(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 29 APRIL 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Social Development and Employment, Minister—Statements

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social

Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Actually— yes I do, actually.

Hon Annette King: Oh, so last year!

Hon Members: Oh, so retro!

Mr SPEAKER: I guess that is about one all, I would say.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her many statements that people who bring information to Opposition members of Parliament can expect her to provide information to “put a bit of balance around the story”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly did that in one incident, and, yes, I stand by what I said at that time.

Hon Annette King: Will she be asking her ministry to seek information on the woman who has come to the Opposition because she has been pursued and harassed by Work and Income to register as a job-seeker, even though she is 78 years of age and the correspondence is being sent out by the senior services office of Work and Income?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To be fair, the Ministry of Social Development administers $20 billion, looks after 1.1 million people a year, and takes about 215,750 phone calls. It would be fair to say the ministry occasionally gets it wrong.

Hon Annette King: In light of information provided to the Opposition, what is the reason investigators from the Ministry of Social Development are sending letters to people unknown to them, asking them to provide information about their neighbours, and is Mr Peter Reedy from Hamilton, who has received such a letter, correct when he says: “It is an un-Kiwi thing to do. We do not live in Nazi Germany.”, and that he has no intention of spying on his neighbour?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly, but we do live in a country where we want fairness in our benefit system, and we will be following up those who present with fraud and are fraudulently taking taxpayers’ money. We will be doing something about it, and that was not predominantly done under the previous Government.

Hon Annette King: Is she aware that there are many such cases being brought to MPs arising from her language and her zealous approach to beneficiaries, and people, particularly those who have English as a second language, are scared to speak out, in fear of retaliation from her?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the first year of my being Minister there was a 95 percent increase in correspondence to the office compared to what had been received in the previous 10 years. That represents people welcoming themselves to write, and that is people who are interested in what we

are doing. [Interruption] I could give the member the percentage of positives to negatives, if she likes, because people are loving this National Government.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I hope it was an interesting answer, because I could not hear one word of it.

Hekia Parata: Can the Minister explain what has happened with welfare dependency over the last decade?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I can. I will take just one number in particular, and look at the sickness benefit, for example, which grew by 51.6 percent. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister, but a moment ago I made it clear that I could not hear the Minister’s previous answer. I need to be able to hear answers. I ask members, and on this occasion the Opposition front-benchers, to please be a little more reasonable with their interjections.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I fear that they are trying to drown me out when they do not like to hear the actual figures. The sickness benefit, which grew by 51.6 percent—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a very simple point of order. You know, and I think the Minister knows, that she is not allowed to comment on your ruling. She just did.

Mr SPEAKER: That is correct. I ask the Hon Paula Bennett to please answer the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The sickness benefit grew by 51.6 percent. To put some real numbers under that, in the year 2000 we saw 33,560 people on it, and in 2008 we saw 50,896 on it. Under the previous Government, for 9 years we saw those core benefits growing, when supposedly that Government should have been doing something to bring the numbers down.

Hon Annette King: Does she believe that her “name and blame” approach that she has been taking to people on benefits will be reinforced by her inclusion of Peter Saunders, a so-called expert, on her welfare working group—a man who has stated that there is a link between low average intelligence and a low-class position, and that low-income people are innately more stupid and more often end up on welfare—and does she believe that paying overseas extremists like Peter Saunders is good use of public money?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I make no bones about it, for years we have seen nothing done about long-term welfare dependency. It is complex, and it is hard, and there is no one answer for one person. We need many answers. We are stepping up. I back the welfare working group to look at a range of initiatives and a range of decisions, and let us see where it ends up before we start rushing to those sorts of conclusions.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table two letters to a woman who is 78 years of age, telling her that she has to front up for work or training.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is about the wording of questions for oral answer when they are submitted to the Clerk’s Office for approval each day. Both sides of the House try to word their questions in ways that result in a pretty simple question being put to Ministers for them to answer, and try to make them free of political language. I draw your attention to the assertion made in question No. 2, which asks the Minister of Finance to talk about how something will “build on the success of Budget 2009”. Clearly, of course, the Government considers Budget 2009 to have been a success, and I am sure that the Minister will have examples of why he thinks that. The Opposition, of course, would consider it to be a failure—

Mr SPEAKER: The member was doing very well up to this point—

Hon DARREN HUGHES: I am not trying to be political; I have a suggestion.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I can assist the honourable member. The point of order that the Hon Darren Hughes has raised is a perfectly valid point of order. Standing Order 371(1)(b) makes it clear that questions should not contain opinions, because, of course, opinions cannot be validated. I apologise to the House that question No. 2 has sneaked through with that opinion in it. I suggest to the House that the question that is read out omit the words “the success of” and be simply “build on Budget 2009”. In that way, the opinion is omitted from the question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I stress that I have ruled on the matter.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am a little concerned that that may, in fact, mean that the way in which questions are validated now changes, as well. The assumption is that evidence was presented to the Clerk’s Office that used the term “the success of Budget 2009”. I am aware that one can obtain significant editorial comment from around the country that would back that up. If that is a prevailing view, and if it is supported by evidence presented to the Clerk’s Office, it is perfectly reasonable that it is put in a question.

Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need further assistance on the matter, at all. A question like that is out of order. It contains an opinion, and opinions used in a question in that way cannot be authenticated. That does not alter the substance of the question; the substance of the question is absolutely unaltered by omitting those words that contain opinion. That is what I suggest be done. If members do not want to omit the words that contain opinion, I will have to rule the question out.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What, then, do you make of question No. 5, which also offers an opinion in the body of the question?

Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to take further debate on this. I have ruled on the matter, and that is the end of the matter.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will then have effectively ruled question No. 5 out of order.

