(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 21 APRIL 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Public Assets—Sale

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Is it current Government policy that no State assets will be sold either partially or fully?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): This Government has said many times it is Government policy not to sell State assets in the term of this Government. That means not selling an ownership interest in State-owned enterprises or Crown companies, and we have stuck to that policy. If the member is referring to tenure review and land that is sold as a result of that, I say tenure review has been going on since 1948.

Metiria Turei: Does the digging up and selling off of publicly owned minerals in our national parks by privately owned firms benefit private interests?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a very unusual interpretation of the policy, but in respect of the schedule 4 consultation document I would think there is absolutely no prospect that in this term of the Government—even if we accepted her interpretation—there would be mining in any of those areas. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member Metiria Turei. She had not even got out a word of her question before there was an excessive level of interjection. That is unreasonable.

Metiria Turei: Is a 5 percent Government share and a 95 percent private share of the profits from the mining of State-owned minerals a full or partial privatisation of a State asset?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be interested in a word game around that. The fact is that mining occurs regularly on Crown-owned land. I have never before heard that described as any kind of privatisation. The previous Government gave out mining licences, because the Department of Conservation provided access to mining on the conservation estate. We do not regard that as privatisation.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister clarify whether the State-owned minerals that he plans to sell off will still be there for future generations to utilise, or will they have gone into private hands?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the answer to the question is obvious: if minerals are dug out of land owned by the Crown—which happens in a large number of cases right now—and they are sold, then those minerals are not there for future generations.

Metiria Turei: So, the Prime Minister does understand, then, that when he sells something to someone else it no longer belongs to him, and that if he sells off a public asset, which is the mineral wealth belonging to the public, to someone else—

Mr SPEAKER: I have been listening very carefully, and I have been unable to discern a question in what the member has said so far. I do not expect the member to start with a question word, but I was waiting to hear a question emerge.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did start the question with the phrase “does he understand”.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I might be from the Hutt Valley and that might be an explanation for this, but I heard the member say “does he understand”. That is a question.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to repeat her question. Please make it more clearly a question, because it started out “So, the Prime Minister does understand … that …” and then went on with a statement. I think we should really have a question.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister understand that when he sells something to someone else it no longer belongs to him, and that the selling off of publicly owned minerals to private interests means that they no longer belong to the public?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, he does understand that, and I am impressed with the sophisticated analysis that the Greens are applying to this complex issue.

Metiria Turei: Given the Minister’s answer that he does not expect there to be the selling off of State assets in this term, can he confirm that it has been National’s plan all along to have a fire sale of New Zealand’s State assets in 2012?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. In respect of the position on State assets, the Government has stated many times that in this term of office it would not sell State assets. If that were to change, it would announce a position prior to the 2011 election and campaign on it.

Metiria Turei: How can the public have any confidence in this Prime Minister when, in breach of a promise he made to the electorate, he still plans to dig up and sell off a publicly owned asset, the mineral wealth of this country, destroying sections of national parks held dear to the hearts of New Zealanders across the country, and when he is attempting to dupe the public by saying this is not the privatisation of a public asset?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member made quite an interesting combination of conclusions that she has jumped to and assertions that she has made up in that respect. The fact is that the Government has put out a consultation document on whether there should be mining on some schedule 4 land, submissions are being made on that document, and the Government will then make decisions after it has heard public views. In the meantime, as I understand it, under the previous Government, which the member supported, there was a considerable amount—and there still is—of mining occurring on publicly owned land, generally to the benefit of New Zealanders, who get well-paid jobs, and of the service industry, and without a major impact on the environment.

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Prime Minister’s Statements

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement regarding the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that “It is an expression of aspiration; it will have no impact on New Zealand law”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): Yes, and it is worth noting that other countries, such as Australia, announced their support for the declaration in recent years, and, despite the member’s dire predictions, Australia, for instance, has not been handed over in its entirety to its indigenous people.

Hon Phil Goff: What does he say to legal expert Mai Chen, who says that, to the contrary, affirming the principles of the declaration actually influences New Zealand courts and the Waitangi Tribunal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Ms Chen would know that New Zealand courts have already imported reference to the declaration—in fact, the draft declaration—into judgments in the New Zealand courts. As the member will know, the Government is in constant negotiation with Māori about the regulation and ownership of resources and various other property rights. I have found the expectations of Māori to be pretty pragmatic and quite progressive, where they are keen to get on

with creating jobs, lifting incomes, and getting better education. Actually, they are not that preoccupied with the declaration.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 4, which gives indigenous people the right of self-determination, autonomy, and self-government, mean that the Government will give to the Tūhoe what they are seeking, which are those exact same things; if not, what does it mean?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to the question about Tūhoe is no. They will not be getting the right to self-government. The member knows that is a silly question. The member should understand the process: the Government has made a statement of affirmation of the declaration, and the degree to which New Zealand affirms that declaration is in the statements made by Minister Sharples and Minister Power, and by the Prime Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 26, which gives indigenous people the right to land that they have traditionally owned, occupied, or used—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Or used?

