(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 20 APRIL 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Prime Minister—Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “New Zealand takes its international obligations seriously and does not support texts unless we are able to implement them”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Are there are any articles in the text that his Government signed up to this morning that he is not able, or is unwilling, to implement?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think it is important to understand that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People is just that—it is a declaration. It is not a treaty, it is not a covenant, and one does not actually sign up to it. It is an expression of aspiration; it will have no impact on New Zealand law and no impact on the constitutional framework. What is more, the advice we had from Crown Law was that whether or not New Zealand affirmed it, in areas where we do not have law or constitutional arrangements already, the declaration could be imported already, and that people have already tried to do so, so affirming it would have no effect whatsoever.

Hon Phil Goff: As the Prime Minister has told this House that he does not sign up to texts unless he intends to implement them, within the text that he signed up to this morning does he intend to implement wholly or partially articles 19, 26, or 32?

Hon JOHN KEY: We did not sign up to anything; we affirmed a declaration that is non-binding and aspirational.

Hon Phil Goff: In saying he did not sign up to anything this morning, does that confirm that what he signed up to is totally meaningless?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. The reality is that New Zealand has a very proud record when it comes to indigenous rights, and for New Zealand not to have affirmed the declaration, when Crown Law’s advice was quite clear that this was a non-binding, aspirational goal that would have no impact on New Zealand’s law or New Zealand’s constitution, looked to me to be a bit churlish.

Hon Phil Goff: Which of his Ministers was correct this morning: his Minister of Māori Affairs, Pita Sharples, who said this signature came without caveats; or his Minister of Foreign Affairs, who said it came with caveats?

Hon JOHN KEY: Both of them are correct. I would not describe the statement made in reading the affirmation to the declaration as being a caveat, but it clearly spells out that it is a non-binding, aspirational goal that does not supersede New Zealand’s law or New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did he breach his no-surprises agreement with his coalition partner Rodney Hide by covertly agreeing to sign up to this text without telling him, or the rest of New Zealand, first?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, it is a bit hard to do things covertly when we put out a press release to say we were doing it. That is the first thing. The second thing is that for quite some time I have been saying the Government was working towards this, including as late as last week, when I said: “From New Zealand’s perspective it is true we have been working and looking at ways we might adopt the declaration. Progress is being made and I am happy with that progress.”

Hon Rodney Hide: Does his Government support article 26 of the declaration, which states: “… Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired.”; if so, can he tell the House which parts of New Zealand or which natural resource was not traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired by Māori before European settlement?

Hon JOHN KEY: We support that only where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. I might add that last year Australia affirmed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, as has the vast majority of the world. The last time that I looked, the indigenous people of Australia were not taking control of the entire country, nor were other indigenous peoples around the world. It is a non-binding, aspirational goal. Where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori will have their lands.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister did not address my question. It was not about Australia, and it was not about whether endorsing the declaration was aspirational or non-binding. My question was about whether his Government supports article 26. Then I asked, if the Government did support that, which parts were not already owned, occupied, or used by Māori before European settlement. None of that was addressed. It had nothing to do with Australia.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised a finely balanced point of order. My interpretation of the Prime Minister’s answer was that he was pointing out that the article has no binding effect; therefore it cannot alter who owns what in New Zealand at all. The member still has a further supplementary question. If he wishes to dig deeper into that issue, I think he can do so with that further supplementary question.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Actually, we do not have a further supplementary question, because Mr Boscawen has a question for oral answer. But the point is that whether or not the declaration is binding, this was a serious question about whether the Government supports the article. It was not about whether the declaration is binding or whether Australia did this or that; it was about whether the Government supports article 26.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a fair point. I invite him to state his question again and give the Prime Minister a chance to answer it.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does his Government support article 26 of the declaration, which says: “… Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories, and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired.”; if so, can he tell the House which parts of New Zealand or which natural resource was not traditionally owned, occupied, or otherwise used or acquired by Māori before European settlement?