Charles Chauvel: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need further assistance. Question No. 5 contains a quote, and I presume that the quote was validated. It does not take a lot of intelligence to see the difference between the word “success” in question No. 2—[Interruption]—I am ruling on this matter—and a quote in question No. 5. I invite Chris Tremain to ask the question without the opinion—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are we still on the same matter? I have—

Mr SPEAKER: No, that matter is not being considered further by the Speaker. Unless the member is raising a separate point of order, he is trifling with the Chair.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will take that risk. Mr Speaker, you have now ruled that something that is a matter of opinion is out of order in a question. Simply because an opinion has quotation marks round it does not change the fact that it is an opinion. The Minister for Climate Change Issues is being asked in question No. 5 to confirm something. Asking a Minister to confirm something in this fashion is no different from asking the Minister of Finance whether he can confirm that Budget 2009 was a success. You can be as pedantic as you like—

Mr SPEAKER: It is rather unusual for the Leader of the House to be disciplined by the Speaker, so I will not do that, but I warn him that there is a clear difference. The opinion in question No. 5 is a quoted opinion. The opinion inserted into question No. 2 is the questioner’s opinion, and questioners cannot put opinions in questions.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a separate point of order relating to question No. 1, and I delayed raising it because I thought my colleague would raise it. It is the question of whether it was appropriate for Paula Bennett to interject “She might like it.”, referring to the 78-year-old woman who was being asked to do work or training, while my colleague was seeking leave to table those documents.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me. I did not hear the interjection. I think it is not a major matter that needs to take my attention.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I suggest that you reflect on the words you used in respect of Mr Brownlee when you said that “It does not take a lot of intelligence to [spot] the difference …”. I thought that comment was a little gratuitous, and could cause disorder in the House. I thought that Mr Brownlee was understandably taken aback at that comment on your part, and that it was perhaps less than wise.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point. When my ruling is being questioned, members risk that kind of comment. I had ruled.

Question No. 5 to Minister

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour): I seek leave of the House to table a paper from the Minister for Climate Change Issues to Cabinet dated 14 September 2009 containing the words referred to in quote marks in question No. 5.

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.

Budget 2010—Main Focus

2. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main focus of the Budget next month and how will this build on Budget 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The fact is Budget 2009 was a success [Interruption] It successfully steered New Zealand through the worst effects of the global financial crisis and the worst effects of the recession, and it started to get on top of the legacy of 9 years of mismanagement by the previous Government, which was setting this country on a track to everrising public debt.

Chris Tremain: How will Budget 2010 help hard-working New Zealand families to get ahead and to build on the success of Budget 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Hard-working New Zealand families will be waiting until the Budget to see how the tax package works out for them in the short term. But in the long term, we need to tilt this economy in favour of investment, work, and exporting, and away from consuming too much and borrowing too much. We certainly need to put the country on a track that is different from the track promoted by Labour, which has indicated that it is not concerned about debt levels any more, and wishes to borrow as much as it thinks it can get away with. That would, of course, leave a large legacy of debt for New Zealand families to pay off.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister believe that a Budget that does nothing, achieves nothing, and helps no one can be a success; if so, how can he explain how increasing GST will create jobs and help reduce the pressure on ordinary Kiwis’ family budgets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will certainly get control of debt. In a country that owes $170 billion to foreign lenders, it is reckless on the part of Labour to say that debt is not an issue. As we speak, Greece is in the process—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There are two parts to the point of order: first, the Minister has responded to a question about his Budget and his view on the Budget; second, by talking about Labour Party policy in the second part of the question, he misrepresents it.

Mr SPEAKER: The problem is—[Interruption] I am dealing with this point of order. The problem is that the question asked for an opinion: “Does the Minister believe …” something, I reflect. The Minister was explaining why he believed that, and I think we have to allow the Minister to do that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Minister making the main focus of his Budget a tax package that will increase GST to redistribute to those people on the highest incomes, when, surely, his first goal should be creating jobs and taking pressure off Kiwis to make ends meet?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is focusing on a tax package because tax is one of the strongest levers to pull to influence the shape of the economy. Over the last 10 years too much of the growth in this economy came from property speculation, Government spending, and unsustainable jobs, and we will change that because Kiwis deserve sustainable jobs and more investment in exporting, as this country earns more than it spends. That is a concept foreign to the Labour Party.

Chris Tremain: What were the most significant economic problems inherited by the Government, which are still hampering the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We inherited a legacy of an economy with anaemic growth but fastrising debt. In the 3 years to 2008 the economy grew by less than 1 percent per year, and the export sector had been in recession for almost 5 years. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update showed a sharp rise in deficits and rising debt, which turned into soaring debt, and were all the results of Labour policy before National took office.

Chris Tremain: What alternative approaches has the Minister seen for dealing with New Zealand’s economic challenges?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand is going down a similar path that other countries are beginning to follow, some with bigger challenges than us. Having borne the brunt of the recession, we need to get our public finances in order. Our policy in that sense is consistent with the best economic advice from around the world. However, the Labour Party seems to be heading in a different direction with its policy, which is to put taxes up, spend more, and borrow a whole lot of money.

Stuart Nash: Will his Budget be judged a success if it focuses on a GST increase that will erode the value of the life-savings of thousands of, mainly, retired New Zealanders who rely on savings for their livelihood, and, at the same time, makes all of the basics more expensive?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, it will be judged a success, particularly because it will flush out the Labour Party’s position on GST. It says it is against the tax if it is put up, but if it is put up, Labour says it will not roll it back.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway Review

3. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his recent statements on ACC’s new clinical pathway for victims of sexual abuse?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I do stand by my recent statements, but I did make one numerical error yesterday when I said that 70 percent or 260 claims in February had not been processed at the end of March. The 70 percent figure was correct, I misread the 260 figure, and the correct number was 206.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order flows from the answer the Minister has just given to the House. If he was aware that he made an error in answering a question, surely he should have come to the House before this point, at the first opportunity, to correct the answer. This is not the first opportunity to correct an answer he has given previously.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I only became aware of the error when I asked officials to go through all the answers that I had given and to check them. It could have been possible for me to take a point of order. I thought it was easier during the course of the question to put the record straight.