Hon Phil Goff: —or used, which actually covers the whole of New Zealand, mean that individually owned land will now be subject to Treaty demands, or was that affirmation just an empty gesture?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the various statements from various Ministers have made plain, issues to do with land are determined within New Zealand’s legal framework, and the affirmation of the declaration does not make any change to that. However, we are very pleased to see that Māori are keen on the idea of running their own lives, which is completely different from Labour’s view, which is that the Government should run their lives, that they should be dependent, and that there is nothing that Māori can do about that.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister seen reports contradicting dire predictions of dangerous divisions between Māori and Pākeha?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is not just reports that we have seen. As I said earlier, the Government is interacting daily, often on quite contentious issues, with a range of Māori groups, and doing so in a very positive and progressive manner. I think that the dire predictions by the Opposition are more to do with its loss of the Māori vote than anything else.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Government’s affirmation of article 17, which requires the Government to seek consent from indigenous peoples before passing laws, mean that Māori people have a veto over the laws; if not, what does it mean?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we have said any number of times, all those processes carry on within the framework of New Zealand law. As it happens, the current Government is in coalition with the Māori Party, and we often seek its agreement to pass laws. That is democracy, and we do not see what is wrong with that.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does this Government have as its aspiration for New Zealand 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.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I stated earlier, all those matters related to land are dealt with in the current New Zealand framework, which is not altogether straightforward, because a common law tradition, for instance, recognises longstanding traditional occupation of land. We are negotiating every day with Māori interests over control of land and resources, and we are doing so very productively.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is unusual for me to take a point of order on behalf of Rodney Hide, but that was a very clear question about whether the Government has an aspiration. In the answer was a whole pile of stuff to do with dealing with the issue, but the fundamental question as to whether that particular clause was the Government’s aspiration was not even addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an interesting point of order, but it is my interpretation, listening to the Minister’s answer, that, in fact, he explained what the Government’s aspiration was with respect to the treatment of land. Although it may not have been exactly the answer the member wanted to hear, when a member asks that kind of question—about an aspiration—there is no specific answer to it. I do not think I can ask a Minister to give any particular answer to that kind of question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think this is an important issue. It may be that you, Mr Speaker, could understand that from the Minister’s explanation, but I think it is fair to say that most people in this House could not understand from his explanation whether it was the Government’s aspiration to hand land over to Māori.

Mr SPEAKER: I must say to the honourable member that it was a nice try, but, as the Speaker has to be the judge in these matters, I have to base my judgment on what I understand from what the Minister said. That is the way I see the answer.

Hon Phil Goff: Do any of the affirmations in the declaration that the Government has agreed to represent an extension of Māori rights; if so, where?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, all the issues that have been referred to here will be dealt with inside the current legal framework of New Zealand. That is not a radical view; we have heard today that the US has now stated that it is reviewing its position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that that was a very specific question about whether any of those affirmations represent an extension of Māori rights. I would have thought I could get a direct answer to that question, rather than a fudged answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I have to agree on this occasion with the honourable Leader of the Opposition. It was a very specific question; there was no political loading in it. It asked whether the rights are extended in any way, and I believe there is a real interest in the answer to that question. I ask the Hon Bill English to—

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I answered the question quite directly to say that all the issues that the members have referred to are dealt with within the existing legal framework of New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question so that everyone can hear it. The issue is about rights. Within the legal framework of New Zealand there may be subtle changes in the rights people have—I do not know; I am not an expert in this area. But I think an answer that more directly addresses the question the member asked is on this occasion warranted.

Hon Phil Goff: Do any of the articles in the declaration that the Government has just affirmed represent an extension of Māori rights; if so, where?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer is the one I gave before: all Māori rights are subject to the existing legal framework in New Zealand, and that does not change as a result of this affirmation.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that answer was the answer that the Minister gave before, you already indicated to the House that that was not satisfactory.

Mr SPEAKER: The slight difference in the answer given this time was that the Minister, in answering it, said that the rights that Māori have in New Zealand are determined by the current framework of our law, and implied in that answer that there was therefore no change to the rights. If that was an incorrect interpretation, I am sure further supplementary questions will elucidate the matter.

Hon Phil Goff: I think you gave a much better answer than the Acting—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister accept each and every one of the 46 articles of the declaration as an expression of aspiration for New Zealand, or are there some articles that the Prime Minister rejects?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The best exposition of the Government’s position on that is set out in the statement of affirmation that was read out by Minister Sharples in New York and Minister Power here.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe for a minute that that could be an answer in Parliament to a question of whether each of the articles is an expression of aspiration for the country. To say that something was read at 4.45 a.m. on the other side of the Earth is not a parliamentary answer to a question.

