(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 23 FEBRUARY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

GST Increase—Detrimental Effect on New Zealanders

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he still expect that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will not be worse off under his proposed increase to GST; if so, which New Zealanders does he expect will be worse off?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I expect that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will be better off under a tax switch that comprises an increase in the rate of GST to 15 percent, together with a reduction in personal income taxes across the board and upfront increases in benefits, New Zealand superannuation, and Working for Families payments. If the Government cannot achieve that, we would not increase GST. The member will have to wait until the Budget, however, for confirmation of any tax switch, let alone the details of its effects.

Hon Phil Goff: Last night in a survey by Television One it was shown that over two-thirds of New Zealanders were opposed to raising GST, and the vast majority said they thought they would be worse off; how precisely will people be better off, and can he answer the question he did not answer last time about who will be worse off?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think what the poll last night actually showed was that if we ask people whether they want tax to rise, their answer will be no. In the same way, if we ask them in isolation whether they want income taxes to fall, their answer will be yes. When we ask them about the package, the message we are getting pretty clearly from New Zealanders is that they are looking forward to it, and that is why the party vote numbers were so strong in that poll for the National-led Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he accept the recent estimate by Westpac that, with his increase in GST, inflation will hit almost 5 percent next year, and does he also accept its view that that will damage growth, not assist it?

Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the latter point, absolutely not, because the advice we have received about the overall economic benefits of the package strongly support a move away from taxing income at such a high rate, and taxing consumption at a higher rate. Secondly, there will be a one-off effect if prices rise by 2.2 percent. The estimate from Treasury that I last saw on a document was about a 2 percent increase. It is a one-off, just like it was in 1989 and 1985, when the then Labour Government increased GST.

Chris Tremain: How many New Zealanders were made worse off, the last time GST was raised in 1989?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a pretty simple question of responsibility. That was not dressed up as a report. It was a matter for which the Prime Minister had no responsibility—I do not know whether he was even in the country.

Mr SPEAKER: The interesting thing about the question that was asked is that it did not ask the Prime Minister to comment on the wisdom of the policy; it just asked for a reporting matter—how many people were worse off. Ministers do have reporting responsibilities for matters that took place prior to their time. That is why I accepted the question. I believe that, so long as the Prime Minister does not launch too much into attacking the Government of the time, he may answer the question.

Hon JOHN KEY: Every New Zealander was worse off, actually, when the 1989 Government, of which Phil Goff was a member, raised GST without compensation. Hopefully, when Labour members are out there on their magical mystery bus tour, they can give out an apology for not compensating New Zealanders back then.

Hon Phil Goff: Is it correct that, as a result of his increase in GST, superannuitants will face an immediate increase in their costs, but they will not be compensated for that for maybe 6 months or a year? That will leave them worse off. Does he intend, therefore, to amend the legislation to ensure that that does not happen?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, the member is completely jumping to conclusions. While the member is on his feet next time, maybe he could tell us whether he will be campaigning to drop GST and increase personal—

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister had answered the question perfectly well, but the last part of the answer was not in order. Mind you, in fairness, I have to confess that part of the question was not in order, either, but still.

Hon Phil Goff: Is it true that no one at the last election voted for an increase in GST, because he explicitly promised that he would not increase it?

Hon JOHN KEY: No one at the last election voted for National to increase taxes to cover the deficit, and we are not doing that.

Hon Phil Goff: Nobody believes that. Is it true that, from what he is promising, the GST will simply be a money-go-round—taking with one hand and giving with the other—that the real changes in tax policy will come from reducing the top tax rate from 38c to 33c, and that that will give him and his Ministers several hundred dollars a week, but that lowering of the tax rate will deliver nothing to people earning less than $70,000 a year?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, that is not true. It is interesting, though, seeing the Leader of the Opposition has raised the issue of the top personal tax rate, that when TV3 asked New Zealanders whether they wanted the top personal tax rate reduced, the number was something like 53 or 54 percent for New Zealanders who wanted that to happen, despite the fact that only 12 percent of New Zealanders pay the top personal tax rate. Why is that? It is because New Zealanders are aspirational for their country, ambitious for their earnings, and wanting a stronger New Zealand. I say to those New Zealanders “Good on ya! We’re a hundred percent behind ya!”.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the fact that a specific question was asked about whether anybody earning under $70,000 a year would get anything from lowering the tax rate. There is a yes or no answer to that; the Prime Minister simply did not address it.

Mr SPEAKER: Had the honourable Leader of the Opposition asked exactly that question, I am sure a more precise answer would have been possible. But the honourable member may recollect that he had made some fairly lengthy statements around the question, as well, which the Prime Minister latched on to, in his answer. That is why I cannot assist the honourable member any further.

Hon Phil Goff: Will anyone earning under $70,000 a year get more money in his or her pocket simply by the lowering of the maximum tax rate from 38c in the dollar to 33c?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can now see why Labour’s economic policies are going off the rails—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have two points—

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member. I think—well, I will let him make his points.

Hon Phil Goff: Not only did the Prime Minister not address the question but he deliberately turned his back on you, Mr Speaker, so that he could pretend not to see you standing in order to call him to order.

Mr SPEAKER: Members must not comment like that on points of order. The point of order the Leader of the Opposition is raising is perfectly valid, and there should not be that comment. I think the Leader of the Opposition indeed had a fair point, on this occasion, because a fair question was asked about whether anyone earning below $70,000 a year would gain from a tax reduction in the top tax rate. Instead of answering that question, the Prime Minister launched straight into something to do with the Labour Party, which, I am quite sure, is not an appropriate way to answer that question. I think the House would appreciate an answer to the question.

