(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 19 NOVEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Alcohol Abuse—Effect on Productivity

1. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Associate Minister of Health: What value of productivity is lost to the economy as a result of the misuse of alcohol, and what strategies does the Government have to address this issue?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Associate Minister of Health): A recent report commissioned by the Ministry of Health and the Accident Compensation Corporation estimated that the cost of lost output from alcohol misuse in 2005-06 was $1.764 billion. Although this figure has been challenged by others, the 2007 survey of alcohol use in New Zealand showed that over 3.2 percent of adults—that is, 84,400 people—reported having experienced the harmful effects of alcohol on their work, study, or employment in the previous 12 months. A further 11.2 percent—or 251,900 people—reported working while feeling under the influence of alcohol during that same time. The Government strategies are set out in the National Drug Policy 2007-12. In addition, the Government has requested the Law Commission to complete a comprehensive review of our liquor legislation, with the report back due in March 2010.

Rahui Katene: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand Drug Foundation that more alcohol-related deaths were prevented in terms of non-Māori than Māori relative to the size of their populations, and how will the Government address this evident inequity?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am certainly aware that, amongst those who drink, Māori are significantly likely or more likely to have potentially hazardous drinking patterns, compared with the total population. There are three or four broad strategies in place to deal with that. The Whānau Ora programme is a particular Ministry of Health priority addressed at removing inequalities. The community action, youth, and drugs projects come into this area, as well. I know that the Alcohol Advisory Council—ALAC—currently has a 3-year action plan for Māori. Similarly, work is being done through the inter-agency group working on the drivers of crime.

Rahui Katene: What strategies are being introduced to address the promulgation of new products, such as alcopops and ready-to-drinks—RTDs— aimed at a younger public?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The Law Commission review has identified that there could well be an issue around various types of alcohol now becoming available. It sought feedback and submissions on those issues. I am given to understand that around 2,500 submissions have already been received, and I imagine that the issue of ready-to-drinks will feature significantly among them. As I said earlier, the Government will be receiving a final report from the Law Commission next March and will be making decisions based upon it.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Can the Minister explain why the Government is holding back the passage of the Sale and Supply of Liquor and Liquor Enforcement Bill, in light of the guilty plea to

manslaughter last week of an individual aged 19 who did not have a full driver’s licence, who would have been prohibited from driving with any alcohol in his blood if that law had been passed?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I am not going to comment on a particular court case. But there are a number of measures floating around at the moment that are being held back pending the work of the Law Commission, and the development of a comprehensive response once the Law Commission’s final report and recommendations have been received.

Unemployment—Effect on Youth of Government Policies

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social

Development and Employment: Does she believe that the Government’s package to address unemployment has done enough to give youth a firm footing in the labour market?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, but we can always do more.

Hon Annette King: Assuming she has read the report prepared for the OECD conference she attended in Paris recently, does she agree with its assessment that New Zealand has a group of youth who are being left behind, are at high risk of social exclusion, and are becoming a lost generation; or is Fran O’Sullivan, writing in the New Zealand Herald yesterday, correct when she said Ms “Bennett was too busy puffing her own achievements to pay much heed to the OECD’s warning.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we have seen for the first time in 2 years is 2 months of the number of those on the unemployment benefit going down for young people. I think that that is a positive achievement.

Hon Annette King: Does she really believe that her package of measures for unemployed young New Zealanders, which leaves 45,800 of them without any help or hope, is an adequate response to the rising tide of youth unemployment? Nine thousand of them will remain jobless long after the recession is over, and is this the reason that serious commentators are now saying we are likely to have a lost generation?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is clearly focused on young people, getting them into work and further training wherever possible. We have already had 4,000 young people with opportunities through Community Max and Job Ops, and we have a lot more to go. The member quotes the household labour force survey, which, of course, is a definition of those aged 15 or over who would like to have an hour a week’s work or more. For example, it includes a young person at school who would like to have a paper run.

Todd McClay: Can the Minister give examples of regions where there has been a particular turn-round in youth unemployment figures?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. In Canterbury 114 more young people have come off the unemployment benefit and into jobs than those who signed on in August. It is projects like Ngāi Tahu’s workforce, which is employing 16 young Māori men who are restoring a historic wāhi tapu site.