Mr SPEAKER: I have some sympathy with the member’s point of order, because members of this House will not necessarily be familiar with the statement made by the Minister in New York.

Hon Simon Power: It is the same statement; I read it yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, if in fact that is the statement read to the House, and if that is what the Minister is saying, then the Minister should be able to answer the question asked by the member. The member asked for elucidation on that statement, and the House has not heard any elucidation. I invite the member to repeat his question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Government accept each and every article of the 46 articles as an expression of aspiration for New Zealand, or are there some articles of the 46 that the Government does not accept?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to that, I suppose, is no. We have made it clear that the Government affirms the statement, subject to the existing legal framework of New Zealand remaining unchanged. The commentary on the declaration shows that some of the rights expressed in there are quite uncontentious—the right to freedom of religion, property rights, and so on—and some of them are more contentious. Whatever the nature of the articles there, they are all subject to New Zealand’s existing legal framework, which remains unchanged as a result of the affirmation.

Budget 2010—Tax Reform

3. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What are the Government’s objectives for tax reform in this year’s Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has two main objectives: to enable the economy to grow faster, and to give people more choices about what to do with their own money in a fairer tax system. Both are important and necessary. We can help to lift growth in the economy, and encourage savings and exports over borrowing and consumption, by making changes in the tax system. We can make it fairer if we apply even tax rates across different sectors and fix some of the glaring anomalies that currently exist.

Aaron Gilmore: What would be the impact on prices of any lift in GST?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This issue was addressed by Statistics New Zealand in a release back in February. It calculated that the lift in prices from a 15 percent GST rate would be just over 2 percent. For those goods already subject to 12½ percent, Statistics New Zealand says that the rise would be equivalent to a 2.22 percent lift in price. However, GST does not apply to all expenditure, and rents, mortgage payments, and school donations are exempt. When these are allowed for, Statistics New Zealand says that the overall increase is about 2.02 percent. This increase would be lower than the actual inflation rate in each of the past 6 years, and in 9 of the past 10 years.

Aaron Gilmore: How would the Government ensure that real incomes are maintained or increased, in light of a GST increase?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A number of tools are available to the Government. Firstly, income tax rates could be reduced for all levels of income by an amount that is at least as great as any GST rise. Secondly, there could be an immediate upward adjustment for beneficiaries, superannuitants, and those receiving Working for Families and other supplementary assistance. All of these are indexed to the CPI, which ensures that real incomes will be permanently maintained. In the case of national superannuation, as well as CPI-indexation payments, the rate would go up as a result of tax cuts.

Stuart Nash: Is it one of the Government’s objectives to ensure that the 91 percent of taxpayers who are earning under $70,000 a year will benefit fairly from the tax reforms in Budget 2010, after having missed out so badly in Budget 2009; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What those taxpayers missed out on so badly was the last Government’s squandering of a long period of economic growth, where those taxpayers got not one single cent until the month before the 2008 election. We will fix that. I seek leave to table the media release by Statistics New Zealand on 21 January 2010.

Mr SPEAKER: This is just a media release. I think these media releases are available to all members. I do not think I will allow this.

Senior Citizens—Effect of Government Policies

4. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: What reassurance did he give to delegates at the Grey Power conference about his explanation of how Government policies were affecting vulnerable, older people?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I pointed out a number of the Government’s initiatives that have helped them. In health, the Government has delivered an extra 12,000 elective operations this year, which is a record annual increase. In law and order, we have provided for an extra 600 front-line police officers, and have given the police new tools, such as Tasers, to go after criminals. And I pointed out that since 1 October 2008 the New Zealand rate of national superannuation for a married couple has increased by $100 a fortnight in the hand.

Hon Phil Goff: Did his explanation to the delegates about his cleaning his own bathroom impress them, when they know that Ministers’ cleaning costs are paid for them and this Minister actually asked for more, and when people like Desmond Peat, a war veteran who has had a leg amputated and is on the waiting list for a heart bypass operation, has just had his home help cut by 1½ hours?

Mr SPEAKER: If I heard the question rightly, it asked about the reaction of an audience at a meeting. The Minister is not responsible for how an organisation may react. [Interruption] I am dealing with an issue. If the question had asked specifically about the speech, that would have been fine, but the question asked about the reaction of an audience. The Minister is not responsible for that. I would like the member to please rephrase his question to make it come clearly within the Standing Orders.

Hon Phil Goff: What I asked was whether the Minister had impressed the delegates, and he has an opinion on that because he gave the speech.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member would repeat his question. I accept the point he is making, absolutely.

