(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 27 APRIL 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Budget 2010—Effect on Families

1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: How will the Budget next month help New Zealanders and their families get ahead in this country?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget next month will help to achieve that by focusing on four main goals: lifting the long-term performance of the economy, the reform of the tax system, better delivery of public services, and maintaining firm control of the Government’s finances.

Craig Foss: As part of the Budget, how will the Government ensure that it continues to manage its finances in a responsible way on behalf of taxpayers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will continue to improve public services, funding that from cuts to low-quality spending and from the new operating allowance. We will live within the $1.1 billion operating allowance for new spending and will restrict annual increases from this figure to 2 percent per year from next year. Even with this restraint, core Crown debt is forecast to triple to about $65 billion by 2014, as we borrow to fund the deficits. To turn this round, the Budget will redirect another $1.8 billion of lower-quality spending between now and 2014 into high-priority areas, such as health care, education, and law and order.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following will make it easier for New Zealand families to get ahead: increasing tax on all the basics, when most people are struggling to pay their weekly bills, or giving tax cuts to those people on the highest incomes and small change to everybody else?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait for the Budget to see the details. The Budget will be good for the economy, and it will help New Zealand families to get ahead.

Craig Foss: What are New Zealand’s main economic vulnerabilities as the Government deals with those challenges?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are two main vulnerabilities. First, a Treasury forecast in December predicted a cash deficit of $10.1 billion in the current year to 30 June. Treasury has also forecast that the Government will not return to surplus until 2016. The second vulnerability is New Zealand’s total external debt, including that of households, businesses, and the Government. It has ballooned from $90 billion owed to foreign lenders in 2000 to $170 billion today, and is forecast to approach $250 billion by 2014. Those facts were clearly lost on Labour’s spokesperson on finance, when he said: “New Zealand’s problem cannot be primarily that it has a yawning budget deficit, because it does not.”

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that on taking office his Government inherited zero net Crown debt from the previous Government, and that in describing borrowing he has misrepresented the data by claiming that the Government is borrowing $240 million a week, when

half of that is rolling over old debt; and can he further confirm that New Zealand’s gross and Crown net debt are around one-third of the OECD average?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am confused by the member’s claim that there was no debt when he left office, as he said in his second sentence that half of our borrowing is going into rolling over existing debt. The credibility of that analysis is carried through into Labour’s recent promises to put up taxes, spend more, borrow more, and leave it to our children to pay the bill.

Craig Foss: What alternative approaches to managing the Government’s finances has the Minister seen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a misguided recipe for borrowing and hoping, taxing and spending, and leaving a mortgage on the future for our families. It comes from Labour’s leader and its spokesperson on finance. The fact is that the current Government is following very sensible economic policy, which is to prevent a rapid rise in our debt, to lift the growth rate of our economy, and to give people incentives to save and to get ahead, and less incentive to spend too much and borrow too much.

John Boscawen: Why will the Government not help New Zealand families by following Australia’s lead today and putting the emissions trading scheme on hold until 2013, especially since John Key promised during the election campaign that “we shouldn’t be the world leader, because that will come at the expense of our economy.”, and that he sees no sense in New Zealand putting export jobs into another part of the world, or does that election promise not matter?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The issues around the emissions trading scheme are complex, and the Australian situation is a bit different from what the member said it was. But I am puzzled by the willingness of that member’s party to promise to honour the property rights of forest owners, who will receive over $1 billion dollars worth of credits. ACT wants the forest owners to keep their credits, but it thinks the taxpayer should pick up all the debits. I am not sure whether he has consulted Sir Roger Douglas about that, but that is very poor public policy.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe the Minister addressed that question. We got a long discussion about ACT’s position on it, but the question was quite clear: why would we not follow Australia?

Mr SPEAKER: As I heard the Minister’s answer, he disputed the way in which the path taken by Australia was described in the question. He is perfectly entitled to do that when he answers a question.

Whaling—Catch Limits for Southern Ocean

2. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: How many whales, if any, does he believe it is acceptable to have hunted and killed in the Southern Ocean?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): None.

