(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 5 MAY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mining in Conservation Areas —Ministers’ Recommendation in Cabinet Paper

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has Cabinet rejected indefinitely the recommendation he and the Minister of Conservation, Kate Wilkinson, made to consider mining 467,517 hectares of national park and protected conservation areas?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Quite apart from the fact that there was no proposal to mine that land, I have to say—

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I note the tricky wording of the question, so I reply that Cabinet has definitely rejected that early proposal.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did Cabinet decide not to follow his advice to remove protection from areas like Rakiura National Park, Kahurangi National Park, and Mount Aspiring National Park?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In the case of Rakiura National Park, the discussion document asks New Zealanders to consider whether a further aerial magnetic survey is a good idea.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: why did it decide not to remove protection from the three areas? That answer did not address that question at all.

Mr SPEAKER: I will let the honourable Leader of the Opposition repeat his question so that everyone can hear it clearly, and we will listen to the answer.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did Cabinet decide not to remove protection from Rakiura National Park, Kahurangi National Park, and Mount Aspiring National Park?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I say again that Cabinet decided that some aerial magnetic survey of Rakiura might be a good idea. That is part of the discussion document, and that question is being asked of New Zealanders. In the case of other parts of the national park system, there was analysis—and it is also in the document, which the member will have read—that led Cabinet to believe that it was not appropriate to open them up for further prospecting.

Hon Phil Goff: Why was it not appropriate to mine those three national parks, but it was appropriate to look at the Coromandel and Great Barrier Island for mining?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is because in those cases, Cabinet felt that it was reasonable to ask New Zealanders whether we should make available those tracts of land for further exploration—simple.

Chris Auchinvole: Can the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member, but I say to the Labour front-benchers on this occasion that it is hardly fair on the member asking a supplementary question when there is so much noise.

Chris Auchinvole: Can the Minister give an example of a mine that strikes a good balance between economic benefit and environmental sensitivity?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I hope that all of the 118 permits issued by the previous Labour Government comply in that regard. I can do no better than quote to the member the words of a former Minister of Conservation who said when approving the Pike River mine that it was an area of high conservation value, that when Pike River reached full production it would employ 150 people directly and another 450 indirectly, that it would provide 1 million tonnes of coal a year to be added to the receipts for our current account, and that it would provide lots of jobs. I ask Phil Goff whether he will go back there next year—just as he did last year to try to reconnect with the Labour heartland—and take Trevor Mallard’s advice and say: “You’re finished. You’re out. Sayonara.” Of course he will not.

Hon Phil Goff: When he said to the House yesterday, wrongly, that Labour was prepared to, and did, mine in protected schedule 4 land, was he referring to—as the media has since analysed—a permit that was granted when National was in power, a permit that allowed gold and gem fossicking by an elderly man with a shovel, or a permit granted before the relevant park had been gazetted as an area protected from mining?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I answered a question in the House from David Garrett by pointing out that there were two permits for mining on schedule 4 land issued by the previous Labour Government. That is absolutely correct.

Hon Phil Goff: How does he reconcile his statement that the Government’s mining proposals are “quite modest” with his earlier claim that mining would be key to the step change in the New Zealand economy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Quite simply—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. Members ask questions and either they want to hear the answers or they do not. Quite so much noise makes it very hard for anyone to hear the answers.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My answer is quite simply that mining at the moment takes up 0.015 percent of New Zealand’s land mass. If that were doubled, it would still be largely unnoticeable but it would provide some $4 billion to $5 billion in GDP. It could provide a similar amount in export receipts over a longer period of time. It is part of—and I have maintained this all the way—a number of things that will lead to a step change in the New Zealand economy. I note that through the 5 years that Phil Goff was the Minister of Trade for New Zealand, our export went backwards. I am not surprised that he is advocating retrograde policies now. He cannot work out what he is for or against. The good thing is that he will not be Leader of the Opposition for much longer.

Mr SPEAKER: Most of the last part of that answer was unnecessary.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: This is getting altogether a bit messy. I acknowledged a point of order but I could not hear the point of order being made. I take it that it was not a genuine point of order, so we will not take further time on it.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that the Leader of the House stood to withdraw and apologise. I was not clear whether that was to the House or to his own colleagues over his handling of this matter.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Darren Hughes knows that that is not a point of order. For a member who is normally a model of discretion when it comes the Standing Orders of the House—

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Well, he is a model, anyway.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the Minister’s response to criticism from the New Zealand Tourism Industry Association that his proposals have already damaged New Zealand’s “100% Pure New Zealand” image and what is his response to The Economist, which says that his proposals make New Zealand’s promotion in an area like the Shanghai Expo 2010 an exercise in hypocrisy.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are a couple of things that we should recognise. Firstly, Tourism New Zealand uses Blue Lake in Central Otago with the “100% Pure New Zealand” logo over the top to promote tourism. That lake is only there because of previous mining activity on the side, which is quite interesting.

Hon Phil Goff: Oh, no!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Oh, I see. So old-fashioned mining that does all the damage can now be used to promote New Zealand tourism; that is Phil’s position. Secondly, I note that Australia, Canada, and other countries around the world do not have a problem in attracting tourists, even though they promote their mining sectors very vigorously.

