(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 4 MAY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Financial Crisis, Greece—Lessons for New Zealand Economy

1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What lessons can the Government take for New Zealand’s economy from the current Greek financial crisis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The lesson we can take is that in a world where many Governments are borrowing large amounts of money, it is very important to focus on having sound finances. The adjustments in Greece are going to be harsh. It is looking at large tax increases, 14 percent cuts to State pay followed by a multi-year pay freeze, the closure of many agencies, and reductions in pensions. This is somewhere we do not want to go to, and we can keep away from it if we focus on having sound Government finances.

Amy Adams: What implications does this episode have for New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Greek situation is a more extreme version of the position that New Zealand faced about a year ago, with a deep recession, rising debt, and a credit rating that was perhaps in jeopardy. In such a crisis, prevention is better than cure. Most observers agree that the two best preventive mechanisms are to have a flexible exchange rate and to keep debt at prudent levels. That is what we want to do.

Hon David Cunliffe: Despite the fact that both Crown debt and unemployment have grown markedly under his administration, does the Minister not think that he is being just a little too hard on himself, comparing his management to that of Greece?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think, unlike that member, that we have to be aware of where things could go wrong, and the fact is that the forecasts we inherited from that member’s Government when we became the Government were sending us in the same direction as Greece.

Amy Adams: What light does the Greek situation cast on alternative proposals for managing the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the Government had continued to manage the economy in the manner that the previous Labour Government was managing it, we would have ended up with everincreasing public debt and question marks over our credit rating, and we probably would have ended up with some kind of major adjustment programme. Unfortunately Labour has not learnt any lessons from that, and the policies it is advocating now would make things much worse—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your considered ruling on this matter. Standing Order 377(2) requires answers to be “concise and confined to the subject-matter of the question asked,” and to avoid “arguments, … imputations, … [and] discreditable references”. It is established that Ministers can refer to the historical record, as the Minister of Finance has done, including the record of former Governments. However, you have previously ruled that hypothetical references to another party’s policies are not within the Standing Orders. Speaker’s ruling 145/4 defines tightly the area of a Minister’s responsibility, Speaker’s ruling 145/7 specifically excludes

Opposition policy from that, Speaker’s ruling 153/3 underlines the need for content to be factual, Speaker’s ruling 164/7 rules out hypothetical references to another party’s policies, and so on. Taken together, the intention of the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings is clear on this matter. It is to facilitate the accountability of the Government to the Opposition’s questions, rather than to allow the Government an opportunity to make up Opposition policy. The Opposition has no problem with having a debate about the previous Government’s record, but we would ask you to consider the matter of whether the Minister has on this occasion stepped across the line into hypothetical Opposition policy.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s so sensitive.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that a point of order is being considered, so he must not interject. Had the Hon Bill English gone on at some length about Labour Party policies, I would have agreed with the Hon David Cunliffe’s point of order. But there was only the briefest possible reference at the end of his answer. In relation to this whole issue, I would say that if Opposition members do not want Ministers to comment on Opposition positions, they need to be a little more cautious about their interjections. I heard all sorts of interjections as the Minister started to answer his questions today about his having been lucky to inherit good things from the previous Government, and all that kind of thing. So if Opposition members do not want Ministers to comment on either past policy or current policy of the Opposition, they need to be more careful with regard to their interjections. I believe today that the Minister has not transgressed.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To clarify that point of order—I am not trying to relitigate your ruling, but for future guidance—can we be clear that historical references to a former Government’s policy or performance are within bounds, but at least extended references to hypothetical positions that an Opposition might take are out of bounds?

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the general point that the member is making. But on this particular occasion, if I recollect what the Minister said, he said something along the lines of the policies that Labour is continuing to espouse would have a similar effect. I do not think there is enough detail in that to argue that the Minister is ascribing hypothetical policies to the Opposition. But I sympathise with the fundamental issue that the member is making.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister explain why, when Greek public debt is around 115 percent of GDP and New Zealand’s net debt is around one-tenth of that amount, he is running down his country and putting New Zealanders’ exports and jobs at risk?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am simply drawing attention to the fact that when the Government came into office, it faced forecasts in the December 2008 Economic and Fiscal Update that showed net debt soaring to 50 percent of GDP and permanent deficits—that is, never-ending deficits and ever-rising debt. That certainly would have been a path to the Greek kind of crisis.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Minister’s Recommendation in Cabinet Paper

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his recommendation in his Cabinet paper of 10 February 2010 that 467,517 hectares of national park land and protected conservation land be considered for opening up to exploration and mining?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I stand by the subsequent Cabinet decision of 22 March 2010, which proposed a net addition of 5,000 hectares to schedule 4 land. So, quite patently, my answer is no.