Hon JOHN KEY: Only where it is consistent with the Treaty of Waitangi. That is exactly the process when people go through a treaty claim.

Hon Phil Goff: Was Dr Sharples correct when he said the decision to sign the text was made weeks ago by Cabinet; if so, why was no announcement made, why were the media not informed of Dr Sharples’ impending trip—other than Māori Television—and why was the event taken out of the ministerial diary of events?

Hon JOHN KEY: If he said “signed”, then he cannot be right, because one does not sign the declaration; one affirms it.

Rahui Katene: Is there any sense of how New Zealand’s decision to support the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been received on an international stage?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. The statement of Mr Carlos Mamani, chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues is extremely positive. Mr Manami said that in declaring its support for the declaration, “ … the Government of New Zealand has reaffirmed the principles of respect, non-discrimination and good faith enshrined in the Declaration. The Permanent Forum looks forward to continuing its engagement with the Government of New Zealand in a spirit of cooperation in order to advance the rights of indigenous peoples in New Zealand and around the world.”

Hon Parekura Horomia: How will the signing of this text contribute in any practical way to resolving problems that face Māori in New Zealand today?

Hon JOHN KEY: In a practical sense, there is much more likely to be advanced results in that regard when it comes to Whānau Ora. I look forward to the Opposition supporting that.

Rahui Katene: What does he think will be the consequences for the international reputation of New Zealand of headlines such as the one from Metro News in Canada “New Zealand reverses opposition to UN Declaration on indigenous rights, US reviewing stance” or the one from AFP at the United Nations stating simply: “New Zealand backs indigenous rights”?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think the reaction will be very positive. That really is the point about New Zealand affirming the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. New Zealand has a very proud record. It has nothing to be ashamed of in this area. We have a strong legal basis and constitutional framework. I cannot see why New Zealand would not want to be there affirming on the world stage that we care about the rights of indigenous people.

Superannuation—Effect of Government Policy on Movement of Rates

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What impact has Government policy had on recent movements in New Zealand superannuation rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Since 1 October 2008 a combination of tax cuts and other adjustments has seen superannuation payments increase significantly. In that time, the single rate for a person living alone went from $571 a fortnight to $636 a fortnight, which is up by nearly $65 in the hand per fortnight. The rate for a married couple went from $879 a fortnight for each person in October 2008 to $974 a fortnight, which is up about $100 in the hand or more than 11 percent. The adjustments are a combination of the effect of tax cuts and inflation adjustments.

Craig Foss: How would superannuitants benefit from tax changes being considered by the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They will benefit in the same way that the previous Labour Government argued superannuitants benefited from the tax cut it introduced on 1 October 2008, which Mr Goff appears to have forgotten about. As a result of the tax cut given by the Labour Government in 1 October 2008, superannuitants paid less tax on their national superannuation, and the increase in the after-tax average wage lifted the 66 percent floor. In addition, if the Government were to increase GST, superannuation payments would be increased up front by just over 2 percent, to reflect a oneoff general rise in prices.

Craig Foss: Is it possible that retired people whose income is from New Zealand superannuation could be directly worse off, compared with today, as a result of measures being considered in the Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Superannuitants will know that because of their experience of the benefit of tax cuts on national superannuation, it is not possible for them to be worse off as a result of the kinds of measures the Government is proposing.

Craig Foss: What reports has he seen about how superannuitants might be reimbursed for any GST increase?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have been confused by some reports I have seen from the Leader of the Opposition, who says he is opposed to any increase in GST but, if an increase is put in place, he will not roll it back.

