(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 11 FEBRUARY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

GST Increase—Effect on Families

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What advice, if any, has he received on the likely impact of an increase in GST on New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The advice I have received is that that would depend on the details of the switch between GST and income tax, and also on the impact of changes in the taxation of property, which tends to be owned by higher-income New Zealanders.

Hon Annette King: When he said yesterday that most people will not be worse off under his proposed tax changes, and the Prime Minister said that the vast bulk of people will not be worse off, who will be worse off?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I just told the member, the impact on families will depend on the details of the income and GST tax switch and also on the impact of the taxation on property. I have to say the data about the ownership of property is a bit less certain but it does show that property is owned mainly by higher-income New Zealanders, as one would expect.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very direct and was based on the Minister’s own quote yesterday where he said that few would be worse off; having said that, he must have some idea as to who is worse off. He did not answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, in fairness, I do have to say to the honourable member that the Minister in replying pointed out that that would depend totally on the detail of the final measures. He clearly does not have that detail at the moment. I do not believe it is possible for me to ask him to answer any more precisely.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to be a little bit careful, because I am, I think, disputing your ruling. But it was very clear in the House yesterday that the Minister of Finance said that few people would be affected. For that to happen, he had to have at least a decision that involved a range of people. I think for him to continue to mislead the House as to pretending—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not mind the member raising his point of order but he is now getting into dangerous territory. The English language is a fairly simple language. When someone says “The vast majority of people will not be worse off” that does not necessarily mean that he or she has the detail of who may or may not be worse off, it means the intention in setting the final policy is that vast majority will not be worse off. That is my understanding of what the Minister said. That is why I am not asking him to answer further. It was perfectly clear to me what he said.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Following on from the exchange that has just occurred, and fully accepting that the Minister may have in his possession a range of scenarios but no final decision has yet been made to choose between them, and thereby accepting

your point, sir, it would seem to suffice if in his answer to my colleague he were able to give just one example of an individual—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down.

Hon David Cunliffe: But he has made no attempt—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I think I have listened to enough on this matter.

Hon Annette King: As New Zealand Superannuation is adjusted only annually, what action will he take to ensure a pensioner whose meat bill went up by 3 percent, whose milk bill went up by 5 percent, whose power bill is going up by 5 percent, and who now faces 15 percent GST on top of all that, will not be worse off under his proposed tax cuts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would simply repeat the answer I used before. But I point out to the member that in a GST - income tax switch, superannuitants are a group who would find that they benefit from income tax cuts, because, as she knows, superannuation is tied to the after-tax average wage. The member might reflect on the fact that during her term in office, most annual CPI increases were greater than 2.5 percent—during her term in office. She did not seem worried about it then.

David Bennett: How will the Government make the tax system fairer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will certainly do a better job than the previous Government. Under the previous Government an Inland Revenue Department survey showed that of the 100 wealthiest taxpayers in New Zealand, half of them were not paying the top tax rate. Inland Revenue Department information also shows that under the Labour Government in 9 years the number of people paying tax on $1 million actually dropped—it actually dropped—

Hon Pete Hodgson: Point of order.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —so for the Labour Government to say they are all about fairness—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is sailing close to the wind when he ignores the Speaker on his feet. The Hon Pete Hodgson had called a point of order. I am not surprised that members could not hear that he had called a point of order, because the noise was just unacceptable.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was “How does he intend to make the tax system better?”. Now, 1 minute into the answer, it seems to me that the question ought to be addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was pointing out what he saw as a problem with the tax system, which he, I presume, intends to try to fix up. It seemed to be a reasonable answer to the question asked.

Hon Annette King: Has he seen Treasury’s assumptions on GST, which showed that if GST were reduced, only a fraction of the reduction would be passed on to consumers; if so, has Treasury given him assumptions showing that if GST is increased, retailers are likely to add a margin for themselves; and, if so, how will he compensate New Zealanders for those increases in prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I thought that that member would know how it works, because she has been a member of two Cabinets that dealt with GST—the first one to bring it in, and the next one to increase it to 12.5 percent, with no compensation at all.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I suspect I know what the point of order will be. The Hon Annette King asked a reasonable question and I think the Minister should have made some attempt to answer it, rather than just say that the member has been involved in increasing GST in the past and therefore should know about it. I think the House deserves a little more focus on the question than that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I expect that the advice Treasury has given me—and there will be more to come—will be the same as was given to that member as Minister when her Government increased GST from 10 percent to 12.5 percent, with no compensation whatsoever. That advice is to the effect that a significant part of the increase is not passed on, and that retailers have to absorb it because of the competition in the market.