Hon Phil Goff: Is it correct that in the paper he and the Minister of Conservation signed off he proposed removing protection from mining in nearly half of Kahurangi National Park, near Nelson, and that he proposed mining in most of Rakiura National Park, covering almost all of Stewart Island, and also a big part of Mount Aspiring National Park; and why was he advocating in that paper that those areas be opened up for mining?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am quite sure that if the member read the paper he would see that we were proposing that those areas might be better prospected, which is prevented at the present time. We had previously made it very clear that we were conducting a stocktake of minerals in the conservation estate. Those areas are minerally prospective, and that is why the recommendation was there. But, of course, Cabinet rejected that. Cabinet has said no to mining in those areas, and that is the end of the story.

Hon Phil Goff: Did Cabinet reject the recommendations that he and the Minister of Conservation made because they were ill-considered and totally unrealistic, or did Cabinet actually decide that it was better to take the first 7,000 hectares, leading up to the full implementation of what he recommended?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The discussion centred on the stocktake of minerals in the Crown conservation estate—in particular, on minerals that were known to be deposited in schedule 4 land. Cabinet made—

Hon Darren Hughes: How does that add to an answer?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Through historic information that was available. There was not sufficient information to back that, quite frankly, so there was a decision, which stands, that we will not be mining in those national park areas or in the conservation areas. I cannot bind the Labour Party in terms of what it may do in the future. All I can do is look to the past and look at Labour’s record—and Labour was the only Government in history to allow mining on schedule 4 land.

Chris Auchinvole: Has he seen any statements of support for mining in areas of high conservation value by members of this House?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen some very visual statements of support from members of this House. The picture I am holding shows a number of Labour Party members visiting the Pike River coalmine on the West Coast. I can only assume that they were there to tell the workers that if Labour ever becomes Government again, it will be shutting them down. This mine is underneath schedule 4 land; one accesses conservation land to get there. Does Phil Goff support this or not?

Hon Phil Goff: Contrary to what the Minister has just alleged, can he confirm that the Labour Government never mined in protected schedule 4 land, that there was a consensus between National and Labour for more than a decade that these areas were too important to be mined and desecrated in that way, and that it is this Minister and the so-called Minister of Conservation who recommended breaking that consensus?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, I cannot confirm that. I refer the member to a parliamentary question I answered, from Mr David Garrett. The question listed two permits on schedule 4 land that were granted by the previous Labour Government in its term of office.

Hon Phil Goff: When does the Government intend to bail out from its proposal to mine Great Barrier Island and the Coromandel, or does it intend to ignore public opinion, which is running at three to one against mining those very important areas for Aucklanders and people in the Waikato Bay of Plenty?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I make the simple point that the Labour Party has been ignoring public opinion running three to one against it for a very long time. However, we are engaged in a process of consultation at the moment, and we will see that through to the end. I will not prejudice that result today, much as the Leader of the Opposition may want to. But I do ask this question: why is it that the Labour Party can go to Blackball one year to celebrate May Day with the miners, and can march against them down Queen Street the following year? That is a confused position.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he intend to ignore the 40,000 people who marched down Queen Street, in the biggest protest in a generation, who tried to tell him that his proposal to mine the most precious areas of New Zealand is wrong?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would argue that the biggest protest in a generation was the hīkoi out the front of Parliament over the foreshore and seabed. That did not stop Labour from doing exactly what it wanted and leaving this country with an absolute mess.

Hon Phil Goff: Is it correct that the mining industry was in discussion with the National Party long before National declared that it was intending to mine protected areas; if so, why was that kept a secret rather than trying to seek a mandate from the public before the election, and not imposing National’s views on it after the election, against public opinion?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That is a completely untrue statement, but it is typical of the conspiratorial approach that Labour takes to most things when it does not have any decent facts to mount an argument on.

“Three Strikes” Legislation—Reasons for Government Support

3. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister of Police: Why has the Government agreed to support ACT’s “three strikes” policy passing into law?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): The Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill delivers on National’s pre-election promise to deny parole to the worst repeat violent offenders. Parole is not a right for prisoners; it is a privilege. This privilege is earned and it should not be granted to those who demonstrate total disregard for the law by continuing to commit serious violent offences despite warnings. The bill will put the interests of victims and the wider community ahead of the interests of our worst serious violent offenders.

David Garrett: What is the level of public support for the “three strikes” policy?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of the submissions received, 94 percent supported the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill. They stated concerns about violent crime, public safety, and the need to hold offenders to account. Many supporters wanted to redress what they described as the disparity between the rights of the offenders and those of victims, and to spare victims the stress associated with repeat parole hearings. I am also aware that an independent poll commissioned by that member’s party showed 75 percent public support for this regime.

Hon Rick Barker: Has she read the official advice that National/ACT’s “three strikes” policy is unlikely to have a deterrent effect and will result in fewer guilty pleas, more appeals against convictions and sentences, and possibly an increased rate of homicide; if so, why is the Government proceeding with a policy that will not prevent crime, may lead to increased violent crime, and clearly will make things worse for victims?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We have received an awful lot of advice, and some of it the Labour Party would enjoy because of the soft approach it takes to criminals. However, I believe that it is very important to note that we received some very good advice on this issue, particularly from victims and their families. I remind that member that most offenders get a set period of sentence but, unfortunately, all victims get a life sentence every time.