Finance, Minister—Statement

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “it will probably be some time before individuals and families feel better off again”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by that statement. Under the mismanagement of the previous Government the New Zealand economy went into recession early in 2008. Families were then hit by the global recession. It will take us some time to undo the damage done by a Government that forgot that a country must earn before it spends.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will New Zealand families be better off paying 7 percent more for petrol and 2 percent more for food, as confirmed today by Statistics New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That was one of the lower annual CPI increases, quite a bit lower than when the member was in Government. I did not see him crying crocodile tears about it then. If we had left Labour’s emissions trading scheme in place, families would be facing very big rises in petrol prices.

Carol Beaumont: Does he agree with Ministry of Consumer Affairs advice that to lower their grocery bill consumers should shop around, and how will New Zealand consumers be able to shop around an increase in GST, which will further raise food prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it is pretty much common sense that New Zealanders shop around to find the lowest price, whatever is happening in terms of prices going up. I wonder what the member does. Does she go to the same supermarket every week, regardless? That would be a bit odd, I would have thought.

Amy Adams: How much better off would New Zealanders be if our underperforming economy had grown at similar rates to other countries between 2005 and 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the 3 years from September 2005 to 2008 this economy grew by less than 1 percent. However, that figure was outstripped by annual population growth of 1.1 percent, meaning that over the last 3 years of the previous Labour Government, per capita income growth was negative, when the rest of the world was booming. Had the economy grown at roughly the average rate of recent years, the average household would now be $5,000 better off after tax.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following does he think will have the biggest impact on Kiwi families: breaking his promise that he would not raise GST, or standing by while they face higher food and petrol prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What will have the biggest impact on Kiwi families is a Government that is focused on turning this economy round, so that it becomes one where earning matters as much as spending. That is what all our policy is focused on. The previous Government thought it could spend money when it had not earned it, and now we are paying the price.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Minister not just admit that his Government has no credible plan for growth and that he cannot get over his personal resentment that the previous Minister managed to cut debt in half and have the world’s lowest unemployment rate and the longest postwar expansion, and why does he not take responsibility for his own policies, instead of Labour’s?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know the previous Minister of Finance was not a patch on what the member would have been if he had the job, but I wish Dr Cullen had been as good as Mr Cunliffe thinks he was. We are dealing with the legacy of a Labour Government that squandered the good times. We do not want New Zealand families to have to pay the price for that for any longer than is absolutely necessary.

Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table the March newsletter of the Auckland City Mission, which tells the story of families unable to afford food.

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.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Agricultural Sector—Global Research Alliance

4. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Agriculture: What significant steps has the Government recently taken to progress the Global Research Alliance?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): Two weeks ago the Hon Tim Groser and I co-chaired the first full meeting of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases here in Wellington. The meeting was a resounding success, and demonstrated just how far the alliance has come since New Zealand launched it in Copenhagen 9 months ago. With 29 member countries and a practical work programme agreed upon, this initiative is well and truly up and running.

Shane Ardern: What were the key outcomes of the meeting of the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases?

Hon DAVID CARTER: In essence, the meeting shaped the alliance’s future work programme for the next 12 months. From New Zealand’s perspective, it reaffirmed our major involvement in the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, with New Zealand continuing to host the secretariat, and co-leading the livestock research group. That significant role is an acknowledgment of New Zealand’s leadership in the area to date and the success with which we have brought the alliance into existence.

Shane Ardern: What other reports has he seen on the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases and New Zealand’s role in it have been universally applauded. From China to Argentina, Ghana, and the Netherlands, New Zealand’s leadership role in addressing agricultural emissions and bringing both developed and developing countries on board is now well recognised. The United States has described the alliance as “powerful and laden with potential”, while domestic organisations as diverse as the Green Party and the Wellington chamber of commerce have also praised it.

Charles Chauvel: Which of his colleagues is correct about access to intellectual property generated by the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases —the Prime Minister, who said 2 weeks ago that it will be made available free to other nations, or Tim Groser, who on Saturday said that “anyone who thinks that the whole thing can be done on the open source method is probably not really aware of the power of private markets,”?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The details around intellectual property will still be determined by the alliance. In some cases, that information will be available freely, and given freely to developing countries; in other cases there will be private interests to protect. As I said, the only person in the world I have seen criticising this initiative is Charles Chauvel.