Hon JOHN KEY: Let us assume that the Leader of the Opposition knows something about tax scales, so he will know that the top—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You know what the point of order is.

Mr SPEAKER: I do, and again I say to the Prime Minister that I do not think that that is a very fair way to respond to a question—and I mean it. The question that was asked was a fair question but the answer seeks to belittle the questioner, with the Prime Minister saying he is not sure what the Leader of the Opposition knows about tax scales. It is out of order to do that; it is absolutely out of order.

Hon JOHN KEY: People earning under $70,000 certainly will get a tax cut.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, as you pointed out, the question was very specific. The question was whether they would get any benefit from the top tax rate going from 38c in the dollar to 33c. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that the Prime Minister is deliberately evading that question and not addressing it.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I have to support the Prime Minister, because in response to the question, if I heard the Prime Minister correctly, he said that those earning below $70,000 would be getting a tax cut. I suspect he has answered in that way because maybe there is no logical answer to the question the member asked. So I think that it is a fair answer.

Rahui Katene: Does the Prime Minister believe that raising GST would create financial pressure, which, judging by McDonalds’ record profits since the recession, would encourage people to eat unhealthy foods; and what progress has he achieved in examining the issues for low-income New Zealanders?

Hon JOHN KEY: There is no reason why people will be driven to unhealthy foods if their incomes are compensated for the increase in GST, and if the relative prices of foods stay the same. A rise in GST, for example, will not affect the relative price of an apple compared with a packet of chips. I also say to the member that different rates of GST on different foods would create huge complexities, and hundreds of pages of tax rules on things like a chocolate biscuit.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Aroha mai, Mr Speaker, engari, nā runga i te āhuatanga o ngā kōrero o tērā taha, kāore au i tino rongo Ki te whakamārama a te Pirimia ki te pātai a te Pāti Māori i rere atu ki a ia. Te tikanga me rongo mātou i ngā whakautu. Koi rā, kei te īnoi atu kia tukuna a ia kia whakautu i te kōrero, kia taea ai e mātau te rongo i te whakautu. [Apologies, Mr Speaker, but because of the way that the members on the other side conducted themselves, I really did not hear the Prime Minister’s explanation to the question put to him by the Māori Party. Surely we have the right to hear the responses. So my plea is that you allow him to respond again so that we can hear it.]

Hon Trevor Mallard: I make it clear that the Opposition will have no objection to that answer being tabled. It is written.

Mr SPEAKER: The House is in fairly high spirits today and I absolutely accept that, but the point of order made by Te Ururoa Flavell is a perfectly fair point of order in that a Māori Party

member Rahui Katene asked a question and cannot hear the answer. I invite the Prime Minister to repeat his answer, and I want to hear less interjection.

Hon JOHN KEY: It is true; it is written, and that is because they are harder questions to answer. The ones from the Leader of the Opposition are pretty easy so I just wing them. The answer is there is no reason why people will be driven to unhealthy foods if their incomes are compensated for the increase in GST and the relative price of food stays the same. A rise in GST will not, for example, affect the relative price of an apple and a packet of chips. I also say to members that different rates of GST on different foods would create huge complexities and hundreds of pages of tax rulings on things like chocolate, whether it is inside or outside the biscuit.

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask that the Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard and this one will be heard in silence.

Hon Peter Dunne: I ask that you ask the Prime Minister to repeat that last answer in silence, because after about the first two sentences it was simply impossible to hear it in this part of the Chamber.

Mr SPEAKER: It was the Prime Minister’s fault that that happened. The Prime Minister made a gratuitous comment before commencing his answer, and as Speaker I cannot expect the other side of the House to sit there in silence in such a circumstance. The Prime Minister knows that he has actually been a naughty boy and there is not much I can do about it. But if members—

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That may well be so, but there is a further aspect to this, which I would ask you to reflect upon and that is that since we moved away from having the headset amplification at our chairs it has become much more difficult, with the overhead amplification, to hear in these rather rowdy situations. I think that is something that obviously you cannot resolve today but to which some consideration does need to be given, because although this will be a robust place it is becoming increasingly difficult to hear people from all sides of the House if there is a lot of noise around.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a fair point and I am interested in the medium term in making it possible for members to hear through their earpieces when there is noise like that. The point I made still stands—that discipline is required if members are asking questions of a party, or if a member who is part of the Government, if you like, is asking a question of a Minister, and Ministers make that kind of remark, there will be noise, and I cannot stop that. It is unfair for me to treat the Opposition differently, but I would ask members to be mindful and try to not let the House get too noisy.

Economy—Savings and Export

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: Why is it so important that the Government rebalance the economy towards savings and exports?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): New Zealand families and households expect an economy that generates new jobs, secure jobs, and higher incomes. We must rebalance the economy because we will not be able to provide new jobs and higher incomes if we continue with economic growth based on too much consumption, too much Government spending, and too much borrowing.

Craig Foss: What benefits would a properly growing economy bring for the Government’s finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Stronger economic growth makes an enormous difference over medium periods of time. Had the economy grown at, say, 3 percent since 2005—just above the OECD average over the last 5 years—GDP would now be around 10 percent or $20 billion higher than it is, and Government finances would be around $6 billion per year better off. A few extra percentage points of growth are well worth it for everybody.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister is so keen on rebalancing the economy in favour of savings and investment, why did his Government cut in half the KiwiSaver incentives and completely remove the research and development investment incentives?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am pleased that the member now understands that the economy needs significant rebalancing. To respond to the particular questions, I say that the Government replaced the previous Government’s Fast Forward Fund, I think it was—which did not actually exist or pay for anything—with real money, which is financing real innovation and science.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a very simple one to try to draw from the Minister the link between rebalancing in favour of savings and investment and the removal of two policies that did exactly that. The Minister did not address that question. He talked about a third policy, the Fast Forward Fund, which was not raised in the supplementary question, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to repeat his question, because of uncertainty about it, and I will listen very carefully to it.