David Garrett: What impact will this bill have on the victims and families of victims of repeat offenders?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This bill will ensure that the victims and families of repeat offenders will not have to undergo the additional stress of attending regular parole hearings. This regime will also help stop people becoming victims. It is a sad fact that some high-profile murders would not have been committed if the perpetrators had been serving full sentences for their crimes. This Government is serious about better meeting the needs of victims and putting victims at the heart of our justice system, something the previous Labour Government did not care about.

Rahui Katene: Is she concerned about claims from Peter Williams QC that the “three strikes” policy is “hysterical” legalisation, that taking away parole means that there is no deterrent for crime and there is also no incentive for people to rehabilitate, and is this a direction she thinks the police should be promoting?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. Mr Williams has spent a lifetime defending the worst repeat violent offenders in this country.

Unemployment—Minister’s Statement

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

Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement “We absolutely believe that work is the best way out of poverty for people and we are going to back them and support them into those jobs every time”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, and I also stand by the rest of the quote: “It’s going to be done with fairness, it’s going to be done with a level of support that I think beneficiaries haven’t seen before. But there are going to be mutual obligations and expectations as well.”

Hon Annette King: What confidence can parents have in her, when she promised before the election that National in Government would retain all existing subsidies and fee controls and would deliver cheaper childcare to parents, but within months of becoming Minister she breaks that promise and is taking away childcare assistance aimed at helping families to get ahead?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is quite good that, months later, members of the Labour Party have read the papers that identify the changes—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not an appropriate way to start answering a question. The Minister was asked a question about the Government’s position. She should not start her answer by talking about the Opposition, saying that it is quite good that the Labour Party might have done something. That is not the way to start answering a question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Currently, families on incomes of nearly $100,000 can get childcare assistance via Work and Income. We are raising the abatement thresholds, as the member might have known if she had read the papers. The papers say that beneficiaries can have their assistance increased from $80 to $100 a week. Approximately 28,000 parents will be better off. We are taking those abatement thresholds back to the 2008 levels. That is something I support.

Hon Annette King: When she said at the weekend that she makes “informed decisions”, who informed her that a family with three children, with both parents working and both parents earning around the average wage of $49,000, are high-income earners and therefore should have their childcare assistance cut? Is that the new definition of a high-income earner under a National Government?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To deal with actual numbers, I point out that those households were earning $99,320, and could get childcare assistance. We are taking that level down to $93,600. As I said previously, more than 28,000 people will gain from the abatement thresholds this Government is bringing in.

Katrina Shanks: Can the Minister comment on policies that have tried to address long-term dependency?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The last 10 years have been marked by feeble, half-hearted attempts to tackle welfare dependency. In fact, the Auditor-General’s report said that the changes the previous Labour Government made did not go far enough to have a real impact. We certainly saw that in the numbers of both sickness and invalids beneficiaries, which went up by 50 percent in that 9-year period.

Sue Moroney: Did the Minister receive official advice that her proposal to retarget childcare assistance income thresholds would reduce the income of childcare providers and reduce children’s participation in early childhood education?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I received a high level of advice on this policy, because we looked at it really closely. To be clear, I point out that it has been grandparented for 3 years. Approximately 2,137 people will not be eligible for the assistance, but others will be, and we believe that that is fair and reasonable. More than 28,000 people will gain from the increased abatement thresholds.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your assistance. I asked a very specific question of the Minister and she failed to address it at any level. The question was about whether she had received official advice on two issues. One issue was that the income of childcare providers

would be reduced, and the second was that children’s participation in early childhood education would be reduced. She failed to address either of those questions.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants me to assist with obtaining an answer, she has to choose which question she is going to ask. I listened to the member’s question and I listened to the Minister’s answer, and it seemed to me that the Minister did try to answer the question. The member has admitted that she asked two questions in a supplementary question. Members are not meant to do that. I can be of more assistance if only one clear question is asked.

Sue Moroney: Does the Minister accept that her proposal reduces the funding for childcare by $57 million over 4 years and will affect more than 11,000 families, thereby increasing the childcare costs of those families by more than $5,000 on average?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I take into account that the initiative will save $57 million over 4 years. We have decided that we will put that money into abatement thresholds, so that it goes to those who need it most, those who can get out there and earn a bit of money for their own pockets, gain a work ethic, gain a job, and get further ahead. I will back them every time.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave of the House to table a document. It is a Cabinet social policy committee document on the Future Focus programme, outlining the official advice the Minister received that children’s participation in early childhood education would reduce, and so would the income of childcare providers.