Budget 2010—Main Focus

2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main focus of the Budget on 20 May?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget will be about the many, not the few. [Interruption] But seriously, New Zealand has come through the recession in reasonable shape, and the Budget will focus squarely on building the recovery so New Zealanders can get ahead. It will set out a credible plan to achieve faster and more sustainable economic growth after 9 years of the economy underperforming under the previous Labour Government.

David Bennett: How will the Budget help hard-working New Zealand families get ahead?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will focus on two things that will help hard-working New Zealand families get ahead. There will be a reform of the tax system, so that it will be fairer and provide the right incentives for good choices for the economy. It will also focus on getting better value for the large amount of taxpayers’ money spent on public services, and that will include getting rid of ineffective programmes left over from the last Government and redirecting that spending to high-priority programmes.

Hon David Cunliffe: When the Minister said that the Budget would be about the many, not the few, did he mean the many increases in costs New Zealanders can expect in addition to increasing taxes on all the basics, increasing costs of university and polytech, increasing costs of childcare, and increasing costs of home help, and when will we get a Budget focused on creating jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I meant the many people who are relieved that the dreadful economic management of Labour has come to an end at just the time when New Zealand needs competent economic management to get through this recession. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member was obviously indicating to me that I should have objected to the Minister’s answer, but when he asked the Minister what he meant, he inserted a whole lot of statements. The Minister answered with what he meant, and the member may not have liked it particularly.

David Bennett: How are early signs of economic recovery being reflected in the latest labour market trends?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A couple of trends are evident. Firstly, it appears unemployment is approaching a peak. We are not quite sure whether it has reached it yet. Secondly, official statistics confirmed this week show that the number of hours worked by New Zealanders is picking up. Total hours worked increased by 1.1 percent in the latest March quarter. That is one of the reasons unemployment will fall only slowly. Many New Zealanders took a cut in hours in order to get through the recession, and, now the economy is picking up, they will increase their hours of work, rather than new jobs necessarily being created immediately.

David Bennett: What kinds of economic policies would threaten New Zealand’s recovery and destroy jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The biggest threat to our recovery would be policies that featured a mix of soaring debt, higher taxes, and never-ending Budget deficits. That is precisely the scenario that

the National Government inherited in late 2008 before the global financial crisis. It is unfortunate that those remain the policies of the Labour Party.

Employment Policies—Reports on Success

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

Development and Employment: What advice has she received on the success of the Government’s employment policies?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have received a lot of advice commending us for our commitment to addressing the recession’s effect on employment, particularly employment of young people.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the comment that young people are being impacted very seriously by the recession; if so, how many of the 72,000 unemployed young people have been assisted by her employment package, which the Government claimed would address the impact of the recession on young people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will take just one part of the youth jobs package. Under Job Ops and under Community Max, more than 8,000 young people have come off the unemployment benefit—a very different number from the one the member bandies around. I think that is really positive.

Hon Annette King: Has she seen the latest figures on her employment initiatives, which show that in Auckland, where there are 26,000 unemployed young people, a mere 1,800 have been helped by the package she has just talked about; on the East Coast, where there are over 5,000 unemployed young people, a mere 629 got assistance; and in Canterbury, where there are almost 10,000 young people out of work, 760 kids got some help from her package—and the pattern is repeated all over New Zealand—and is her enthusiasm for the package an example of her statement at the weekend that she is “a girl prone to excesses”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: When it comes to getting people into jobs, then, yes, I think we are prone to excesses. We are seeing more young people in employment who would have been on an unemployment benefit if not for this Government’s Job Ops package. We have more people going through straight-to-work initiatives. We have more people in industry partnerships. We have put $69.2 million extra, through just Work and Income, into helping people into jobs. I think this package is responsive and responsible.

Hon Annette King: What explanation has she given to the Prime Minister as to why her employment initiatives have failed to stem the rise in youth unemployment, which is now at its highest level since June 1993, in light of his statement that he did not want to see a repeat of the impact of the recession of the early 1990s on young people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Prime Minister particularly congratulates those who work at Work and Income. When we look at all the projections for what unemployment benefit levels would be, we see that we are well beneath all of them. When we look at the projections from Treasury, from all the economists, from the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update, from everything else, we see that we are below those projections, and we are bringing down the number of unemployed.

Todd McClay: Is the Minister aware of any feedback on the success of the Youth Opportunities package?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. The Mayors Taskforce for Jobs wrote to the Prime Minister: “The Youth Opportunities package you announced in August 2009 has been invaluable in providing opportunities for our young people and mitigating the worst effects of the recession.” I even have a quote that says: “I’m delighted that someone is getting our younger generation motivated to contribute to our district again.” That quote was from Clayton Cosgrove. He was saying that he was delighted with Community Max.