Gareth Hughes: Is the protection of the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary over the next 10 years a bottom line for New Zealand negotiations?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Government’s position, which I believe reflects the position of the vast majority of New Zealanders, is that we wish to see the elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean at the earliest possible time. There has, for some time, been discussion at the International Whaling Commission and, most recently, through its support group to see whether we can negotiate that outcome. On Friday a proposed consensus decision was released by the chair and deputy chair of the International Whaling Commission. New Zealand flatly rejected that proposal as being inadequate.

Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister saying that it is still on the table that New Zealand will support International Whaling Commission - sanctioned whaling in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary over the next 10 years?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am saying that the New Zealand Government understands, as do most others, including many non-governmental organisations, that there is only one process that can

achieve the elimination of whaling in the Southern Ocean in a relatively short space of time, and that is the International Whaling Commission process. Those who assert that we should head off to the International Court of Justice needs to understand that that process could take 4 or 5 years, and, even then, achieve an adverse outcome.

Gareth Hughes: Given that your wait-and-see diplomatic approach has failed and resulted in an unacceptable response, what will you do in the next 2 months to ensure the absolute protection of whales in the Southern Ocean?

Mr SPEAKER: I did not want to intrude when the member referred to the Speaker early on in that question, but he cannot ask the Minister what the Speaker might be doing. I invite the member to rephrase his question, because every time he refers to “you” he is referring to the Speaker.

Gareth Hughes: Given that the Minister’s wait-and-see diplomatic approach has failed and resulted in an unacceptable result, what will the Minister now do over the next 2 months to give absolute protection to whales in the Southern Ocean Whale Sanctuary?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I intend to do exactly what I indicated publicly on Friday the Government would do. Having rejected the proposal put on the table by the chair and deputy chair of the International Whaling Commission as being unrealistic and unacceptable, I indicated that we would explore urgently with key players at the commission whether there was genuine room for a substantially different outcome from that proposed in the document released on Friday, in order to see whether it was worthwhile for us to invest further in that process. That is precisely what I am doing.

Auckland, Local Government Reform—Input of Aucklanders

3.Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on the reorganisation of local government in Auckland that “The Government wants Aucklanders to have the maximum impact into the proposals”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Why has he failed to honour that commitment to the extent that this morning the New Zealand Herald described the Government as having a “tin ear” on reorganisation and that two-thirds of Aucklanders polled believe that the Government has ignored their concerns about the reorganisation?

Hon JOHN KEY: I would have thought that that member would be the last one wanting to talk about polls. I also note that the New Zealand Herald’s editorial said that the member’s proposal was light on detail. There has been extensive consultation with the public, and I am sure that when the third bill comes back from the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee it will reflect that.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is he giving the Auckland Transport Agency, which is unelected, the right to pass by-laws, but is denying that power to the elected local boards?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because we think it makes sense for the agency to be able to set some initial parameters in relation to the local boards, and that is because, over time, they need to reflect those communities. As that system plays out, I am sure that the Auckland Council will set new policies there.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is he imposing on Auckland the requirement to have council-controlled organisations, when every other council in this country is able to make that decision for itself?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, the Leader of the Opposition looks very confused when it comes to council-controlled organisations. Only last night—

Mr SPEAKER: I did not intervene on an earlier occasion when the Prime Minister launched into something to do with the Opposition when he started answering a question, because the questioner had put a couple of statements into his question that gave the Prime Minister the liberty to do so. But that was a reasonably straightforward question. It was not about the Opposition; it was about the matter that the Leader of the Opposition asked about. I think the Prime Minister should first answer that question.

Hon JOHN KEY: I note that just last night the Leader of the Opposition was saying that council-controlled organisations are all right. Council-controlled organisations have been in operation around the country—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You gave a very clear ruling about the way the Prime Minister should answer the question, yet he got up and restated a position about the Opposition. This is question time. It is for the Government to explain its record, not to comment on the Opposition’s.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a perfectly fair point. I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to re-ask his question so there can be no confusion as to what it was.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is he imposing council-controlled organisations on Auckland City when every other city in this country is able to make that decision for itself?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because we believe that that is the right structure for Auckland. Councilcontrolled organisations have been in operation for quite come time and have widespread support, including from the Opposition.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Government repealing the requirement for Auckland City to get the consent of Aucklanders by referendum before any privatisation of the Ports of Auckland can take place?