Charles Chauvel: I seek the leave of the House to table a transcript of an interview with Tim Groser on Saturday, 18 April. [Interruption] I do not think it is readily available to members, and they might like to read the contradictory comments that I mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER: Just so that there will not be further interjection, I take it that it is a radio interview transcript the member—

Charles Chauvel: It is a television transcript, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: What sort of transcript?

Charles Chauvel: It is a transcript of a television interview at 10.43 a.m. on 18 April.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think we will be seeking leave to table recent media transcripts.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

5. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that the Labour Government doubled the health budget and got a lot less for it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why would 80-year-old Mr Desmond Peat—an ex - Royal Navy serviceman who contracted polio after his war service, has had his left leg amputated, has a fused left wrist, is on the waiting list for a heart bypass operation, and has just had his 1½ hours of home support cut— give any credence to the Minister’s statements on health?

Hon TONY RYALL: If the member was to bring that case to me, I would be prepared to look into it, as I have done for her colleagues.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What has embarrassed him more: his colleague the Minister for Senior Citizens, John Carter, threatening Grey Power over its involvement in the Labour-Green aged-care inquiry; or his colleague Jo Goodhew refusing to comment on the distress of Ruby Martin, an 86- year-old woman who cannot kneel, hang out her washing, or lift anything heavy, and who has just had her home support cut?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have never ever been embarrassed by those two colleagues, which is not something that members opposite say about the person who asked the question.

Nicky Wagner: What statements has the Minister seen about methods for assessing home support for the elderly?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have read Grey Power’s recent lobby report, which reports that its representatives met with Ruth Dyson. They reported in relation to Mrs Dyson and home care: “She is totally against assessing by telephone and has stated that the only way to assess a person is to visit them in their homes to see firsthand how they are coping.” That is very interesting, because it was Ms Dyson’s Government that formalised telephone assessments in a pilot scheme in 2006, and, further, voted substantial public money to roll it out nationally in the 2008 Budget.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does he reconcile his statements on putting clinicians at the centre of the health system with the list recently published by senior doctors of examples where there has been no clinical input at all into significant health decisions?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am very well aware that clinicians throughout New Zealand are responding to the opportunities that this Government is encouraging in order to give them a much greater say in the running of the public health service. That response is reflected up and down the country, where many nurses, in particular, are taking responsibility for the way that they organise their wards. They find they are spending much more time caring for patients than they ever did under the mismanagement of the previous Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does he reconcile his statement that integrated family health centres were already available in Auckland with his heralding of these centres as new and innovative? Why is he demanding the establishment of centres to open, when, in his own words, these centres already exist?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think that, when we look at the word “embarrassment” and the question just asked, members will find it quite difficult to understand the question. I interpret her as saying that the need to consolidate general practice and to provide services for New Zealanders is something the Government supports, and I say that we will be seeing a lot more of that over the next couple of years.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Despite your earlier request, Mr Speaker, that members not seek leave to table information from a newspaper article, when I referred to the plight of Mr Desmond Peat the Minister implied he had no knowledge of it, and therefore, on that basis only, I seek leave to table the letter from Mr Peat published 2 weeks ago in the Otago Daily Times that outlines the situation he is in.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think Otago is a backblock of New Zealand. We will not be seeking leave for that.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the speech given by Mr Ian Powell to the Australian Medical Association called “Challenging times, uncertain directions”, which outlined his concern, and that of senior doctors, at the lack of clinical input into significant health decisions.