Mr SPEAKER: It seems a perfectly reasonable course of action.

Hon Darren Hughes: Except that the Standing Orders require Ministers to correct their answers immediately; as soon as they become aware of an error. The first available opportunity would have been at 2 o’clock today. We have based our questions on an exchange with this particular Minister about a difference of opinion in respect of the material he has been using. I think it is unfair on the questioner, who is trying to prepare supplementary questions to the Minster, to have to wait until a convenient time for him, not for the House, to correct the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is being a bit unreasonable. The question is high on the Order Paper. The Minister did not take up the time of the House; he can answer this question today. The question actually asks: does he stand by all his recent statements? A question like that is an excellent opportunity to make that minor adjustment—a misread figure—to the answer given yesterday. I think we can be a bit reasonable.

Lynne Pillay: Why does he continue to insist that there is a need for a review of these repugnant new guidelines when yesterday he said that the figure of six in terms of people who were accepted for counselling throughout New Zealand in February 2010 could be even double that, when any child could tell him that 12 people is still a shocking reduction from 300 people a month?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member referred to the guidelines as repugnant. I remind that member that they were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, they weren’t

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have tabled the picture. They were launched by the Hon Steve Maharey in March 2008, so the premise of the member’s question is incorrect.

Dr Jackie Blue: What advice has the Minister received on the average time frames for processing sensitive claims before and after the changes were made in 2009?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The average time for claims to be processed prior to the changes was 63 working days. This has reduced to 47 working days, but that is still too long. A key issue for the review is that of how this can be further improved. The objective I would like to see met is that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) turn round the applications within 7 days of all the information being received from providers.

Lynne Pillay: Why does the Minister insist on chanting ACC’s rejection rate under Labour as some sort of argument for not facing facts today when rejection rates skyrocketed to 60 percent last year under his watch, even before imposing his new clinical pathway?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The point in making reference to the fact that the decline rate for sensitive claims grew from 4 percent to over 50 percent during Labour’s time—

Lynne Pillay: Now it’s 90 percent.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That is right. What I am saying is that over 2,400 sensitive claims were declined in 2008 and not one Labour member raised the matter when Labour was in Government. I suspect that we should call that a double standard.

Dr Jackie Blue: Did the Minister offer to consult Labour members on the membership and the terms of reference for the clinical review of ACC’s sensitive claims management; if so, what was the result?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I did so in writing, but Labour rejected that offer. This illustrates that Labour has been far more interested in making politics of this issue than in actually providing the best standard of care for those with sexual abuse claims. I am surprised that members opposite are criticising the person chairing that review when Dr Disley was a mental health commissioner under the previous Government.

Lynne Pillay: What advice did he provide to Simon Power before his statement today at the rape prevention symposium that “The Government has already taken some steps to provide survivors with greater support.”, when he knows that that statement is clearly not true?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I commend the work that Simon Power, Paula Bennett, and Tariana Turia are doing and the announcements they made today about the most effective way in which New Zealand can deal with sexual abuse and assault, and that is by preventing it from occurring in the first place. That is why I think that everybody in this House should welcome the announcement from Simon Power.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

4. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that under this Government more front-line health services are being delivered than ever before. In particular, in the last year nearly 13,000 more patients received elective surgery, which was four times the average increase under Labour. A major contributor to that outstanding result has been Waikato District Health Board, which delivered operations for 1,825 more elective patients than in the previous year, an increase of over 17 percent.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has he received in relation to delivering even more front-line services at the Waikato District Health Board?

Hon TONY RYALL: I can confirm that the Government has approved the design of the new $125 million Waikato Clinical Centre and additions to the campus redevelopment. Included in these new approvals is a further increase in new operating theatres in the Waikato. These will be part of a new midland region elective surgical centre, which is part of the Government’s commitment to establish new, dedicated elective surgery theatres across the country. The Government believes our doctors and nurses can deliver even more elective surgery by having dedicated elective surgery theatres, so that patients are not disappointed when their operations are cancelled because of emergency surgery requirements.

Hon Damien O'Connor: Will the Minister give in this House today an assurance that beds used for older people in need of continuing care at Murchison Hospital and Health Centre, which was opened only in 2007, will not be closed?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am meeting with the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board tomorrow. I can tell that member is that there is quite a lot of interest in Murchison in improving the services for people in that community and being able to provide more care closer to home, which is the commitment of this Government.

Tim Macindoe: What other reports has he seen on advancing the delivery of care close to home?

Hon TONY RYALL: A large number of pregnant women in the Thames area are choosing to have their babies out of town, because of the poor physical standard of the birthing facilities at Thames. A survey by the district health board has found that more than 90 percent of local women would give birth in Thames if a new primary birthing facility was available in the Coromandel. I can confirm that the district health board has signed a contract with a local builder for a new Thames primary birthing unit. This purpose-built facility will have two birthing rooms, a birthing pool, three bedrooms for longer post-natal stays, and a breastfeeding room, and each bedroom and birthing room will have its own en suite bathroom.

Hon Annette King: If he has put an extra $536 million into district health boards, as he constantly claims, why were people who need eye operations at Nelson Hospital told today that they will now have to wait until they get worse and lose vision, or go privately for care; and is he concerned about the comments from Nelson ophthalmologist Derek Sherwood, who said “It’s difficult for us as clinicians because we’re used to providing a reasonably good service ...”?