Hon Phil Goff: Did his explanation about cleaning his own bathroom impress delegates, when they know that Ministers’ cleaning costs are paid for them and this particular Minister asked for more, and when people like Desmond Peat, a war veteran who has had a leg amputated and who is waiting for heart surgery, has just had 1½ hours of his home help cut, leaving him with nothing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Actually, the Prime Minister has removed cleaning costs; it was a privilege available to Labour Ministers that National Ministers do not receive. I thought the member had a serious intent behind his question, which was home care for vulnerable older people, but I see that he does not.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the Minister, in light of what he was told by the delegates at the conference, say, then, about the man about whom I received a letter today? Henry is 84, has heart problems and bowel cancer, and has difficulty walking, and his 1¾ hours of home care have just been cut. That is miserable. Why is the Minister of Finance allowing that to happen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: At the meeting with Grey Power, I outlined to Grey Power that we felt the system ought to deal with cases individually to ensure that vulnerable older people were not left

without care. My colleague the Minister of Health has pointed out that people have the opportunity to bring those cases forward and they will be dealt with.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the letter about Henry, which identifies his son’s name and his circumstances, and as Henry lives in or near the member’s—

Mr SPEAKER: The last bit was not necessary to seek leave to table a document. 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.

Jo Goodhew: What upfront compensation was provided to superannuitants and vulnerable older New Zealanders when GST was last increased, in 1989?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: When GST was increased 21 years ago by the Labour Cabinet, which included the current leader and deputy leader of the Labour Party—Phil Goff and Annette King— there was not one cent of compensation for superannuitants. I am not surprised, because Phil Goff has told the media and the public that he is against an increase in GST but will not roll it back.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Grey Power delegates think it was fair that frail and vulnerable elderly people on low incomes have been stripped of their home—

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked whether Grey Power delegates did something; the Minister has no responsibility for that.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the delegates tell the Minister that they thought it was fair that frail and elderly people were being stripped of their home-care assistance while he, as Minister of Finance, has foreshadowed tax cuts that will give him and his Cabinet colleagues about $240 extra a week?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They raised the issue of home care, because we have an open and constructive relationship with Grey Power. Where they have raised legitimate cases that should be looked at, the Minister of Health has undertaken to look at them.

Jo Goodhew: How would superannuitants be compensated for any increase in GST as part of any tax package in the Budget next month?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the benefit of the Leader of the Opposition, who has made a number of public statements that indicate he does not understand how New Zealand Superannuation works, let me explain. If GST is increased, there would be a once-only increase in the rate of inflation of just over 2 percent, and after-tax superannuation rates would be increased on the day of any GST increase by that amount. To meet other and ongoing price increases, the usual annual inflation adjustment would be made to superannuation rates, so that superannuitants’ spending power was preserved. Finally, any personal income tax cuts would also increase the amount of superannuation that people would receive in the hand, because there would be less tax on superannuation and because it would raise the floor of 66 percent of the after-tax average wage.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the delegates tell Mr English that they thought the Government had its priorities right in cutting home help, in cutting out funding for the Accident Compensation Corporation’s falls prevention programme, and in cutting orthopaedic surgery for elderly people, while this Government is giving a privileged and wealthy elite the biggest cuts in recent times to their income tax in the forthcoming Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact, no, they did not say that, because they understand what the Leader of the Opposition does not, which is that in the depths of a significant recession the Government has protected the elderly, as is indicated by the fact that New Zealand Superannuation for a married couple is now $100 per fortnight higher than it was in October 2008. They also understand that we need to lift growth in this economy if we are to give them a decent standard of living.

Hon Phil Goff: At the end of his discussion with the Grey Power delegates, did he have any better understanding of why they think this Government is looking after itself and its wealthy mates while slashing help to elderly people who have paid taxes all of their lives?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Coming from the leader of a party whose Government squandered 9 years of a growing economy—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. That is unacceptable.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, I think you know that it is not appropriate for the Minister to start an answer to a question in that way.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, you have previously ruled that if members ask questions that make outrageous assertions, such as those made by the Hon Phil Goff in that question, they should expect a hard flick back.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: This will be the last—[Interruption] People are offending all over the place. I remind them that a point of order is being heard, and it should be heard in silence. Please do not try my patience. This will be the last comment I hear.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think the comment made by the Leader of the Opposition as part of his question was definitely political but not offensive, and did not invite that sort of reaction. If the member were trying to be offensive, he would have invited the Minister member to pay the money back.