Hon David Cunliffe: If he is so keen on rebalancing the economy in favour of savings and investment, why did his Government cut in half the KiwiSaver incentives and completely remove the research and development incentive policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we did not think either policy was appropriate in the circumstances of what, under his party’s management, was a very poorly performing New Zealand economy, which was then hit by the global financial crisis.

Craig Foss: What benefits would a properly growing economy bring for New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Most of the benefits of a growing economy that flow through to the Government accounts also apply to families and households. Average household income today in New Zealand is $75,000 before tax. Had the economy grown at 3 percent since 2005, rather than the half percent that it actually grew, the average household would be about $5,000 a year better off. But instead of 3 percent growth—a bit above the average for the OECD—under Labour we had half a percent growth, so we missed out on that benefit.

Craig Foss: What steps is the Government taking to rebalance the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister outlined a comprehensive suite of policy in this House several weeks ago. In particular, he outlined plans for changing the balance of taxation. We would be interested to know whether on the Opposition’s bus tour it will campaign on reducing GST and increasing income tax.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister agree that the Government needs to help rebalance the economy through private sector job creation; if so, is he concerned at the high rate of youth unemployment, at 26.5 percent, and especially Māori youth unemployment, at 39 percent; if so, what does he intend to do about it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I agree with the member that private sector job creation is the key to a sustainable recovery. The Government is overstretched. It is already borrowing too much money and cannot afford to employ more people, even if it wants to improve its services. I share the member’s concern about youth unemployment. The Government has invested in a number of schemes to provide youth with the opportunity to stay connected to the workplace, but we will need private businesses to have the confidence to invest and employ 18 and 19-year-olds, who may not have a strong track record in the job market.

Tax System Changes—Alignment of Top Personal Tax and Trustee Tax Rates

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement: “substantial gains could be made by aligning the top personal tax rate and the trustee tax rate”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, we could make substantial gains in the integrity of the tax system. Under the previous Government the number of people paying tax on $1 million did not change in 10 years even though the economy grew significantly. An Inland Revenue Department survey of the 100 wealthiest taxpayers showed that under the previous Government half of them did not pay the top tax rate.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next member, I think the level of noise is simply unacceptable. I would ask members to be mindful of that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will he concede that only those on the highest incomes would make “substantial gains” as a result of a reduction in the top tax rate to the trustee tax rate, and when will his Government show some decisive plans to close down the loopholes he has mentioned around loss-attributing qualifying companies and portfolio investment entities, as well as the trust rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is working on exactly those issues. It is a bit ironic to be questioned by a Minister in the previous Government, which put all of those inconsistencies in place.

Amy Adams: What considerations will the Government make in deciding the final mix of any tax system changes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our most important consideration is the impact of a change in the tax mix on prospects for economic growth. As I pointed out earlier today, a stronger- growing economy delivers more new jobs and higher incomes for everybody. We will be looking to tilt the playing field so that people have stronger incentives to get ahead, to work, to save, and to invest, and less incentive to consume too much and borrow too much.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister received any advice that, under this trickle-down theory, the highest-income earners will receive substantial gains while low and middle income hardworking New Zealanders will be left, at very best, no worse off?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is putting together a package, and the key to that package is likely to be a tax switch, as we have explained, between GST and income tax, and additional taxation of property. As I pointed out to the member, investment housing and commercial property in New Zealand are largely in the ownership of higher-income people. Whether any individual is better off or worse off will depend to some extent on his or her personal circumstances.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree that this “tax switch” would instead be better done as a change in tax thresholds, which would deliver more equal distribution of tax cuts, and can he assure the public that this will be a part of his “tax switch”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member is talking about equity, he can go to the website—it has been open for 6 months but he discovered it only after Christmas—that shows how the Tax Working Group calculated the impacts of various scenarios on equity. He can look at the Gini coefficients and the ratios between median and lower quartile incomes, and decide for himself. He can then go out on his bus trip and put his proposition forward, and I would like to hear what it is.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a pretty simple question about whether the changes to tax thresholds would be part of the so-called “tax switch”. Instead of addressing that question, we heard a lot of invective about—

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the member’s question. If he had asked just that, it might have been possible to get an answer on whether changes to the threshold will be part of the tax package. But the member made a whole lot of further statements about equity, and the Minister of Finance picked up on those statements and responded to them.

Canterbury—Irrigation

4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: What was he referring to when he said his Government would “take action this year to remove particular regulatory roadblocks to … irrigation in Canterbury”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I was referring to a range of options currently being developed and considered by the Government to deal with some of the issues around irrigation, such as those identified in the Canterbury Water Management Strategy. However, no final decisions have yet been made. It is also important to note that the Land and Water Forum will be reporting to the Government this year on wider issues of water management.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he consider the elected councillors of Environment Canterbury to be one of the roadblocks to more irrigation in Canterbury?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure it is possible to answer that question. What I can say is that having read the report about Environment Canterbury the level of dysfunctionality currently operating in that organisation was very alarming to me.

Dr Russel Norman: With reference to the review he referred to in his answer, does he have confidence in the review of Environment Canterbury’s administration of the Resource Management Act given that it was headed by Wyatt Creech, who is the director of Open Country Cheese, a dairy company with 12 convictions for breaching the Resource Management Act in the last 3 years?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have enormous confidence in Wyatt Creech as someone who is well equipped to handle these issues. As a former Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand he served New Zealand very, very well and put aside his private and personal interests.