Hon TONY RYALL: I say to those people in Nelson that they are getting a much better service than they did when that member was the Minister of Health. I can tell people that in the last year Nelson Marlborough District Health Board provided 26 percent more ophthalmology surgery than it did previously, and that it is providing a good number of assessments. The current issues relate to some staffing problems. As we know, when that member opposite was the Minister of Health, her Government doubled the budget for health and got a lot less in return for it.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Advice to Cabinet

5. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Can he confirm that Cabinet was advised on 14 September last year that “the overall credibility […] and effectiveness of the NZ ETS” may be at risk by “harmonising with an overseas scheme that has not yet been finalised”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes. There is always a risk in working with other countries that their political situation and policy may change. The fact that Australia has slowed its response actually reinforces the merits of this Government’s amendments, which have slowed and moderated our emissions trading scheme. New Zealand would now be very exposed had we stuck—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm whether Cabinet had been advised as to certain matters. The question was very confined. It simply asked the Minister to give that confirmation—not to give a long speech justifying the policy.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a valid point in that answers should not contain more than is necessary to answer the question asked. But I think the Minister was giving helpful information, and it was not unreasonable. He did answer the question; he confirmed “Yes”.

Charles Chauvel: Was Treasury advice communicated to Cabinet by him on 14 September 2009 that “the level and quality of analysis” provided by him to Cabinet on harmonisation with the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme was “not commensurate with the significance” of the proposal?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, it was. I point out to the member that whenever countries seek to work together on an issue like climate change, there is political uncertainty as to the developments that may occur. It was Government policy in Australia, and still is—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that I raised earlier. I simply asked the Minister to confirm whether Treasury had given the advice that I quoted. I asked the Minister to give that confirmation, which he did. There is no need to elaborate.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is utterly absurd for the Opposition to raise points of order on one part of the day to say that inappropriate answers are being given, then to raise points of order to say that it is being given too much information. I think it is quite reasonable that Dr Smith elucidates on the way in which the material was presented to Cabinet—quite reasonable.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the members’ points. Strictly, I have to acknowledge that Charles Chauvel is correct about the requirements of the Standing Orders in relation to information not necessary to answer the question being included in the answer. But I think one has to be reasonable. Dr Smith answered the question. He confirmed what the member asked, and he added some further information, which was not too unreasonable. But the member raises a perfectly fair point.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury advised Cabinet on 14 September 2009 that there is no clear analytical basis for the proposal to align some key design elements of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme with those in the currently proposed Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That was only one portion of the advice from Treasury. I think it is important to point out that all the advice we have now is that with Australia not proceeding with its emissions trading scheme, New Zealand would be very much more exposed now if we had stuck with Labour policy. What has occurred internationally reinforces that this Government got it right.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member is raising a point of order and he must be heard in silence.

Charles Chauvel: Standing Order 377(2) states: “The reply to any question must be concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked, and not contain—(a) statements of facts … unless they are strictly necessary to answer the question,”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member asked what the advice was and quoted just a very small part of the advice. It is perfectly proper for the Minister to say that, yes, that advice was received but that there was other advice as well, and that the Government in its decisions had to take into account the full range of advice, rather than misrepresenting the situation by presenting only a portion of that advice.

Charles Chauvel: I have two very brief points in reply, Mr Speaker. First, I take exception to the Minister’s suggestion that I have been misrepresenting the position. I tabled successfully by leave earlier in question time the full advice from which I am citing, so there can be no question that it has been taken out of context for the House—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now starting to litigate matters. In fact, to deal with the last point he was raising, everyone knows that even if a document has been tabled, it is possible to take excerpts from it out of context and make them seem somewhat different from what they would seem were they presented in context. I think the Hon Dr Nick Smith has raised a reasonable point. I refer to Speaker’s ruling 164/4, which states: “If some information can be given in addition to the bare facts asked for in a question, information which would supplement the reason for the answer, giving such information would comply with the spirit of question time.” So although I acknowledge that, strictly speaking, the member quoted the relevant Standing Order—Standing Order 377—and he is absolutely correct, likewise Dr Nick Smith is being quite reasonable as long as the additional information is not overtly political. If the member was adding further information and using it to attack the Opposition, I would be far more concerned. As long as it does not go on for too long, I think that a little putting in context, especially if the Minister feels that the quote used in the question may be taken out of context, is not unreasonable. I think Ministers have to be able to put their answer in context.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister confirm that Treasury advised Cabinet on 14 September 2009 that there had been no discussion of the overall suitability or benefits of applying the allocation methods in the proposed Australian emissions trading scheme to New Zealand’s unique emissions profile and industrial structures?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There was advice of that sort, but I say to the member that the changes we have made to the emissions trading scheme, which have halved the cost for the consumers and halved the cost for business, as well as the intensity approach that we have taken, have, according to the advice that I have had from a substantive number of New Zealand businesses, provided them with the confidence to be able to invest.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to be difficult about this, and I am not questioning your earlier ruling, but Speakers’ ruling 165/4 is very—

Mr SPEAKER: 164/4.

Charles Chauvel: It is 165/4.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I quoted 164/4.

Charles Chauvel: Well, I am referring to 165/4: “Ministers, when replying, should address the question, (1) and refrain from making comments that are not relevant to the question …”. The question was very confined and was whether Cabinet had been advised by Treasury that the overall suitability or benefits of applying the allocation methods in the proposed emissions trading scheme in Australia were inapt to New Zealand. What the Minister is going on about has nothing to do with that particular question.

Mr SPEAKER: I again accept that, on a strict interpretation of the Speakers’ ruling, there is merit to the member’s point of order. I am not saying the member is wrong with his point of order,

at all, but I think he is being a little unreasonable. The Minister is acknowledging there was advice. I think the Minister has agreed with the member’s question, but he is also putting it in context by explaining a little why the Government chose not to follow that advice exactly. He should not go on for too long with that, but it is not unreasonable to put it in context.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In that regard, you might want to point the member to Speakers’ ruling 164/6.

Mr SPEAKER: I will have a look at it.

Hekia Parata: Has the Minister seen the statement made yesterday by the Forest Owners Association president, Peter Berg, urging the Government to hold its course on the emissions trading scheme; if so, what is his response to it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have. I note that the association has commended the Government for its resolve. It points out that any change in policy would undermine confidence in the forest sector and reduce interest in new planting. It is critical for New Zealand’s long-term climate change policy that we reverse the trend of deforestation under the previous Government and get additional areas planted. Our balanced policy is achieving just that.

