errors are not repeated.

Hon David Parker: Why has the Government ignored Labour’s offer to vote to extend the date for full funding, which would take substantial pressure off levy increases while John Key’s “honest

conversation” took place; and does his decision to proceed with cuts in the accident compensation scheme’s cover and investigations of privatisation not show that this was the real agenda all along?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Again, I make the point that Labour cannot continue the myth of being able to continuously extend the accident compensation scheme without it costing anybody anything.

We do need to have a conversation about the extensions. I simply challenge the member to please explain why Labour made a whole lot of extensions to the scheme after ACC returned an annual report of a $2.4 billion loss. That requires an explanation.

Hon David Parker: How does the Minister reconcile his assurance last week that the legislative changes in his draft bill would provide a “one-off substantive fix”, and that “only tinkering” would be required in the future, with the secret plans leaked to the media in the weekend to charge claimants $100 per injury and the reduction of income compensation from 80 percent to 60 percent of earnings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is nothing secret. What happened was that the board and I asked ACC officials to explore savings options. Some of those savings options were accepted and included in the bill. Some of them were rejected. I think that is a perfectly rational process for a Government that is trying to fix very difficult financial problems within the accident compensation scheme.

Electoral System—Referenda

7. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: What progress has been made on the Government’s plan to hold a referendum on the electoral system as set out in National’s election policy?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Today I announced on behalf of the Government that a referendum will be held in conjunction with the 2011 general election. The referendum will ask two questions of voters: first, whether they wish to retain MMP, and, second, which of a list of options is their preferred alternative voting system. If the majority vote to retain MMP, no further referendum is required. If the majority vote for change, the Government commits to holding a second referendum at the time of the 2014 election that will ask voters to choose between MMP and the most preferred alternative system. If the majority vote for a new system in 2014, it will be in place in time for the 2017 general election. I thank all political parties for their initial constructive engagement on this issue.

Chester Borrows: What alternative systems will voters be asked to choose from in the 2011 referendum?

Hon SIMON POWER: To date, Cabinet has made decisions about only the timing, structure, and basic format of the referenda. The next series of decisions will focus on the question wording, including the alternative systems to be put up, as well as further decisions on rules for the referenda, and a public information process. Legislation will be introduced next year to enable the referenda to be held. It will provide the public with an opportunity to have a say on these issues through the select committee process.

Hon David Parker: Why is the Minister announcing a decision made by Cabinet a month ago today, and is it simply a generous attempt by the Minister to provide a distraction from the shambles surrounding his colleagues the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister for Accident Compensation?

Hon SIMON POWER: Because, until recently, the House was in adjournment, and I wanted to take the opportunity to meet with each political party’s representative, and that works better in a sitting week. The answer to the second question is no.

Aorangi School—Proposed Closure

8. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister of Education: What is her current reason for proposing to close Aorangi School?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): There are three reasons. The reasons for my decision have always been the cost of the rebuild; that it is a small school with a falling roll; and that there are four other schools within a radius of 1.5 kilometres.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why did the Minister tell the Press that Aorangi School had “pretty disappointing achievement results”, when that is not backed up by its Education Review Office report; and will she now publicly correct the impression that the school is failing its students, when she now knows that the students she was referring to were entering the school below the national average and achieving at or above the national average by the time they left?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said, the reasons for my decision have always been the cost of the rebuild, the fact that it is a small school with a falling roll, and the fact that there are four schools within 1.5 kilometres. During my discussion with the chairman of the board and the principal, I asked them why they had not talked about student achievement in their rather substantial submission to me. I say to the House that one of the difficulties that this Government is addressing with the national education standards is that there is no data on student achievement within the ministry, other than what the school cares to publish in its variance report; other than that, there is no information. But the school itself chose not to even mention student achievement in its submissions to me.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Did she read the report of the independent facilitator, who stated that if the Minister decided to continue with the rebuild, she would be “entirely in tune with the school, its community, and all the organisations and agencies who work with it”; if so, who is she in tune with in deciding to close the school, which is needed in that community?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat to that member that the reasons for my decision are the cost of the rebuild, the fact that it is a small school with a falling roll, and the fact that there are four other schools surrounding that school within 1.5 kilometres of it.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why did she request that the closure option be included in the ministry briefing paper dated 5 February this year, given that she had written to the board 10 days before that without even mentioning to it the possibility of closure?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That member will be aware—and if she is not, perhaps she could do a little homework—that around the closure of any school there is a process. When writing to the school 10 days earlier I could not have indicated any thoughts I had about what was going to happen with that school.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister misheard my question. I asked her why she had requested 10 days later that the closure option be included in a briefing paper.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat her question exactly, to make sure there is no misunderstanding.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Why did she request that the closure option be included in the ministry briefing paper dated 5 February, given that she had written to the board 10 days before that without even mentioning the possibility of closure?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am perfectly entitled to ask the ministry for advice.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the very extensive written submission from Aorangi School that the Minister referred to.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Trade Academies—Announcement

9. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about trades academies?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Last week I announced the names of five further trades academies that will join the already announced Southern Cross Campus trades academy. These five will open their doors in 2011. I also announced that a further six proposals will be developed with a view to establishing trades academies in the future.

Louise Upston: What types of proposals have been accepted in this round?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Trades academies are partnerships between schools, tertiary institutions, industry training organisations, and employers that will give students a head start in an industryrelated career. The successful proposals show that these organisations have met this Government’s drive for innovative thinking to get more of our young people engaged in learning. In some, the lead partner is a school, like Northland College. One school, Catlins Area School, will involve virtual learning environments. Other trades academies, such as the one in the electorate of the member who asked the question, involve a tertiary-led partnership between the Waikato Institute of Technology and Cambridge High School.

Louise Upston: How does her announcement last week compare with the commitments made by the Government previously?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government had previously committed to supporting five trades academies this term. The announcement last week that we will establish six academies including Southern Cross Campus, and look to establish a further six academies, shows that this Government does not just deliver on its promises; it over-delivers. We are committed to supporting different pathways to keep young New Zealanders engaged in learning.

Prime Minister—Statement

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement: “I certainly would describe my style as open and transparent.”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How much taxpayers’ money did Cabinet decide on yesterday to subsidise the bid for Rugby World Cup TV free-to-air rights?

Hon JOHN KEY: That number is actually unknown, on a number of grounds. Firstly, the International Rugby Board has not yet agreed to the bid, so we do not know the final analysis.

Secondly, there is still the unknown factor of how much the commercial rights can be sold down to, outside of the main broadcasting networks.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of his renewed commitment to openness and transparency, will he now confirm that the amount that Cabinet agreed it could go to could now exceed $5 million?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, the figure is less than that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of his renewed commitment to openness and transparency, renewed in his first answer, and given the fact that he says the figure is under $5 million, what is the maximum figure Cabinet agreed to?

Hon JOHN KEY: As I said in answer to an earlier question, I am unable to answer that at this time, for two reasons. One is that I simply do not know, because the final bid has not yet been approved by the International Rugby Board.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How do you know it’s under $5 million?

Hon JOHN KEY: The reason I know it is under $5 million is that it is considerably under $5 million at this point, and I cannot see it moving.

Methamphetamine, Government Action Plan—Police Feedback

11. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Police: Has she received any feedback from the police on the Government’s Action Plan on Methamphetamine?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes. The police have welcomed the Government’s Action Plan on Methamphetamine and will take full advantage of the increased enforcement and legislative powers that the plan provides.

Sandra Goudie: How will the Government’s action plan assist police in the fight against methamphetamine?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The new police Methamphetamine Control Strategy will assist police to break supply chains, reduce methamphetamine-related crime, and seize the profits and assets made through P dealing. The police will be cracking down on gangs through extra intelligence, working with the Customs Service, and targeting P cooks. All areas of policing will be targeting manufacturers and dealers of P, including road policing, general duties, the Criminal Investigation Branch, community constables, and Youth Aid.