Rahui Katene: What is the Government’s view on the recommendation from the review group that iwi liaison be elevated in importance with Environment Canterbury, based on the finding that iwi are typically recognised only as a special interest group rather than being recognised as the Treaty partner?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is still considering the report and no decisions have been made yet.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that the dairy industry has a vested interest in seeing more irrigation in Canterbury?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Dr Russel Norman: In that case, how can it possibly be appropriate for a senior member of the dairy industry to be conducting the review of Environment Canterbury when Environment Canterbury is the regulator of the dairy industry in that region?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because I think Wyatt Creech is a person who understands the industry well. He is able to analyse problems in organisations, having been around them for a long time. When I say yes to the dairy industry it is a statement of fact—that is, if Canterbury and the areas around Canterbury and Otago were to have greater irrigation, it would lend itself to greater economic output and therefore it will of course be in their interest. But any increase in production in dairying would have to be matched by care and concern for the environment.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that Canterbury’s water resources are already under enormous pressure, that there is already over-extraction of water from aquifers and rivers, and that there is already enormous pollution as a result of dairy intensification; if so, how will more irrigation result in anything other than more environmental decline?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do agree that there is pressure on the aquifers in the Canterbury region. The way to resolve that is potentially to build greater water storage, so that less pressure is on those aquifers, and less of the water that currently pours out to sea continues to do so.

Dr Russel Norman: Can we take from the Prime Minister’s answers that this Government will always put short-term private interests ahead of long-term public good when those two things come into conflict, as they are in the case of—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The noise in the House means I can barely hear myself. I would ask—[Interruption]. This is a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard, and there is a lot of noise around the House. The House is very noisy today. I sympathise with the honourable member. I did not interrupt because I did not want to interrupt his question. I could hear him, which was a little unusual. Sometimes I cannot, because the noise is so loud, but I could hear the honourable member quite clearly.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is very simple. The Standing Orders are clear that questions are not to include reputational attacks on members or a Government.

Dr Russel Norman: It wasn’t a reputational attack.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Yes, it was. It said that the only interest we have is short term and that we are not interested in long-term interests or environmental concerns. It is very plain from the report that—

Mr SPEAKER: The member must not get into a debate when raising a point of order. I accept the point of order raised by the member. It does get difficult to maintain order in the House when members feel that questions are breaching the Standing Orders. I must say that the honourable member’s question did contain an assertion about how he saw the Government’s reaction to a certain situation. Members should remember that they should ask questions rather than make that kind of assertion, which tends to lead to disorder. I invite the honourable member to ask his question again.

Dr Russel Norman: In the case of the limited water resources in the Canterbury region, how can we be certain that the Government is not putting short-term private interests ahead of the long-term public good?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, it is because the Government takes a balanced view to economic growth and environmental issues. Secondly, putting it bluntly, if we build water storage capability, one would assume that it will be there for the long term and will take pressure off the aquifers.

Health Services—Cuts to Front-line Services

5. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: What front-line health services are being cut?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Front-line services overall are being increased, despite the significant financial challenges that face the country. As we move to fix our hospitals and take the public health service off the track to financial crisis, the Government has always said some programmes will be changed. Given that thousands of health services are delivered to over a million New Zealanders every year, it is not possible to determine all services that may have changed for these individuals. There is more money, and more front-line services are being delivered.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a question on notice to the Minister of Health about front-line health services. Although we accept that he said there are thousands of cases that could not go through in terms of cuts to those front-line services, he must surely be able to offer something to the House for a question that was on notice, if there has been a reduction in front-line services.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe the Minister’s answer was perfectly in order. He argued that from his perspective, there was increased funding for more front-line services. It is a perfectly fair answer to dispute the question that was asked.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he labelled cuts to home help for the elderly as a change, does he think that older New Zealanders who, six months ago, had their home help reduced will now congratulate him on the change announced by the Otago and Southland district health boards that will see 3,000 older people across that region have their home support completely cut?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have rung the chief executive of the Otago and Southland boards, and he advises me that everyone will be offered an assessment. While people await their assessment, their home cleaning hours will be maintained. We are dealing with a legacy of neglect at the Otago and Southland district health boards. The previous Government left those district health boards with over $20 million of unfunded services, which we have to fill.

Hon Jim Anderton: After explaining to the House on October 13 last year that cuts by the Canterbury District Health Board to home services for the elderly would not result in any less money being spent on home help by that board, what does he say now that the Otago and Southland boards are going through exactly the same cuts in order to save about $4 million a year, with further cuts to personal care and home assistance in the pipeline?

Hon TONY RYALL: In respect of the Canterbury situation, I think the member will be aware that although a number of people have been reassessed and have lost their home cleaning support, a significant number have actually had increases as a result of that process.

Hon Jim Anderton: Is the Minister aware that many of the elderly people affected by these cuts, many of them aged between 85 and 90, now have to pay between $25 and $35 per week for the same service that had previously been provided by the district health board, and that these extra costs impose a very heavy burden on our most vulnerable citizens?

Hon TONY RYALL: If the member has a specific instance of a case that he would like me to look into, I would be more than happy to do that. But if the member looks at Otago and Southland, he will see that the Government has increased the funding for those two district health boards by $28 million this year. That is a 4.4 percent increase. It compares with the $21 million increase they got under the last year of the previous Labour Government. We have inherited a very difficult situation in Otago and Southland, and we are endeavouring to fill the gap in unfunded services. That, frankly, is essential to securing services for people in those district health boards.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the Minister understand that for some older New Zealanders, having one or two hours’ home support a week is all that stands between them staying safely in their own home or having to move into a rest home; if so, how will he explain to those wo are being forced out of their own home that this cut is just a change for them?