Welfare Working Group—Protection for Vulnerable Citizens

6. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and

Employment: How will the objectives of the Welfare Working Group protect the needs of New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The terms of reference have been carefully developed to tackle the really hard issues of long-term dependency. I think that helps our most vulnerable—our children.

Catherine Delahunty: Is it an objective of the Welfare Working Group to promote the idea that there is a link between “low average intelligence and low class position”; if not, why has she appointed Peter Saunders who espouses this view as an adviser to the group?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: He is one of many advisers, both international and domestic, who have a whole range of views and will be talking to the Welfare Working Group. I have not heard that view previously; it was only one of many.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she believe that the availability of the domestic purposes benefit makes single parenthood attractive and a lifestyle choice, as Peter Saunders, one of her social welfare working group advisers, has claimed; and was it the reason why she availed herself of the benefit system in New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Personal insults aside, I say that Peter Saunders is one of many advisers. He has something to offer the group as far as international knowledge is concerned. Members can read his book, Welfare to Work in Practice, which he wrote in Australia. I do not agree with everything he said; I do not agree with everything that a number of the advisers to the group said. But we are open to listening to those views from the Welfare Working Group.

Catherine Delahunty: Is it an objective of the Welfare Working Group to promote a “competitive market for sickness, invalid, and unemployment insurance.”; if not, why has she appointed to the group Catherine Isaac, who endorsed this policy as former president of the ACT Party?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are a range of views on the Welfare Working Group, and a range of advisers is coming in and talking to the group. We are actually holding a conference that will have a number of other people involved, including Susan St John, who was invited to be on the Welfare Working Group but has decided that she would instead like to be involved in the same way she was with the Tax Working Group. Disability groups would like to be involved. There is a range of views, none of which we are actually jumping on to sides with.

Catherine Delahunty: Is it an objective of the Welfare Working Group to use the welfare system to benefit private interests; if not, why has she appointed Adrian Roberts, who is a contractor to Work and Income, to the group?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: He brings to the table another view and other areas of interest. A range of views is coming from different directions. [Interruption] Well, there actually is a range of views. Some are with Māori organisations that have been working with those who are welfaredependent for long periods of time, and have been making significant differences in getting them off welfare. We also have some others. So there are a number of different initiatives, and I think they are equally worth listening to.

Catherine Delahunty: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I ask Catherine Delahunty to ask a further supplementary question, I ask members to please keep the interjections down to a reasonable level. I cannot hear the Minister’s answers, and it is important that I do hear them. I call Catherine Delahunty.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: They’re just kind of angry today.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Catherine Delahunty: Does she consider people with disabilities to be among our most vulnerable citizens; if so, why has she not appointed anyone with an actual disability to the group, as opposed to just representing the care sector?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: One of the academics on the group has a strong interest in disability issues, and she is presenting that interest. Those from the sector will have an opportunity to advise the group as well.

Catherine Delahunty: Given these appointments, did she really have New Zealand’s most vulnerable citizens in mind when she chose the members and advisers of the Welfare Working Group?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Every bit of evidence tells us that children who grow up in a household that is not dependent on welfare do better, and I and this Government have them in mind when we look at what we can do for them in the longer term.

Catherine Delahunty: How can vulnerable New Zealanders possibly be best served by a group whose advisers and members think that those New Zealanders are inherently less intelligent, lowerclass lifestyle beneficiaries whose painful personal situations are an opportunity for private profit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member is taking a quote from one adviser—one of many views that are coming to the welfare group—some of which I do not agree with. As I say, I agree with some points of view that are put forward, and I do not agree with others. But those very members of society who are dependent on welfare have been ignored for 10 years. They have had money thrown at them, yet we have seen welfare numbers increasing. Those vulnerable members of society whom the member mentions are actually worse off now than they were 10 years ago. We will address the complex issues, and I make no apologies for that.

Drugs, Illegal—Police Operations

7. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Police: Has she received any reports on operations by the police to stamp out the illicit drugs trade in New Zealand?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes. I congratulate the police on Operation Lime, which culminated this week in the arrest of over 250 alleged offenders who are facing more than 700 charges. This Government has passed a raft of new policies aimed at tackling criminal gangs and the drugs trade, and we have made sure we have enough police to carry out the organised crime operations of this nature. We are sending a very clear message to those who manufacture and sell drugs in our community that this Government and the police are determined to shut down their activities, and we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.

Simon Bridges: What steps are being taken to ensure that any profits obtained by illegal activity are not retained by offenders?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am very pleased to inform the House that the police will be starting proceedings under their Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act, which was passed by this Parliament last year. As a result, it is likely that any assets or profits associated with illegal activity will be confiscated. Since the Act was passed, the police have identified more than $36 million worth of assets believed to have been obtained through criminal activity. They include cash, houses, vehicles, and other property.

Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister been advised of the outcome of investigations into organised criminal activity in the Dunedin area?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. Last week the police raided the premises of the Mongrel Mob gang in Middleton Road, following a 6-month-long investigation. As part of Operation Rocket the police made 19 arrests, and seized the gang’s premises under the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act. Seven of those arrested were patched gang members, and two were presidents from separate chapters.

Schools—Base Funding for New Wharekura

8. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) to the Associate Minister of Education: Did he agree to the decision to give seven new wharekura base funding of $50,000, compared to the $130,000 base funding that a composite school with fewer than 250 students would normally be entitled to?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) on behalf of the Associate Minister of

Education: No. The Associate Minister of Education agreed to the decision, and I read from the document tabled yesterday entitled Education Report: Change of Class Applications: “Base funding of $50,000, plus $2,000 per student, compared to $130,000 base funding that a composite school with fewer than 250 students would be entitled to.”