Hon Maryan Street: What compensation for any GST increase does the Minister have planned for the 348,000-plus tertiary students who, if they are employed at all, are typically in low-paid and part-time positions, so therefore will not benefit from tax cuts for the rich, and are neither superannuitants nor beneficiaries who may receive some compensation, so they will simply have to bear the increase in GST?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those matters are all under consideration.

Hon Annette King: Has he seen a report that the Māori Party members are looking at ditching their support for the Government over the proposed increase in GST; if so, was he, as finance Minister, aware of their intentions, and what does such a threat do to his tax proposals?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am aware that the Māori Party members have points of view that they want to advance, and we are in intensive discussions with them so that we can all understand. We all have an interest in understanding the impact of any rise in GST, just as we all have an interest in understanding the impact of lowering income tax rates so this country, which spends more than it earns, can get around to earning more, investing more, saving more, and increasing incomes.

Mining—Effect on Natural Environment

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement: “if there is an increase in mining ..., New Zealand’s natural environment would also be improved”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Prime

Minister: The Prime Minister stands by the full statement, which is this: “the Government is also proposing to establish a new Conservation Fund, potentially drawing on royalty revenue from mining operations on Crown land. The Conservation Fund would resource special conservation projects around the country. That means that if there is an increase in mining activity, New Zealand’s natural environment would also be improved.”

Metiria Turei: Which part of Mount Aspiring National Park would be improved by mining?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I advise the member to wait until the discussion document is released very shortly, when public opinion will be sought and public opinion will be listened to.

Hon Shane Jones: Does he recall saying, as Minister of Tourism: “I’m not going to do anything silly.”; if so, why is he pushing ahead with significant changes to schedule 4, despite concerns from the tourism industry, which fears that such a move would put a $20 billion industry at risk?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The discussion document will go out to the public for consultation. Although it might be convenient for Mr Jones to jump ahead of the pack on this particular issue, it is in his case just normal behaviour.

Jacinda Ardern: When the Prime Minister said that not withstanding public consultation he expects there to be significant changes to schedule 4, had he predetermined that mining would take place on the Coromandel Peninsula, given that his Minister of Energy and Resources has already stated that there are interesting areas in the Coromandel where there could be further gold-mining activity; if so, what is the point of public consultation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is evident that the Government does want more mining activity in New Zealand. The question is how extensive it should be in the conservation estate. A discussion document is being prepared jointly by the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation, and it will go out for public consultation. It is inappropriate for me to make any further comment. That kind of comment is disingenuous and, frankly, scaremongering on behalf of the Opposition. I suggest to anyone in the Opposition who really does not like this stuff to take off the watches, throw away the cellphones, stop driving cars, and not to use computers anymore.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by the statement of his Minister that the Government has no intention of mining high-value conservation land?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes.

Metiria Turei: Which parts of the Coromandel Forest Park are of such low conservation value that they would be improved by mining?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I again suggest that member waits until the consultation document is released, when all will be revealed and she and other members of the public in New Zealand can have their say.

Metiria Turei: Perhaps the Prime Minister could tell the House and the public which parts of the Te Wai Pounamu world heritage area are of low conservation value and therefore would be improved by mining?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I again say the same thing to the member, and I will continue to say it: no matter how many parts of New Zealand the member tries to scaremonger over, the reality is that a document is coming, there will be a public consultation process, and then there will be some decisions.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Tourism Industry Association chief, Tim Cossar, that New Zealand is internationally recognised for the leadership it has shown in managing one-third of the country as conservation estate, and does he believe that his Government can improve that international reputation and New Zealand’s clean, green brand by mining that conservation estate?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Again, the member tries to suggest there is activity coming of such enormous scale that it would see the destruction of the conservation estate. That is utter rubbish and it is scaremongering. It is irresponsible and adds nothing to the debate.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table a landscape assessment of the Coromandel Peninsula, which demonstrates that large parts of Coromandel in schedule 4 are considered outstanding, not low-value, as the Minister of Energy and Resources recalled it.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I seek leave from the House, could we be informed of who prepared the document.

Jacinda Ardern: It was published by Stephen Brown Environments and was prepared for the Thames-Coromandel District Council.

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.

GST Increase—Compensation for All Income Groups

3. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Finance: How would the Government ensure that all income groups are compensated for with any increase in GST?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The impact of any increase in GST on any particular income group will depend on the details of the swap between income tax cuts and a GST increase, and how that group is affected by any taxation of property. Certainly, in the case of people on benefits, New Zealand superannuation, and Working for Families payments the Prime Minister stated in this House the other day that there would be automatic adjustments to compensate for any increase in GST.