Hon Annette King: Did she toss Treasury’s advice on her employment package that it would “likely have limited impact” and would “represent poor value for money” into her “who-gives-a05 May 2010 Questions for Oral Answer Page 5 of 16 damn bin”, the place she said she puts advidce she does not agree with; if so, will she take Treasury more seriously in future?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The quotes the member keeps referring to are from a letter to the editor. I note that she has yet to have one published, so she is quoting mine now, which is kind of cute. I can table the letter, if the member wishes. She can frame it, given that she obviously likes it so much. When it comes to Treasury advice, I am not the first Minister to disagree with it and I am sure I will not be the last. If we had taken its advice, we would not have over 8,000 young people engaged in these programmes. We have had to keep extending these programmes, quite frankly, because they are going so well.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Which Peter Saunders did she intend to appoint to advise the Welfare Working Group on welfare and employment: the Peter Saunders whose book Welfare to Work she cited in the House last week, or the Peter Saunders she actually appointed, who thinks there is a link between low class and low intelligence? Is she aware that they are actually two different people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not see how that is relevant to the actual—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. A question has been asked. If members want to hear the answer, they need to be a bit more reasonable with the noise level.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will say exactly what I said last week: some of the advice and comments from Treasury I agree with, and some I do not. I am not so narrow-minded that I will pick out only the bits I agree with; I will listen to all of them and make a decision from there.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Which one did she intend to appoint?

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s question was so long and convoluted that the Minister picked up on one piece of it, and she is entitled to do that. If the member wants a question answered seriously, it has to be short and concise, or the member gives the Minister a chance to pick up any bit of it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, I do not like disagreeing with your ruling, but I think the question was a relatively simple question: was it the Peter Saunders who said this, or the Peter Saunders who said that? The member indicated that there were two different Peter Saunders, and the question was which one the Minister had intended to appoint. It was not complicated. Disagreeing with one of the statements, or agreeing with it, actually did not address the question, which was which of those two people she meant to appoint. It appears from what was said in the House last week that she has appointed someone she did not mean to.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now—[Interruption] I do not need to have any further assistance on it. The member’s kind clarification has shown that the question was barely in order because it was so far removed from advice on employment policies. Which person she might have appointed somewhere bears virtually no relationship to the primary question.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I have dealt with the matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the point you may have missed, because it was about employment matters, was the purpose of Ms Bennett’s appointment.

Mr SPEAKER: The primary question asked the Minister what advice she had received. The supplementary question from Catherine Delahunty asked her which person she had appointed to something; it was totally irrelevant to the primary question. I was being kind in not ruling it out, and to expect me then to insist on the Minister answering a particular aspect of it is not reasonable.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: How can she justify telling a young person offered a job as a trainee landscaper with a productive value of $400 a week that the young person is not allowed by law to take that job, and must instead go on a benefit of just $160 a week?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure that I have never told a young person that he or she is not to take a job and, instead, is to go on the benefit. I am not sure what the member is referring to.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: It is very clear that there is a minimum wage of $510—

Mr SPEAKER: I beg the member’s pardon. Is this a point of order or is it a supplementary question? It has to be one or the other. He is an experienced member.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is very clear what the question was about. Someone was offered a job at $400 a week. The Minister for Social Development and Employment would clearly know that the minimum wage is $510 a week, and that is why, by law, this young person could not take the job. I was asking the Minister how she could justify that.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member, because his party has a limited number of supplementary questions, to reword his question to make it consistent with the primary question. The primary question asked the Minister what advice she had received on the success of Government employment policies. I invite the member to rephrase his question to make it in order and consistent with the primary question.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Is it not obvious to the Minister that she would have more success in terms of unemployment numbers if she allowed a young person to take up the offer of a job paying $400, and did not insist that, instead of that person taking up that job paying $400, he or she had to go on the unemployment benefit because of the minimum wage rules that she operates under?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table two documents. The first relates to the biography of Professor Peter Saunders and it is from the University of New South Wales website.

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

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table another document. It relates to the biography of Professor Peter Saunders from the Centre for Independent Studies, and it is from the Welfare Working Group website.

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

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: What is more important to her: young people getting jobs, or pandering to the left? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. There were transgressions from all around the House, so I cannot do much about them. I say to the Hon Sir Roger Douglas, who has been in the House longer than I have, that the question must relate to the primary question. The primary question was very clear. It asked “What advice …”. The member managed in his previous supplementary question to focus on the success of the Government’s employment policies. I invite him again—because his party has only a limited number of supplementary questions—to reword his question to make it in order and consistent with the primary question.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I find your ruling a bit perplexing and I draw your attention to what the primary question exactly is. The question states: “What advice has she received on the success of the Government’s employment policies?”. The ACT Party was assuming that the success of the Government’s employment policies was measured in people getting jobs, which is exactly what Sir Roger Douglas was talking about. It is the success of the employment policies that we are discussing.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not difficult to phrase a question that seeks the information the member wants but is more consistent with the primary question. I invite the Hon Sir Roger Douglas to do that, if he wishes. He does not wish to do so.