Kelvin Davis: Why would he accept a lower level of operational funding for these Māori language schools than the funding received by comparable English medium-sized schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because it is not.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can he justify supporting the signing off of a kura in Northland, on the basis of its getting $206,000, when other kura of exactly the same size are this year getting $451,582?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I think that it is important to realise that these seven wharekura that have now been approved have waited for over 10 years under the previous Labour Government for their approval to be given. In less than 18 months this Government, with the help of the Māori Party, has approved all seven applications, put in place some interim funding, and involved the wharekura themselves in the development of a new policy that is based on their needs and their students, rather than on the ticking of some formula boxes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very clear point of order. We have had a reply first of all from the Minister saying that the schools are not being funded less. She was asked to comment on the specific figures for that school compared with wharekura of the same size. She did not justify that. It was a simple question: how does she justify the change in figures?

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point of order, and I have to acknowledge that it is not an unreasonable point of order, because the member in answering went on to talk about the length of time schools have been waiting to be approved, and what have you, which did not actually bear any relationship to the specific question asked. Maybe the Minister, on the basis of the primary question, does not have information on that particular case, but I think she should at least either answer the question or tell the House that she does not have that particular information. But it seemed to me that the Minister avoided the question totally.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In the latter part of my answer I explained that the arrangement is an interim funding arrangement for all those small wharekura, while they are involved fully in consultation about developing a funding policy for those wharekura.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me just clarify, because I allowed the Minister to do that. She is telling me that she answered the question. Does that mean she was confirming Mr Mallard’s question?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This is an interim funding solution for seven wharekura that have been waiting more than 10 years for a decision. This is an interim funding solution.

Kelvin Davis: When he read the part of the Ministry of Education’s briefing on these new wharekura, which says: “We will provide you with advice in later 2010 on a new resourcing methodology for small composite schools. This may include reducing the staffing and operational funding entitlements for very small schools.”, did it occur to him that the very small schools that the ministry intends cutting staffing and funding for will include many wharekura?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: These wharekura have roll expectations of between 40 and 90 students, at the absolute maximum. It is inappropriate to be resourcing them based on a minimum formula that is tied to a roll of 250 students that these wharekura do not want to achieve. We have agreed with these wharekura to work through with them in this year to develop a new funding model that suits their needs and the needs of their communities. I know that comes as news to the Opposition party, because it likes to work on tick-box and policy formulas. But we are focused on student learning outcomes.

Kelvin Davis: Will he use his position as the Minister responsible for all matters relating to kaupapa Māori education to guarantee no further funding cuts for Māori language schools; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is important to note that these are not funding cuts. These kura received no money, no funds, from the previous Government. This Government, along with the support of the Māori Party, is funding them for their secondary school students to develop into a wharekura. There are no funding cuts. I can assure that member that the schools have been fully consulted and they are delighted. In fact, the Associate Minister has received an email saying that awesome things are happening.

Mr SPEAKER: I did not want to interrupt the Minister, because I believed the treatment of her was sufficiently unfair for me not to add to the difficulties by interrupting. I ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to rise to his feet and withdraw and apologise for his allegation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Kelvin Davis: Has he come across a single kura, or indeed any school, that says it receives more operational funding than it needs; if not, how does he expect these new wharekura to provide quality education with this much lower level of funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I refer the member to the actual words in the document that was tabled yesterday. In fact, many of those kura could end up with more than $130,000 base funding, depending on how many students they have. The interim funding solution gives them their staffing entitlement, it gives them their per-pupil funding, and it gives them base funding of $50,000, plus $2,000 per secondary student. I refer the member back to the document, which he should read properly.

Emissions Trading Scheme—New Forestation

9. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: How many hectares have been planted in trees in New Zealand since the emissions trading scheme came into effect in 2008, and what is the estimated present-day value of the credits of those plantings?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I can tell the member that 70,200 hectares of trees were planted in New Zealand in 2008-09, but the bulk of this planting was replanting not new plantings, and they are not eligible for carbon credits. The forests eligible for credits under the emissions trading scheme and the Kyoto Protocol are those planted since 1990, amounting to 566,000 hectares. The value of the 80 million tonnes of carbon credits due to those forests is approximately $2 billion.

John Boscawen: Does he accept that if we postponed the emissions trading scheme, the very most that the Government would have to compensate post-2008 forest owners for would be less than $20 million, which would be a small price to pay for the horrific cost of the emissions trading scheme on the New Zealand economy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am aware of that pretty extraordinary proposition from the ACT Party. When the post-1990 forest owners have carbon credits worth $2 billion, the party of property rights says that we should give them $20 million. I am not sure whether that really stacks up.

Louise Upston: What reports has the Minister received indicating a shift in forest-planting trends resulting from the Government’s climate change policies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry reports annually on forest owners’ planting intentions. Despite the trend of significant deforestation from 2004-08, there was a small gain of 500 hectares last year. The survey indicates new plantings—that is, not replantings— of 4,700 hectares this year, 5,700 hectares next year, and 7,700 hectares in 2012. This reversal shows that the Government’s balanced policies on climate change are restoring confidence in the important forestry sector.

John Boscawen: Does he accept that if it chose to, the Government, with ACT’s support, could do exactly what it did yesterday—that is, put this House into extraordinary urgency—and postpone the emissions trading scheme until 2013, thereby aligning our position with that of Australia?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government campaigned on a policy of moderating the emissions trading scheme and proceeding with it in 2010. We will not go back on our word on that. I would also point out that the Australian scheme is not due to come into effect for a least a year. I think we will need to watch the results of the Australian election later this year before it is clear what the Australian climate change policy will be. I note that the Liberal Party’s policy is for A$9 billion of spending on climate change initiatives. My view is that that is a less efficient way for New Zealand to respond to climate change than the more efficient tool of an emissions trading scheme.

John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether he accepted that the Government could do procedurally what it did yesterday, which was to put this House into extraordinary urgency, and amend the emissions trading scheme. I did not ask what the National Party campaigned on, and I did not ask him how many trees were planted. I asked a procedural question. I asked whether it was possible to put this House into extraordinary urgency in order to pass amendments to the emissions trading scheme.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In answering the question, I wanted to set out why the Government would not do that. I think that when a member asks questions of that sort, it is perfectly proper for Ministers to say: “Actually, we are not going to do that, and here’s why.”