Hon JOHN KEY: Let me make it clear that there is no privatisation as part of the reform of Auckland. It is nothing to do with that. If there are asset sales, then that is a matter for the Auckland Council, just like it would be for any other council. I have no doubt that, when those elections take place, members, as they seek election, will make it clear what their plans and proposals are in that regard.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the advice given to him by four Government departments, the Auckland mayors as a group, the Auckland chamber of commerce, and the vast majority of submissions to the select committee that the transport agency should be an in-house operation and not one that is passed across to a commercial council-controlled operation?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, we reject that assertion. Secondly, I tell the member that I have seen that the most significant issue that Auckland faces is probably transport. There is a widespread willingness to see transport operating efficiently in Auckland, just as there is around the country. I might add that, when he was in Government, I did not see that member ripping up the equivalent of the transport agency, which is exactly what the council-controlled organisation is.

Hon Phil Goff: In overruling the objections of all of those bodies, is it still his intention to overrule the Auckland district plan that will prevent mining on Great Barrier Island, or will he listen to the overwhelming majority of people in the poll last night who said they did not want that?

Hon JOHN KEY: As the Government knows, we are going through a consultation process in relation—

Hon Darren Hughes: As the Government knows?

Hon JOHN KEY: As the Opposition knows, we are going through a consultation process when it comes to mining. In due course, we will be reflecting on that. All I can say is, whether mining on Great Barrier Island is a good idea is yet to be proven. I know that having the mayor of Auckland sitting in Cabinet is not a good idea—unless we happened to be a Labour Government, in which case that person would be an addition in both IQ and quality compared to those members sitting over there.

Māori—Strategies Addressing Equitable Access to Alcohol Consumption

4. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Justice: What strategies have been introduced to respond to evidence that over the past decade Māori drinking prevalence rates have now reached the same level as non-Māori, and yet Māori report higher unmet needs for reducing alcohol consumption?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): The primary strategy that this Government has introduced is the whole-of-Government Drivers of Crime strategy. Reducing alcohol-related harm is one of the four priority areas of the Drivers of Crime strategy.

Rahui Katene: Does he agree with the Law Commission that a new Act, an Alcohol Harm Reduction Act, is required; and how will Māori solutions be included and community ownership sought in developing a new Act to address inequalities such as the fact that Māori women suffer more adverse effects as a result of other people’s drinking than any other subgroup by ethnicity and gender?

Hon SIMON POWER: Legislative change in the areas covered by the Law Commission’s report tabled today is likely. In the event that legislation in the area of alcohol is on its way to Parliament, then all New Zealanders, including those who have specific issues around harm-related matters, will have the opportunity to make submissions during the course of any legislative changes, if that is the wish of Parliament.

Whānau Ora, Minister—Statements

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

Whānau Ora: Does she stand by all her recent statements?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Minister responsible for Whānau Ora): I am hoping I can, but it will really depend on what statement the member is referring to.

Hon Annette King: On what evidence did she base her answer last week that there had been 30 years of failed provision from existing service provision, and that is why Whānau Ora was needed?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The statistical data that is collected, which is floated in front of us on a daily basis, as to how badly Māori families in particular are doing.

Hon Annette King: Has she read the Social Report 2009 from the Ministry of Social Development, which shows that there has been substantial improvement for Māori in many measurable indicators, particularly over the last 10 years, during a time when she was in fact a Minister in a Labour-led Government; and why does she call those gains, made for Māori and provided by mainstream and Māori providers, failures?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I think it is important to acknowledge what has worked well, but we think we can do considerably better. Hence the new programme.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her statements: that the approach this Government is taking to address the well-being of whānau is a different approach from that taken in the past; that the Government has committed itself to work with whānau, hapū, and iwi; and that the Government’s policy aims to drive Māori development through a new partnership approach between whānau, hapū, and iwi; and is she aware that all those statements were made when she was in a Labour-led Government; if so, what changes has this Government made to that approach?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: It is one thing to make statements; it is another thing to implement them.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her statement that training has already begun for the 20 providers for Whānau Ora; if so, who are the providers, how were they chosen, and why have they not been announced yet?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: What I did say was that some providers had begun to provide training to their staff. They have done that from their own budgets and in their own time.