Hon Annette King: When will she announce the Government’s package of support for school leavers and tertiary students, something that she promised would be available by now; and is she aware that while she has dithered, 160,000 students have registered with Student Job Search, up by 60,000 on last year, and only 5,000 have found employment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I am aware of is that for 2 years—and, in fact, for three consecutive quarters—under the previous Government, unemployment went up for young people, and nothing was done to help them. Yes, we have around 160,000 students who have registered with Student Job Search—at 27 October—and it is doing a good job in trying to turn them into work. I certainly make a call out to employers and individuals that now is the time to step up and get jobs for students.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked, when will she announce the Government’s package of support for school leavers and tertiary students that she promised would be available by now; and is she aware of that number of students? The question is, when will she release the package? She did a whole rant about the previous Government, then talked about the 160,000. She did not address the primary part of the question. It was not two questions; it was one question—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need help on it. I say to the learned member that had she stopped her question at that point, undoubtedly I would have asked the Minister to answer it. But she went on to ask whether the Minister was aware of something. The Minister responded to that part of the question, and that is perfectly within the Standing Orders. The remedy was in the member’s own hands. If she had stopped the question at that point, I would have asked the Minister to answer it.

Hon Annette King: When will she announce the Government’s package of support for school leavers and tertiary students, which she promised would be available by now?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I made no such promise. There is no big package coming. But watch this space and you will see announcements on jobs for students.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she asked the Minister of Education to lift the cap on enrolments in tertiary education in order to give young people who cannot find work the chance to upskill, particularly given that the Department of Labour recently reported that the recession is likely to lead to a further increase in demand, with more youth returning to study or studying longer?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she investigated the UK initiative mentioned by Fran O’Sullivan on tackling youth unemployment, which Labour submitted to her 5 months ago, along with a dozen other ideas, after we hosted the Youth Jobs Summit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Nothing was done on youth unemployment for 9 long years. Now we are seeing action, and the Opposition has decided to send over a proposal.

Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked quite a straightforward question about whether the Minister had investigated an initiative that we submitted to her, and she did not answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I must confess that I could not hear the Minister’s answer at all. As I cannot rule on the matter, having not heard it, I think probably the best way to deal with the problem is to invite the member to ask her question again, without the loss of a supplementary question. But I ask members to make sure that I can hear the answer by not interjecting so much.

Jacinda Ardern: Has she investigated the UK initiative mentioned by Fran O’Sullivan on tackling youth unemployment that Labour submitted to her 5 months ago, along with a dozen other ideas, after we hosted the Youth Jobs Summit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is looking at a number of initiatives. What we are not doing is just talking about it in a load of rhetoric. We are actually taking action, which I know is hard for the Opposition to handle.

Economy—Reports

3. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy in National’s first year in Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The reports on economic management have been overwhelmingly positive when people contrast the current Government’s management with that of the previous Government. Some people have said that through the recession we should slash and burn services and Government spending, while others have said that we should go on a massive debt-fuelled spend-up. In the end, the Government has opted for a balanced policy that protects people in the short term from the sharp edges of recession and lays the foundation for increased economic growth and more jobs on the road to recovery.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What measures did the Government take to support the economy through the recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a wide range of initiatives, but the main ones were the 1 April tax cuts, which kept shop doors open by putting an extra $1 billion a year into the pockets of 1.5 million workers; billions of dollars of extra investment in productive infrastructure; a $500 million tax assistance package for small businesses; a $320 million campaign to insulate 180,000 houses; and 17,000 extra job and training opportunities for young people as part of the Youth Opportunities package.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What other measures has the Government taken in its first year to strengthen the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The thing that will make the most difference to New Zealand and New Zealanders is the creation of new jobs. The Government is focusing very strongly on creating an environment that gives business the confidence to invest and create new jobs, in contrast to the previous Government, which focused very much on the Government providing all the new jobs.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What alternative approaches to managing the economy has the Minister seen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a particularly bizarre statement from the Leader of the Opposition today. He said that he wants to pull out of 20 years of consensus on the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act, but he has no idea what he wants to put in its place.

Economic Policy—Prime Minister’s Views

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s views on economic policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s views of his Treasury’s estimates that the fiscal costs of the Government’s emissions trading scheme is $110 billion, or 14 to 17 percent of GDP, dismissing it as nonsense; if so, if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, because it is.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm that the assumptions underlying his Treasury’s $110 billion estimate are, in fact, quite reasonable given that the $50 per tonne carbon price is in line with that used in Australia, is half the cost that Nick Smith used when criticising his opponents, and is Treasury’s mid-range scenario?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, that Treasury has trouble predicting what will happen by Christmas let alone what will happen by 2050. It made a guess on the basis of a range of highly contestable assumptions.