Aaron Gilmore: How would any increase in GST fit within a package of lower personal taxes to help people get ahead and to improve New Zealand’s economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand’s economy needs significant improvement and that is why the Government is considering tax measures in the first place. This economy spends more than it earns, and its export sector has been in recession for the last 5 years. We want stronger incentives for people to get ahead, to save, and to invest. We want weaker incentives for people to spend more than they earn and to borrow too much to fill the difference.

Aaron Gilmore: Why is the Government considering a modest increase in GST?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is considering a modest increase in GST as part of a package designed to help this economy get up and out of recession and to grow strongly in the future so that we can have higher incomes and better public services, and so that the Government’s books are in better order. We want a package that is fiscally neutral—we cannot give away revenue; this is no lolly scramble—but improves the incentives in the economy so we can rebalance it in favour of earning, investing, working, and saving.

Aaron Gilmore: Does the need for tax reform have broad-based support?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, it does. The Opposition seems to have discovered in the last couple of days that the Government has been considering changes in the tax system. In fact, we ran a very transparent process, which was announced last May. In August the Tax Working Group put its first GST scenarios on the website, which the Labour Party found yesterday, 6 months after they were published. There has been widespread public discussion, and I think there is a broad base of support for changes in a tax system that is creaking and, more important, for changes in an economy that needs to do a better job to realise New Zealanders’ aspirations.

Tax System—Response to 2008 Treasury Briefing to Incoming Minister

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What was his public response to Treasury’s suggestion in the 2008 briefing to the incoming Minister that he consider a “move towards a tax system more heavily weighted towards consumption taxes”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I do not recall exactly what was said or what I was asked about that. The Government is working with the economy in the state that it finds it in. We set up the Tax Working Group in May last year. It started to publish its proceedings in August last year. Its very thorough and openly debated public report has drawn the Government to the conclusion that it should consider the option of cutting income taxes, offset by a modest increase in GST.

Hon David Cunliffe: To assist the Minister’s recall, does he still stand by his statement “… we won’t be doing anything with GST. We are focused on personal tax cuts as our top priority.”; or should that now read “Keeping our word is no longer our top priority; raising GST is.”?

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that the latter part is not an appropriate way to frame a question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fact is that the incoming National Government did campaign on tax cuts. We put in place the first tranche of them, and then we had to cancel the second tranche of them because of the effect of the global recession. At the same time we set up the Tax Working Group, which has openly discussed an increase in GST for 6 months. It took till yesterday for that member to think to ask a question about it in this House.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can he expect New Zealanders to trust his Government’s promise of some kind of compensation for GST, when he said “We want to maintain GST as it is. … We want to keep that rate”, only to break that promise a year later?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have outlined to the member the circumstances. National campaigned on income tax cuts. In fact, in Budget 2009 I suppose there was the option to increase GST in order to fund more of the tax cuts. But we decided not to proceed with income tax cuts, because the country could not afford them. Since then the Tax Working Group has put in front of the Government advice that changing the balance of tax, or cutting income taxes, funded by a modest increase in GST, would result in a better tax system, but from our point of view would result in a better economy.

Amy Adams: Why is the Government considering a small increase in GST as part of a wider package of tax changes that will help New Zealanders to get ahead?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand is still a country that spends more than it earns. In fact, our total debt to overseas lenders has now reached $160 billion—

Hon David Cunliffe: You’re going to make it worse.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —and it got significantly worse in the last 4 or 5 years. It is time that we took stock and created incentives in this economy that favour working, earning, saving, and investing, because we cannot continue with overspending and borrowing to fill the gap, as happened under that member’s economic management.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister believes that that was then and this is now, given that he is a former leader of his party and a former finance Minister, how can he expect the public to trust him on GST, when he has now broken two promises on tax cuts since taking office this time around?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait and see how the details of the package shake down. Those decisions are ahead of the Government. When we have made them, we will announce them, and people will be able to see what impact they will have on them.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he now accept that his pledge to maintain GST at its current rate, made in February 2009, after the election, means that his leader’s defence, which was different from his own yesterday, on his GST flip-flop could now have been better considered?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not accept that.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Progress

5. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What progress has recently been made towards achieving the Government’s goal of settling historic Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Great progress has been made since the House rose late last year. On 22 December I signed agreements in principle with Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara and Ngāti Manuhiri, signalling a breakthrough in the settlement of historical claims in the Tāmaki-makau-rau region. On 15 January I signed agreements in principle with the five iwi of the Te Hiku Forum: Te Arawa, Te Aupōuri, Ngāi Takoto—

Hon Shane Jones: Very clever people.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —Mr Jones—Ngāti Kahu, and Ngāti Kurī. The Crown has also recognised the mandates of Mana Ahuriri Incorporated and Te Au Mārō o Ngāti Pūkenga. On 25 January I signed terms of negotiation with Ngāti Pūkenga, and I think this work represents real progress.