Aquaculture Reform—Progress

6. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture: What announcements has he made today regarding aquaculture reforms?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture): Today I announced that the Government has agreed to a range of measures to support the aquaculture industry’s goal of generating annual sales of $1 billion by 2025. We want to help boost the sector’s potential to

generate sustainable economic growth for New Zealand while still protecting the environment and the interests of other coastal users. This is actually about creating jobs and getting more people into work, particularly in the regions, where they really do need those jobs.

Shane Ardern: Why are these aquaculture reforms necessary?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No new aquaculture space has been created under the current law. Any new aquaculture space that has come into stream in the last few years has come under the old law. We want to free up the regulatory bottlenecks that have kept aquaculture planning in limbo. The industry has been stifled by inflexible rules, which have been stopping companies and small businesses from investing. If we want jobs and growth in the regions, these are the types of initiatives we need.

Debt, External—Vulnerability of New Zealand

7. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that our total external debt “is clearly New Zealand’s single biggest vulnerability”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, and I will explain that just for the benefit of the member, who seems to want to make a significant problem worse. Last year the OECD said that New Zealand had “one of the OECD’s highest levels of foreign debt, the result of sustained and sometimes large current account deficits that reflect a long period of unbalanced growth”. By the time this Government was elected, simply servicing that external debt was costing over $13 billion, which was more than $6,000 per household, per year. That is one reason why New Zealand was placed on negative credit watch following the global crisis. We just escaped a downgrade, a sharp lift in interest rates, and a deepening of the recession, because of the responsible approach taken in last year’s Budget.

Hon David Cunliffe: When will the Minister make it clear to New Zealanders that of the total external debt, by far the majority is private debt rather than Crown debt; therefore, why is it that his solution to that problem is to cut, cut, cut needed programmes from the Government Budget rather than to address the private external debt at its core?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have made it clear that a fair chunk of it is private debt. As it happens, over the next 4 or 5 years the growth in New Zealand’s external debt, which is currently $170 billion, will be largely driven by increases in Government borrowing, and it is forecast to reach $250 billion. That is why we want to manage Government expenditure. The member has a different view on that: he thinks that that is a low number, and therefore it does not matter if the Government runs up debt. We happen to disagree with him, and we are happy to debate the issue.

Amy Adams: What steps is the Government taking to reduce these debt problems?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Almost all of the Government’s policies will lead to New Zealand being less exposed to this vulnerability. These include limiting the growth of Government debt and getting the Government’s books back into surplus; being responsible with new spending; restructuring the taxation system to deal with the underlying imbalance in the economy by encouraging savings, investment, and enterprise rather than encouraging borrowing, consumption, and property speculation; and investing in worthwhile infrastructure. Next month’s Budget will report progress on all of these fronts.

Hon David Cunliffe: If those are the Minister’s priorities, does he agree with Exporter magazine that the Government has shown apathy on the exchange rate, has low marks for adding value, is at the bottom of the class for abolishing market development grants, and that its focus on “ ‘digging exports out of the ground and growing more sheep’ will not make us a wealthy nation”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not agree with that assessment. Last week I met with a large group of chief executives of our largest companies, and I have to say that their approach was much more constructive than that, as we worked through a programme of work to deal with the kinds of issues that the member has raised.