Hon TONY RYALL: If the member sincerely wants me to investigate a case of someone being forced out of his or her home as a result of this change, then I would be happy to look into it, as I do for other colleagues in her party. But I need to tell the member that I have been assured by all the district health boards involved that no one will be unsafe or unable to stay in his or her home as a result of these changes.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Could the Minister tell us again how much more in resources this Government has provided to Otago District Health Board and Southland District Health Board; and why, with this increase, are some services being re-examined?

Hon TONY RYALL: This financial year the National-led Government increased the funding for the Otago and Southland district health boards by $28 million, or 4.4 percent—

Hon Darren Hughes: Then why are there cuts?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member opposite asks why the changes are occurring. Well, although the previous Government increased the budgets of those boards by $21 million a year earlier, we have inherited from that Government a rapidly worsening financial position at those district health boards, with unfunded services of over $20 million. We are endeavouring to fill this gap steadily over the years with increased funding, because that is essential in order to secure the future of health services in Otago and Southland.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is the Minister satisfied that the decision to cut domestic assistance to 3,000 residents in Otago and Southland—that is, doing laundry, house cleaning, shopping, and meal preparation—without any assessment of those people’s needs is fair?

Hon TONY RYALL: First of all, I am advised that meal preparation is unaffected by these changes. I can also tell the member, as I said earlier, that the chief executive has assured me that everyone who would like to have an assessment will be offered one, and that while people are waiting for it, their home cleaning will be maintained.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is the Minister reassured by the letter from the district health boards that is being sent to Otago and Southland senior citizens, telling them that their home support has now been completely cut, but advising them on how to pay for that service if they are able to pay for it; if so, why does that reassure him?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am unable to comment on what the member has said, other than to say that the changes being made at Otago District Health Board and Southland District Health Board are not new. The Whanganui District Health Board, when facing considerable budget pressures, also looked at its home-based support services in 2006. As a result, the Whanganui District Health

Board, under the previous Government, reassessed people with low levels of need and swiftly removed their services and tightened the access criteria. I think that this is a case of one thing that those members did while in Government but that they do not now want to do in Opposition.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How will the elderly resident who lives in an isolated area in Southland where no Meals on Wheels service exists, and who has been relying on 1½ hours of support per week, but who has now been told that that preparation for his meals has been cut, get along now that the help has been cut totally?

Hon TONY RYALL: If the member sincerely wants me to answer that question in respect of a personal case, then she needs to give me advance notice. If those facts are accurate, then I would be happy to take up the matter directly with the district health board, as I do for her colleagues opposite.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table four documents. The first is the case summary of an elderly resident from Southland who has cancer, angina, and osteoarthritis in both knees. He has just lost his 1 hour a week of home support.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has sought leave to table a document. Could she identify for the House who has prepared the document.

Hon Ruth Dyson: It is a case summary.

Mr SPEAKER: But I asked who had prepared the document.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I have, on the basis of information given to me—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard.

Hon Ruth Dyson: —for advocacy.

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 Ruth Dyson: The second is the case summary of an elderly resident from Southland who has congestive heart failure and is both hearing and sight - impaired, and who has just lost 1 hour a week of home support.

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 Ruth Dyson: The third is the case summary of an elderly resident from Southland who has Parkinson’s disease and osteoarthritis, who uses walking sticks to get around the home, and who had just lost 1 hour a week of home support.

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

Hon Ruth Dyson: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member I want to make a point. What is troubling me about the process we are going through at the moment is that it seems to set a precedent for any member in the House to prepare a document containing a summary of anything the member likes, and seeking leave to table it in the House. I do not believe that is in the spirit of the Standing Order that enables members to seek leave to table documents. I will allow the member to seek leave to table her final document, but I warn members that if this practice continues I may well take action to deal with it, because I do not see it as being consistent with the intention of the Standing Order.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the case summary of a 79-year-old Dunedin resident who has renal failure and a pacemaker, and who has just lost 1 hour a week of home support.

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think Nick Smith has just indicated the proper course of action. I want to speak to the ruling you made before that application. I think that if all members of the House are unanimous that a document can be tabled, then it would be a very serious matter if you said it could not be. The matter is in the hands of the House. This is something that has been done on many occasions over the years, and it is seen as a legitimate way of getting particular cases on to the Table of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member. I must say I have been in this House longer than the honourable member has been himself, and I have not seen this practice be pursued in the way that it is being pursued at the moment. My concern is this: with regard to certain case summaries that have been described today, members would be very cautious about refusing leave to table them in case members were seen as being hard-hearted, uncaring, or that kind of thing. But this is not the intention of the process of tabling documents. Members’ own notes are not documents in the nature of the Standing Order. I just ask members to reflect on that. I have not ruled anything yet, but I warn members that if this practice is pursued too far my concern might grow in the matter, because I do not see it as being consistent with the intention of the Standing Order. But I have not ruled on anything as yet.

Police—Attacks on Officers

6. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received about serious attacks on New Zealand Police officers over the last few days?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): It is very distressing that three of our police officers have been subjected to serious attacks while doing their job to protect the public. I have personally visited two of the officers to offer my support, and shortly will be visiting the third officer. Two of the officers are now recovering from their injuries at home, while Constable John Connelly of Tuakau has been undergoing surgery to insert a metal plate in his head and to wire up his jaw. These officers have shown extraordinary bravery in the face of brutal attacks.

