(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 26 MAY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Budget 2010—Tax Changes

1. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Revenue: What reports has he received on the tax changes announced in the Budget?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue): I have received a remarkably positive level of feedback from the Budget tax changes. People have even stopped me in the street to congratulate the Government on the Budget because it provides real tax cuts for all New Zealanders. A person on the average wage of around $50,000 gets a $29 per week tax cut. Even after the increase in GST is taken into account, that person is more than $15 a week better off if he or she is paying an average rent or mortgage. The reduction in the top tax rate means that many high school teachers, nurses, and police no longer pay a higher rate than wealthy individuals who are able to structure their tax affairs and effectively select the tax rate they want. I have also received positive reaction from the Tax Working Group, including organisations like Deloitte, which said this Budget was a series of steps in the right direction, KPMG, which said that it was a smart but bold approach, and even the Institute of Chartered Accountants said that it was almost like taking white rabbits out of a hat.

Simon Bridges: How does the package increase fairness?

Hon Darren Hughes: Simon wants to take over United Future.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, because of a particularly loud interjection from my left I could not hear that question. I ask Simon Bridges to repeat it.

Simon Bridges: How does the package increase fairness?

Hon PETER DUNNE: It does so in about five ways. Firstly, it gives more New Zealanders more of a chance to determine how they spend the money that they earn. Secondly, it ensures that those on higher incomes pay their fair share of tax, through the alignment of the trust and top personal rates to overcome avoidance. Thirdly, the new amount of money voted in Inland Revenue for audit purposes will ensure a return over the next 4 years of some $750 million. The changes in the property sector are about fairness. Finally, we have also removed the ability for people with rental losses to use those losses to access Working for Families. Overall, it is a fair and good Budget.

Simon Bridges: What is the Government looking to do to assist businesses with the implementation of the GST increase from 1 October?

Hon PETER DUNNE: I announced on Friday the establishment of a GST advisory panel to help businesses implement the GST increase. That panel will act as a conduit between businesses and the Government. There will be a dedicated website, a special 0800 number to deal with queries, etc. There are also measures passed in the post-Budget legislation providing for the remission of late filing penalties and the use of money interest, where this is reasonably attributed to the rise in the GST rate. There are also some other transitional measures that will be positive for business.

Stuart Nash: Has the Minister received a call from the chief executive of Telecom, Paul Reynolds, thanking him for his $344,000-per-year tax cut?

Hon PETER DUNNE: No, I have not, for the simple reason that I think Dr Reynolds is probably far more focused on trying to make sure Telecom provides a quality service to New Zealanders, rather than worrying about the gripes from the Opposition.

Kiwibank—Privatisation

2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Did he seek advice on any potential damage to Kiwibank’s brand and customer goodwill resulting from its possible privatisation, before he told a meeting of business people on Friday that he might consider a partial privatisation of Kiwibank?

Hon SIMON POWER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: No.

Dr Russel Norman: Has the Government done any analysis of the cost of lost goodwill and damage to the business model of Kiwibank if it were privatised, in light of the fact that 700,000 New Zealanders signed up to Kiwibank on the basis that it is 100 percent New Zealand - owned; if so, what has that analysis shown?

Hon SIMON POWER: No.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that Kiwibank’s brand is built on its ownership by the New Zealand public, and, further, that any suggestion that the bank may be privatised and inevitably sold to overseas owners is highly damaging to Kiwibank’s brand and value to the Government?

Hon SIMON POWER: Kiwibank’s brand is built on a range of things, including some of the matters that the member raised in his question.

Chris Tremain: What measures has the Government been taking to support the growth of Kiwibank?

Hon SIMON POWER: The Government has continued the expansion of Kiwibank by allowing Kiwibank to retain all of its earnings for future expansion, and not requiring it to pay a dividend to the Government. Over the past 2 years, I am advised, this has allowed the bank to increase its equity base by over $100 million. As a result, Kiwibank’s lending has expanded by over $4 billion during this period.

Dr Russel Norman: Was it fiscally responsible for the Minister of Finance to make casual comments about privatising Kiwibank or partially privatising Kiwibank without first checking to see what damage such comments might cause?

Hon SIMON POWER: All of the Minister’s comments are fiscally prudent.

Hon David Cunliffe: So is it a tragedy or a comedy? Why doesn’t John Key agree?

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon David Cunliffe that he should control himself. I have called Dr Russel Norman.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of the potential damage to Kiwibank, will the Minister guarantee, in this House today, that the Government, however much longer it remains in power—whether or not it is the Government after the next election—will make no moves to privatise Kiwibank?