Hon Tau Henare: How does this recent progress fit in with the Government’s commitment to advancing the settlement of historical grievances?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Since the beginning of 2009 the Government has recognised eight deeds of mandate and signed seven terms of negotiation, 12 agreements in principle, and four deeds of settlement. Although the Government has made significant progress towards achieving its goal of just and durable settlements of historical Treaty claims by 2014, the previous administration achieved the somewhat less than stellar average of 1.6 settlements per year—a pace that would have seen iwi still in negotiations in 2048. [Interruption] That is why those members are braying like jackals as I speak.

Hon Maryan Street: Is the Minister aware of any instances where new grievances may be created in the process of resolving historical ones; if so, how does he propose to address them?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The member alluded to this allegation in an interview on Radio New Zealand National the other week. I say for the benefit of that member that I am acutely conscious of the need to proceed very carefully when dealing with the move from agreements in principle to deeds of settlement. I am particularly aware of the issue that she has raised in relation to Te Tau Ihu. That issue results from intra-iwi differences that go back many years, which need to be handled very carefully indeed.

Hon Tau Henare: What recent reports has the Minister seen regarding the pace of Treaty settlements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In my answer to a previous supplementary question I referred to an interview that Ms Street had on Radio New Zealand National where at times she

seemed to be arguing that rather than resolving matters in a timely manner the Government should slow down. Perhaps this interview explains why Labour’s record was 1.6 settlements per year over 9 years.

Question No. 4 to Minister

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I apologise, Mr Speaker, I should have sought leave to table this material after my earlier question. I seek leave to table a graph showing the equity distribution of current tax arrangements It is based on Treasury data presented to, and released by, the Tax Working Group.

Hon Simon Power: It’s already on the website.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: It has not been made available to the House, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not waste time on that. It is part of a document. Leave is sought to table that part of the document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I wish to table some graphs that are particularly on point here from the Tax Working Group. They show that even with full compensation for the increase in GST, the massive gain is made by people at the top end of the tax scale, and—

Mr SPEAKER: I see the member has a number of pages. I will not have the time of the House wasted by the member going through a number of pages from a document that is available to every member of this Parliament. I was tolerant when the member first sought leave to table part of that document—and he will sit down while I am on my feet—and that leave was denied by the House. I am not going to have time taken on going through a series of pages from a document that has been distributed to all members. Members have the document.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: : In taking heed of your ruling, Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table as a group all of the remaining scenarios produced by the Tax Working Group, all of which show a massive gain by people at the top end, which would have—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will not make a speech while seeking leave to table documents. I will be tolerant. Leave is sought to table this section of the Tax Working Group’s report. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.

Health Services—Cuts to Front-line Services

6. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Have there been any cuts to front-line health services since he became Minister?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): The Government’s goal is that New Zealanders will have better, sooner, more convenient health services. As we improve the public health service over time, patients will see changes in how front-line services are provided. Demand for services changes over time as populations change and providers change. There will be more of many services, and occasionally there will be fewer of other services, but more money will always go into the health budget and into more services overall. We have increased the health budget, and frontline services are increasing.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is he satisfied that 86-year-old Miss Muriel Mouet of Lower Hutt, who cannot change the sheets on her bed, hang out her washing, clean the bathroom, toilets or floors, or vacuum her home has had her home-support hours cut in a move described by her nephew as bullying; and how does that stack up against his promise to have no front-line health services cut?

Hon TONY RYALL: I do not have the details of that case, but I can advise the member that I have been assured that no one will be unsafe or unable to stay in his or her own home as a result of this review of home-support services.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has he seen of claimed cuts to health services, and what response, if any, has he seen to these claims?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have seen a number of recent claims of cuts to access to general practitioner services, including one from a Ms Ruth Dyson. This wrong claim was discussed in an

editorial in the influential magazine New Zealand Doctor, which stated: “Why does Labour health spokesperson Ruth Dyson act as though she has no understanding of GP fees? … I find it hard to understand why Mrs Dyson persists in spreading misinformation. Labour appears so disingenuous it must leave people wondering how strong a grip it has on … health policy. It’s all a bit fishy.”