Mr SPEAKER: The only reason why I will not come down very hard on the Hon Trevor Mallard is that other members have offended under this point of order process, and it would be seen as being unfair. But that comment was very unacceptable. It was because points like that were built into the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition during this course of questioning that I did not object to the manner in which the Minister of Finance responded to the previous question. If members want to load into questions material that some Ministers may find offensive, then they should not seek my protection when a Minister responds in kind. That is why I did not intervene on that occasion. Members will have noticed that where members ask straight questions and a Minister makes gratuitous comments, I come down on the Minister pretty hard. But a series of questions during this question No. 4 have been personally pretty critical of the Minister, so we cannot blame the Minister for being critical in response to the previous question. I agree that he has to answer the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am surprised the member is so motivated about this issue, because despite Labour having record surpluses and a fast-growing economy, it cut home care, and that member never complained. He leads a party that squandered the opportunity to make important changes to support our older people, and they have not forgiven him for that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table in this House a copy of the request on behalf of Bill English for additional cleaning money.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this document a letter?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is either a letter or an email; I have it in my room.

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

Road Safety—Young People

5. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What improvements has the Government announced for road safety for young people?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): The Government has agreed on a package of measures that will improve road safety for young drivers in New Zealand and narrow the gap in our safety record for young drivers relative to those in Australia. These measures include increasing the driving age from 15 to 16; making the restricted licence test more difficult, to encourage 120 hours of supervised driving practice; improving the road safety education available to young people; and investigating tougher penalties for breaches of restricted licences. In addition, the Government is investigating vehicle power restrictions for young drivers.

David Bennett: What else is the Government doing for young drivers in order to reduce the road toll?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: A second package of initiatives focused on the impact of alcohol on our roads will be discussed by Cabinet shortly. This package includes a proposal to reduce the youth blood-alcohol limit to zero.

Darien Fenton: What improvements has the Government been considering to cycle safety on our picturesque highways, given that the Minister has just increased the potential weight of trucks to 53 tonnes while reducing the funding available for road maintenance; and what will he do to counter claims by European tourists that our roads are now too dangerous for cycle touring?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are a number of incorrect assertions in the member’s question, including the one that we have reduced the amount for State highway maintenance. That is simply incorrect. The second point is that the increase in permitted limits for trucks will actually reduce the number of trucks on the road for the same weight of freight. The third point is that we have a number of initiatives in Safer Journeys, which I am happy to provide the member with a second copy of if she wishes to read the initiatives in relation to cycle safety on New Zealand roads.

Whānau Ora—Establishments of Contracts

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister responsible for

Whānau Ora: What progress has been made towards the establishment of the 20 Whānau Ora contracts expected to start in July 2010?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister responsible for Whānau Ora): A Government group has been established to facilitate the implementation of Whānau Ora and provide leadership and coordination across Government agencies and stakeholders.

Hon Annette King: Will any of the 20 Whānau Ora contracts be located in the 58 areas that have Strengthening Families, which is a programme that the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, said is Whānau Ora, or in the 13 areas where Early Years service hubs already exist, which are coordinating services where 98 percent of its families are Māori; if so, will these existing programmes cease or have their funding reduced?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Strengthening Families focuses on better coordination of roles between agencies when supporting families. Whānau Ora seeks to better position w’ānau to take responsibility for their own futures.

Hon Annette King: What plans are in place to evaluate the Whānau Ora programme using such methodologies as randomised control trials to compare the outcome of whānau receiving Whānau Ora - based services with an equivalent group that are receiving existing services?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: There will be research running alongside of Whānau Ora, but it will not be to compare them with existing failed services.

Rahui Katene: What does she expect will be achieved through a Whānau Ora approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Essentially we expect that w’ānau will be empowered to deal with the issues that confront them rather than be trapped in an environment of crisis. A Whānau Ora approach will enable people to focus on their own potential and opportunities to improve their situation. Some w’ānau will continue to need the support of service providers and also agencies to make that transition.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that after spending over $1 billion on Whānau Ora, if it does not work “we will try something different”, and because there is a large amount of funding at risk, when will she be in a position to present an initial statement on the success of the Whānau Ora - based approach compared with the outcomes from existing provisions?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: After 30 years of failed provisions, I think I can safely say—

Hon Members: Oh, oh!

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Do those members want to hear the answer?

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker wants to hear the answer.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I feel very confident, because right throughout the country the whole non-governmental organisation sector is so excited and highly motivated to make this work. The Labour Party members might laugh, but in the next election we will see how excited they are.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That might have been a nice answer to clap for, but it certainly was not an answer to the very direct question that I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: As I recollect the member’s question, it was a fairly direct question that asked the Minister when she might be in a position to report on assessment of the success of a programme. I invite the member to repeat the question.

Hon Annette King: I asked whether she agreed with the Prime Minister that after spending over a billion dollars on Whānau Ora and it does not work, as he said “we will try something different”; and, because there is a large amount of funding at risk, when will she be in a position to present an initial statement on the success of a Whānau Ora - based approach when compared with outcomes from existing provisions?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: At present we do not have an outcomes measurement in existing programmes. In fact, what is measured is a lot of outputs and activity. I think that after a year, we will be able to give some really good outcome measurements that show we are making progress with families rather than counting numbers and money.