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

Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost Applied to Average Dairy Herd

6. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What will be the cost applied to the average dairy herd by the emissions trading scheme from 1 July this year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Dairy herd methane emissions have grown from 5,000 million tonnes in 1990 to 9,000 million tonnes today. Although this is a cost to New Zealand under the Kyoto Protocol, it is not being borne by farmers. This Government has deferred the entry of agriculture for 2 years because of competitiveness issues. Dairy farmers, like all New Zealanders, will face a price impact for fuel of 3.5c per litre, and for power of 1.2c per kilowatt hour, from 1 July. This cost was halved by National’s moderation of the emissions trading scheme. The cost of that scheme for dairy companies is estimated to be 1.8c per kilogram of milkfat, which amounts to $2,100 for the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry’s model farm on an average milk income of $820,000, or 0.2 percent of turnover.

John Boscawen: How does the Minister reconcile his answer with Meat and Wool New Zealand’s analysis that the emissions trading scheme will cost the average dairy farmer $3,900 per annum from 1 July this year, another $3,900 per annum from 1 January 2013, and finally a further $2,400—a total of $10,200 per annum—from 1 January 2015?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will make three points. The first is that I have not seen the analysis that the member has referred to, but I note that the largest emissions from farms are those for methane and nitrous oxide, which are not to be applied from 1 July. In fact, this Government has deferred their cost by 2 years. In respect of the cost for fuel and power, the cost for a dairy farmer will be exactly the same as for all New Zealanders. In respect of the analysis I have seen, the cost to dairy companies will be 1.8c per kilogram of milkfat—the price of which at the moment, I think, is 680c per kilogram—or 0.2 percent of a dairy farmer’s turnover.

Chris Auchinvole: What advice has the Minister received on the overall cost of the emissions trading scheme to consumers and businesses in its first year; and how does this compare with the value of the allocation this year to the forestry sector?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The overall cost to consumers and businesses of the emissions trading scheme in the first year will be $400 million. It is estimated, though, that in the same first year $1,1 billion will be allocated in carbon credits to the forestry sector. By honouring commitments to give credits to the forestry sector, and by softening the costs to consumers and businesses, the Government will be making a significant loss on the emissions trading scheme. Those advocating deferring the emissions trading scheme need to acknowledge that they would be interfering in the property rights of foresters who, in good faith, have planted trees since 1990, thus offsetting New Zealand’s 23 percent increase in gross emissions.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Customary Title

7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Attorney-General: What will be the practical effect of the change to the approach for establishing customary title, in the Government’s preferred option, in terms of its geographic extent compared with territorial customary rights under the Foreshore and Seabed Act?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): It is not possible to predict the exact extent in advance of a negotiation or court process, but as a starting point I have tried to take a principled approach to developing the proposed test for customary title based on how the law could have developed after the decision of the Court of Appeal in relation to Ngāti Apa, and by taking into account the various submissions that were made to the review panel. Final decisions have yet to be made on that test.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister stand by his statement on The Nation that he is happy to negotiate with iwi over common law rights to foreshore and seabed at the same time that he is negotiating over breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi; if so, what does he say to those concerned that this mixing up of different claims could see customary title being awarded via negotiation in circumstances where the common law would not allow it?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I do, although I do take into account statements that have been made at various meetings. For example, in Napier last week, former Labour MP Bill Sutton emphasised the need for transparency, and I certainly take that on board because I thought it was a very helpful intervention on his part. Care does need to be taken when one is negotiating both—as, for example, is happening with Ngāti Pāhauwera at the moment—to make sure that political decisions are not made that might derogate from a strict application of principle.

Hon Tau Henare: Why does the Government’s preferred approach propose to restore the right for people to go to court to investigate customary title?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Because the 2004 legislation extinguished uninvestigated customary title and removed the ability of iwi and hapū to go to court. That is a fundamental human right, and the Government is keen to restore it.