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 PAULA BENNETT: I seek leave to table the document that states quite clearly at the top of it that there were changes to childcare assistance—something the Labour Party said was hidden.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the document?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is an official document on Future Focus and benefit changes.

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.

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Rahui Katene for a supplementary question. I ask members to please show her some courtesy. [Interruption] I apologise to the member; the Hon Annette King and the Hon Paula Bennett will cease their exchange and show some courtesy to Rahui Katene.

Rahui Katene: Has the Minister seen the recommendation from the Child Poverty Action Group that the Government could use the opportunity of the tax reforms to improve incomes for beneficiaries with children by immediately extending the in-work tax credit to all low-income children, and will she stand up for these children and support them to get out of poverty by advocating with the Minister of Finance for this to happen?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Shivers! I am so sorry, Mr Speaker; I was a little distracted by the front-bench member on the other side. I do apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: What has been demonstrated here is what I was concerned about. The exchange across the House between the Hon Annette King and the Hon Paula Bennett was distracting the House, it was unfair to Rahui Katene, who was not being shown courtesy, and the Minister did not listen to her question. I invite Rahui Katene to repeat the question.

Rahui Katene: Has the Minister seen the recommendation from the Child Poverty Action Group that the Government could use the opportunity of the tax reforms to improve incomes for beneficiaries with children by immediately extending the in-work tax credit to all low-income children, and will she stand up for these children and support them to get out of poverty by advocating with the Minister of Finance for this to happen?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: My apologies to the member for not listening to her previously. Yes, I have seen the report, and I suppose this is where we stand quite differently. I certainly stand by families that are getting into work and are earning more money, and having children live in those sorts of households. I do not want just to increase those benefits, making people become even more benefit-dependent.

Mining in Conservation Areas—March Protesting Mining Proposals

5. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he agree with Minerals Industry Association chief executive Doug Gordon that the estimated 40,000 New Zealanders who marched against Government mining proposals last weekend were misled by the organisers?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I have no responsibility for statements by Mr Gordon, and I am very conscious of the fact that many of those people who marched last weekend were motivated by their very genuine concerns. However, I think it is worth noting that there were a number of signs present at that rally, ranging from “GE free” right through to “ETS”, which makes me think that a number of people may have decided to use May Day just as a general day of protest.

Metiria Turei: Is it misleading to say no one is talking about mining in national parks, then release a proposal to mine in our national parks?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The proposal that has been released looks at the removal of 3,000 hectares that are discontiguous with Paparoa National Park, but which were made part of it in 2008 by the previous Government, against the advice of the local conservation board and against the advice of the Department of Conservation at the time. All that the removal of schedule 4 protection does is to enable exploration—one step further than what is enabled now. It does not necessarily lead to mining, nor does it change the underlying status of the land.

Metiria Turei: Was it misleading to tell New Zealanders that schedule 4 “says to the mining industries of New Zealand: ‘These are no-go areas’ ”, as Nick Smith did when the schedule 4 land was set aside?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, because that is exactly what schedule 4 provides at the present time. That is why we are having a discussion with New Zealanders about whether that protection should continue on some very discrete parts of the estate—about 2 percent of all of the schedule 4 land, in fact.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Does he believe that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I do. It is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy. I know that the member who asked the primary question agrees with that.

Metiria Turei: Is it misleading to indicate in one Government document that a national park is a no-go area for mining, and in another Government document, issued on the same day, to state that the same national park is being considered for competitive tender for mineral exploration?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: On the face of that I would say no, but without giving the context of what is being proposed to New Zealanders I think it is misleading.

Metiria Turei: Is it misleading to say, on television: “I have a great love for the conservation estate in this country. I don’t want to see it destroyed”, while at the same time investigating the entirety of Rakiura—Stewart Island—all of Paparoa National Park, and all of Mount Aspiring National Park for mineral exploration?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is abundantly evident, and clearly stated, that the Government has no further interest in any mineral prospectivity in the Mount Aspiring National Park. The member—

Hon David Parker: What about Kahurangi?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: —nor Kahurangi National Park, nor any number of other national parks. The member is being simply mischievous in making that statement.

Metiria Turei: Is it misleading to suggest that coal is sexy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Not according to two of New Zealand’s leading actresses, who have got themselves extremely lathered up over my simple statement—“sexy coal”.

Metiria Turei: Who understands the real story: the National-led Government, which says one thing to the public on one day and something completely different to the mining industry on the same day, or the 40,000 New Zealanders who took to the streets in the weekend to show, very clearly, where they stand on protecting our most treasured places?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are three parts to that question, so I will answer them one after the other, in reverse sequence. First, I do not have anything other than respect for those people who marched on the weekend and who have genuine concerns. I make that very, very clear. Second, we have not given one message to one group and another message to another. Third, all of the information relating to these decisions has been released and is in the public arena. We are hiding nothing. We will go through this consultation process, because that is what would be expected of us.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just to make it clear to the House, I say the Labour Opposition will have no objection to Nikki Kaye’s taking a supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is outside the Standing Orders, but I trust it was done in good humour, so we will choose to ignore it.