Rahui Katene: How will providers find out what will be required with Whānau Ora?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The three key agencies—the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Social Development, and Te Puni Kōkiri—are engaging with providers through a series of hui across the country in coming weeks. This will ensure that providers are well informed about Whānau Ora prior to the expression of interest process.

Hon Annette King: In light of the Television One poll last night, which showed that 63 percent of New Zealanders do not feel they have a good understanding of Whānau Ora, does she believe that 10 meetings over the next month will be enough to improve that understanding, and who has been invited to these meetings?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: We can look at these polls and interpret them the way we like, because 57 percent of New Zealanders support Whānau Ora. I apologise; I cannot remember the second part of the supplementary question. [Interruption] It is a little bit more than 8 percent.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure the supplementary question was quite so specific. Does the member wish to seek a further supplementary question?

Hon Annette King: No, no, I was—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Hon Annette King: Yes. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Minister addressed it. I asked in light of 63 percent in the poll having said they did not have a good understanding, and the Minister saying on television last night that she intended to hold 10 meetings over the next month, whether that was enough to improve understanding, and who had been invited.

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked a question in light of certain polls last night, and in her answer the Minister gave figures that perhaps question the selected polling information the member used. To ask the Minister to be more precise on that kind of question is a little bit difficult. I have already asked the Minister to be more precise on one answer for the member. If she has further supplementary questions, I invite her to pursue them.

Kyoto Protocol—New Zealand’s Net Position

7. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s latest net position report under the Kyoto Protocol?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The report shows that New Zealand is set to exceed its Kyoto target by 11.4 million tonnes, which is worth $233 million. That is a small improvement on the previous year’s estimate. The report shows that, although New Zealand’s gross emissions will be 23 percent greater than in 1990, over the Kyoto period—2008 to

2012—that is offset by the growth increment of forests planted since 1989. However, the credits for those forests belong to forest owners. Foresters are expected to receive credits worth $1.8 billion; consumers and businesses, through the emissions trading scheme, are expected to pay approximately $1 billion; and taxpayers are expected to face a bill of about $570 million over the period to 2012. The $231 million surplus is the overall balance for “New Zealand Incorporated”.

Nikki Kaye: Has the Minister received any advice on the impacts of the Government’s emissions trading scheme on New Zealand’s net Kyoto position?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the advice I have received is that New Zealand would be in deficit were it not for the emissions trading scheme. The emissions trading scheme is projected to reduce net emissions by 22 million tonnes as a consequence of the financial incentives it introduces to both reduce emissions and plant trees. In short, without the emissions trading scheme New Zealand would not meet its Kyoto commitment to stabilise net emissions at 1990 levels.

Nikki Kaye: Can the Minister clarify that there is a difference between New Zealand’s net position and the Government’s net position?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, that is a very important distinction. New Zealand is expected to exceed its Kyoto target by 11 million tonnes, but the allocation of carbon units to foresters, as promised by New Zealand when we signed Kyoto in Japan in 1997, means that New Zealand’s net position is actually a deficit of about 30 million tonnes. The claim that New Zealand does not need an emissions trading scheme because we are set to exceed our Kyoto targets ignores the reduced emissions that the scheme will deliver and the fact that the Government still carries a substantive liability from emissions growth.

Charles Chauvel: What advice has the Government received about the additional annual cost to the taxpayer of continuing to underwrite carbon-price risks by maintaining a 50 percent obligation under the emissions trading scheme after 2013, as the Minister indicated on 8 April he was considering?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is carefully balancing its Kyoto obligations with a real concern about the cost for consumers and for business. That is why we modified the scheme, which will halve the cost for consumers from 1 July this year. This Government has also indicated that if there is not significant progress internationally in countries like Australia and the United States, then it would be our intention—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a direct and quite precise one that asked what advice the Government had received about the additional annual cost to the taxpayer of continuing a particular policy. The answer has not yet even begun to address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect, when the member carried on with his question he said the policy related to something the Minister said on a certain date.

Charles Chauvel: Yes, I was simply verifying that he had actually floated that proposal, so I was asking about the costing of it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is saying that he floated the proposal and now he is asking about the cost of a policy.

Charles Chauvel: That was the primary part of the question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: What I am getting is that the member is now expecting me to intervene when his question identified that the Minister floated a proposal, but he is now asking about costing a policy.

Charles Chauvel: I am asking whether it was costed when he floated it. I think it is a legitimate question. I can repeat the question if it was not heard as clearly as it might have been. I do not think there is any sting in the tail here; it is a pretty straightforward question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister having heard that, I invite him to carry on with his answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Certainly. This Government made a decision to halve the costs to consumers and businesses from 1 July this year. I have raised the prospect that in the event that

there is not progress in Australia or the United States, we would reconsider lifting the cost for consumers and businesses on 1 January 2013.