Genetically Engineered Calves—Names of Members of Animal Ethics Committee

4. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: What are the names of the members of the animal ethics committee that approved the experiment at AgResearch’s Ruakura facility in 2009, which resulted in genetically engineered calves carrying human genetic code whose ovaries grew so large that they ruptured and killed the animals?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology) on behalf of the

Minister of Agriculture: The Minister will not name the individuals on any animal ethics committee, as to do so could potentially put the individuals and their families and property at risk. Members of animal ethics committees must include senior members of the organisation, in this case AgResearch; an independent veterinarian; an SPCA representative; and a person nominated by the local territorial authority. The Minister does not want to deter individuals with an interest in expertise and animal ethics from putting their names forward in this important role.

Sue Kedgley: Why should it be left to one committee, whose membership is secret and which meets in secret, to decide on the significant animal welfare and ethical issues involved in creating genetically engineered animals with human genetic material in them?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I just want to restate the actual membership of this committee, to indicate its balance. First, it has a member of the organisation itself, a senior member. Second, it has an independent veterinarian. Third, it has a member of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; and, fourth, a person nominated by the local territorial authority. It is worth noting that the question is about animal ethics, and I would have thought that the membership of the committee accurately reflects the member’s concerns.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree the public has a right to be consulted about the ethical and animal welfare implications of inserting human genetic material into animals and fundamentally altering their nature and properties?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: In effect, this is all dealt with by the Environmental Risk Management Authority, which has a process involved in it, and it is very extensive, as the member knows. So it is not the ethics committee itself that deals with the original application; it is actually the Environmental Risk Management Authority that deals with the original application, which gets to the point that I think the member is raising.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very carefully phrased and very specific question—whether he agrees the public has a right to be consulted about these issues, yes or no.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to reply a little more. I am sure the Minister can answer that question; I invite him to do so.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The specific reason I mentioned that the Environmental Risk Management Authority processed it is that that is an extensive process. In respect of the precise methodology as to how the authority conducts its inquiries, I am not entirely clear whether it has a public component but my recollection is that it does. I would need to verify that.

Sue Kedgley: Given that the Environmental Risk Management Authority does not consider ethical and animal welfare issues, who is responsible for ensuring there is a public debate about the ethical and animal welfare implications of genetically engineered cross-species animals, now that the organisation previously responsible for this work—namely, the Bioethics Council—has been axed by the Key Government, in March last year?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Can I note at this point that the Minister of Agriculture, when he became aware that the calves had died, immediately sought advice from the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries on the animal welfare implications. He was satisfied that the advice from the ministry was that the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee had acted properly and in accordance with the Animal Welfare Act 1999. So it was considered that the advisory committee did properly deal with the issues raised by the member.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again it was a very simple, straightforward question: who is responsible for ensuring there is a public debate, now that the Bioethics Council has been disbanded. The Minister was obviously reading some answer to a question but I think it was the wrong question that he was seeking to answer, and I respectfully ask whether he could answer my question.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Minister, having heard the member’s question again, could he answer a little more precisely to what the member is asking him. I realise it is not easy for a member answering on behalf of a Minister, but if he has the information. He may not have the information; one has to be reasonable on these matters.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I in my capacity as Minister of Research, Science and Technology will be seeking a report on the results of this particular programme—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister. He is not the Acting Minister; I do not believe that the Minister is out of the country. He is not answering in his own stead as the Acting Minister of Agriculture; he is answering on behalf, so he cannot start giving an answer about what he is doing in another portfolio. Interesting though that might be, it is not in order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point is perfectly sound. The Minister should be answering on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. It may be that the Minister does not have the necessary information but he should try to answer the member’s reasonable question.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Minister of Agriculture has been advised by the Minister of Research, Science and Technology that a report will be sought from Sir Peter Gluckman, the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, who is an acknowledged expert on growth and development and these issues. I believe that that report will deal with some of the concerns being raised by the member.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Please, I seek your protection on this issue. I asked who—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Members know that points of order should be heard in silence, even if they do not like them. However, I say to the honourable member that, in fairness, as Speaker I have asked the Minister on two occasions to give a more precise answer; I do not believe I can do more. I think the member needs to go on to her next supplementary question, because quite clearly the Minister does not have the information.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked who is responsible for ensuring a public debate, now the Bioethics Council has been disbanded. That is an incredibly simple question. Is the answer “nobody”?

Mr SPEAKER: The member must not get into debating the issue. I have asked the Minister, on two occasions now, to give a more precise answer to the member’s question; I do not believe we can take up more time of the House. Clearly the Minister does not have the information.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Adding to the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I ask the Hon Shane Jones for a little decorum, please. I am getting a little frustrated here. I have asked the Minister on two occasions, when the member has repeated what information she was seeking in a reasonable question, to provide the information. Is the Minister, after refusing on two occasions to do that, now telling us he has the information and wishes to answer the question? Is that what the Minister is trying to say? I invite him to do that if he has that information.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I was going to add to my answer in a way that I believe would assist the member’s question. It is obviously possible for the member to make submissions to Sir Peter Gluckman. That is the way these kinds of issues can be debated.