Hon SIMON POWER: The member is getting well ahead of himself. Government policy is that there will be no asset sales in this term of office, and if the policy changes the Government will say so and campaign on the issue at the 2011 election.

Kiwibank—Privatisation

3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Do his answers to question for oral answer No. 1 yesterday mean that he has ruled out ever initiating the privatisation of Kiwibank?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): My answers to question No. 1 yesterday mean that the Government has given no consideration to selling Kiwibank.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I had asked the Prime Minister whether he had given any consideration, that answer would have been totally appropriate. I asked whether he has ruled it out, which is a yes or no answer. It might be “No, we haven’t ruled it out, because we haven’t considered it—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The point of order was fair enough, but the question the Prime Minister was asked was: “Do his answers to question for oral answer No. 1 yesterday mean”—that he has ruled out something. The member has asked the Prime Minister what he meant in his answers, and the Prime Minister has told the honourable member what he meant by his answers.

Hon Phil Goff: Why will the Prime Minister not be honest and up front with New Zealanders about what he really wants to do in regard to privatising Kiwibank?

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me; I do not like interfering in questions. But one must not imply that the Prime Minister might not have been honest. I invite the member to reword his question.

Hon Phil Goff: Why will the Prime Minister not be up front with New Zealanders, and simply tell them whether he wants to privatise Kiwibank?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because no consideration has been given to selling any assets yet. But if I ever do get around to selling $9.5 billion worth, as that member did, I will let the public know.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister agree with the departing chief executive officer of Kiwibank, Sam Knowles, that it is important that Kiwibank remains in New Zealand ownership?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think that a number of factors make Kiwibank successful. One of them has been the implied Government guarantee from the New Zealand Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister rule out privatising Meridian Energy?

Hon JOHN KEY: No consideration has been given to selling any State-owned enterprises yet.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister rule out privatising Mighty River Power?

Hon JOHN KEY: My last answer suffices for this question—and for any others they want to go through. But I can assure the member I will not be selling the companies on the very long list I have here, because they have already been sold by the member previously.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister, then, prepared to rule out privatising Genesis Energy?

Hon JOHN KEY: My previous answer stands.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister ever discussed with members of the National Party, business people, or anybody else, his preference for privatising State-owned companies?

Hon JOHN KEY: In my 8 years in politics people have raised that question with me all the time. I say the same thing that I will say to that member: I am not ideologically opposed to asset sales, but this Government has not considered them at this time.

Budget 2010—Investment in Schools

4. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Education: What investment has the Government made in Budget 2010 to build new schools and modernise others?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Great news! Budget 2010 provides $349.3 million in new operating and capital funding over 4 years for school property. This includes funding for building new schools and improving existing school buildings, and comes on top of Government funding of more than $500 million as part of Budget 2009.

Louise Upston: What does Budget 2010 do to combat the problem of leaky buildings in schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In 2010-11, $82 million will be spent on remedial work on leaky school buildings—$82 million. The Budget also provides $22 million over 2 years to help ensure that these repairs are progressed quickly and to survey high-risk buildings so that we can get a good handle on what work is left to do. The problem of leaky buildings has been well known for nearly a decade, but I was aghast to find how little work the previous Government did to get repairs started in the schooling sector. This Government will not be sitting on its hands while children sit in classrooms with water dripping on to their books.

Hon Darren Hughes: Will Waikanae, on the Kapiti coast, be one of the sites where property is purchased for a new primary school as a result of Budget 2010?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The local member for the Ōtaki electorate is working very hard with me on the issues in Ōtaki. I will be keeping him informed.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a non-political question about a town not very far from here where there is population pressure. In my view, it needs a new primary school. I asked her about the Budget. I did not need to hear what conversation she is alleging she is having with one of her colleagues; I am just interested to know whether Waikanae might get a new primary school.

Mr SPEAKER: Under the circumstances, I invite the member to repeat his question so that everyone can hear it again.

Hon Darren Hughes: Will Waikanae, on the Kapiti coast, be one of the sites where property is purchased for an additional primary school as a result of the money she announced in Budget 2010?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said in answer to that question, the local member for the Ōtaki electorate has been working very hard on behalf of his electorate. He and I will be making any announcements there might need to be made about school property in the future.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might be that you ask Mr Hughes to ask his question again and we get third time lucky. It was a very simple question. In the end there are a range of answers, but they go to “Yes”, “No”, or “I don’t know”. That one did not seem to go to any of those.