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to the district nurse who said publicly that she has been forced to cut hundreds of health checks for the elderly and was now seeing those same people being admitted to hospital, costing the health board even more in the long run; and how does that stack up against his promise to ensure that nurses have more say?

Hon TONY RYALL: How it stacks up is that this Government put an extra $750 million into the health budget this year. We have produced a record number of elective surgeries, we have more people getting cancer treatment, and we have faster emergency departments. We are investing in the priorities that New Zealanders have.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Did the Minister realise that in making his unreasonable demand on the MidCentral District Health Board to find $9 million worth of cuts that those cuts would be to frontline services such as rehab for under-65s, sexual health services, diabetes intervention and support, dialysis services to older people, and 24 assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation beds in the Horowhenua?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member is quite right to identify that we have inherited a very worsening situation at the MidCentral District Health Board. I have to say that this financial uncertainty is making it hard on the staff and the community despite the Government increasing the MidCentral District Health Board’s budget by $26 million last year. I must advise that member that the best way to secure the long-term future of health services in the MidCentral region is to get that district health board on to a solid financial footing. I am not prepared to let the MidCentral District Health Board limp on and put its long-term sustainability at risk.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How many more front-line—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. I just cannot hear; there is too much noise, and I say that to the Government benches on this occasion.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How many more front-line jobs will the MidCentral District Health Board need to cut before the Minister is satisfied that it is abiding by his demands?

Hon TONY RYALL: All district health boards are required to get better value for money and improve front-line services. We have given the MidCentral District Health Board another $26 million but it has been unable to reverse the decline we inherited from the previous Government. The best way that the member, as the Opposition’s most effective associate spokesman on health, could do something for his region is to support getting those services on to a long-term sustainable footing. Harping on about the problem will not fix it and secure the services that he and I want for his community.

Prisons—Management of Population

7. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: Can she provide an update on efforts to manage New Zealand’s growing prison population?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. Last week I inspected the development of a 60-bed container unit at Rimutaka Prison. I am very pleased to report that the project is proceeding on time and on budget. The container cells will provide secure, basic, and functional accommodation for prisoners at 30 percent less than the usual cost. Due to a lack of planning by the previous Government we needed to move quickly and decisively to ensure that there were enough beds for the forecast numbers of prisoners.

Sandra Goudie: What other steps are being taken to manage New Zealand’s prison population?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am pleased to report that the Department of Corrections is now proceeding to implement double-bunking, following a judgment delivered by the Employment Court prior to Christmas. Double-bunking will deliver nearly 900 additional beds later this year and

another 104 beds next year. By proactively managing our prison population, we are averting the looming crisis that was left to us by the previous administration.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What advice has she received on what effect the amended “three strikes” policy will have on the prison population, and is that advice part of the reason that the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, no longer wants to have anything to do with that policy?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The advice I have had is that after about 5 years we will need about another 50 beds, and we can certainly deliver that.

Māori—Te Puni Kōkiri Advice

8. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Māori

Affairs: What advice, if any, has he received this week from Te Puni Kōkiri on issues crucial to Māori?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the

Minister of Māori Affairs: Te Puni Kōkiri advises the Minister on a wide range of issues crucial to Māori every week.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the honourable Associate Minister that the question has been on notice, and it asked what advice, if any, the Minister has received this week. The Associate Minister, in replying, has said that the Minister receives a wide range of advice on an ongoing basis. I think a little more specificity to the question asked, given that it has been on notice, would be appreciated by the House.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Te Puni Kōkiri has advised the Minister on a wide range of issues crucial to Māori this week.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Parekura Horomia has further supplementary questions to pursue that answer.