Hon David Parker: What advice has the Minister received about the effect of affirming the declaration of indigenous rights on foreshore and seabed claims?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have received general advice, but I also take into account the approach that would be taken to determine any issue where the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples could arise. One would first, of course, have to go to the particular words of a section in any replacement legislation. One would, of course, have to look at the general scheme of the Act, and one would bear in mind that the declaration is, as the Prime Minister said this afternoon, an aspirational document, which has already been referred to in a number of cases to date. I also refer the member to the 1996 report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Taranaki claims. The draft declaration was referred to there.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that if the Government’s preferred option proceeds people will not notice any difference compared with the status quo?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is a statement of the obvious, but the Prime Minister is omniscient and I am one of his humble servants. I would have thought that, taking into account all the submissions that have been made and the calibration, there will be an effect, but there will not be an enormous effect. I am focusing there on tests for customary title. I am also taking into account, for example, the very helpful submission provided by the Labour Party to the review panel, by Dr Cullen, where, for example, he spoke about calibrating the test to take into account post-1840 customary transfers—a proposition with which I agree. So they are the sorts of things that need to be addressed, and I think we can achieve a just result without going overboard.

Canterbury—Hurunui River Water Conservation Order Application

8. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Did he read the letter from the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society dated 3 December 2009 alerting him to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture had asked applicants for a water conservation order on the Hurunui River to freeze their application; if so, when?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; I read the letter after the member raised the issue in the House on 30 March.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister consider that when a major non-governmental organisation points out that it has serious concerns about the conduct of a Minister in his Government, and, moreover, when the answer a Minister has given to a written question is incorrect, taking action in 4 months is fast enough?

Hon JOHN KEY: I believe that the Minister addressed that issue by making his personal statement in the House today.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about the Prime Minister’s behaviour. It was about whether he was acting with sufficient alacrity—whether 4 months was fast enough.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has further supplementary questions. I think it would be a bit pedantic for me to ask for a more precise answer to that question.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that the contents of the letter and the Minister’s personal statement today contradict the Minister’s answer to written question No. 14809 that he had not discussed the water conservation order process on the Hurunui River with any party; if so, will he ask the Minister to formally correct the answer?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, only I would note that the Minister gave some clarification and some basic principle around what he was talking about when he gave that answer to that question, and I think gave some context to it.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked whether he would ask the Minister to correct the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I am almost moved to caution the member for implying in his question something that the Minister has already given a personal explanation to clarify, and that cannot now be disputed any further. Given the events that have taken place, I think the Prime Minister’s answer was reasonable.

Dr Russel Norman: Has the Prime Minister looked at the written question to the Minister of Agriculture that is the subject of this debate, which states: “Has he discussed an appeal on the … report on a Water Conservation Order application … with any party …?”, to which the Minister’s answer was, clearly, “No.” Has he actually looked at that question?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I am happy with the explanation the Minister gave in the House this afternoon.

Dr Russel Norman: When the Prime Minister met with Gerry Brownlee and David Carter on 23 November last year to discuss—and I quote from the file note—“how to advance economic development through irrigation development”, did David Carter declare at that meeting his interest in the Hurunui region?

Hon David Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier I made a personal explanation. I do not have a personal interest in any further development of the Hurunui water project.

Dr Russel Norman: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: There is no need to have a debate on that matter. What the Minister has said is absolutely correct. He made a personal explanation to the House in which he told the House he has no personal interest in that matter, and that cannot be disputed now in the House.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What the Minister actually just said in his point of order and in his personal explanation was that he has no personal interest in further development in that region. When you repeated it, you said he has no personal interest in the region. He clearly has an interest in the region. He said in his personal explanation that he has no interest in further development of irrigation in the region. My question is about his current interest in the region.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member, and, indeed, if the question relates to the existing consent, then that is fine. I invite the member to repeat his question.

Dr Russel Norman: When the Prime Minister met with Gerry Brownlee and David Carter on 23 November 2009 to discuss—and I quote from the file note—“how to advance economic development through irrigation development”, did David Carter declare his interest in the Hurunui region?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, and he would not need to because he did not have a conflict of interest.