Hon Rodney Hide: I have to say that that answer was perfectly in order. The Minister was asked about a school in Waikanae. The Minister replied that she is in discussions with the local MP, as would be appropriate, and that the deliberations are ongoing and an announcement will be made in the short future. I cannot see how one could give a fuller answer ahead of a Government announcement. I know that it irks—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has done very well up until now. Does the Leader of the House wish to add to this consideration? No. In fairness to members, it is an interesting point. It was a very direct question, but in fairness I think the Minister said that the matter was under consideration and an announcement would be made when a decision was made. One cannot insist on a more precise answer than that.

Louise Upston: Why has the Government allocated funding towards the removal of surplus school property?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government has set aside $40 million over the next 4 years to reduce surplus school property. The first target will be the removal of unsightly buildings from vacant school sites. These vacant buildings often attract vandalism and antisocial behaviour, causing much unnecessary distress to local communities. Their removal stops this and at the same time allows the Crown to save money through reduced maintenance and security costs.

Long-term Fiscal Track—Sustainability

5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he consider the long-term fiscal track to be sustainable; if not, what options is he considering to rectify this?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, provided that we maintain the fiscal discipline set out in last week’s Budget. The most important feature of making the fiscal track sustainable is that we do not get overwhelmed by rising debt and finance costs, as threatened to be the case 2 years ago. Last week’s Budget showed that net debt is now contained, peaking at a low level of 27 percent of GDP in 2014-15, and falling steadily after that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will he further strengthen the Government’s net assets by supporting the growth of Kiwibank, which is currently valued at around twice the assets the Government has already committed to it?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government makes a number of decisions from time to time on investing in State-owned enterprises and also in other Government assets, such as infrastructure and a range of other things. It will make those decisions from time to time, as required.

Amy Adams: What steps has the Government taken to ensure the long-term viability of its finances and the continued delivery of New Zealand Superannuation?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Our commitment to New Zealand Superannuation is absolute. All Budget projections include the funding of superannuation from age 65 at 66 percent of the average wage. To guarantee that this is affordable, we have had to make responsible decisions in each of the past two Budgets. We stopped the rampant growth in Government expenditure and reprioritised where needed, lived within a reduced new spending allowance, and improved the tax system to boost growth. The upshot is that we have debt under control so that future taxpayers can breathe easier.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will his consideration of Kiwibank’s capital injection proposal take full account of the business case that the departing chief executive officer, Sam Knowles, today described as “compelling”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the member will be aware, the Government receives a fair number of business cases that are regularly described as compelling. It assesses them all and prioritises them accordingly.

Amy Adams: What is the single biggest risk to the Government’s ability to support vulnerable New Zealanders?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The single biggest risk to the Government’s ability to deliver quality public services and maintain entitlements, such as New Zealand Superannuation and Working for Families, would be out-of-control debt. That is why we have rejected a range of poorly-thought-out expenditure ideas, including borrowing $2 billion a year to gamble on world sharemarkets, continuing the rapid expansion of the Public Service, and extending benefits to people with spouses in work. Those suggestions, combined with others that would push up debt, come from the other side of the House.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why is he considering privatising Kiwibank when its benefit is obvious to the 700,000 Kiwis who have chosen to make it their bank, or does that not count with a National Government that is intent on selling off the family silver to pay for upper-income tax cuts that the country cannot afford?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has given no consideration to the privatisation of Kiwibank.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree that Kiwibank benefits all New Zealanders by putting competitive pressure on the big four Aussie banks, and by expanding credit faster than our external debt, which he described as our largest single vulnerability?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Kiwibank certainly makes a contribution to the Government’s assets, as does a huge range of State-owned enterprises in their various forms of business.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a transcript of a tape of the Minister at a National Party conference setting out his intentions to privatise State assets.

Mr SPEAKER: Members are at liberty to seek leave to table any document that is not readily available to members of the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Disposal of Surplus Assets by Tertiary Institutions

6. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Tertiary

Education: Me aro ngā kuratini ki ēhea ture i mua i te whakapau i ngā rawa e kore nei e hiahiatia

kia ahei ai rātou ki te pupuri tonu i aua rawa; nō te Karauna ngā rawa, ko rātou ngā kaitiaki kē, hei whakahoki atu ki ngā iwi mō ngā kerēme whakataunga i te Tiriti o Waitangi? [What procedures do tertiary education institutions have to comply with before disposing of any assets that are surplus to their needs, to ensure that those Crown-owned assets managed by them but no longer needed are able to be retained as part of the redress options for Treaty of Waitangi settlement claims for iwi?]