Hon Parekura Horomia: What advice did he receive from Te Puni Kōkiri on the definition of the Whānau Ora programme and the proposal to have a separate Whānau Ora Minister and a Whānau Ora trust, which is to hold the $1 billion worth of funding it has been promised, with minimal accountability for what it spends the $1 billion on?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: All of those matters that the member mentioned are speculation at this point. The report from the Whānau Ora task force was handed over today. Te Puni Kōkiri has advised the Minister that it is a constructive and useful report. The Minister continues to be very enthusiastic about the movement that is occurring to develop Whānau Ora as a new approach to the delivery of social services—something that that member did not do when he was a Minister in Government. Discussions among Ministers continue, the outcome of which will form part of Budget 2010, at which time that member will know, along with everybody else.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Does he, as the Minister of Māori Affairs, support the Māori Party’s member’s bill to remove GST from food; if so, how does he reconcile the conflict with his Government’s plan to increase GST across the board?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: As indicated yesterday on a similar question, the Minister is part of wide-ranging discussions with other Ministers on the total economic package. The Minister is very well aware that the issues that he has raised need to be considered in line with other issues that are also part of the package.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a relatively simple point of order. The Associate Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs. She should be answering, I think, in the first person at least, and giving his perspective on it rather than a National Party perspective on it.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think there is any need for me to hear further. The point of order raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct. When a Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister, he or she is answering as that Minister. The Minister should not be saying that he— referring to the other Minister—is going to be doing something, because the Minister is answering

on his behalf. The point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is correct. I did not want to intervene unless members were finding it unacceptable. A member has drawn attention to it as being unacceptable, and I would sk the Associate Minister to be mindful of that in answering any further questions.

Hon Shane Jones: What advice has the Minister received from Te Puni Kōkiri on what option he should take if given an ultimatum between repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act or stopping the increase in GST?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Again, the Minister of Māori Affairs receives advice on a weekly basis on a lot of matters, including the foreshore and seabed matter. Along with a team of other Ministers, he is considering all of the issues that are involved in this matter. At a stage appropriate, that member and everyone else will be advised.

Hon Shane Jones: In that slew of advice, what will she or he say to the 244,000 Māori who earn less than $30,000 a year—[Interruption] Obviously, there is a candidate for Whānau Ora over there—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise for interrupting. It is not very acceptable to have a member asking a question and other members yelling continual interjections. We saw that it led to disorder. I ask the Hon Shane Jones to be a wee bit more moderate in asking his question.

Hon Shane Jones: What advice will the Minister give the 240,000 Māori who earn less than $30,000 a year as to why GST increases will be good for them?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The member will have to wait and see what advice, in the end, the Minister will give. As was stated earlier, he is considering all of these matters as part of a total package of economic reform, which as a partner in a coalition he knows he should do, given that he works very well with National.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could probably just say “ibid” from the last one.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is perfectly correct. I remind Ministers that when they are answering on behalf of another Minister they are speaking as if they are that Minister. Ministers should be mindful of that, and when they are answering on behalf of they should not refer to what another Minister might be doing. They are answering as if they are that Minister.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be good if there were some consistency in this, because answers were given yesterday on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs, but the statement “on behalf of the Minister” was not made. That member did not seem to object yesterday. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: No, we will not waste House time on this. The Standing Orders are fairly clear on this matter, and the Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct. I do not want to intervene, and it is not as if it is a huge issue, but the reason it is quite important is that Ministers answering on behalf of another Minister cannot evade a question by saying that some other Minister may or may not do something, because they are answering as if they are that Minister. That is why the Standing Order is drawn that way.

Aquaculture—Offshore Opportunities

9. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Economic Development: What measures has the Government undertaken to help New Zealand aquaculture companies take advantage of emerging offshore opportunities?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): Last month I announced the addition of $550,000 to the aquaculture market development fund. It is a contestable fund, administered on a dollar-for-dollar matching basis. It is available to eligible companies for approved projects. That is in addition to the $600,000 announced last year for five projects that are focusing on opportunities to grow the markets in Asia and North America. Investment in New Zealand’s

fastest-growing seafood sector will accelerate the industry’s programme to drive growth over the medium to longer term.

Colin King: What is the opportunity for the aquaculture industry in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I believe that the opportunities are very, very considerable indeed. One thing I have noticed is that in the year 2000 the aquaculture industry was about the same size as the wine industry in New Zealand. In the year 2009-10, the wine industry hit over a billion dollars in its export markets. The aquaculture industry had been about the same size as the wine industry, so for 9 years it has been an industry suppressed by the previous Government, given no encouragement, and asked to operate in an environment where it effectively went backwards. It did not grow in 9 years, because of Government policy. Well, we are changing that; we are putting a resource into that industry to ensure that it can grow—

Hon Parekura Horomia: What about the unemployment, Gerry?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —and provide lots of employment, particularly for Māori.

Unemployment—Minister’s Statement

10. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and

Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “This Government has made unemployment our No. 1 priority during the course of this recession”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, I do.