Aid—Quality of Programmes

12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he accept the judgment of the report card released on 16 October 2009 by ActionAid that ranks New Zealand last out of 22 donor countries for the quality of its aid programme for hunger relief and sustainable agriculture; and what does he propose to do to improve New Zealand’s performance?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of

Foreign Affairs: No.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he intend to set a date for New Zealand to reach the aid target of 0.7 percent GNI to show that his Government will improve on our current miserly and inept performance—to paraphrase Kipling: last, loneliest, ugliest?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Those figures are always under review, but the fact of the matter remains that the report that the member refers to is flawed in a number of respects.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he concerned, given the flaws in the report, that the emphasis of his Government on economic growth in his aid policy will undermine the goals of poverty and hunger alleviation, in the Pacific Islands countries specifically, given New Zealand’s ranking of last for sustainable agriculture, second-to-last for social protection, and last for climate change?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

Phil Twyford: How will the Government’s policy to re-orient New Zealand’s aid to private sector development help reduce the rate at which women in Papua New Guinea die in childbirth, which is 23 times higher than the rate in New Zealand, given that the ActionAid report rates New Zealand as the lowest in the OECD on aid to social protection?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Unlike the Labour member, we do not believe that bureaucracy can be equated with aid.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table the report of ActionAid, which points out New Zealand’s miserable performance, so that the Government can explain in greater detail the flaws— Mr SPEAKER: The member should just seek leave to table the document and describe the document, not comment on it further. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill—Submissions

1. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure

Committee: When did submissions on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill close?

CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): Tuesday, 13 October 2009.

Charles Chauvel: Has he received any complaints about the short time-frame given for submissions and for the report back of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill?

CRAIG FOSS: Any correspondence to the committee chair remains the property of the committee and within committee while the item remains an open item of business of the committee.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although that might be correct, my understanding of the point of questions to members is that those details could be revealed to the House notwithstanding the fact that the committee’s business was proceeding.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a fair point the member raises about sorting out these kinds of issues, but, as I understand the Standing Orders, correspondence to a committee remains confidential to the committee until it reports back to the House. So I think the response from the chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee would be appropriate.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question was not confined to correspondence. It referred to any complaints, so anything verbal, anything by telephone, anything— Mr SPEAKER: It was a nice try, but I think the member must accept that the chair of the committee is at liberty to interpret the question in the way that he did, and I think that is fair enough.

Climate Change Response (Moderated Emission Trading) Amendment Bill—Submissions

2. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure

Committee: How many submissions were received by the committee on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill?

CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): Three hundred and seventy-two.

Charles Chauvel: Did he receive any requests for all submissions to be heard in one day; if so, whom did he receive the request from?

CRAIG FOSS: Again, I say all correspondence received by the committee is part of the committee while that is an open item of business in the committee.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a slightly different point of order from the one that I raised last time. I did not confine my question to members of the public making requests of the member. I asked: “Did he receive any requests for all submissions to be heard in one day; if so, whom did he receive the request from?”. It is an important question.

Mr SPEAKER: Again, I say that as I understand the Standing Orders, if there was an exchange going on within the committee, or in other words if the member is alluding to the possibility that a member of the committee was involved—if it was not a member of the public, I presume the other possibilities are that the member is referring to a member of the committee or to another member of this House—and if the committee has been written to, then the chair’s response is appropriate. If the matter is internal to the committee, then he is not a liberty to divulge that to the House yet.

Charles Chauvel: Just by way of clarification of your ruling, does that imply that once the committee has reported to the House it would be perfectly in order to ask this question again?

Mr SPEAKER: As I understand the situation, the business would no longer be before the select committee. I am sure it will not be difficult for the member to think up all sorts of ways of reporting what went on at the committee himself in debates following the report back of the bill.

Charles Chauvel: The difficult that I have, and I am genuinely trying to seek your assistance on a way forward, is that if I cannot get an answer from the member as to whether anybody, be that person someone who is external to the committee—a member of the public—or a member of this House, has communicated with him about committee business while the committee is deliberating or has a matter before it, and if I cannot ask him about that once the committee has reported because it is functus officio, then the House may not know the answer to a very important question.

Mr SPEAKER: As I understand the situation, the House will have plenty of opportunity to know what went at the committee when the House debates the matter. There will be plenty of opportunity for debate about what went on at the committee at that point, but the questions that can

possibly be asked of the chairs of committees are very restricted. I think the member will accept that he has set himself a significant challenge in relation to finding supplementary questions to the particular questions that he has put down today. They are very restricted, and I think the chair of the committee has answered that supplementary question appropriately. I advise the member to go on to question to member No. 3.

Climate Change Response (Moderated Emission Trading) Amendment Bill—Submissions

3. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure

Committee: How—
Sandra Goudie: You should know better. Read your Standing Orders.