Amy Adams: What approaches to dealing with economic vulnerabilities has he witnessed in other countries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the House the Opposition has often quoted the Australian Labor Government and its policies. The Opposition may be interested to know that yesterday Federal Treasurer Swann indicated that his Budget is committed to reducing the deficit and accumulated debt, operating within strict rules that limit new spending growth to 2 percent, delivering tax cuts, and continuing to fund worthwhile infrastructure. I must say that that all sounds very familiar. Our own Budget may well be fairly similar to that of the Australian Labor Government, and both those Budgets will be quite different from the approach outlined by the New Zealand Labour Party.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the next supplementary question, I ask both front benches, please, to be a little more reasonable with their interjections. I found it hard to hear the Minister during that answer.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that in suspending contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, giving tax breaks to polluters to continue polluting, cutting investment in research and development, and borrowing to give tax cuts to his rich mates, it is his Government that is mortgaging New Zealand’s future?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am sure the member will be happy to outline in detail his plans to increase more rapidly the burden of debt that—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a well-established convention in the House that a Minister, particularly a Minister of Finance just before a Budget, cannot cover for his own lack of policy by inviting the Opposition to write it for him.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not have a point of order like that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: [Interruption] I think the member is brighter than his tie. The answer to that question is no.

Ambulance Services—Improvements to Front-line Emergency Services

8. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received of improvements to front-line emergency ambulance services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Members may recall that the Government invested an extra $48 million over 4 years for ambulance services, including 100 extra paramedics. I am pleased to advise today that almost half of those 100 paramedics have started work, and the rest are on track to be recruited in this quarter. This is already making a significant impact on ambulance services, especially on the ability to have double-crewing for call-outs in some areas. For example, with the additional paramedics, Wairarapa District Health Board is now able to operate the Greytown station 24/7, and staff are able to take well-earned leave.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other improvements to front-line ambulance services can the Minister report?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yesterday my colleague Nathan Guy and I attended a celebration of care closer to home in Kapiti. On the Kapiti coast, Wellington Free Ambulance has halved the number of hospital admissions on its call-outs. Its paramedics assess patients at home first, and treat them on the spot if that is appropriate. Wellington Free Ambulance, through its 24/7, treat-at-home, urgent community care pilot, funded by this Government, has seen 1,161 Kapiti patients, and admitted only 399 of them to hospital. That is a drop from 75 percent hospital admissions to just 34 percent. Over half of those patients are over 75 years old.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How many more elderly will need an ambulance, following his decision to strip more than 3,000 people in Southland and Otago of their home help?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have been assured by the district health boards that no one will be left unsafe in their homes, but I have also been advised by the Otago District Health Board and the Southland District Health Board that during the time of the previous Government in the last 3 years,

hundreds of people in that area actually had their home care stopped. There will be more information on this matter in question time later this week.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How many more people in Palmerston North and Horowhenua will need an ambulance, following his decision to allow the 24-hour-a-day district nursing services to be scrapped?

Hon TONY RYALL: The changes that are being considered at MidCentral District Health Board have nothing to do with the level of funding that the Government has given them. The Government has, in fact, increased funding for MidCentral District Health Board by $26 million in the last year, and there will be more money next year. I assure the member that care will be available for those people in Palmerston North.

Methyl Bromide Gas—Use in New Zealand

9. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he concerned that while the European Parliament has banned the use of methyl bromide, a highly toxic and ozone-depleting gas, New Zealand’s use has increased by 500 percent since 2000, despite our commitment under the Montreal Protocol to reduce our use of the gas?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Methyl bromide is a cause of some concern, but, as is so often the case with the member from the Greens, she is incorrect and misleading in her claims. New Zealand is meeting its phase-out obligations under the Montreal Protocol, which exempts quarantine use. Other uses, principally sterilising strawberry beds, have dropped from 150 tonnes a year in 1990 to 0 tonnes in 2009. The member’s numbers are also double the official reported figures. Methyl bromide is used for fumigation purposes for exports of logs and timber products, due to the quarantine requirements of Australia, China, and India. Alternative approaches are being trialled. The Environmental Risk Management Authority is currently reassessing the use of methyl bromide, there is an opportunity for public input, and I have full confidence in that process.