John Boscawen: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not think the House needs to take further time on this. The member knows, of course, that a Government can seek leave to put the House into extraordinary urgency, and I do not think that there is much to be gained by having the Minister specifically repeat that. The Minister made very clear the Government’s position, and that was probably quite helpful to the House and to those listening. I do not think I should criticise the Minister for the way in which he answered the question, because I think those listening to Parliament gained useful information from that slightly longer—and it was only slightly longer—answer.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on what you have just said, with the greatest respect. You said that everyone knows the answer and that, therefore, the Minister does not have to answer the question. Then you said that the Minister gave some useful information in his answer. Well, the fact that everyone knows something does not mean that a Minister does not have to answer a question. When an MP asks a question, it is not for you to judge that everyone knows the answer, then say that, therefore, the Minister does not need to answer, and then say it is OK as the Minister gave some useful information. The requirement, I think, is that a Minister answers the question that is asked by a member of Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the smack over the knuckles. Again, the member makes a perfectly fair point. I am just being reasonable, though, as Speaker. If I were to rule that the Minister had failed to answer the question, etc., I think I would be being just a wee bit too pedantic on this occasion. Had the Minister included in his answer language that was critical of the ACT Party, then I would have come down on him absolutely. But the information was not unreasonable, and it was helpful information, and I cannot insist that Ministers answer a question in a particular way. I can insist that they answer a question, but I feel that was a reasonable answer to the question asked.

Hon Rodney Hide: I have to disagree, Mr Speaker. The question had one limb to it. It asked a question, and your point was that it did not need to be answered because, basically, you knew the answer. There are a whole lot of people who do not know the answer, so why are we are not entitled to get an answer to a straight question?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that the House should be wasting further time on this. If the Minister had said: “Yes, but”, then it would have been fine. I think that most people, when listening to his answer, would understand that that was exactly what he was saying. He was acknowledging the point that the questioner was making, and he went on to explain why the Government was not doing that. I have to be careful not to be unreasonable. I have been pretty hard on Ministers in requiring them to answer questions, but I have to be careful not to be too pedantic and unreasonable about it. I apologise to the member if he feels that I have let his colleague down, because, technically, I acknowledge that the member has a fair point. If in my judgment I have let the member down, then I apologise for that. But I have to be a little bit reasonable.

Education Sector—Operational Funding

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What decisions has she made on operational funding in the education sector?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The primary decision I have made on schools’ operational funding was to provide an additional $80.1 million over 4 years into schools’ operations grants in Budget 2009. I have also directed the ministry to stop wasting taxpayers’ money on costly and ineffective projects like Mission-On, so that we can get more money out to the front line.

Sue Moroney: Does she stand by her July 2008 promise regarding early childhood education that: “We will retain all existing subsidies and fee controls”, and will she repeat that promise now?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not aware of where that quote comes from. I do not have it in front of me. I am not aware of the context in which that quote was given. But I can say that early childhood education funding has grown by almost three times over the last 5 years, and we are having a close look at the cost drivers behind that growth, which is not necessarily producing quality early childhood education.

Sue Moroney: Will she then guarantee that parents of children under the age of 2 will continue to receive the existing childcare subsidy?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member will have to wait for the Budget for that.

Sue Moroney: Can she reassure parents that they will not face cost increases for early childhood education after the Budget, given that the Prime Minister failed to give that commitment yesterday?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to the member that she should wait for the Budget.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the document containing the quote from the Minister that I used in my first supplementary question. It was from her policy statement as National’s spokesperson on education.

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 Trevor Mallard: Does she fully understand her operational funding decisions that led to her agreement to signing off the approval of seven new wharekura?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes. I fully understand that those seven kura had waited throughout all the years of the previous Government to have their change of class approved. Within 18 months, with the help of the Māori Party and the Associate Minister of Education Dr Pita Sharples, those kura have now had their change of class approved. They have had interim funding in place from the beginning of this year, and they are actively working with the Government to design a new funding regime.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the funding of $2,000 per pupil for those new wharekura include the Māori language programme funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The interim resourcing package made available to those wharekura from the beginning of this year includes the staffing entitlement, the per pupil operational funding—and if that covers the programme, then that is funded—a base funding, as I have said, of $50,000 plus $2,000 per student, and the property resourcing.

Colin King: What responses has she received to decisions that she has made on operational funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I was delighted to receive a letter from a principal that said: “The funding for schools has never been better, the staff at our local Ministry of Education are fabulous, and as far as I’m concerned, schools are in a great place. That is what we are here for, and we are paid jolly well to do it, too.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can the Minister justify signing off on a kura in Northland on the basis of it getting operational funding of $206,000 per year, instead of the $374,000 that it would have received if it was an English medium school?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This has been a pragmatic interim solution, to allow teaching and learning to continue while longer-term policy is developed. The schools concerned have been fully consulted, and they are very happy with the resourcing that they are receiving. As I said earlier, one of the schools has even emailed the Associate Minister of Education to say that awesome things are happening. Those schools had been waiting and waiting for the previous Government to do something, and it did nothing.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister guarantee that her cuts to the wharekura funding formula will not be extended to other area schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat my answer from earlier: we cannot cut something that was not there in the first place. Those wharekura received no funding for their secondary school students, because the previous administration would not deal with the very unusual situation that they presented. This Government has provided funding on an interim basis, and is working with the wharekura to develop an ongoing policy around their funding.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very deliberately very short, and very to the point. It referred to the wharekura funding formula, not to the money that went to those schools. That formula has been changed, and that is what the question was about. Can I repeat the question, so that the Minister can understand it?