CHARLES CHAUVEL: I thank Ms Goudie for that procedural advice. How many submitters requested to appear before the committee to speak to their submissions on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill?

CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): One hundred and eighty-four.

Charles Chauvel: Did the chairperson receive any requests that only 27 submissions be heard on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill, as was his position at the outset of the opening of hearings; if so, who did he receive this request from?

Mr SPEAKER: I imagine that if I call Craig Foss to answer that question, we will get the same answer. I will leave it with the chair of the committee.

CRAIG FOSS: The hearing of submissions is a matter for the committee. Whether submissions are heard and how they are heard is determined by decision of the committee. Hearings of evidence on the bill are being booked in accordance with decisions of the committee. I thank the member for his assistance as a member of that committee.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That supplementary question may be unlike the other supplementary questions in that it was very specific. It went to a comment that the chair made at the opening of the hearing of submissions. The chair made that comment when the committee was open, and the question refers to the very matter on which my colleague asked the primary question. Therefore I submit to you that that takes it into another category, one where there is a requirement to make a genuine attempt to answer.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the rules around questions to members are quite tight. The chairperson of the select committee quite rightly pointed out that the number of people who were heard by way of submission was a matter for the committee to determine. We can assume only that the committee made a determination. If we were to have questions in the House that just went around the table asking what each member of the committee thought was a satisfactory number or otherwise, that would be of no relevance to the House. What is of relevance is that the bill is reported back to the House with a report and an understanding that the committee was satisfied, at least in majority, that enough people were heard on the bill.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think the important point is that the member had said in open committee that there was a request to hear only 27 submitters. The question was a pretty simple one around who made that request of him. It was not something private. The fact that 27 was the number suggested is now out there. It has been out there in a public session. Therefore my submission is that it is not protected as the previous ones have been.

Mr SPEAKER: On this matter it seems pretty clear to me that the answer provided by the chair of the committee is exactly right. The matters in respect of those who will be heard by the committee are decisions for the committee; they are not matters that the chair can be questioned on.

The chair can answer in this House only as authorised by the committee, or in respect of the kinds of details that the chair has already given in response to the questions. I really think the House should move on to question to members No. 4.

Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill—Submissions

4. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure

Committee: When did the committee begin hearing oral submissions on the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill?

CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): The Finance and Expenditure Committee began hearing evidence on the bill on Thursday, 15 October 2009, at 4 p.m.

Charles Chauvel: How much advance notice of the invitation to appear before the committee was given to submitters who appeared before the committee on Thursday, 15 October?

CRAIG FOSS: Submitters were arranged in accordance with the committee’s decisions that week about hearing evidence. Submitters were advised in the letters acknowledging their submissions, in the advertisements calling for submissions, and in the guidance on making submissions that they may be asked to appear at short notice if they wished to be heard.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank the chairperson for the information he has provided, but I asked “How much advance notice of the invitation to appear before the committee was given to submitters who appeared before the committee …”. I would certainly be obliged if you would ask him to address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The chair of the committee may not have answered in the words that the member was looking to have the chair answer in, but the Speaker cannot guarantee the wording of answer. The chair made it very clear that at a certain point, as the member will be aware, a decision was made as to which people would be heard, and they were advised. Apparently, that is the way the committee operated. It is pretty obvious, therefore, how much notice people received. Just because the chair did not say “x number of days”, I cannot force him to give the specific answer that the member wanted to hear. He certainly heard from the chair an answer that will enable him to determine the length of the warning people received.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a member of that committee, I wish to first verify the point that two of my colleagues have made that the matters referred to were discussed in a public session as well as in a closed session of the select committee. That is the first point.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It’s not a point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: The second point is that— Mr SPEAKER: The member who is interjecting should not be interjecting, but it is my fault, perhaps, that he is. This is not a matter to do with the order of the House right now, at all, and, therefore, it should not be raised in that way. I blame myself for that disruption.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a new point of order. This point of order simply reflects the fact that I was not allowed to finish the previous point of order, and a request to you— Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He has established exactly why I am not hearing any more on the matter. Points of order should be made very clear from the outset. The member’s preamble was nothing to do with the order of the House, and, therefore, it caused interjection. As far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter, because I have dealt with the previous issue in any case. There is no further matter to be dealt with.

ENDS

© Scoop Media