Budget 2010—Job Creation and Reduction of Cost of Living

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2010 create jobs and reduce the cost of living for hard-working New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In many ways it will support growth by getting the economy back to saving, exporting, and investing rather than relying on borrowing and Government spending. It will provide better front-line public services, particularly in health and education. It will continue the Government’s multibillion-dollar investment in infrastructure, supporting jobs and growth. It will control public debt, and it will deliver a fairer and more incentivised tax system.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did his Government gut KiwiSaver and defer New Zealand Superannuation Fund savings, when the Australian Government has further increased its rate of compulsory savings; and why does he not follow Australia’s example and increase Government contributions to KiwiSaver?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In respect of the Australian decision on its superannuation contributions, it is talking about a 3 percent increase over 10 years. We expect to do much better than that. We expect New Zealand wage earners to have in their hands much sooner than that a bigger increment, where they have a choice as to whether they save it in KiwiSaver or in some other way.

Chris Tremain: How will the Budget 2010 outlook compare with that of 18 months earlier?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Fortunately, this Budget will be prepared against a background of 12 months of sound management by this Government, rather than 9 years of mismanagement by the previous Government. In October 2008 the pre-election forecast showed net debt climbing rapidly; by December 2008 the forecast showed net debt soaring past 50 percent of GDP, and permanent deficits. In this Budget we will not have to take action to improve that kind of mismanagement.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why, when New Zealand’s unemployment is rising and Australia’s is falling, is he still doing the opposite of Australia: raising GST, cutting contributions to the Superannuation Fund, and removing incentives to save?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong about some of those things. We are putting together a Budget and a tax package that will be suitable for the needs of the New Zealand

economy. Unfortunately, the New Zealand economy was managed badly for 9 years. The previous Government squandered the best opportunity for economic growth in a generation, and we have to fix it.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker, I am still on my feet.

Mr SPEAKER: But he has raised a point of order.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: He has not, Mr Speaker; he simply stood up.

Mr SPEAKER: No, he has called a point of order and I must hear it. The Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: Sit down, Bill.

Mr SPEAKER: The member had better have a good point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: I recall the preceding point of order, with the same Minister, in question No. 1. Mr Speaker, you have ruled that historical references to a former Government are in bounds where they are succinct and related to the question asked. You have further ruled that hypothetical references to another party’s policies are out of bounds. This Minister has in his reply to this question tried to reinterpret the historical record, making up stories about the previous Government’s performance, and that would be out of the bounds of the ruling you made earlier, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member thinks back to his question, he will see that he asked the Minister for his opinion about something, asking why the Government was doing this or that. The Minister has to have some licence in answering a question asking for his opinion. I cannot rule that the Minister give a particular opinion; he will give his opinion. Sometimes when Ministers are asked for their opinions, members may get answers that are not exactly what they want to hear. I believe the reference he has made so far was not ascribing any particular policies to Labour; he was giving his opinion about previous policies. I think the Minister is entitled to do that when he is asked for his opinion.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why, unlike in Australia, will this Minister not roll out a real plan for jobs and growth, such as creating more than 1,200 jobs by building train carriages for Auckland’s electrification project?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been explained, the business of building those trains is reasonably sophisticated. One would not expect a taxi company to suddenly decide to manufacture its own cars in New Zealand. In the end, the KiwiRail board will make that decision. It is clear that KiwiRail will need to renew its rolling stock. It has the capacity to do that, and perhaps its workshop should focus on something that is within its capacity, where it can be competitive.

Chris Tremain: What economic recipe would see hard-working New Zealanders lose their jobs and increase their cost of living?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The kind of recipe that would have that effect for New Zealanders would be promulgated by a Government that set out to borrow a whole lot more money, spend it on low-effectiveness public services, raise taxes, and leave a lot of debt for future workers to pay back. That recipe is the one promulgated by Phil Goff and his finance spokesperson.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that we could have had a clearer example of a breach of your ruling from earlier in the day than that. Not one part of that reply, as he finished it and made it clear, was within the areas of responsibility of the Minister of Finance.

Mr SPEAKER: The great bulk of the Minister’s answer was absolutely within the Standing Orders. It was the last bit that he should not have ascribed. But this is a political Chamber. If he had gone on I would have absolutely cut him off, but, for goodness’ sake, he added only about five words there that were what I would consider to be in breach. But most of his answer was describing policies that he believed would be the wrong recipe. OK; then he did transgress in suggesting that those policies are what Labour is promoting. But we cannot divorce this place from political

exchange. I have heard several Ministers and members, particularly Labour’s spokesperson on finance, asking questions where they have inserted their views about things into the question. That is the dilemma, but I do not think I should try to stop that. After all, this Chamber is a political debating Chamber, and I try to make sure that transgressions do not go over the top. But if the Minister had continued to ascribe a whole lot of particular policies to Labour I would have stopped him, because the Minister has no right to do that.