Sandra Goudie: What action is the Government taking in respect of this research?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: As I have indicated, the Minister of Agriculture has been informed by the Minister of Research, Science and Technology that Sir Peter Gluckman—the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser, who is an acknowledged expert on these issues—is to make a report. Indeed, I am sure the member will make submissions to Sir Peter on this issue.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that the experiment went horribly wrong, and can he guarantee that no further trials of this nature will be carried out in New Zealand?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Minister certainly does understand that the experiment went wrong, which is precisely why he sought a report from the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry when the issue came up, as did the Minister of Research, Science and Technology from the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Adviser. On the second point the member raised, obviously the Minister of Research, Science and Technology will have raised those issues directly with the chair of AgResearch.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that the deformities in the calves were quite horrific, and that most New Zealanders would be shocked at what has been going on behind closed doors at the Ruakura Research Centre?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: In relation to the second point, these activities do not go behind closed doors, as such; the fact that it was occurring was public. I agree that New Zealanders would have found this horrific and very perturbing.

Wage Growth—Reports

5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received on recent wage growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): This week I have seen two reports. The quarterly employment survey showed that the total weekly paid hours worked increased by 1.1 percent in the March quarter. This follows the recession that started in early 2008, which forced many businesses to reduce staff working hours. That trend is now starting to reverse. Secondly, the Labour Cost Index shows that public wage and salary rates increased by 2.3 percent in March quarter, which is nearly double the 1.3 percent increase in the private sector.

Hon David Cunliffe: When unemployment is at a 16-year high and wage growth is at its lowest in almost 9 years, why is Budget 2010 focused on increasing GST and pushing up the cost of living for hard-working Kiwi families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Budget 2010 is following on from Budget 2009 in dealing with two things: first, the recession that started in New Zealand in 2008, under the previous Labour Government, before the global crisis; and, second, the very poor performance of this economy from about 2004 onwards, when it grew at less than 1 percent per year through what were meant to be the best economic conditions in a generation. So we have to undo the damage of the squandered opportunities under that Government, and deal with the global recession.

Amy Adams: What was the impact on average household incomes of New Zealand’s economic performance between 2005 and 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the 3 years from September 2005 to September 2008 GDP grew on average by less than 1 percent per year. However, that figure was outstripped by annual population growth of 1.1 percent, meaning that the per capita growth in incomes during the last 3 years of the previous Government was actually negative when the rest of the world was booming.

Hon David Cunliffe: What other job opportunities are open to young, unemployed New Zealanders when the only job scheme the Government has announced—the cycleway—has failed to create any jobs, as predicted by Treasury; and is that what this Government means by backpedalling?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the Labour finance spokesperson job might be available to them, as well—even for younger ones. The fact is that jobs are being created every week. Several thousand people a week are going off the unemployment benefit as the economy starts to recover. Budget 2010 will help to create the conditions where business has the confidence to invest and employ, because until or unless business makes that decision, there will not be a reduction in unemployment.

Amy Adams: How have incomes for New Zealanders on New Zealand superannuation, which are linked to average take-home wages, been affected by recent Government policy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Since 1 October 2008 a combination of tax cuts—initially, tax cuts put in place by the previous Labour Government, and then further tax cuts by this Government—has meant that New Zealand superannuation payments have increased significantly. For instance, the single rate for a person living alone has gone from $571 a fortnight to $636 a fortnight—an increase of nearly $65 in the hand per fortnight. For married couples, the increase per fortnight has been up to about $100 in the hand, or more than 11 percent, since 1 October 2008. We believe that policies that continue with adjustments in the tax system and promote economic growth will mean that New Zealand superannuation payments can continue to increase.

Hon David Cunliffe: How does the Minister reconcile his comment in the taxpayer-funded promo Plain English that “We can beat those Aussies!”, when New Zealand’s average wage has stalled at $959 and the Australian wage has raced ahead to $1,580?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, it will take us some time to undo the damage done by 9 years of misdirected economic policy.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We traversed yesterday the boundary between a factual history of things that he is responsible for, actions under the previous Government, and his description of the policies of another party, which you ruled to be out of order yesterday. You gave him, I guess, wiggle room in that a passing reference might be allowed, but he started his response by talking about the Labour Party, and it does not appear there is any way out on this occasion.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that reflection on the question will give a perfectly good reason as to why Mr English was perfectly free to start his answer in the way in which he did. The member over there referred to a taxpayer-funded television programme, about which Mr English had made a particular promotional point. At that point the member asked him “How does he justify”, or “How does he reconcile” I think the words were, and then compared wage rates in Australia with those in New Zealand. If we analyse it right down, there was no clear question whatsoever. If, in fact, “How does he analyse” or “How does he reconcile” was the question, then Mr English was quite free to reply in the way in which he did.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard quite sufficient. I have to agree with the Hon Gerry Brownlee. If the member wants Ministers to not deviate from absolutely straight answers, the member has to discipline himself by not putting elaborate constructions into his questions.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

6. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all of his recent statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that Waitemata District Health Board is improving front-line services for patients in its area. For example, last year an extra 1,045 patients received elective surgery compared with 2008, which is an increase of 8 percent, and almost 2,000 extra patients received an appointment to see a surgical specialist, which is an increase of 10 percent. We are certainly delivering more for people in that area.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What further reports has he received of improved front-line services being delivered at Waitemata District Health Board?