Hon David Cunliffe: If that is the case, how does he then reconcile his statement that Treasury’s projections and the long-term fiscal outlook “highlights the stark choices New Zealand faces if it is to avoid an explosion of public debt”, and how does he wear that with the Prime Minister’s dismissal of Treasury’s long-term forecasting?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury did some long-term fiscal forecasts based largely on the policy settings left behind by the reckless previous Labour Government, which managed this economy incompetently and missed the opportunity of a generation to step up economic performance.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister does not consider his department’s advice on the fiscal impacts of the emissions trading scheme to be reliable, what, then, is the advice—which is the Government is relying on—that underlies the figure of $3,000 by 2030, which Mr Key gave Federated Farmers yesterday; and does it do better than the advice that the regulatory impact assessment unit criticised as being too flimsy to support the bill before Parliament?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This Government has the capacity to make its own distinctions between good advice and bad advice. Advice we disagree with is bad advice; advice we agree with is good advice.

Child Abuse and Neglect—Prevention Initiatives

5. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What work is currently under way to address New Zealand’s high rates of child abuse and neglect?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): This Government is serious about reducing rates of child abuse and neglect. We have a number of initiatives under way to address this issue. We are making policy changes to ensure multi-agency involvement in identifying children who are at risk. Getting consistent reporting and data across all Government agencies would be a start. Next month we will be focusing on the “Never, ever shake a baby” campaign, and we are very excited about the Whānau Ora development.

Hekia Parata: What further work will she be undertaking in this area?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Like we have seen in the news stories this morning about 7-monthold Star Anise Waru, we are all failing our kids at some level. New cases of child abuse are bad enough, but when we see over 1,800 children abused again within 6 months, we have to do something about it. Yesterday the Opposition indicated that it was sick of hearing about this issue, but while New Zealanders keep beating and killing our babies, this Government will keep talking about it.

Dr Rajen Prasad: Has she seen the comments from the chief social worker, Dr Marie Connolly, who was recently appointed as honorary professor at the University of Auckland, that developments in child welfare in New Zealand still place us at the forefront of innovation, that other countries look to New Zealand and see our legislation as progressive, and that new systems developed here create opportunities for families and children to be effectively connected to services; if so, how can she substantiate her claim that Labour did nothing for children when it was in Government?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I most certainly have seen that research. Let us get this right: there is a lot of stuff we really do well. There is the family group conference system and the way that works. I make no apologies for saying that we are not getting it right for all of those children. It is as simple as that. It does not mean that we will not challenge ourselves to do it better and look at best practice and how we move forward.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think I heard in the Minister’s answer that yesterday Labour members were saying they were sick of hearing about child abuse. I take exception to that, because it is not true.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Mr Speaker, you can look back at the transcript from yesterday. When I was talking about child abuse and neglect, words were reported from Opposition members yelling out at the time that indicated that they did not see the situation as serious.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot really deal with this matter in any particular way, because it is not a matter where the member can justifiably take personal offence. In the past we have allowed members to believe that personal offence has been taken and to ask a Minister to withdraw something. This comment is what would be seen more as a contestable comment, I would say, rather—

Hon Annette King: A despicable comment!

Mr SPEAKER: The member should not interject while I am on my feet. I do not believe I can take this matter further. There are opportunities for further questions to question the Minister on why she made that comment, but I cannot rule on it under a point of order.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order is about the provisions in the Standing Orders that it is unparliamentary to accuse a political party of anything one could not accuse an individual member of. So any reference to a member that would be considered unparliamentary equally applies if it refers to an entire party. You have ruled on a number of occasions your desire to lift the tone of the House. I think on sensitive issues like this where every member of Parliament has exactly the same view—they want to stop this practice; everyone shares that view—to try to put that projection on to one political party causes offence and leads to disorder. The deputy leader of the Labour Party has raised that issue by saying she takes