Water Management—Water Take Consents and Metering Regulations

7. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for the Environment: What proportion of New Zealand water take consents are currently measured and how will the Government’s regulations to require metering improve this?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Mr Speaker—

Hon Shane Jones: Privatisation—privatisation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Ha, ha! If we meter the water, they cry “privatisation”, eh? Only 31 percent of water by volume is currently measured. New regulations announced on Friday will progressively improve that to 92 percent by 2012, and to 98 percent by 2016. The regulations apply to larger takes of over 5 litres per second, which is the equivalent of the use of about 250 homes. Although 39 percent of consents are smaller than that, they take only 2 percent of the water by volume, so the metering costs for those cannot be justified.

Colin King: Why is the Government proposing to use national regulations to require metering, rather than using the national environmental standard or leaving it to regional councils?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If we left it until water consents come up for renewal under a national environmental standard, it would take more than 20 years before we would get reliable information on water extractions. That is far too slow. The alternative is to leave it to regional councils to review all individual consents, which is estimated to cost many millions of dollars in paperwork. The national regulation approach is the most efficient, and the least costly, way in which we can get reliable information on water takes, and as a consequence deliver a step change in freshwater management.

Brendon Burns: If consent holders’ water meters show unused allocation, does the Minister believe that they should be able to sell those surpluses at whatever price they can command; and is that not privatising the common right all of us have, as New Zealanders, to our water?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, not at all. I do not agree with that. I say to the member that if we are to improve the management of water—something I think every member of this House would agree we need to do—surely we need to measure it, and that is exactly what this Government is doing.

Colin King: What number of water meters will need to be installed the meet the new requirements, and what is the likely cost?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The regulations will affect 11,000 resource consents that take water. Large consents—over 20 litres per second—will be required to have meters by 2012. Consents for 10 litres per second will require meters by 2014, and the smaller 5-litre consents will require meters by 2016. The initiative is expected to come at an overall cost of about $40 million, but that needs to be considered in the context of water being worth over $5 billion a year to the New Zealand economy. The regulations contain pragmatic exemptions to ensure that metering is required only where it is necessary and where its cost will help us to improve water management.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

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

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that the issues the member raises are clearly not the result of this Government reducing funding in health, because it

has provided the district health boards with $536 million extra funding this year. One of the major reasons for individual district health boards looking carefully at their service priorities is that the last Government set them on a track to delivering towards $200 million of unfunded services, and we are endeavouring to fill that gap.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister should not go on too long in that vein. He was just asked whether he stood by his statement.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Given the $536 million extra in the health budget, what does he say to Age Concern elder abuse coordinator—

Mr SPEAKER: I have called the Hon Ruth Dyson, and her question should be heard.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to Age Concern—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Hon Ruth Dyson, but there is so much noise I cannot hear her question and that is unreasonable. [Interruption] I say to all members that while I am on my feet they must not interject.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to Age Concern elder abuse coordinator Jenny Mitchell, from Auckland’s North Shore, who says that more elderly people who are trying to live safely in their own homes are now being denied Meals on Wheels help in an effort to save his health budget $5.13 per person, per day?

Hon TONY RYALL: If those facts are correct and the member wants to make that information available to me, I will look into the case. But I will tell those members opposite that we are putting more money into health services, and more and more New Zealanders are receiving better front-line services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: With 3,000 elderly and frail people in the Southland District Health Board area, 1,500 in Canterbury, and hundreds in Kapiti having their home support cut or reduced, Horowhenua proposing to close its rehabilitation beds for older people, and eye surgery at Nelson Hospital being reduced, how many more cuts in health services for the elderly can be expected over the coming few months?

Hon TONY RYALL: First of all, those numbers the member quotes are quite incorrect.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is implying that I am misleading the House, and I take exception—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat immediately. The member inserted a string of what she claims are facts into her question. The Minister has disputed those figures, and he is perfectly at liberty to do that. He is not saying that the member is misleading the House; he is just saying that his figures do not agree with the member’s figures, and he is perfectly at liberty to do that.

Hon TONY RYALL: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member made another unparliamentary comment—the same as she made the last time the House sat—and she should apologise.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon TONY RYALL: I say to those members to remember the history. That member’s Government stopped home support cleaning for 700 people in Otago-Southland. Ruth Dyson was the Minister for Disability Issues when that Government cut home cleaning for 300 people in Wanganui, and she never said a word.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has he received on improving front-line services?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have received reports indicating improved front-line services at the Counties Manukau District Health Board in South Auckland. Last year it delivered a record 15,200 elective surgeries, an increase of 14 percent. It made almost 3,000 surgical first specialist assessments, an increase of around 10 percent. The emergency department there is seeing more people faster. It is seeing around 90,000 patients a year, and it is meeting the new Government’s 6- hour maximum waiting target. Around 7,000 patients attended a nurse-led clinic, which is a 16 percent increase on the previous year. If members want to know where the additional money in