Hon TONY RYALL: I can advise the House that the $1.7 million refurbishment of Waitakere Hospital’s emergency care centre is now under way, which will bring full 24/7 emergency care services a step closer for the 220,000 people of west Auckland. When Minister and local MP Paula Bennett and I visited the hospital recently, we saw the site of an expansion in the number of paediatric beds at that hospital, and I can advise that, this weekend, work will start on providing an additional seven short-stay paediatric beds at the hospital. By way of example, over the whole

district health board, general surgery is up by 10 percent, and ear, nose, and throat surgery is up by 14 percent.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How will his statements help the people of Tararua, who are facing big health cuts, and where a cancer support worker is reported as saying: “This is just the start. Already we’re facing more calls for our services as funding cuts hit our area.”, and where health professionals say that the cuts to rehabilitation services and the axing of night coverage by the district nursing service will put even more strain on families, on carers, and on volunteers?

Hon TONY RYALL: With respect to the night services being discussed by the member, there will be alternative services available for the people there. The people of the MidCentral District Health Board have had additional funding—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Like what?

Hon TONY RYALL: Like what? Like the $300,000 extra given to the local hospice.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other services are being improved at Waitemata District Health Board?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am advised that a new renal service is being put in place at Waitemata District Health Board. Presently, around 220 patients are on dialysis, and they are treated in central Auckland, meaning that Waitemata District Health Board patients must travel long distances three or four times a week for 4 to 6-hour dialysis sessions. The new service, which is to start next year, will see existing patients transferred to Waitemata District Health Board and all new patients treated locally. At North Shore Hospital, a new medical ward will open next month, and a new chronic pain service will be starting very shortly.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why does he continue his parallel reality in which there are no cuts, when, every day, I am alerted to new health cuts around New Zealand, which will get—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. Forgive me, but I just cannot hear the member’s question. The House has been particularly noisy today. I do not mind noise where opinions are very strongly held, but the member is just asking a question.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why does he continue his parallel reality in which there are no cuts, when, every day, I am alerted to new health cuts from around New Zealand, which will get even worse when his much-lauded $536 million of new money will be dramatically reduced in the 2010 Budget?

Hon TONY RYALL: This Government can show that we are delivering more front-line services for New Zealand than the previous Government was ever able to do. We have certainly seen today that the Waitemata District Health Board is providing many more services for the people in that community.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the Midlands region newsletter of the New Zealand Nurses Organisation from the last quarter of last year, which quotes David Bennett and Tim Macindoe stating that New Zealand is now a Second World country, and that, as such, we can expect only Second World care—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Members know that when a point of order is being considered, they must be silent. I ask how I am meant to hear whether there is any objection to the leave being sought when there is so much noise. If members make that kind of interjection, then I may draw the wrong conclusion. Leave is sought for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Education, National Standards—Minister’s Statement

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement in regard to national standards that “There will be no concessions, there will be no trial period.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes, and I also stand by the next part of that quote: “Parents want National Standards and they are going to get them from next year. There will

be constant evaluation, the tenders are just being let, and if adjustments need to be made, then that will happen.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the statement that “the trials are an important step that allow standards and internal assessment resources to be road-tested with actual students before being implemented”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: From memory, that quote comes from the New Zealand Council for Educational Research’s submission as part of the consultation on national standards last year. It made three main points. Two of them we totally agreed with. In fact, the council agreed totally with the national standards and the way in which they are being implemented, and it was very complimentary. The third point related to the timing of the implementation. Its recommendation was that we have a national road test for 12 months. As I say, that was one submission; 11,000 submissions were made during the consultation period. I think that our agreement on two areas out of three was not bad.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the Minister aware that the statement I just quoted came not from the New Zealand Council for Educational Research but from last week’s edition of her Education Gazette on how to develop quality standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I stated in my previous answer, from recollection that quote was indeed part of the New Zealand Council for Educational Research’s submission during the consultation period last year. That was its recommendation. I am on record as saying that we are happy to have this year with the standards as a bedding-in year. I think that whether one describes it as a bedding-in year or a road test, they are pretty close. I think that it is very good to have a research organisation like the New Zealand Council for Educational Research onside with national standards.

Colin King: Why did the Government not have a trial period for national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government was elected with a very clear mandate from parents to introduce national standards to ensure that their children were being assessed against nationally consistent benchmarks and to ensure that parents received reports in plain language about their child’s progress. I have seen all sorts of suggestions for trials—for example, one suggestion would involve a 5-year trial of the standards. I can put it no better than one parent, who attended one of the national standards meetings around the country, who said: “Why should my children have to wait any longer?”.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why does her Ministry of Education, under her direction, consider it vital to trial minor changes to the National Certificate of Education Achievement (NCEA) but not vital to trial national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There is such a difference between NCEA and national standards. NCEA has been in schools since early in the 2000s, and there are very high stakes for students because it represents national qualifications. In NCEA we have a consistent process of improvement. That is exactly what I have said will be in place for national standards. We will constantly improve them, because they are not about systems; they are about kids and their educational success.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why is it vital to trial minor changes to NCEA but not vital to trial her new national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have just answered that.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member feels that his question was not answered to his satisfaction, he is entitled to use a further supplementary question to ask the same question again. I guess that if the Minister says that she has answered the question, then that is a reasonable answer. Members can make their judgments about the adequacy of the previous answer.