offence, as all Labour members do, just as National members would have if we had said something like that about them, which we have not done in this case.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: We do not need to take further time on this matter. I have already ruled that I considered that this was more a matter of a contestable comment. I fear that if we get too sensitive about all these things, all manner of stuff will get ruled out. I think if the members are concerned about this issue, when this kind of question comes up they should make sure that they do not interject, so that there is less chance for other members of the House to misinterpret the interjections. That often leads to this kind of situation. It was obviously interjections yesterday that caused the Minister to arrive at this conclusion, and I cannot help that. The remedy is partly in the members’ own hands.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without challenging your ruling, I seek your advice. I could be wrong, but as I understand it, when a comment is made in the House and a member takes offence to that comment, it is not for the Chair, with respect, to judge the gravity or the level of that offence. Offence has been taken. I would have thought that very few things could be more offensive than the suggestion that someone is somehow tacitly or otherwise supporting child abuse or being inactive in its opposition. The deputy leader of the Labour Party has taken personal offence to that. My understanding is that if offence is taken, you are duty bound to call on the person to withdraw and apologise.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need to hear further on this matter. If the member thought about what he has put to me under a point of order—and I do not intend taking this matter any further—he would quickly see that members could take offence to anything. If the Speaker did not exercise some discretion on this matter, nothing could be said in this House without someone taking offence to it. Members have to be sensible and reasonable about these matters. As I said, the remedy is in members’ hands. When sensitive matters are handled by way of question, then interjections should be much more careful, otherwise impressions can be given like the one the Minister got yesterday. That is the end of the matter. I am not taking this matter any further.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I warn the honourable member that I have ruled on the matter. There is nothing further to be dealt with.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will actually support your ruling, because— [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: As I understand it, you have said—and, with respect, I would like some clarification—that members can take offence to any matter. Is the Standing Order now that you are to be the judge as to whether the offence taken has veracity or is credible? Is it the new position that in the House you shall judge that? That is what I am asking. Or are we to revert to tradition in cases where members take offence? I would have not thought that anything could have been more offensive than what has transpired here today—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I invite the member to reflect on what he has said. He has been in this House for some years and it has always been the case that the Speaker makes judgments all the time about the seriousness of issues. The honourable member may recollect that yesterday his leader took offence over something that other members of the House did not think was particularly offensive in the way it was said. I supported the Leader of the Opposition because I believed he had some justification in feeling personally offended.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Racism is in; child abuse is out.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is testing my patience very, very severely, and I warn him to be careful.

Health Sector, Minister’s Expectations—Ability to Deliver

6. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Is he confident the health sector can deliver on his expectations?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Despite the fact that the previous Labour Government left the new National Government with around $160 million of unfunded services and quietly stripped $150 million out of Vote Health before the last election, yes, but it may take a little longer.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member Ruth Dyson put down a question on notice for the Minister to consider. The point I make is that the Minister gave a little speech before he got on to the substance of the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard and it should be heard in silence. I say to the Hon Darren Hughes on a matter like this to reflect on the substantive question asked. I accept what he says—that it is a question on notice—but it is seeking an opinion. It asks: “Is he confident the health sector can deliver on his expectations?”. The Minister’s confidence is obviously being a bit qualified by some matters he mentioned in his answer, and that is the kind of answer members will get if they ask this kind of question. There are always slight dangers around seeking opinions when questions are asked.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will he change his expectations of the health sector given the huge cuts in health funding, as reported on the front page of the New Zealand Herald today?

Hon TONY RYALL: There will be no cuts to the health budget. There will be more money in Vote Health next year, in the vicinity of hundreds of millions of dollars.

Kevin Hague: What is his response to the group of senior representatives of the health sector, OraTaiao, who brought their message to the steps of Parliament today, saying that runaway climate change is the most serious health issue this century?

Hon TONY RYALL: Climate change is an issue that needs to be taken very seriously, and I am advised that the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, met with those doctors this afternoon.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will he change his expectation of the health sector, given the huge costshifting currently occurring between accident compensation and health, combined with the cuts in health funding that were reported for next year?

Hon TONY RYALL: I want to be quite clear about the premise of the member’s question. There are no cuts to the health budget, and there will be more money in health next year. I have also received an assurance from the chairman of the Auckland District Health Board, one Mr Pat Snedden, who said that any savings made within the Auckland District Health Board will be ploughed back into front-line health services.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What progress is the Government making on its current expectations and priorities in the public health service?

Hon TONY RYALL: On Monday the Government will be publishing its priorities and the performance of the public health service against the priorities that the new Government has labelled. This is the first time that we are publishing for the public what is happening with front-line health services, and they will see more elective surgery, faster emergency departments, and better cancer treatment for New Zealanders. That is what they wanted and that is what they are getting.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is he saying that senior doctors are wrong when they say that his health system will be devastating for patients, will compromise patients’ access to hospitals, will compromise quality and safety, and will end up costing more because of chronic illness and emergency admissions?

Hon TONY RYALL: Of course it would be devastating if the public health service vote were to be cut by the levels that are being talked about. The member needs to know that this Government has significantly increased the health budget this year and there will be further increases in the health budget next year. The difference between this Government and the previous Government is

that the previous Government doubled the health budget, and New Zealanders got less for their health service. They are getting more under a National-led Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How many doctors and nurses will pack their bags and leave our country when they learn that none of his predicted savings in health will be redirected to recruitment and retention, as confirmed by his officials at the Health Committee yesterday, that they will be getting more unfunded patients turfed off the books by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), and that those doctors and nurses can expect a zero wage increase offer next year as health community support workers are getting right now?