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): If a tertiary institution wants to dispose of surplus land that is in Crown title, then Māori interests in that land are considered through the existing protection mechanism and sites of significance processes. If all Treaty settlements in the area have been completed, then it is considered through a right of first refusal process. These processes are managed by the Office of Treaty Settlements and are unchanged by the new policy regarding Crown assets in the tertiary sector. If a tertiary education institution wants to dispose of surplus land that it owns, it does not need to go through these processes, but it must honour any right of first refusal on the title of the land.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Which tertiary institutions have assets that have been identified as suitable to go on the “for sale” list, and what consultation has been undertaken with iwi about those assets?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is up to the institutions themselves to manage their assets, so there is no actual “for sale” list. I am advised, however, that the Universal College of Learning and Massey University have identified surplus Crown assets and are going through the disposal process. This disposal process includes consultation with iwi, as I stated in my answer to the primary question, over their interest in the land.

Hone Harawira: What consultation has been undertaken between the Crown and iwi about the plan recently agreed to by Cabinet to make it easier for tertiary institutions to sell their Crownowned assets; and if none has been undertaken, how will iwi become involved in this process?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The policy changes recently agreed to by Cabinet are to provide certainty to the institution in terms of the process for Government decision-making, not to make it easier. The policy change also clarifies the financial split that would take place between the Crown and the institution of any sale proceeds. We made these changes because previously such land disposals had been administered by the Government in an ad hoc way. As outlined in the answer to the primary question, all existing consultation processes with iwi regarding land disposals remain unchanged.

Hon Maryan Street: Given his recent influence over Tūhoe negotiations, can he advise the House of the state of play of Te Tau Ihu Treaty settlement negotiations in so far as they impact upon land and properties currently occupied by the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I reject the assertion made by the member at the outset of her question.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that we have some leniency now about using a “why”, “what”, or “how” word to start a question, and I accept your ruling on that. But it gets very tough when a member, in asking a question, makes a controversial statement beginning with “given that” that involves a Minister, and then asks a question that puts the controversial statement into the Hansard.

Hon Darren Hughes: Just for the flow of the House’s business, it might be easier if my colleague restated the question without the original assertion, and the Minister could answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Nice try! I apologise to the House that I was perhaps remiss there. What we saw happen though, which is not a bad remedy, was the Minister flatly reject the assertion that the member had made and give no further answer. Under those circumstances I will not allow the member to repeat the question. When members make that kind of statement, the penalty is that either I intervene or they do not have their question answered. In this case the member did not get her question answered, and that is where it remains.

Prime Minister—Conflicts of Interest and Blind Trusts

7. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement to the New Zealand Herald last year that he has put certain assets into a blind trust that is “so blind I haven’t a clue what’s in it”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can he confirm that that means he cannot have a conflict of interest regarding those assets because he does not know, and cannot know, whether he still owns those assets?

Hon JOHN KEY: That would be my interpretation of it, yes.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Costs to Consumers

8. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What are the impacts of the changes this Government has made to the emissions trading scheme on costs for consumers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): This Government amended the emissions trading scheme to halve the impacts on consumers by requiring only one unit for every 2 tonnes of emissions for the transport and electricity sectors, and by putting a cap of $25 per tonne on the price. This reduced the cost per household from $330 a year to $165 a year, or $3.17 per week, to be precise.

Jacqui Dean: Which officials were responsible for calculating the $165-per-year or $3-per-week cost of the emissions trading scheme for the average household?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The figure was produced by the emissions trading group of officials in Treasury. The methodology was included in the original regulatory impact statement on the legislation. The analysis is based on a household using 8,000 kilowatt hours of power and driving 28,000 kilometres per year, and on a power price increase of 1c per kilowatt hour and a petrol price increase of 3c per litre.

John Boscawen: Does the Government’s forecast of the increased value of electricity generation assets of $821 million, shown on page 136 of the Budget document, include the windfall profits to energy companies like Mercury Energy, which announced yesterday a 3.3 percent increase from 1 July on account of the emissions trading scheme; if not, why, not, and if so, how much of that $800 million – plus is due to those windfall profits?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The increase announced yesterday by Mercury Energy was 3 percent, which is less than the 5 percent that the Government has indicated to consumers will be the cost of the emissions trading scheme. No, the change in valuation is not a reflection of the emissions trading scheme. It is quite complex having both the emissions trading scheme and the complexities of the electricity market to determine the exact impacts. I note that neither Genesis nor Meridian Energy is planning to increase its price in the short-term. The Government will be watching the power companies closely, and if we believe that they are unfairly putting up prices as a consequence of the emissions trading scheme, we reserve the right to have some form of inquiry.