Sue Kedgley: Does the Minister accept our obligation under the Montreal Protocol to refrain from the use of methyl bromide, to use non - ozone-depleting technologies wherever possible, and, where we do use methyl bromide, to minimise our emissions of methyl bromide through containment and recovery?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member seems to overlook the fact that the Montreal Protocol specifically excludes the area of quarantine activity. Furthermore, the Government and the industry—for instance, at Port Nelson—are trialling the recapture of methyl bromide, and alternatives are being used and trialled. However, the quarantine requirements of countries such as China, India, and Australia, to which New Zealand has substantially increased its log and timber exports, currently require the use of methyl bromide.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very straightforward: does he accept our obligations under the Montreal Protocol—and I read them out—yes or no? The Minister did not answer the question. Does he accept the obligations under the Montreal Protocol?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I explained in my answer, the member’s assertion is incorrect, because the—

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard enough already. The member made no assertion—that was what was actually quite good about her question. She simply asked whether the Minister accepts New Zealand’s responsibilities under the Montreal Protocol. There is no assertion in that, whatsoever. I think that although the Minister’s explanation was certainly not in any way political or critical, it would have been helpful had he answered the question before giving that further explanation. I ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is committed to meeting New Zealand’s obligations under the Montreal Protocol, but the member in her primary question does not seem to realise that

the principal area of increased use of methyl bromide is for quarantine purposes, which are not covered by the requirement under the Montreal Protocol to reduce its use.

Sue Kedgley: Given that the Government has committed to minimising our emissions through containment and recovery—which the Minister just confirmed in this House—why is the Government allowing 300 tonnes of the gas to be released directly into the atmosphere each year, when perfectly effective alternatives are available that do not destroy the ozone layer or put workers at risk, such as heat treatment for imported food and cars, and recapture technologies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I pointed out to the member, recapture technologies for methyl bromide are being trialled at my own port in Nelson. But if the use of methyl bromide was suddenly stopped, there would be a huge problem for New Zealand in terms of its exports of logs and timber products to key markets like Australia, China, and India, which require its use. I invite the member, if she has a concern about safety, to make submissions in the very credible, open, and transparent process that is provided by the Environmental Risk Management Authority in its review of methyl bromide.

Sue Kedgley: Is it acceptable that this highly toxic gas is being released directly into the atmosphere at ports all around New Zealand, where people work on a daily basis, and near office blocks, apartments, people’s homes, stadiums, and railway stations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Responsibility for setting the conditions of use for methyl bromide lies, appropriately, with that Environmental Risk Management Authority. As I have said, the authority is taking the initiative to review those conditions of use to see whether they are adequate. I rely on the authority’s very high levels of technical expertise to make sure that those conditions of use are appropriate.

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

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

Affairs: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples “will have no impact on New Zealand law”?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs): Article 46 of the declaration ensures that the laws of the sovereign States that support the declaration remain intact. But as laws change with the changing culture of society, then, who knows, the declaration may be able to inform new laws. That would give a Labour Government a chance to change its mind and support the declaration.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Did the Minister just affirm the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, or did he put pen to paper and sign up to it, on behalf of the New Zealand Government?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The original vote taken was a vote. Now, people declare; they do not sign anything. There are two countries yet to declare.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Is it his intention to advocate changes to New Zealand law to facilitate movement towards the aspirations of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am quite happy that the processes that we have in place at this moment support those of the declaration and, more important, of the Treaty of Waitangi.

David Garrett: Does the Minister agree with a former New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Rosemary Banks, that article 26 of the declaration “implies indigenous peoples have rights that others do not”; if he does not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: No.

Hon Shane Jones: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree that the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples means that only members of iwi and hapū are indigenous New Zealanders; if that is the case, what does he think the status of Pākehā is?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The status of Pākehā is that of tangata Tiriti, through the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Hon Shane Jones: Does he believe that New Zealanders of non-Māori descent can ever claim to be either native or indigenous to New Zealand?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: They certainly can agree to be native, because we are all native to this place. But at the end of the day we are all New Zealanders working together.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā tātou katoa. What other countries have changed their position on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: When I had finished making our declaration at the United Nations, I was immediately met by the permanent representatives of the United States and Canada, who said that we had put them on the spot. The following day they made speeches indicating that they, too, will be following suit.