Hon TONY RYALL: The difficulty I have is actually being able to prove whether the comments the member has made are accurate, because I saw a press release yesterday where she sought to represent comments made by the director-general about ACC and advice that I had sought, which members of the select committee did not hear the director-general say, and the director-general says he did not say.

Kevin Hague: Has he discussed with his colleague the Minister for Climate Change Issues, and conveyed to the Prime Minister, the views of a large section of the health sector that the current proposed amendments to the emissions trading scheme will be bad for the health of New Zealanders, squandering scarce public funds on subsidies to polluters instead of providing essential health services?

Hon TONY RYALL: I can say that I have numerous conversations with my bench mate the Minister for Climate Change Issues, and I must say that many people in the health sector are of the view that he is doing an excellent job for the people of New Zealand.

Kevin Hague: I seek leave of the House to table five documents. Four are papers published in the New Zealand Medical Journal. The first is from 30 October, and it is “New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme and health: wasting our opportunities”.

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.

Kevin Hague: The second is also from the New Zealand Medical Journal of 30 October: “Sign On—prescribing for climate health”.

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.

Kevin Hague: The third is from the New Zealand Medical Journal of 9 October: “Why New Zealand must rapidly halve its greenhouse gas emissions”.

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.

Kevin Hague: The fourth is from the New Zealand Medical Journal of 9 October and it is “Climate change: the health consequences of inactivity”.

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

Kevin Hague: The fifth document is a report from the World Health Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme from 2003 entitled Climate Change and Human Health: Risks and Responses.

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.

Broadband —Private Investment Partners

7. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister for Communications and Information

Technology: How many private partners have indicated their interest in participating in the Government’s $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband investment initiative?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I am pleased to report to the House that a total of 43 groups have expressed an interest, including several significant international players and a strong selection of local companies. It shows a strong interest from the private sector to partner with the Government. The right partners will share in the Government’s vision of the transformative ability of ultra-fast broadband. They will have the credibility to step up and deliver this critical piece of infrastructure in a cost-effective manner.

Dr Jackie Blue: What is the next step for the private partners?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Interested bidders have until 29 January next year to put their best foot forward and lodge full proposals. These will be assessed by the Crown Fibre Holdings board, who are responsible for managing the Government’s investment in local fibre companies to achieve the 75 percent ultra-fast broadband target as quickly and efficiently as possible. We expect most geographic areas to be covered, but those that are not will be subject to further tender rounds at a future date when commercial interest increases.

Clare Curran: Has the Minister got a mechanism to protect local investment in fibre networks by community-owned groups, especially in rural and provincial areas that have been frustrated by underinvestment by the incumbents; if so, what?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure what the member means by a means to protect those companies that make those investments. Certainly, we will be seeking partnerships from companies of all sizes, not just in the urban broadband initiative but in the rural broadband initiative as well.

Food Pricing—Consumer New Zealand Statement

8. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: Does she agree with Consumer New Zealand Chief Executive Sue Chetwin that all consumers can do about rising food prices is “shop around”?

Hon HEATHER ROY (Minister of Consumer Affairs): That was certainly sound advice. I would always advise consumers to shop around to find the best prices and to take advantage of specials and sales when buying food or other consumer goods; many people already do. There are a large number of television and newspaper advertisements, flyers in mail boxes, and email alerts competing for shoppers’ attention, and that makes it easier for consumers to determine where they are most likely to get the best value for money.

Carol Beaumont: Has the Minister taken any action to correct the misinformation she promoted last week that the steeply rising food prices in New Zealand were due to increases in the price of fruit and vegetables—comments labelled as extremely unhelpful and ill-advised by Horticulture New Zealand?

Hon HEATHER ROY: The comment I made last week was in fact that part of the increase in food prices was due to increases in the price of fresh fruit and vegetables. I gave a number of other reasons, and I stand by that statement.

Carol Beaumont: Is she aware that only 1 percent to 1.5 percent of food sold in supermarkets is organic; if so, does she still think that buying organics has led to the 42.5 percent increase in food prices since 2000?

Hon HEATHER ROY: The member has just reiterated the point I made in my last answer— only one of the reasons for the increase was fresh fruit and vegetables. Organics, as part of the bundle of foods, does, in fact, contribute to the prices when the food price index is investigated. Food prices fluctuate widely for a large number of reasons. One of those reasons is fuel. When fuel prices are higher it costs much more to get food to markets. That is one of the reasons. Another is seasonal variation. The member knows well that those two things contribute significantly.