Student Loans—Changes to Administration Fees

8. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What changes is the Government considering to make administration of the student loan scheme more cost effective?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): The Government is looking to recover more of the $40 million per year it costs to administer the student loan scheme. Currently, only $10 million is recovered from students through the $50 charge per year, which takes place while a loan is being drawn down. That charge has not been changed since 1992. Once borrowers leave tertiary education, they do not pay any of the administration costs of the scheme, at all. It is only fair that borrowers who receive the benefit of interest-free loans cover more of the actual costs of loan administration, so more people have the opportunity to participate in tertiary education.

Allan Peachey: What would this extra money be used for?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Money currently spent on subsidising student loan administration costs could be freed up to invest back into more places at tertiary institutions. This year we are funding a record number of student places in New Zealand tertiary institutions, but this is currently projected to decline next year partly as a result of the previous Government’s projection for student numbers to fall as a result of the global economic recession. Final decisions will be detailed in the Budget later this month.

Hon Maryan Street: How does he reconcile the addition of a $50 fee on any person with a student loan with last year’s Government legislation offering a 10 percent bonus on any additional loan repayment of $500 or more—which is about $50 in my maths—or is the Government seeking to recover the cost of its own legislation by giving with one hand and taking away with the other?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think that 10 percent of a student loan repayment could be any amount of money; it depends on who pays it back. I think it is entirely fair, though, that the administration—

Hon Maryan Street: No—the bonus legislation.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, the bonus is 10 percent of the overpayment—that is what it is. I think it is quite fair for administration costs of the scheme to be met by those who participate in it. I think it is entirely fair. There will still be the bonus for early repayment, which they will receive on top of that.

Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill—

Government Support

9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Will the Government support the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill to select committee so that New Zealand workers and business can have their say on the adequacy of current redundancy laws?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): No.

Darien Fenton: What then does she have to say to warehouse supervisor Rod Highsted, who is one of about a dozen workers at TA Macalister laid off this week without any redundancy payment after 20 years’ service?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: For anybody who loses his or her job, it can be a very upsetting experience. I certainly sympathise with them. That is why our Government has made sure we are taking every step we can to get the economy growing again and help laid-off workers into new jobs.

Darien Fenton: What does she have to say to Annie, an information technology worker who emailed me this week, who was made redundant just before Christmas without redundancy pay and who has lost her house, all of her savings, and practically all of her furniture because she had nothing to tide her over while she looked for another job?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I repeat what I said in my previous answer, but redundancies are never nice. People are losing jobs, small-business owners are losing their livelihood and often their homes, and adding more rules and regulations to this does not make it any fairer.

Darien Fenton: What does she have to say to Telecom engineers such as Jonathan Smith who were made redundant through no fault of their own in the middle of one of New Zealand’s highest periods of unemployment, with no redundancy pay to help them get through the hard times until they found more work?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I reiterate what I said in the previous two responses.

School Trustee Elections 2010—Closing Date for Voting

10. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Education: When is the last day for parents to vote in the 2010 school trustee elections?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): For the vast majority of schools, voting in the 2010 school trustee elections closes at noon this Friday, 7 May. Parents at schools with more nominations than positions should have their voting forms and I encourage them to vote in these elections for the parent representatives who will govern their children’s school for the next 3 years.

Jo Goodhew: What reports has she received on the number of schools with too few nominations in the 2010 school trustee elections?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am delighted to say that reports I have received state that across the country only three schools have had insufficient parent representative nominations. That compares very favourably with the 2007 elections, which saw five schools with insufficient nominations. Commissioners will be put in place on a temporary basis for those schools until a new election process can take place. This strong nomination turnout shows that parents are interested in taking part in the governance of their local schools, and I am particularly pleased that parents have ignored the calls of Mr Mallard to think twice before they consider standing for boards of trustees. It shows that parents are paying as much attention to the Labour Party on this one—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ordinarily we would appreciate full and long answers from the Minister, but for this question, which is an informational one, the answer is now turning into a speech.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that was a fair point. Indeed, I think we have had enough of it— [Interruption] Could members make sure they rise and call? Today the noise level in the House means either I need to get my ears tested or the noise level is too high. It is very difficult to hear. Members need to get to their feet reasonably promptly or I cannot pick them up. I apologise to Rahui Katene, who has a supplementary question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. The comment you just made about the noise levels in the House is pretty relevant. Sometimes members miss an opportunity to take a call. We have had a little bit of that lately; indeed, I think it is largely due to the sound system, which is still not working well in this House. It is unfortunate that we keep getting reports to us stating that it is the best thing since sliced bread and that there has been a significant amount of money spent on it, but it continues to be something that is very, very difficult for members to work with. I have been approached by members of our own backbench who even on a quiet day find it difficult to hear members at the front of the Chamber speaking.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an important issue. I will hear the Hon Peter Dunne, but I do not want to spend too much time on it. I am acutely aware of what the Leader of the House has just said.