Sandra Goudie: What information does she have on the number of assaults on police officers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Sadly, over the past decade there has been a growing culture of disrespect towards the police, which is shown by the rise in serious assaults on them from 216 in the year 1999, to 412 last year. Last year there also was a total of 2,481 assaults generally on police. It is appalling that officers are being viciously attacked while they are protecting the public.

Jonathan Young: What action is being considered by the Government in response to these attacks?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Back at Christmas I asked the police to provide their advice on any action that can be taken to reduce serious assaults on our officers. One option may be to increase the deterrent effect and demonstrate society’s disgust at these crimes by putting serious assaults on police on the list of “three strike” offences. However, it is important to point out that offending against law enforcement officers has long been taken into account as an aggravating factor in sentencing under the law. This Government would prefer that our officers do not face any sort of attack. They have our full support to rebuild respect for the law. We will also consider any other suggestions they may have to improve their safety on the front line.

Hon Annette King: Will any legislative or policy changes in relation to attacks on police officers also be extended to other front-line service workers, such as prison guards, ambulance officers, Fire Service staff, doctors, nurses, and teachers, who also face violence in the course of their duties?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That would certainly be something we could consider, but I think it is important to note that the police and corrections officers already have a special situation in

relation to the law and assaults on them, and that is because they are our front-line law enforcement officers.

National Standards—Minister’s Statements

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Does she understand and stand by all statements she has made on national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she stand by her statement that all that teachers who are using asTTle or progressive achievement tests need to do is “Keep doing what you’re doing, we don’t want to change, we’re happy for you to continue using those current assessment techniques.”; if so, can she explain exactly how those teachers will report against the new standards if they just keep doing what they are doing?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am unaware of where the member has got that quote from, but certainly the intent of the national standards policy is that teachers are able to continue using the assessment tools—such as progressive achievement tests, asTTle, and the Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource—that they are currently using in schools. They will be required to report in plain English against the national standards to parents from this year.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I know this is unusual and you are not very happy when people do this, Mr Speaker, but I seek leave to table a Media Monitors transcript of Radio New Zealand from 24 January this year, to indicate to the Minister where she made that statement.

Mr SPEAKER: I have made a ruling that I will not put leave for recent media transcripts to be tabled in the House; I must stick with that ruling. The member has made his point: he has established where the statement was made.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How will teachers who keep on doing what they are doing, as the Minister indicated in a radio report in January that they could, translate that reporting to national standards without doing anything else?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to the member that throughout this country teachers are continuing to do what they are doing. They are telling me that when they unpack the national standards it is, in fact, business as usual. They will keep doing the assessment in their schools that they are currently doing. But a large number of schools are not using assessment techniques effectively, and teachers in those schools will have to make some changes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If teachers just keep doing what they are doing, as the Minister says that they can, what additional information will be available to parents?

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know what my point of order is about: the interjection from the Minister of Finance asking why you are not on the bus.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised. It is fair that members should not be interjecting: “Why aren’t you on the bus?”, which refers to the Speaker. Members may wish that I was on the bus but, in fact, they must not do that.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The national standards are a tool to identify children who are not progressing as they should be against reading, writing, and maths standards in schools. They will enable teachers to identify those children, and to provide good clear information to their parents so they can change what happens in the classroom and what happens in the home. Many teachers are, in fact, already doing this, but not all of them. In fact, the Education Review Office report from 2007 showed that almost half the schools were not doing this. There are two things I do not understand about national standards. The first is why, instead of trying to bully me in the House, Mr Mallard and the Labour Party—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet and there will be silence. I realise that there is some tense feeling over this issue, but members must not be accused of bullying each other in the House, because I would not tolerate that. If the honourable Minister has not finished her answer, I will allow her to continue.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I will continue without that comment. Why Mr Mallard and the Labour Party are not getting behind the 150,000 children who are failing in our schools now, and why Mr Mallard and the Labour Party are not supporting parents—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet and there will be no further comment. The mouth was operating and no sound was coming out. The Minister is answering questions, not asking questions. When I allowed her to continue she proceeded to ask why the Labour Party is not doing this and not doing that. That is not the role of the Minister; the Minister’s role is to answer questions.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If you look at the primary question, you will see that it asks me what I understand—whether I understand and stand by all my statements. I am admitting to the member that there are a couple of things that I do not understand.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: There will be silence. That is not a valid point of order, at all. The member is starting to debate the issues. The Hon Trevor Mallard has the right to ask this question and the Minister’s job is to answer it. Does the Hon Trevor Mallard have any further supplementary questions? [Interruption] No, I have ruled that she has finished answering the question.

Hon Chris Carter: He’s doing a runner; too embarrassed to stay.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I am getting a little tired of some of the interjection. I have been pretty patient today but that member was right beside an open microphone when he made that interjection. I will not tolerate that further. I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to ask a supplementary question, or the member may lose it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What will she say to parents who now have high-quality reports using asTTle and who will in the future be given lower-quality reports using her national standards, which have much less information on them as to the next steps for their children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Schools can provide parents with as much information as they like, as long as they report progress to parents against the national standards. That is a stupid question.