Carol Beaumont: Does she still intend to take no action in response to steeply rising food prices, or will she and her colleagues finally take steps to investigate the pricing policies of the two supermarket chains that control the overwhelming share of the food retailing market?

Hon HEATHER ROY: The National - ACT Government has lit a bonfire under regulation and red tape, which will contribute. We are in the process of reducing employer compliance costs to create an environment that further fosters increased competition for the benefit of consumers. The member might like to note that the period of price increases she referred to covered the last decade and that 9 of those years were under a Labour-led Government.

Dalai Lama—Meetings with Ministers

9. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Is it Government policy that no Minister will officially meet with the Dalai Lama when he visits next month; if so, why?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): No.

Keith Locke: What advice did the Minister or his ministry provide to the Prime Minister regarding the implications for New Zealand’s relationship with China should the Prime Minister or members of his Government meet with the Dalai Lama?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, he did discuss this matter with me. He sought some advice as to what other nations’ leaders were doing in similar situations, and he also sought some advice as to foreign policy consequences that would follow from decisions that he might make. I would be happy to discuss those in more detail with the member, if he wishes.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think the Minister, in his reply, mentioned any specific implications. His reply was very general, and perhaps he could give at least—

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister did answer the question. The member has further supplementary questions in which to dig down further. The Minister may be constrained by the public interest, but that will be his decision.

Keith Locke: In relation to his answer to my primary question, which Ministers will be meeting with the Dalai Lama, or will be allowed to meet with the Dalai Lama, when he visits New Zealand in December?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, he has made it clear that he has no need to meet with the Dalai Lama on the occasion on this visit. The Prime Minister has advised other Ministers of the decision that he has made, and, as the Prime Minister indicated yesterday, his understanding is that no other Ministers currently plan to meet the Dalai Lama.

Keith Locke: Would the Minister of Foreign Affairs be quite pleased or happy if one of the Ministers in the Government did decide to meet with the Dalai Lama when he is in New Zealand, because how can we expect China to meet the Dalai Lama and negotiate a solution to Tibetan issues unless our Government sets an example and its Ministers, or one of its Ministers at least, meets with the Dalai Lama?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: As I indicated in relation to the earlier question, the Prime Minister has made the decision that he personally sees no need for him to meet the Dalai Lama on the occasion of this visit. He has conveyed that information to Ministers and, as he indicated yesterday, it is his understanding that no Ministers currently intend to meet the Dalai Lama in the course of this visit. The Prime Minister has also indicated that he has met the Dalai Lama in the past and may choose to do so on the occasion of a future visit.

Keith Locke: How does the Minister explain the fact that last December the Prime Minister said, very clearly, to a questioner that he would meet the Dalai Lama when he visited this year, and now he has decided that he will not? Surely, in response to the Minister’s last answer, the plight of the Tibetan people has not improved, so that somehow our Prime Minister can take the pressure off by

not meeting the Dalai Lama and talking about Tibetan matters and how the Chinese Government must match up?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Prime Minister, I understand in the past, as Leader of the Opposition, did refer to his preparedness on some future occasion to meet with the Dalai Lama, and yesterday the Prime Minister repeated that decision—that perhaps on some future occasion he might meet with the Dalai Lama on the occasion of a visit to New Zealand. Many factors contribute to the making of decisions about the priorities attached to the Prime Minister’s diary, and occasionally, of course, the Prime Minister exercises his own judgment about those priorities. He does not necessarily feel the need to explain those priorities to his Ministers or his officials. I can simply convey that outcome to the member and to the House.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table three documents. The first two are Amnesty International documents. The first one is dated 6 March 2009, is on Tibetan issues, and is headed: “A year of escalating human rights violations”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Keith Locke: The second Amnesty International document is dated 6 November 2009, and is headed: “Two Tibetan men executed” for their role in protests last year.

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.

Keith Locke: The third document is by Human Rights Watch, and is headed: “China: Ensure fair trial for Tibetan filmmaker”, who has been arrested and tortured for inciting separatism.

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.

Job Ops and Community Max Schemes—Progress

10. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister for Social Development

and Employment: What progress has there been for the Job Ops and Community Max programmes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am delighted to say that over 4,000 places have been created since the Job Ops and Community Max schemes began in August—that is, 4,000 already. New Zealand businesses and community groups are truly getting behind this scheme, and it is making a difference.