Dr Russel Norman: When he met with Gerry Brownlee and David Carter on 23 November 2009 to discuss “how to advance economic development through irrigation development”, did David

Carter indicate that he had spoken to the applicants for the water conservation order to suggest that they freeze it?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I have no issues with the Minister actually trying to involve parties in discussions in order to avoid lengthy litigation.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it not the case that he is having a lower standard for potential conflicts of interest in this case because he and his Government have an explicit agenda to promote irrigation in Canterbury?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. It is the case that the member is making things up about the Minister because he cannot win the argument about the environment.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister, by alleging that I am making things up, is alleging that I am lying. I am not making things up. I am not lying.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not discern from the Prime Minister’s answer that he was in any way impugning the member’s integrity. It was perhaps an unnecessary addition to the answer. I ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that last part of the answer.

Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.

Education, National Standards—Minister’s Understanding of Consequences

9. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Is she aware of and does she understand the intended and unintended consequences of national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes, I am aware of, and understand, the intended consequences of national standards. I am also aware that some have suggested unintended consequences, but I have found that once the full facts are on the table, the unintended consequences seldom stack up. I am sure the member will enlighten me on his view of the unintended consequences.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is one of the intended consequences of national standards to allow parents to take their students out of schools that do not appear to be performing as well against the standards, and send them to another school with better results?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Parents can do that now. In fact, parents throughout New Zealand do that now. We believe that parents should have some choice over where their children are attending school.

Colin King: What reports has she received of unintended consequences as a result of the introduction of national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have received a report that suggests that one unintended but quite useful consequence of national standards has been that the Labour Party has put itself offside with 73 percent of parents, who support the scheme.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that answer was entirely gratuitous and not necessary, at all.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is one of the intended consequences of national standards also to partly abolish school zoning so that it is easier for students to shift schools, as the Otago Daily Times last week reported the Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy as saying?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, that has nothing to do with the introduction of national standards. If the member examines the speech of the Associate Minister of Education Heather Roy, he will see that she was speaking as an ACT member and she was speaking about a report from a workinggroup that is not Government policy.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is she therefore ruling out Heather Roy’s suggestion, as reported by the Otago Daily Times, that there will be a partial abolition of school zoning?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have stated that I have received the report, and I am considering it and taking advice on it.

Electricity, National Grid—Improvements

10. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: My question is to the Minister of Energy—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I say principally to the Government front bench that I have called the members’ colleague, and a little courtesy to him would be helpful. [Interruption] Could I ask both front benches please to show courtesy to the member at the back.

PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA: What recent improvements have been made to the national electricity grid?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am pleased to advise the House that two important projects have recently been completed by Transpower to improve the security of electrical supply through the national grid. The first is the replacement transformer at the Wilton substation, here in Wellington, and the second is a new substation in the Penrose district of Auckland. Both of these important projects will improve transmission security of supply in Wellington and Auckland respectively, particularly during peak times during the winter.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What improvements will be made to the national grid over the coming years?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Transpower has a multibillion-dollar programme of investment planned for the next few years. The biggest part of that programme is the new Pole 3 high-voltage direct current link between the North Island and the South Island, and I was pleased to launch its construction programme yesterday. Pole 3 will replace Pole 1, which has almost come to the end of its 45-year life. It is one of the most important pieces of national infrastructure that will be built over the next few years, and it will cost close to $700 million. It is money very well spent, and it secures security of supply throughout New Zealand.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister concerned that Treasury describes his proposed transfer of oversight of new transmission investments to the Commerce Commission as “one of the weaker elements” of his electricity reforms, because the commission “does not have significant expertise in electricity matters”; and how can the House be satisfied that the planned $3.5 billion investment of public funds into the grid upgrade will receive proper oversight in light of those concerns?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

Charles Chauvel: Why does the Government not put in place for a period of time the same dividend policy for the State-owned generators that it has for Transpower, which would allow the generators to remedy the dearth of new electricity generation that has occurred on his watch without big price rises for consumers?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not accept the assertion the member makes.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table the Treasury paper outlining Treasury’s concerns about the Commerce Commission taking over oversight of investment generation from the Electricity Commission.