Louise Upston: What statements has she seen that suggest that national standards in literacy are needed?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a newsletter from the member who asked the primary question in which he talks about a union bus tour that he went on in the deep south. The newsletter, sent out from a Labour Party address, reveals that he cannot spell even the word “Invercargill” correctly. I have a copy of the reading and writing national standards and I am prepared to provide them to the member so he can do some homework.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister now tell the House what the added value is to parents who are already receiving a quality asTTle report of teachers being forced to prepare something based on her standards that is not as good?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Schools that are producing asTTle will continue to give parents as much information as they are giving them currently. However, one has only to talk to the hundreds of thousands of parents across the country who support the introduction of national standards to know that they want better information from their schools about how their children are doing. They are hungry for that information, and they back this Government, which is introducing national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you understand that it was a relatively simple question about added value for a particular group of parents: those who are already getting asTTle. That question was not addressed or answered.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Right at the beginning of my answer I addressed that question. Schools can continue to give that group of parents that information.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I will not have answers relitigated by way of points of order. The member asked what additional value would be made available to parents through the national standards programme beyond the normal reporting under asTTle. Maybe the Minister could just address that,

because the question did not really contain any other statements. The question was about the additional information.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In addition to the reporting against asTTle, parents will also receive reporting against the national standards. I thought that was self-explanatory.

Early Childhood Education—Licensing Criteria for Creches in Shopping Malls and Gyms

8. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: What steps will the Government take to reduce red tape for creches in gyms and shopping malls?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): This year we will introduce an amendment to the Education Act to remove the requirement for creches in shopping malls and gyms to comply with the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations. We know that parents expect shortterm childcare centres at shopping malls and gyms to provide a babysitting service rather than an education, and this Government trust parents to make good decisions for their children.

Allan Peachey: What will these changes mean?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: When the Education Act is amended, services in gyms and shopping malls that fit the criteria will no longer have to comply with the Education (Early Childhood Services) Regulations. The criteria are that no child attends for more than 2 hours a day, and that a parent or caregiver is on hand and is able to resume responsibility for a child at short notice. Centres can still choose to become licensed if that is what they want.

Investors—Protection

9. Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) to the Minister of Commerce: What remedies, if any, are available to investors when company directors do not check an investment statement before it is released to the public, despite claims that he or she is involved in managing the investment on a day-to-day basis?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce): There is no sanction for directors who merely do not check investment statements. However, I am advised that, in general, if an investment statement contains a misstatement, investors are able to bring a claim against directors for compensation for loss they may have suffered under section 56 of the Securities Act. In order not to be liable, the director would have to rely on narrow defences, such as proving that the investment statement was distributed without his or her knowledge or consent, or, alternatively, proving that the director believed on reasonable grounds that the statement was true. Even if there has been no loss, the Securities Act provides that the Securities Commission can seek a pecuniary penalty under section 56, and, potentially, lay criminal charges against directors under section 58 in relation to untrue statements. If a director does not check an investment statement, and that statement is found to be misleading or contain a misstatement, the directors could be liable for the misstatement under section 56 of the Securities Act.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has the Minister seen the statement on the DorchesterLife website stating that the Huljich KiwiSaver directors include “high-calibre businessmen like Peter Huljich, Don Brash and John Banks, so your money is being managed day-to-day by a team of highly experienced investment professionals”, and, if so, is he not concerned that the public may be misled by such statements?

Hon SIMON POWER: I have not seen the statement the member refers to from that source, but I am aware of the more general statement that she refers to. The member will be aware that the Securities Commission inquiries are continuing into that issue, and on that basis it would be completely inappropriate for me to comment further.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he aware that Mr Banks and Dr Brash are not merely celebrity directors, but that each is also a part-owner of the Huljich empire, and would he advise Mr Banks, in particular, to disclose his full interest, given his intention to stand for higher office later this year?

Hon SIMON POWER: It would be inappropriate for the Minister of Commerce to advise anybody in that situation while the Securities Commission inquiries continue.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he concerned about the potential loss of confidence in KiwiSaver as a result of the public statements of two high-profile former National MPs saying they did not know what was going on, and, in John Banks’ case, allegations that he is running part of his mayoral campaign out of Huljich’s offices?

Hon SIMON POWER: With regard to the second part of that question, I am unaware of that particular statement; with regard to the first part, it would be inappropriate, quite frankly, for anybody in this House, but particularly the Minister of Commerce, or, for that matter, the Minister of Finance, to offer a view on the relative merits of any KiwiSaver investment.

Question No. 7 to Minister

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I seek leave to table the Wise Up newsletter from Mr Mallard, which contains spelling mistakes that show the need for national standards in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is from the Labour Party website.

Mr SPEAKER: Just recently I would not put leave to table a document in the House from a common blog site, and I do not see why I should change my view.

Hon Darren Hughes: Just to assist you, I say that the newsletter that the Minister refers to is a publication. It may appear on a website, but it is a publication in its own right. The Opposition is quite relaxed about her tabling it.

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

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East): I seek leave to table the statement from the DorchesterLife website that has the quote that I mentioned in my question, which the Minister said he had not heard.

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.

Environment Canterbury—Performance Review

10. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for the Environment: What response has he received regarding the independent review of the performance of Environment Canterbury?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The report has been well received. All ten of the Canterbury mayors, who originally sought intervention by the Government, have welcomed the report with a sense of relief that the problems with water management in Canterbury are now openly acknowledged. Secondly, stakeholders from across the environment and development spectrum—including the Environmental Defence Society, the Water Rights Trust, Irrigation New Zealand, as well as Federated Farmers—have concurred with its analysis of institutional failure. I also note that even some Environment Canterbury councillors have agreed with the criticisms and the review, and support change.

Jo Goodhew: Has the Government formed any view on the report; and what process does the Government have in place for addressing the review recommendations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government endorses the view in the report that Canterbury’s freshwater resources are of huge strategic importance not just to Canterbury but to New Zealand, and that this resource is not being well-managed. The report calls for urgent intervention by the Government, and this is being considered. Tomorrow I and the Minister of Local Government, Rodney Hide, will meet with Environment Canterbury, Canterbury mayors, water stakeholders, and Ngāi Tahu to discuss the recommendations. Tomorrow I have also scheduled a meeting here in Wellington with the reviewers, and I have invited all Canterbury MPs to hear first hand why the reviewers came to those conclusions.