Hon Maryan Street: Has the Minister seen today’s Sydney Morning Herald, which reports that unemployment figures in Australia have dropped to 5.3 percent, falling for the fourth consecutive month, and that 52,000 jobs were created there in January alone; if so, what comparable action is she taking to close the gap with Australia?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, I have not read the Sydney Morning Herald. I have been concentrating on New Zealand and being very busy in that job.

Kelvin Davis: What is she planning to do to help the 25,000 Māori who now find themselves unemployed, unable to find work, and facing increases in electricity and food prices?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we do have within the Ministry of Social Development is assistance for some people through hardship assistance. We have certainly seen an increase in people looking for that over the last year. We are certainly seeing more emphasis on Community Max in areas like that. Nearly 50 percent of take-up in Community Max has been for Māori. We are seeing $1.5 billion in infrastructure with broadband. We are seeing roading programmes that are creating jobs for those very New Zealanders.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Has the Minister seen the analysis that shows that the doubling of youth unemployment since April 2008 is far greater than usual during a recession, with two out of five Māori youth now unemployed; if so, does she agree that the abolition of youth rates has been a major contributor to this unusually large increase?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I have seen evidence that youth have been most affected by this recession. I actually put it down to the fact that for 9 years under Labour the education system left those people behind, so when they came out looking for jobs they did not have the education and skill level that would keep them in the market. That is why national standards are so important.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare. Ngā mihi o te tau hou. [Greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and throughout our House. Greetings of the New Year.] Can the Minister give an example of how this Government has assisted—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member; I thought she was raising a point of order. The point of order I want to raise is that Sir Roger Douglas’ question was about youth rates of pay in the employment market, and there was no attempt to address that whatsoever.

Hon Paula Bennett: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any further help. The Minister answered the first part of the question and then offered a different view in respect of the second part.

Hekia Parata: Can the Minister give an example of how this Government has assisted those struggling in a difficult employment market?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I referred to yesterday, it is a big list and one that takes quite some time. The $348 million that has gone into home insulation has provided 2,000 jobs. The $1.5 million this year for Healthy Homes has provided another 1,500 jobs. Job Ops and Community Max have provided another million dollars just for extra support for Student Job Search. Another million dollars is going to local councils for youth development partnerships, There were 1,600 summer scholarships for students. The list goes on.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Kate Wilkinson, who yesterday stated that the abolition of youth rates priced young people off the market; if so, will she support my member’s bill, being released this afternoon, to reintroduce a youth minimum wage?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have not seen any evidence, in both my role as Minister of Social Development and Minister of Employment through Vote Employment, that shows evidence that young people are losing their jobs because of the youth rates?

Carmel Sepuloni: Given that even if the Minister combined all of the placements and Job Ops, Community Max, and the like, she will be assisting only a mere 5 percent of the 168,000 New Zealanders looking for work, what additional measures does she propose to help the high proportion of over 12,000 Pacific people who are now unemployed and will not gain places in these schemes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think there is a key difference between us—and it is quite evident. We believe that growing business, helping businesses, will actually help them have the confidence to take people up on jobs. That is what this Government is doing. It is about growing the economy instead of dividing just that piece of pie differently. That is going to create jobs. That is going to give jobs for those very people.

Moana Mackey: What is she doing to address the nearly 10,000 people in the Gisborne - Hawke’s Bay region who are currently unemployed, especially the nearly 2,500 people who have lost their jobs in this region since National took office?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is true that that area has been particularly hard hit. But we are seeing seasonal work come on and the numbers there start moving. The Work and Income office has had good reports of people turning in to work, as well. But we are certainly seeing that our rural areas are some of our hardest hit—there are no two ways about it. But that, unfortunately, is the effect of the global recession.

Tax System Changes—Effect on Inequality

11. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Will he guarantee that any changes to the tax system in this year’s Budget will decrease inequality in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As the member will be aware, the Government has not made decisions in detail on this matter, and any measure of inequality will be affected by the actual details. I might say that the Tax Working Group, with encouragement from the Government, paid a good deal of attention to issues of equality and different measures of inequality as it analysed different scenarios. The part of that analysis that is the most difficult to deal with is the impact of any significant tax revenue from property. By and large, property tends to be owned by New Zealanders on higher incomes but none of the current databases can accurately pin down exactly who owns property and has interests in property-type vehicles. So it will be a bit difficult in the end to tell exactly whether inequality has decreased or not.