Rest and Meal Breaks—Proposed Legislative Changes

11. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Labour: Why is the Government amending legislation relating to rest and meal breaks?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): The Government is concerned that the current regime is too inflexible. It is important for all workers to have reasonable rest and meal breaks, but there needs to be sufficient flexibility in the legislation so that it works for all industries, all employers, and all employees. We have a bill for consideration tonight that will do just that.

David Bennett: What feedback has the Minister received on the bill?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have received numerous emails and letters from New Zealanders who are frustrated with the practical implications of the current law, including one communication from a teacher, who said: “The current legislation has made things worse for schools, not better. I believe that teachers need more flexibility in their break times, and things were working well beforehand. Our duty times have doubled from 45 minutes a week to 90 a week, as our management team insists this has to happen to cater for the law.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the statement that the current legislation merely codifies what went before; if so, can she remember who made that statement?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes. That was an aspirational statement made by me during the reading of the bill passed by the previous Government. As the member will well realise and remember, we had raised concerns that the major issue was not in relation to the provision of the breaks but to the prescriptive nature of the timing of those breaks. Our fears have been realised, and we are fixing it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she remember using the air traffic controllers as the major reason for the urgency behind this bill, and is she aware that when the parties sat down they sorted it out very easily?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Certainly the air traffic issue was a catalyst for considering the flawed legislation, but the Civil Aviation Authority was only one of several groups who approached me about this flawed legislation. We listened to them, and we are fixing it.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway Review

12. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Why does there need to be a review of ACC’s sensitive claims clinical pathway to determine whether or not survivors of sexual abuse are receiving timely decision making and services?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Changes were made by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to the way that it manages sensitive claims, in response to new Massey University guidelines launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. I have been extremely reluctant to interfere in clinical practice issues in such a sensitive area, but in response to concerns from counsellors and psychotherapists I agreed to establish an independent clinical review.

Lynne Pillay: Why does the Minister continue to say that he is focused on delivering to victims of sexual abuse, when clinicians, victims, and Massey University have all repeatedly told him that

the guidelines he introduced fail to deliver timely services? For example, it was reported today that a 15-year-old who was raped is still waiting, after 4 months.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Professional groups, like the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners, have issued a statement strongly in support of ACC’s pathway for dealing with sensitive claims. If the member has a particular case about which she has concerns, I invite her to refer it to Dr Barbara Disley, a very respected former mental health commissioner, who is to lead the review. I have to say I am disappointed that the member was not interested in even being consulted on the personnel or terms of reference of the review.

Dr Jackie Blue: What trend has there been in ACC’s acceptance rate of sensitive claims since 2000, and can the Minister confirm that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008 by the previous Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member makes a very good point. Between 2000 and 2008 the rate of rejection of sensitive claims grew from just 5 percent to 41 percent. [Interruption] The member Annette King is shouting out about caring. Where was she? What did she or Lynne Pillay do when 2,400 sensitive claims were rejected in 2008? They were silent, and that shows that this is simply about Opposition politics, rather than genuinely caring for people who have been sexually—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question relates to matters that are extremely sensitive, yet I think the Minister is doing his best to answer. It does not help when a Labour front-bencher is calling across the House: “You are a liar.” I think the Hon Ruth Dyson should be asked to apologise for making those comments.

Mr SPEAKER: Because I did not hear them, I have to ask the honourable member whether she made that interjection. If she did, I would ask her to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Yes, I did, and I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that this is an issue on which people have very strong feelings, and that is why I do not insist on silence. This is a place of passionate debate. I felt the Minister was handling the level of interjection pretty competently, and that was why I did not interfere, but that kind of interjection is unacceptable.

Lynne Pillay: Was the decision to deny counselling to sexual abuse victims part of the directive from the Deputy Prime Minister, Bill English, to cut low-value spending, and how long will it be before the Minister realises he cannot continue to cut services to people without disastrous consequences?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have made it abundantly plain to ACC that I have no expectations of any cost savings in respect of sensitive claims. I have had no involvement in the changes that have been made in this area, and members opposite know that. The changes are based on Massey University’s clinical guidelines, which were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in 2008. The claims from the member are simply incorrect.