health is going, it is going into improved front-line services in priority areas that the party opposite neglected for years.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he allow the 198 Youth Health Centre to close last Friday, after assuring the public of New Zealand that it would give continued services to young people in Canterbury?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am advised that the Waipuna Trust has been contracted to provide mental health services and alcohol and other drug services for young people for 6 months. It has employed the staff from the 198 Youth Health Centre, and clients have transferred across. An existing local practice has accepted 198 Youth Health Centre patients. Records are transferred, but youth can choose to go elsewhere. Youth sexual health services are available free at all practices across the city. The funding previously used for the 198 Youth Health Centre is supporting these new arrangements of front-line services in Christchurch.

Prisons—Level of Drug Use

9. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Corrections: Has she received any reports that indicate the level of drug use in the country’s prisons?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes. Random drug-testing over the last 9 months indicates that the level of drug use in our jails has dropped to its lowest level since 1998. The figures show that positive results have dropped to 10 percent across all prisoners tested throughout the country. Half of New Zealand’s prisons have rates of 10 percent or less, with two prisons having no positive results so far this year. Those prisons are Auckland Region Women’s Corrections Facility and Christchurch Women’s Prison.

Jonathan Young: Can she explain the reason for these good results?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. One of the main reasons is that legislation passed by this Government has allowed for the monitoring of prisoners’ phone calls and mail. This has enabled the Department of Corrections to more effectively target those responsible for smuggling drugs. Twelve drug-dog teams across New Zealand regularly search visitors and their vehicles, prisoners’ cells, and incoming mail. I was very impressed by the skills they demonstrated this morning at the national police dog championships. The results also reflect the Government’s commitment to doubling the number of places available for prisoners to undertake treatment for drug and alcohol addiction.

Rail—Business and Economic Research Ltd Report

10. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What strengths does he see in the Berl Economics report “Business Case for Building Rolling Stock in New Zealand”, and what response, if any, does the Government intend to make to the report?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): It is difficult to see strengths when the report is based on highly debatable assumptions. For example, the cost per electric unit has been compared as if the examples in the report are all the same, when quite obviously they are not. The report suggests that the newer Asian manufacturers are having trouble selling trains overseas, and then suggests that New Zealand, though, could somehow be a successful exporter. The economic benefits are calculated by suggesting that the trains will be built mostly by skilled train manufacturers who are currently unemployed, which is doubtful. It has also made no allowance for any commercial risk for the trains to be built in this country despite the fact that it has never been done before, which, frankly, is inexplicable.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why did he suggest yesterday that the new electric multiple units are high-tech and much more challenging to manufacture than conventional carriages when the Business and Economic Research Ltd model already has the engines, bogies, and electronics being sourced from overseas, which would leave 70 percent of the work to be done by our skilled Kiwi work force?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Because these are highly specialised pieces of equipment. They are very high-end units, which have never been built in this country before. I note that a previous Government, which the member represented, also took that view, because it bought the trains for Wellington from Korea, rather than having them built—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I say specifically to the Government front-benchers that a point of order was clearly called. Members should cease interjecting.

Hon Darren Hughes: My question was free of any political comment or commentary. I asked the Minister specifically about the difficult or high-tech parts that he referred to. Those parts are being sourced from overseas, leaving the more elementary aspects of the manufacturing to be done here in New Zealand. I am not sure whether he heard the question or did not respond to that part of it. I particularly separated that part of the manufacturing so that I could get an answer on the point of the more basic aspect of the proposal that has been put forward.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In response I was noting that together these are very high-spec pieces of equipment, and I was noting, by comparison, that it has not been done in this country before. That was the reason for noting another example, which, I think, is an entirely fair answer to the question.

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I cannot expect the Minister to give a particular answer. The Minister has basically disputed the member’s assertion when he asked the question—that some of the manufacture is fairly simple. The Minister argued that the manufacture is complex, and in disagreeing with the fundamental aspect of the member’s question, I believe he has answered it. He has not dodged it altogether at all.

Clare Curran: When the Minister told Close Up last night that building the new electric trains in New Zealand would be a step too far in terms of capability, was he aware that Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin are already building 17 AK class carriages for the Tranz Scenic service, and that the quality of those carriages is equal to anything from overseas; if not, why not?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I absolutely am aware of what is being built in the workshops in Dunedin. They are doing a fantastic job of building carriages and refurbishing and rebuilding rolling stock. I point out to the member that it is quite a different exercise to build electric multiple units, which are engines and carriages in the same train, the last time I looked.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he ever visited either Woburn or Hillside workshops?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I have not.