Dr Russel Norman: Will he then guarantee that by the end of this term of Parliament the gap between the top 10 percent and the bottom 10 percent of income earners will be smaller than when his Government took office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That would probably depend more on factors outside of a tax package. For instance, the speed of decrease in unemployment will make a big difference to the earnings of the bottom 10 percent as compared with the top 10 percent. Equally, the continued build up of longterm beneficiary numbers, which has been going on for a while, has created a group of a quarter of a million people who are locked into very low incomes. If the Government can make progress on those issues then it may be possible that inequality is decreased, but that is yet to be seen.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a serious point of order. I contend that the Minister has not sufficiently addressed that question. The Minister—

Hon Members: Oh!

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard.

Hon David Cunliffe: The Minister and his colleagues earlier blocked the tabling of a number of scenarios, any one of which—and all of which—would have conclusively answered the question—

Mr SPEAKER: Nice try, but no. The member will resume his seat. He will not use a point of order like that to litigate further or to further debate matters in the House. That is what the member was doing.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Tāmaki Makaurau Collective and Te Hiku o te Ika

Negotiations

12. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for Treaty of

Waitangi Negotiations: Kua whiwhi i a ia he ripoata e pā ana ki ngā whiriwhiringa o te Kotahitanga o Tāmaki Makaurau me Te Hiku o te Ika? [Has he received any reports regarding the negotiations involving the Tāmaki Makaurau collective and Te Hiku o te Ika?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): Yes. I have seen numerous reports about the agreements in principle signed with the five iwi of the Te Hiku Forum on 15 January. These reports are focused on progress in the area and the economic benefits likely to result from the settlements. I very much want to acknowledge the assistance given to me and to the iwi by Hone Harawira. He did a great job. I have also seen reports about the Crown’s offer to the Tāmaki collective that noted that the Crown had made a breakthrough in the tangle of overlapping interests in the region, and these were highlighted by the Waitangi Tribunal’s 2007 report. Tomorrow the Minister of Māori Affairs and I will be signing agreements in principle with the Tāmaki collective, Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei, and Te Kawerau-a-Maki. I acknowledge the great help I have received from Dr Sharples in this regard.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Na te aha i tatū ai ngā tono a Te Hiku o te Ika, mai i te wā tuatahi i tukuna tō rātou tono, ā, e 23 tau rātou e pukukaha ana kia tatū aua tono? [In the case of Te Hiku o te Ika, what factors are responsible for this Government being able to achieve the breakthrough towards reaching a settlement after 23 years of hard work since claims were first lodged?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are a number of factors. First, I want to acknowledge the Chief Crown Negotiator, Pat Snedden, who has done a great job. Secondly, I want to acknowledge the leadership and vision of those iwi negotiators who have represented their people at the negotiating table for many, many years. Thirdly, we have trialled new ideas, an example of which is the pilot scheme that places public servants back in their iwi so that they can help their iwi with negotiations. I also have to say that a key factor has been the very positive contribution of the Māori Party.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He aha tā ngā hapū o Ngāti Whātua me ngā iwi, arā, a Te Kawarau-a-Maki, a Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, a Ngāti Te Ata, a Te Aki Tai, a Ngāti Tamaoho rātau ko Hauraki Marutuahu kia whakarauikahia rātau ki raro i te rōpū hou kua tapaina ko ngā Manawhenua o Tāmaki-makaurau, ā, he aha ngā kōrero kua wānangahia e rāua ko te Minita mō ngā Kāwana ā-Rohe mō tēnei rōpū rangatira?

[What has been the response of various Ngāti Whātua groups—namely, Te Kawarau-a-Maki, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Tamaoho, and Hauraki Marutuahu people—to the establishment of a new collective body called Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki-makau-rau, and what discussions has he had with the Minister of Local Government about this special entity?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think there has been very good support for the establishment of the collective, and in my discussions with the iwi they have acknowledged that this is a vehicle that can really help them move ahead, after the years of division. I have also worked very closely with the local MP, Dr Sharples, in developing this proposal with Sir Douglas Graham, and his support has been invaluable.

Hon Shane Jones: Ka aha te Minita inā puta ngā hamumu me ngā whakahē mai i te hapori Pākehā ki te tīnihanga o te ingoa ki Te Oneroa a Tōhē mai i te Ninety Mile Beach? [What will the Minister do if complaints and opposing views are made by the non-Māori sector of the community about the change of name from Ninety Mile Beach to Te Oneroa-a-Tōhē?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister will say to those people that public access is guaranteed, and that the very historical rights and interests of the local iwi need to be respected. If the member had turned up at Ahipara on 15 January—I was hoping he would, because I was looking forward to seeing him—we could have had that discussion.

ENDS

© Scoop Media