Jo Goodhew: When were concerns first raised with the Minister about Environment Canterbury; and what led the Minister to initiate the independent review?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Concerns about Environment Canterbury were first raised with me by the Ministry for the Environment at my very first briefing as an incoming Minister. The ministry’s concern was that Environment Canterbury did not have the capacity to manage the water quality and allocation issues in the region. Numerous organisations have subsequently raised concerns. A report last year showed that only 29 percent of consents in Canterbury were being processed on time—the worst of New Zealand’s 85 councils, and in September, there was a letter from all ten Canterbury mayors. All those factors triggered the Government’s decision to initiate a formal review.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What did the Minister discuss with the chairman of Environment Canterbury, the former National MP Alec Neill—who has pre-empted the Minister by publicly stating that it is unlikely there will be elections for Environment Canterbury this year—when he met with Mr Neill, in secret, on the evening of Sunday, 21 February?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: All the mayors of Canterbury met on Sunday night, and Bob Parker, the Mayor of Christchurch, thought that it would be good for me to go down to Christchurch and have an informal discussion with them about the report. The Government is of a view that we need to liaise closely not just with the chairman of Environment Canterbury but with all ten mayors. The truth is that I have had regular discussions with all those mayors, including the chair of Environment Canterbury. I think people would expect an environment Minister to have discussions with the chair of an authority that has been in some difficulty for many years but was ignored by members opposite—hence the mess we have in water management.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Minister’s Statement

11. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement that “I have made it clear that the Government has no intention of mining high-value conservation land”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes.

Charles Chauvel: What did the Minister’s colleague Nick Smith say to the Minister when he told him that he was considering altering schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act to exclude parts of the Kahurangi National Park in order to allow easier access for mining; and is the Minister, unlike Nick Smith, able to rule out boundary changes for the Kahurangi National Park, or alterations to schedule 4 that would allow easier access for mining within the park?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The answer to that question will ultimately be made by the people of New Zealand, who will be asked to respond to a discussion document that the Government intends to release early next month.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question simply asked the Minister to tell the House what his ministerial colleague Nick Smith had said about Kahurangi National Park, but the question simply was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, in fairness to the honourable member, the problem I have with members seeking my help with answers to questions is that too often they get up and say on a point of order that “My question was this.”, but in fact there was a whole lot more to the question than that.

Ministers are entitled to answer whichever part of a question they choose. Members will observe that where very precise questions are asked, I have been pretty tough on Ministers in requiring them to deliver an answer to those questions. But the discipline lies with the questioner.

Chris Auchinvole: Has the Minister seen any statements in support of mining on conservation land?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I have. I have seen a statement from the Hon Phil Goff, which says: “I think most New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conservation estate available to environmentally sensitive mining.” However, I have also seen a statement from the member who asked the primary question, Mr Charles Chauvel, in which he says: “What we will not do is permit exploration or mining on the conservation estate.” Mr Chauvel seems to forget that under Labour there were no fewer than 82 mines on conservation land. I suggest that Mr Chauvel makes it clear to the House whether he or the Leader of the Opposition speaks for the party.

Charles Chauvel: At any time when Cabinet discussed and considered the issue of mining on conservation land, or any other issue relating to mining or access for mining on Crown land, did Murray McCully or any other Minister declare a conflict of interest and excuse himself from the relevant decisions?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Not to my recollection, and, what is more, at this stage I do not recall that there has been that type of discussion when Mr McCully has been present.

David Garrett: Does he agree that given the value of New Zealand’s oil exports, any proposed oil exploration on schedule 4 land should be treated on a case by case basis and not rejected out of hand in a knee-jerk political reaction?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member makes a very good point in that case by case would be the basis on which any decisions might eventually be made. But in the first instance there will be a public consultation process, and the Government looks forward to broad participation in that process.

Building—Government Assistance

12. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is the Government doing to assist New Zealanders to build quality homes and buildings?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Better building safety and quality is the focus of a series of initiatives collectively known as the Better Building Blueprint. In August last year I announced a comprehensive review of the Building Act. I made it clear that, without compromising safety and quality, the Government was looking to reduce both the cost and the complexity of the consenting process, and to ensure that responsibility sits with the person who does the job. The misery that the weathertightness problem has caused for many New Zealand homeowners is an ongoing reminder to us all of the need to ensure that our buildings are dependable and of good quality. On Friday I will be releasing a discussion document that proposes how to achieve just that. The Government wants to discuss these ideas with New Zealanders. The public must be able to have confidence in the system, which is why I want their input into the proposals.

Jacqui Dean: What are the other Better Building Blueprint initiatives?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am delighted to say that so far this year we have introduced a streamlined licensing system for builders. Becoming a licensed practitioner will be much easier for builders and tradespeople who are qualified and have a good track record. A robust licensing scheme with a critical mass of licensed builders will give us, and give consumers, extra confidence that homes and buildings are built right, first time. We have also introduced a streamlined national multiple-use approval service for volume builders, so that, without compromising safety or quality, multi-proof, fast-tracked building consents for standard multiple-use building designs are issued just the once, saving a lot of time and money for consumers, who do not have to get multiple consents. On 5 March 2010 we will be launching a new, simple house compliance system for the first time, which brings together in one place all the information needed to design a simple house, including compliance requirements and building standards. It offers an efficient, practical path to build affordable homes of good quality in New Zealand.

ENDS

© Scoop Media