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.

Ministers—Compliance with Cabinet Manual

11. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he expect all Ministers in his Government to comply with paragraph 4.53 of the Cabinet Manual; if so, what sanctions would he consider where a Minister failed to comply with this rule?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; and I am not aware of any case where a current Minister has been represented at the expense of the Crown in line with the provisions set out in chapter 4 of the manual.

Hon Darren Hughes: Is it his view that this rule applies regardless of which agency of the State funds any legal representation?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, because in the case of a Minister, those expenses would be paid for by the Crown, and in the case of an MP, they would be paid for by the leader’s office and, therefore, not by the Crown.

Hon Darren Hughes: Has Cabinet, since he became the Prime Minister, ever considered a request for direction in respect of costs being retained by a Minister where they covered damages that were awarded to that Minister if the Minister’s expenses were paid for by the Crown?

Hon JOHN KEY: Not to the best of my knowledge, no.

Hon Darren Hughes: In what circumstances would he agree to an individual retaining financial costs that were awarded to that individual when all or a substantial portion of the legal fees were paid for by the taxpayer?

Hon JOHN KEY: That is a hypothetical question, and I do not answer hypothetical questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We had some changes in the Standing Orders of the House at some stage in the past, while you and I were both here, that allowed hypothetical questions. To say that a question is hypothetical when he does not like it—

Mr SPEAKER: To save the House’s time, I say that I heard the question very clearly. The Prime Minister is not responsible as Prime Minister for taxpayers’ money that might be used that is sanctioned by the Speaker for that purpose, for example. [Interruption] I am on my feet. Where a Minister’s costs are paid, that is a matter for the Prime Minister, because those are paid by the Crown. Where costs for a member of Parliament are funded, that matter is finally sanctioned by the Speaker. The member in his question did not distinguish between the two, because the member said “the taxpayer”. The taxpayer can also cover those payments sanctioned by the Speaker.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: In any event, the Prime Minister said that he considered it a hypothetical question. He can, of course, answer that question, but he went on to say that he does not answer hypothetical questions, and that is a perfectly reasonable response to the member.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe it is a reasonable response in this circumstance, because the Hon Trevor Mallard is right that the Standing Orders that used to rule out hypothetical questions were changed, so there is no reason why a hypothetical question cannot be asked. But, in my view, that question started to move away from the area of the Prime Minister’s ministerial responsibility.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you are entirely right in your interpretation of the question in that it could have covered either one of the areas that the Prime Minister is clearly responsible for. When the Prime Minister came into Government, he said he would have better accountability—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat right now. The Prime Minister answered questions very clearly where he had responsibility. He answered questions very clearly about that, and said that he was totally unaware of any case where that had not applied. He also made it clear to the House that he had no intention of changing any rules in that area. My concern about the member’s final question was that it started to move away from the Prime Minister’s direct area of responsibility, and, in those circumstances, I do not think that I could ask the Prime Minister to respond more precisely than he did.

School Trustee Elections 2010—Closing Date for Nominations

12. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Education: When do nominations close for the 2010 school trustee elections?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Nominations close this Friday—on 23 April. I encourage all those who want to stand to ensure that their nomination is in by this Friday to make sure that they can be involved in the upcoming elections. These elections are about finding trustees who are able to provide high-quality leadership for schools, and it is important that people put themselves forward for the challenge of providing this service to their local community.

Jo Goodhew: When will the school trustee elections be held?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Parents around the country will vote on 7 May to fill more than 15,000 trustee places. Over the last 21 years, more than 100,000 New Zealanders from all walks of life have given their skills and time as school trustees. I look forward to working with the newly formed boards this year.

ENDS

© Scoop Media