Lynne Pillay: Why would ACC host another costly workshop, advertised to be held on 7 May, to explore gaps in services that have arisen because of the guidelines; and if the Minister’s own department knows there are gaps in services being provided to sexual abuse victims, why does not the Minister?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is determined to ensure that people entitled to receive accident compensation cover in this highly sensitive area of sexual abuse or assault receive the care they need. That is why on Monday I announced an independent clinical review. I think it speaks volumes about the member that when I offered to consult her both about the membership and the terms of reference of the review, she said she was not interested. She just wants to play politics in this sensitive area.

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table an email advertisement from the Accident Compensation Corporation about its workshop identifying gaps in services for the victims of serious assault.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Phil Goff: How does the Minister account for the fact that in October 2008 300 victims of sexual abuse had been approved for counselling, and by February this year that figure had dropped to six?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s numbers are quite incorrect. They are not true. I would ask that member, if he wants to make politics out of something as tragic and difficult as sexual abuse and neglect—

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

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.

Hon Phil Goff: The Minister answering the question is not answering the question. He embarked on a diatribe about my making politics of the issue. I asked a straight, factual question; he should address it.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did answer the question—in fact, quite specifically—the minute he said the member’s figures were wrong. The Minister should not have gone on from that point, because it is correct that the question was not loaded with political comment. But the Minister’s answer was that he considered that the member’s figures were wrong.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

Marine Reserves Bill—Date of Last Consideration

1. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and

Environment Committee: When did the committee last consider the Marine Reserves Bill?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment

Committee): The committee last considered the bill on 4 June 2009.

Gareth Hughes: When will the committee next consider the Marine Reserves Bill?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The member will be aware that further information on the committee’s consideration of this item of business remains confidential until the committee makes its final report to the House.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an answer to some other question, but it was certainly not an answer to this one. The question was “When will the committee next consider”. What the member has attempted to answer is not a question about confidential information. I think that a better answer could be sought.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised an interesting point. Although we have to be careful with questions to chairs of committees, I think the member could indicate whether the committee is yet to decide when it might next have this bill in front of it. This matter is the subject of a committee decision. Therefore, when the member says that the matter is confidential to the committee, we need to respect that, but it may be possible to indicate that the committee is yet to make a decision on it, or whether the committee has made a decision. I leave it in the member’s hands.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your guidance. The committee will next discuss the report when it chooses to.

Marine Reserves Bill—Report-back Date

2. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and

Environment Committee: When will the committee report on the Marine Reserves Bill?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment

Committee): The current reporting date for the Marine Reserves Bill is 30 December 2010.

Gareth Hughes: Will the committee call for further submissions, given the 7-year delay since the last submissions?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: At the risk of sounding like a parrot, I say the member will be aware that further information on the committee’s consideration of this item of business remains confidential until the committee makes its final report to the House.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand the need to have a defensive answer, but that was not an answer; it did not address the issue. A more reasonable answer could— [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member, but I say to members that a point of order is being heard.

Metiria Turei: An answer that does address the question could be made. That answer certainly was not one that did so.

Mr SPEAKER: The area of what is confidential to the committee is a very difficult area. If the committee has made a decision with regard to hearing further submissions, it may well be that that matter is confidential to the committee. But what would not breach confidentiality, in my view, would be to give an indication of whether further submissions have been called for. Because the chair of the committee has a role in calling for submissions, I think that it is reasonable that the chair of the committee answers questions in respect of calling for submissions. I do not want to be unduly unfair on the member, because he is quite right that decisions of the committee are confidential. But chairs have a particular role with regard to calling for submissions, so it may be possible to indicate whether the intention is to call for further submissions.

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Thank you again, Mr Speaker, for your guidance in answering this particular question. The committee will determine whether it will call for future submissions at such time as it gives that matter consideration.

ENDS

© Scoop Media