Hon Peter Dunne: I endorse Mr Brownlee’s comments. I think that although today there has been a higher level of noise than usual—in this corner of the House, anyway—the problem is that the noise comes through at a constant level. When we get someone with a louder voice than usual— for instance, when Mr Brownlee was answering questions previously—we might expect it to carry. What is often carried down to this end of the Chamber is the constant hubbub, and we cannot hear the individual speaker over that hubbub. I have had difficulty hearing you and members on that side

of the House at times today. When we had the system that was individualised to the seats, the individual sound of a voice came through. When we went for these stalactites, or whatever they are called upstairs, we lost that. I think the consequence has been that it is harder for people to hear and this has contributed to a general level of disorder.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that both members make very good points. I am acutely aware that members in the back rows of the House cannot hear even in good times. I assure members that I will pursue this matter again. Members will recollect that I sought approval at one stage to enable technicians to come into the House during question time so they could hear what was going on. Again, I will seek the indulgence of the House for that because we must solve this problem. I am struggling to hear and members at the back of the House cannot hear. This is a very serious problem. The point the Hon Peter Dunne just made is true; it leads to disorder. When members cannot hear what is going on, there tends to be more noise and difficulty all around. I promise members I will pursue it again because it is not good enough.

Rahui Katene: What strategies are being employed to ensure that boards of trustees are representative of their communities, including the representation of mana whenua?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Boards of trustees are self-governing entities, and there are no specific initiatives to encourage the representation of mana whenua. When voting, school communities will no doubt look to put in place governance that is in the best interests of the school. That may very well include people with links to local iwi. The Education Act 1989 allows boards of trustees to coopt members. The Act requires that in doing so, they take into account the ethnic diversity of the school population and the character of their community.

Research and Development—Tax Credits or Equivalent Incentive

11. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Minister of Research, Science and

Technology: Is the Government reconsidering the question of tax credits or an equivalent incentive for research and development?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): The Prime Minister said in his statement to Parliament on 9 February that science and innovation and how they underpin business opportunities are so important for this Government that “we have made science and innovation a priority for new spending in this year’s Budget, and we are focused on boosting business research and science capability.” The member will have to wait for Budget announcements for the actual decisions.

David Shearer: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Gluckman, who said at a select committee today that we need a significant shift in private-sector research and development spending; if so, what actions has he taken to achieve that?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I think it is widely agreed that business does need to invest more in business innovation. As I said, there are Budget announcements ahead that will deal with some of these issues.

Louise Upston: What initiatives has the Government undertaken to support science and innovation since the 2009 Budget?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Government has done a number of things. Firstly, the Government appointed Professor Sir Peter Gluckman as the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor. Secondly, it realigned the funding system with its economic growth priorities. Thirdly, it has implemented the recommendations of the Crown Research Institute Taskforce, which was very well received. Fourthly, it is merging the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology and the foundation into a new agency to administer science policy and funding. Fifthly, it has established the Prime Minister’s Science Prizes. And there is more to come.

David Shearer: Does he share the concerns of Dr Andrew West, the chief executive officer of AgResearch, who said: “There’s been a lot of talk about extra money in last few years but there’s been no serious allocation from the Primary Growth Partnership.”, and said, following the recent

loss of 36 AgResearch jobs, that “Jobs will also go in dairy foods, food safety, parasitology, reproductive biology ”, and I could go on; and how does he justify these delays in the Primary Growth Partnership?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Decisions will be made in relation to the Primary Growth Partnership. Of course, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture. In relation to the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology, the recommendations of the Crown Research Institute Taskforce deal with quite a number of the issues that the member has raised.

David Shearer: How much money has the various Crown research institutes received so far from the Primary Growth Partnership?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I will have to provide a precise answer to that. But the application process is really only just in train at the moment, because the applications have to be considered.

Toi Moko / Mummified Māori Heads—Repatriation from Museums

12. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What recent progress has been made in efforts to secure the repatriation of toi moko from museums around the world?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Earlier this morning, the Upper House of the French Parliament passed legislation enabling toi moko held in French institutions to be returned to New Zealand. That opens the door for Te Papa to approach museums in France and negotiate repatriation with them, with the ultimate objective of returning the toi moko to their communities. I express the Government’s gratitude to the French Government and to Minister Frédéric Mitterand, to whom the Hon Dr Sharples and I wrote last year on this issue, and to the French Parliament for passing this legislation.

Paul Quinn: How many toi moko are estimated to be held in French museums?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Estimates range from between 12 and 20. There are a number of museums, as well as the Université Montpellier, that have been identified as being likely to have toi moko in their collections.

Rahui Katene: How will iwi be actively involved in the negotiations and return of moko mōkai to their tribal rohe?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Te Papa will be holding them only on an interim basis. They are not accessioned as part of Te Papa’s collections. The museum has a policy prohibiting their exhibition. The goal of repatriation is to return the kōiwi to their communities of origin. Where it is possible to establish this, they remain in Te Papa’s custody pending return to their attributed place of origin. Discussions with iwi to this effect are ongoing as the repatriation of remains occurs.

ENDS

© Scoop Media