Charles Chauvel: At what cost?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member asks what the cost of that would be. That is impossible to tell, for a very simple reason: there is no international agreement beyond 2013, so to determine the cost for New Zealand when at the moment there is no agreement beyond the Kyoto period to 2012 makes such a calculation impossible.

Finance, Minister—Statements

8. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his recent statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): That was such a good question that it should have been higher up the list. The answer is yes. In particular I stand by my statements about the mismanagement of the previous Government, which saw our tradable industries stagnate for a decade, Government spending soar, per capita GDP decline, and New Zealand go into recession a year before the rest of the world did.

Hon David Cunliffe: Among his recent statements, is his claim to Grey Power that he will consider restoring New Zealand Superannuation Fund contributions sooner than had been expected an acknowledgement that the Dominion Post’s Vernon Small was right when he called the Minister’s policy “dumb” and “short-sighted”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Hon David Cunliffe: Amongst his recent statements, when he said yesterday that inflation was low, can he confirm that on top of another 10c-a-litre increase in the price of petrol, an increase in GST will unnecessarily push up the cost of living and make it more difficult for those who are struggling to make ends meet to get ahead?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member needs to wait and see the details of the tax package before he jumps to the conclusion that people will be worse off. In fact, as the Prime Minister has said a number of times, the vast majority of New Zealanders are likely to be better off.

Hon David Cunliffe: Among his recent statements, when he says the tax system is unfair, does he then agree with TradeMe founder Sam Morgan that the system is unfair because “The people that pay the most tax are working people”; if so, what measures will he take to correct that injustice?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the reasons that people like Sam Morgan can essentially pick their tax rate is the ridiculous tax structure that the previous Government put in place, which gives many opportunities to people to structure their affairs so that they can virtually pick their tax rate. I have invited Mr Morgan, if he feels uneasy in his conscience, to write out a cheque to the Inland Revenue Department and pay what he believes to be his fair share of tax.

Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Retrofitted Houses

9. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many homes were retrofitted in March through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am pleased to advise the House that in March 3,837 houses were retrofitted with home insulation or a clean-heating device. Since the scheme started on 1 July 2009, the very large number of 37,532 houses has received assistance under the scheme. The target for the first year was 27,000 houses, so that record has been beaten by some 10,000 houses in only 9 months of the scheme’s existence to date.

Melissa Lee: How many houses retrofitted so far are occupied by people on low incomes?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This is one of the most pleasing aspects of the scheme. So far the uptake from low-income households has been about 60 percent of the homes that have been

retrofitted—in other words, homes that are occupied by low-income earners. That is over 22,000 homes that will be drier, warmer, and healthier for the people who need that the most.

Chris Hipkins: What steps has he taken to ensure that the initial quality concerns with regard to Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart have been addressed, given that an audit of 570 houses that had been insulated under the scheme found that 359, or 63 percent, of them had insulation problems, half of which were regarded as serious; and what reassurance can he give to the 37,532 householders whom he has just mentioned that their houses have been insulated to an appropriate standard and have not had a slapdash job done so that he can trump up the numbers higher?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is a very serious question. Since the very start of the scheme we have insisted on very high standards, so the audit process—and every house that is insulated undergoes an audit process—has 100 checkpoints to ensure that all aspects of the job are up to standard. The issues that have been raised in some of the audits are considered to be easily rectifiable—

Hon Annette King: Every house is audited?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Every house is audited by the installer; that is right. Then there is the—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Those members can laugh, but the reality is that—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Are we going to have a go, or not?

Mr SPEAKER: Order. The Hon Gerry Brownlee is answering the question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The standards that are being achieved are extremely high compared with, for example, the situation in Australia. We have also held back payments from anybody who has a history of doing this work poorly, as well as from others who are in a position where they have had strikes issued against them. We are quite firm that if people do not rectify poorly installed insulation, they will be out of the scheme as providers.

Tertiary Education—Student Loans, Allowances, and Course Fees

10. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What advice has he received on those who are likely to be disadvantaged by recently announced policies regarding tertiary education with respect to student loans, allowances, and course fees?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): I have received a range of advice on a number of possible changes we are looking at making to tertiary policy. For example, the idea of introducing a stand-down period for new permanent residents and Australians before they can access a student loan has been the subject of advice. It would, obviously, have an impact on a number of Australians and new permanent residents who access student loans. It would also bring student loans into line with other Government support packages, and more into line with what New Zealanders experience in Australia.

Hon Maryan Street: What effect will an increase of 2.5 percent in GST and an increase in fees have on the Government’s student loan liability, and does he think these increases will make it easier or harder for people to access tertiary education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The proposed increase in GST, should it occur, would be accompanied by a compensatory increase in student allowances. Of course, fees increase every year. The previous Government had a maximum fee increase of 5 percent for most tertiary education courses, and many fees have increased on that basis for many years.