Tim Macindoe: How are these initiatives supporting young New Zealanders through the recession?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Just this morning at a meeting with the Mayors Task Force for Jobs the mayors were saying how much of a difference it is making in their communities and that it is truly encouraging. We have a long way to go, but the situation for youth unemployment is not as bad as some were predicting this time last year. I think that unemployment will go up again over the summer period, but we are making a positive difference, and it is all steps ahead.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by the statement that National’s focus is on younger sole parents with dependent children because these are the families most likely to be in poverty; if so, why does her Community Max programme, which she has continued to trumpet, discriminate against young solo mothers, telling them that because they are on the domestic purposes benefit they cannot join that programme, even though young people of the same age on the independent youth benefit or the unemployment benefit are allowed to take part?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.

Tim Macindoe: What outcomes has the Minister seen from the Job Ops and Community Max programmes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are seeing really positive outcomes. Our young people are being upskilled with real employment opportunities. They quite genuinely have a renewed sense of pride in themselves and in their community, and they are gaining skills that will help them into further employment as they move forward.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement: “I will back those women into work and meaningful employment every time.”; if so, does she believe it is fair that, during a time when unemployment in New Zealand has peaked, her Government will force mums back into a workforce where meaningful employment, including opportunities provided by this Government, are clearly scarce?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to be fair and reasonable. When Carmel Sepuloni was asking a supplementary question a moment ago, the level of interjection from the Government backbenches was too great. I ask for a little more courtesy.

Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Community Max programme in breach of the Human Rights Act on the grounds of family status and sex, in light of the fact that 16 to 24-year-old sole parents on the domestic purposes benefit are precluded from eligibility?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not have the capacity to get a legal opinion during question time, but, no, I believe not.

Carmel Sepuloni: I seek the leave of the House to table a letter, dated 19 November 2009, I sent to the Human Rights Commission, asking that the Human Rights Commission examine the Community Max programme for breaches of the Human Rights Act 1993 on the grounds of—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that letter to the Human Rights Commission. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table chapters on education and economic security from a report entitled Children and Young People: Indictors of Wellbeing in New Zealand 2008, which highlights the positive impact of parental, and especially maternal, education, and also the negative impact of family economic insecurity on children’s educational outcomes.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not pick up what the document was.

Carmel Sepuloni: It is from the Ministry of Social Development.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that Ministry of Social Development document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Carmel Sepuloni: I seek leave to table a report entitled The Complexity of Community and Family Influences on Children’s Achievement in New Zealand: Best Evidence Synthesis published by the Ministry of Education, which shows that parental, and especially maternal education, have a strong impact on educational attainment for children, that children—

Mr SPEAKER: We do not need to hear the whole document. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group—Proposed Deal

11. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: On what date will he be releasing the proposed deal from the iwi leadership group and on what date does he expect to have concluded a deal?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I cannot give an exact date. Discussions are ongoing. I am hopeful that we will be in a position to announce an agreement with the Māori Party sometime in the next week.

John Boscawen: Can he confirm that the paper put forward by the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group proposed an afforestation fund, a first right of refusal for afforestation on Crown land, and guaranteed joint-venture status for any State-owned enterprise afforestation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I cannot confirm that. But I would also say to the member that people ask for lots of things in negotiations; that does not necessarily mean that they are agreed.

Hon Mita Ririnui: What does he say to OraTaiao, a group of more than 100 health professionals concerned about climate change, when they ask how honouring the Treaty of Waitangi in the emissions trading scheme Act will happen when many Māori families will be the hardest hit by the Government’s emissions trading scheme amendments; and how on earth did he get the Māori Party to sign up to that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The issue of the impact on low-income families has been one of the priority issues for the Māori Party. That is why our amendments to the emissions trading scheme will halve the cost increase on households—halve the increase.

Hon David Parker: Add $110 billion to taxpayers.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, members opposite say that is untrue. Their scheme would have resulted in petrol prices going up by 8c; ours will have them go up by 3c. The existing scheme has a 10 percent increase in power prices. A further issue that the Māori Party has put on the agenda is enhancement of the home insulation scheme, which will also help low-income households.

Hon Mita Ririnui: Well, is not OraTaiao totally right when it says “…our tax contributions give powerful and vocal big emitters a licence to threaten the future for our tamariki, rangatahi, and future generations”, and when will he stop pretending that his emissions trading scheme amendments will do anything except benefit corporate interests?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I had a very cordial, constructive meeting with the group.

Hon Member: You didn’t lose your cool?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, it was. One of the points they made was that they had believed Labour’s statements that the changes were a cost to the taxpayer, rather than actually a loss in income, because Labour’s scheme would cost farmers $30,000 a year, compared with our scheme, which will cost farmers $3,000 a year.