Hon Darren Hughes: Does the Minister agree with the comments of the Prime Minister to the working party on this project that “We are spending all this money. It would be good if as much of it as possible could come back to New Zealand.”; and if he does agree with the Prime Minister, can he not see that this plan increases the country’s GDP, increases revenue to the Crown through taxation, creates hundreds and hundreds of manufacturing jobs, all within the allocated budget for rail, and is exactly the kind of step change in economic activity that the Government should be supporting?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I indicated in my answer to the primary question that I do not agree with the assumptions and, therefore, the result of the report, but I do agree with the Prime Minister that we absolutely should do as much as we possibly can in this country. It is very important to note that the decision is to be made by KiwiRail, which says that it is unlikely to do the work because it does not want to take the commercial risk. I do not think politicians should be placing themselves over the top of KiwiRail. Let us face it: the last time politicians in this country decided that they could make a decision on rail, they spent $1 billion for a $388-million asset.

Criminal Offending, Transnational—International Efforts to Address

11. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Attorney-General: What international efforts has the Attorney-General recently participated in to foster increased cooperation in combating transnational criminal offending?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Last week I attended a meeting in Washington with the Attorneys-General of the United States, England and Wales, Canada, and Australia. This grouping of common law countries seeks to share ideas and deal with issues of mutual concern, including countering violent extremism and organised crime, and encouraging closer legal cooperation. As part of the meeting, I led a discussion on cooperation in international criminal law proceedings. The discussion explored the possibility of improving cooperation in the investigation and prosecution of cases involving genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.

Simon Bridges: What progress was made during the recent quintet meeting?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In November 2009 the Attorneys-General agreed to work together this year on a framework for cooperating in combating organised crime. At last week’s meeting, the Attorneys-General discussed a multilateral declaration of understanding to give effect to this objective. The declaration is intended to facilitate better coordination in shaping organised crime policy at both the domestic and international levels, the sharing of criminal intelligence, and assistance in organising criminal investigations and prosecutions.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Minister’s Recommendation in Cabinet Paper

12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she stand by her recommendation in her Cabinet paper of 10 February 2010 that 467,517 hectares of national park land and protected conservation land be considered for opening up to exploration and mining?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): No. I stand by the subsequent Cabinet decision of 22 March 2010 that proposes to add 5,000 net hectares of land to schedule 4.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister of Conservation accept that it is her role in Cabinet to advocate for the conservation of public conservation lands? Is it not her failure to properly do her job the reason why the Government’s handling of this issue has been panned by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: It is absolutely my job to advocate for conservation of behalf of all New Zealanders. I am quite prepared to allow the public to have their say on what activities can take place on that land.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister understand that of the 2 million hectares of land in national parks in the North and South Islands, zero hectares are in Northland, zero hectares are in the Auckland region, and zero hectares are in the Waikato, and that is why it is all the more important to protect the schedule 4 areas in the Coromandel?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I understand that the Broken Hills mine, which actually was approved under a Labour Government, is on schedule 4 land.

Hon Members: Oh no!

Hon KATE WILKINSON: It is. The Pike River coalfield, which was approved by Labour, is on schedule 4 land—

Mr SPEAKER: I listened to the Hon David Parker’s question, and he asked whether the Minister understood that there were zero—I recollect—hectares of conservation land in Northland, zero hectares in the Auckland region, and zero hectares in the Waikato region, from memory. In answer to that, the Minister is going on to talk about decisions of the previous Government to approve mining on schedule 4 land, which is not what the member asked about.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Yes, he did.

Mr SPEAKER: I see some members are disputing what I heard. To clarify the matter, I invite the Hon David Parker to repeat his question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise, but the point I would like to make to you—and I think you acknowledged it in your ruling; your ruling might have even changed part-way through, as a result—is about an interjection from the Leader of the House while you were making your ruling. I reflect on what happened to one or two members on this side of the House when they did a similar thing; you treated them a bit more roughly than you treated Mr Brownlee then.

Mr SPEAKER: I note the member’s point. I certainly have not ruled in any way against the Opposition. I have invited the Hon David Parker to repeat his question, without penalty.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The other point to be made is, of course, it would have been illegal for any Government to authorise—

Mr SPEAKER: Now the member is litigating issues by way of point of order. That is not acceptable. I have allowed him to repeat his question; he should not abuse that privilege.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister understand that of the 2 million hectares of land in national parks in the North and South Islands, there are zero hectares in the Northland region, zero hectares in the Auckland region, and zero hectares in the Waikato region, making the protection of the Coromandel schedule 4 lands all the more important?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am very aware of the importance of protecting our conservation land, whether it is in the North Island, in the South Island, or on Stewart Island.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister accept the advice of the 40,000 protesters in Auckland, the thousands of submitters, and the tourism industry and head off her Government’s ridiculous plans to mine in national parks and other schedule 4 areas?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Well, I say to that member, and I thought he was an intelligent member, that—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon KATE WILKINSON:—this is a discussion document, not a decision document. The land is public land, and the public have a right to say what activities can take place on it, which is the whole point of having a discussion document.

ENDS

© Scoop Media