Hon Maryan Street: How does he think part-time students will be affected by the proposed time limit on access to student loans, and how does it fit with the Government’s agenda for growth in the New Zealand economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can inform the member that the effect on part-time students will be proportionate to the impact on full-time students. In other words, we would not be expecting part21 Apr 2010 Questions for Oral Answer Page 14 of 15 time students to progress through their academic education to the same extent that we would expect full-time students to do so.

Hon Maryan Street: How will increased fees for the more expensive tertiary courses such as medicine encourage students to choose those programmes, and what effect will the increased fees have on the diversity and supply of highly qualified New Zealanders such as doctors in the future?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think that question assumes there would be a sizable increase in fees, and I think that is very premature. I point out that the effect of stopping increases in fees for courses that are expensive to provide, and allowing increases to occur for courses that are less expensive, has the impact of making the courses that are less expensive to provide subsidise the more expensive courses, which is hardly fair to those who are taking those courses. I also point out that the average time taken by a doctor in this country to pay off a student loan is 4 years, which is considerably less than the time taken by people in many other occupations, once they are qualified.

Legal Aid—Changes

11. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: What changes is the Government making to the legal aid system?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Earlier this month I announced a comprehensive reform of legal aid services, following on from Dame Margaret Bazley’s report on this area. New Zealand’s new legal aid system will include a new quality assurance framework for legal aid lawyers, improvements to the duty lawyer scheme, and an expansion of the Public Defence Service to Wellington, Christchurch, and Hamilton. I am confident this package of reforms will improve access to justice and help build the public’s confidence in the legal aid system.

Chester Borrows: What reports has the Minister seen on his recent announcement about changes to the legal aid system?

Hon SIMON POWER: I have seen a report from the New Zealand Law Society, which has welcomed the streamlining of administration relating to grants of legal aid, and the extension of the Public Defence Service. The president of the Auckland District Law Society has also welcomed the changes, stating “The society supports any efforts to improve access to justice for disadvantaged members of the public unable to afford the services of a lawyer.” I have also seen reports that the Hon Phil Goff and the Hon Lianne Dalziel have described the changes as “useful” and “a good thing”.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Has he met with the members of the Manukau legal profession who had their reputations damaged as a result of Dame Margaret Bazley’s report, as he indicated to the House he would in December last year; if so, has he been reassured of the integrity of the overwhelming majority of those lawyers and their ongoing commitment to report those who are not meeting the high standards required of the Bar?

Hon SIMON POWER: As I said at the time, I am happy to meet the members of the Manukau Bar. I have just checked with my office in the last 15 minutes. To date I have not received an invitation or a request to meet them.

Local Government, Minister—Statements

12. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by all his recent statements on local government?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): Yes, of course.

Brendon Burns: Can the Minister tell Cantabrians how abolishing their vote for Environment Canterbury councillors can be reconciled with his comments on Monday that “when you are essentially regulating and controlling natural resources such as water and land, the people responsible should be subject to democratic control.”?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Very easily. The decision made to replace the councillors of Environment Canterbury was made by Cabinet and Parliament, the members of which, each and

every one of them, were elected to their position to be in Government. My concern over the Waikato River is that half of the representatives on the Waikato River Authority will not be elected by the general population but appointed by local iwi. I also note this difference from the situation with Environment Canterbury: Environment Canterbury returns to democratic elections in 2013, at the latest. That does not happen at all in the Waikato; the co-governance arrangements are for ever.

Brendon Burns: Can the Minister explain how on Monday democratic control meant: “If the community does not like it, the community can sack them.”, when 3 weeks ago democratic control meant that if the Minister did not like it, the Minister could sack them?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Au contraire. The Minister cannot sack Environment Canterbury. It actually requires Parliament to effect that change. I am sorry the member was not awake through the passage of that legislation.

Phil Twyford: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call Phil Twyford, it is my understanding that the Labour Party has had its allocation of questions.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On behalf of the Government I am prepared to be very generous and seek leave for Mr Twyford to ask an additional question, because his questions are always so enjoyable.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Phil Twyford: How can he say that council-controlled organisations will strongly support local government transparency and accountability in Auckland when Local Government New Zealand said yesterday that under his model, Aucklanders cannot be sure where accountability lies, making it difficult for citizens and voters to know who to hold accountable for decisions?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Easy. I disagree with Local Government New Zealand on this matter, and we have had some discussions. I have to say that their understanding of the issue is growing by the day.

Phil Twyford: So you’re right and they’re wrong?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No. It is not about who is right and who is wrong; it is actually about understanding the issue. I have to say that Local Government New Zealand has a much better appreciation of the role of council-controlled organisations. I also note that the issue is before the select committee, and I am looking forward to the report from the select committee back to the House.

ENDS

© Scoop Media