Hekia Parata: Has the Minister received any information from Ngāi Tahu on why they believed that the previous Government had not treated them fairly in terms of their non-disclosure issue over the emissions trading scheme and their Treaty settlement?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. The report from Ngāi Tahu states that the former administration, despite undertakings to consult with Ngāi Tahu over the terms of reference and over who would do the review, did not do so, and, in Ngāi Tahu’s view, acted in bad faith. Ngāi Tahu also claimed that in terms of the joint valuation that was done with the previous Government—and this is important, Mr Speaker—the previous Government agreed to go into negotiations with them to resolve the issue.

John Boscawen: What are the names of the foreign companies he says currently have planting rights on the Department of Conservation estate, and what rentals are they currently paying?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The details of those companies are the responsibility of the Minister of Conservation. I would be happy to find out that information and to provide it to the member, subject to any confidentiality agreements that are associated with those agreements.

Hon Mita Ririnui: I seek leave of the House to table an article in the New Zealand Medical Journal dated 9 October 2009, by Professor Hugh Montgomery, entitled “Climate change: the health consequences of inactivity”.

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 Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the report provided to me by Ngāi Tahu, dated 6 August 2009, in respect of their response to the Aikman report.

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.

Immigration Policy—Rights of School-age Children

12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Immigration: Why has immigration policy been changed so that the child of a person legally in New Zealand on a work permit under the essential skills policy will not be able to freely attend school if his or her parent or parents earn under $33,675?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration): It is completely wrong and mischievous to say that the child of a person in New Zealand under the essential skills policy will not be able to attend school if the parent earns less than $33,675. Indeed, the children of all people in New Zealand on a temporary work permit are eligible for free education. The policy changes are about ensuring that after 30 November any new applicants under the essential skills policy have an income adequate to support dependent children in New Zealand, given that people on work permits do not qualify for either free health care or income support.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is the Minister saying that the report in the New Zealand Herald earlier this week that contains immigration officials’ advice supporting the policy is factually wrong, or is he saying that the officials are wrong?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I can say that that report is incorrect. The member might be interested to note that this change to policy was signed off by the last Labour Cabinet, of which he was a member. I quote the Cabinet minute from July 2008, which stated: “This Cabinet agrees that a minimum income threshold be introduced under the essential skills policy to ensure that temporary migrants can properly support their dependent children in New Zealand.” I ask the member, if he thought it was such a good idea then, why he thinks it is a bad idea now. Is he just too tired to really take notice any more?

Hon Pete Hodgson: Nobody on this side of the House believes that this—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Pete Hodgson: —party would ever do anything as abusive—

Mr SPEAKER: The member just lost a supplementary question. It is intolerable to yell abuse across the House when the member’s microphone is on. That is simply intolerable, and I have deducted a supplementary question for that abuse.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have a couple of points to make. The first is that you appear to have deducted a supplementary question from me because of noise from other members. The second is that although I am well aware that you cannot be responsible for a Minister’s answer, when a Minister’s answer is as different from our understanding of the truth as that, it itself becomes disorderly. That is what happened.

Mr SPEAKER: The reason why I deducted a supplementary question from the member was that I was on my feet and had called for order, the member’s microphone was on, and he continued to ignore the Speaker totally. That is simply unacceptable. Members in this House will learn that when I get to my feet they will sit down and be silent—members on both sides of the House will learn that—because that is the one power the Speaker has to control this House. When I get to my feet members will sit down, and that is why I have deducted that supplementary question. Members will learn not to remain standing. It had nothing to do with other interjections or anything like that. OK, there are issues that people feel quite strongly about, and I have no problem with that, but when I get to my feet and the member’s microphone is open and he just ignores me like that, that is

absolutely inexcusable. Having done that, my dilemma is that the Labour Party has already had 20—[Interruption] One more? OK.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he think that it is a good look for the New Zealand Government to actively and explicitly damage a child’s future because his or her parent has lost a job? What about that is not child abuse?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I will tell members what is not a good look: for that member to come in here, to not have checked his facts, and then to totally lose it in front of the House when he is embarrassed in front of all his colleagues.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may not have agreed with the question—I will not judge the quality of the question—but to simply abuse the questioner, making no attempt to answer the question, is not acceptable. If there are errors of fact in the question the Minister has the right to point those out. I have dealt very severely with the Hon Pete Hodgson, and I will deal severely with the Hon Jonathan Coleman if he does that again in the future. It is not acceptable. I ask him to answer the question in a proper manner.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I do not agree with his assertion.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that infraction by the Government member, perhaps the Labour Party could have leave to ask the question that was deducted from us.

Mr SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that matter.

ENDS

© Scoop Media