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Anne Tolley.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Quite clearly, that member asked about the cuts to the wharekura funding. Those wharekura had had no funding. They were not wharekura at all; they were kura.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not litigate this matter. I hear what the Minister is saying. In fact, if I recollect the member’s question correctly, it asked whether the cuts to the wharekura funding would be extended to other schools. Is the member disputing that?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It was the formula.

Mr SPEAKER: There is confusion over the question. I am not being critical of the Minister’s answer in allowing the member to ask the question again, but we need to get it clarified.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she guarantee—

Sandra Goudie: He’s the only one that’s confused!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will ask his question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she guarantee that her cuts to the wharekura funding formula will not be extended to other area schools?

Mr SPEAKER: I will not ask the Minister to answer that, because the member has confirmed that he did include that language in his question—the “cuts to the … formula”. The Minister disputed that part of the question, and the Minister is entitled to do that. I had thought that the member might ask whether the formula for these wharekura schools would be extended to other area schools, but he used the word “cuts”, which the Minister disputed. That was a perfectly fair answer to the question.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I know that you have, and I suppose I am disputing your ruling, but this is very important. It is the funding formula that has been cut, and I asked whether that cut to that formula, which was previously the one for area schools, would be extended to other area schools. I think that is a perfectly reasonable question.

Mr SPEAKER: From listening to the Minister’s answers members would have heard her argue that this is a new interim formula, and therefore she argued that because it is a new formula, it cannot be suggested in a question that it is a cut to an existing formula. I think, in fairness to the Minister, that she answered that question perfectly fairly. If the member had had different wording in his question then I think we would have had to hear a somewhat different answer. But he included the words “cuts to the … formula”, and the Minster has pointed out to the House that it is a new interim formula.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When there is one formula that applies to wharekura, and then another formula it put in that is less than the previous one, most of us would think that that was a cut.

Mr SPEAKER: Now the member is starting to trifle with my ruling, and that will not go any further.

Alcohol Outlets—Legislative Change and Community Consultation

11. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Justice: My question is to the Minister of Justice—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: That is just not helpful. I have called Rahui Katene. She is at the back of the House. The front-bench Ministers should desist from their ongoing interjections about the last question. I say particularly to the Hon Trevor Mallard that that was not a helpful interjection that he made.

RAHUI KATENE: When will the Government put legislation in place to limit the number of alcohol outlets in poor communities and give communities a say as to whether they support having an alcohol outlet?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Justice: Allowing more local input into licensing decisions in all communities is one of the recommendations in the Law Commission’s report on alcohol. The Government is currently considering the report, and will respond to it within 120 days.

Rahui Katene: Is he aware that there are at least 15 liquor outlets in just three low-income suburbs in eastern Porirua and that if he walked from the first to the last one it would take only about 20 minutes; and does he see any problems with the fact that there are approximately 66 liquor outlets across the greater Porirua region?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am aware that there is considerable disconcert in the community about the proliferation of liquor licence outlets. This is a matter that has been discussed in the Law Commission’s report. The Government is considering the Law Commission’s report and will respond within 120 days.

Rahui Katene: Does the Minister agree with the Law Commission that high-outlet density can contribute to the degradation of community well-being; if so, will he support a reduction of some 4,356 off-licence liquor stores currently located in communities across Aotearoa?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are a number of things, I am sure, in the 514 pages of the Law Commissions’ report that the Government would agree with. When the Government makes it response to the Law Commission’s report, those matters will be evident.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does he agree with the Law Commission’s report that it is not only the number of licensed premises but the type of licence that is impacting on increased availability and massively reduced price; and is he concerned to learn that two supermarket chains are now supplying one-third of all beer and over half of all wine forcing down prices even further?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government will respond in due course, as has been said, to the recommendations in the Law Commission’s report. The matters that the member highlights are of concern to a number of people in this House.

RightLight Website—Number of Unique Visitors in First 6 Months

12. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Energy

and Resources: How many unique visitors did the RightLight website have in its first 6 months of operation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I am pleased to report that the RightLight website, which provides residential, commercial, and industrial consumers with credible and useful information on energy efficiency and lighting, had 76,339 unique visitors in the first 6 months of its operation.

Chris Auchinvole: How does this Government’s approach to energy efficiency contrast with that of the previous Government?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The previous Government was a firm believer in compulsion, which was counterproductive and undermined people’s support for energy-efficiency products. This Government is focused on practical solutions that allow consumers choice but also provide them with information to help them make wise decisions. The RightLight campaign is a good example of that approach and can be contrasted quite neatly against Labour’s blanket ban on incandescent light bulbs.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

Petition on Commuter Train Between Hamilton and Auckland—Consideration

1. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations

Committee: Has the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee considered the petition presented in my name requesting the establishment of a commuter passenger train service between Hamilton and Auckland, signed by 11,500 people?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): Yes.

Sue Moroney: When will submissions be heard on this petition, which has so much support from Hamilton?

DAVID BENNETT: The committee proceedings are still confidential as the committee has yet to present a report on the petition to this House.

Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill—Consideration

2. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Chairperson of the Law

and Order Committee: Has the Law and Order Committee met to consider the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill?

SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): Yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which Government agency or agencies were appointed as advisers on that bill?

SANDRA GOUDIE: The matter—

Mr SPEAKER: I have to be a little careful here. Did I hear the member ask which Government agencies have been appointed as advisers? I believe that that is a committee decision, and the member cannot ask a supplementary question like that. I will give him one more chance to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am happy for it to stand on the record.

Mr SPEAKER: OK.

Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill—Report-back Date

3. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Chairperson of the Law

and Order Committee: When will the Law and Order Committee report back on the Electoral (Disqualification of Convicted Prisoners) Amendment Bill?

SANDRA GOUDIE (Chairperson of the Law and Order Committee): The bill is due to be reported back to the House on 21 October 2010.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Ministry of Justice, which is the Government agency responsible for all matters pertaining to an election, be invited to advise on that bill before the committee reports back to the House?

Mr SPEAKER: Again, I believe that that is a committee matter. Therefore the question is out of order.

ENDS

© Scoop Media