Jacqui Dean: What reports has he received of the price impacts on consumers of other countries’ emissions trading schemes, noting claims that New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme is leading the world and is the most expensive?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Twenty-nine of the 38 countries with Kyoto Protocol commitments have an emissions trading scheme. I am advised that the power price increases range from between 23 percent and 33 percent. A specific report in 2008 on the European emissions trading scheme put the price impact at between €10 and €12 per megawatt hour, which would relate in New Zealand terms to between 1.8c and 2.2c per kilowatt hour—that is, more than double ours. The 5-percent increase imposed by our amended emissions trading scheme is very modest and is far from worldleading.

John Boscawen: Does he agree with his colleague the Minister of Agriculture that under current Government policy the cost of the emissions trading scheme for the average dairy farmer will be $3,900 per annum for the period 1 July 2010 to 31 December 2012, $7,800 per annum for the period 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2014, and $10,200 per annum from 1 January 2015, as calculated by Meat and Wool New Zealand; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think the member is being quite misleading—

Mr SPEAKER: The member asked him whether he agreed with the Minister of Agriculture and some figures used by the Minister of Agriculture, as I understood the question. The answer should not start with: “The member is being misleading”, because the member has not alleged anything; he has asked the Minister whether he agrees with some figures someone else has used.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not accept the accuracy of those figures for a very simple reason: this Government has made it plain that we will not be proceeding with the step-up in the emissions trading scheme in 2013 or with the addition of additional sectors unless there is progress by our key trading partners. So the figures the member is using for 2013 and beyond are quite misleading.

Jacqui Dean: Has the Minister received any advice on the price impacts for households of adopting a 40 percent emissions target by 2020?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have seen economic analysis that shows that to meet that sort of reduction in emissions, the price of carbon would need, in New Zealand, to be $500 per tonne. This would involve the cost being 40 times what our emissions trading scheme would cost, or $120 a week. It beggars belief that some members are complaining about the power price increase of our very modest emissions trading scheme while, at the same time, they are promising a 40 percent reduction in emissions by 2020. Members opposite should reflect on those contradictory messages.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Submissions on Minerals Stocktake Discussion Document

9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many submissions on the Government’s proposal Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond have been received by the Ministry of Economic Development?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): As at 5 p.m. last night there were approximately 35,000.

Catherine Delahunty: When he said on Morning Report today that he did not have to consult, was he not aware of the Crown Minerals Act, which requires him to consult on changes to schedule 4?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member needs to understand that I was saying we did not need to consult in this fashion. We have chosen to have a dialogue with New Zealanders, and New Zealanders have responded.

Catherine Delahunty: What is his response to 59 percent of New Zealanders who believe that the Government has already made up its mind and is simply going through the motions; and has he heard the saying “When you are in a hole, stop digging.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are two questions there, Madam Speaker. To answer the second part first, I say that if one is in a hole and one is getting a good mineral deposit, one should keep going. To the first part I simply say wait and see.

Mr SPEAKER: I assure the honourable Minister that I have not had a sex-change operation.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I would expect not; there would have been a statement to Parliament, surely.

Mr SPEAKER: It is just that I am not Madam Speaker.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Submissions on Minerals Stocktake Discussion Document

10. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many submissions has the Ministry of Economic Development received so far on the stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and how many oppose mining on schedule 4 land?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Probably, by now, there are a few more than 35,000. As to how many are in favour of mining as opposed to not opening up schedule 4 to further investigation, I cannot give that answer; I have not asked for that information yet. I have steadfastly said we will do a proper analysis and then when we have done that we will make some decisions.

Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen the submission from Newmont Waihi Gold, the largest mining company in the Coromandel, headed “Leave schedule 4 alone”; and can he now confirm that the Government will not remove any Coromandel land from schedule 4 protection?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have not had the opportunity to consider in full the submission from Newmont Waihi Gold, but I have asked my office for a brief analysis of it. It appears that the mining company is asking the same as the Government: to take a little more time over the decision. We say we want New Zealanders to express a view. We will listen to New Zealanders and not mining companies. That company, I point out, is the only one that has a prospecting licence over that area at the moment. I assume the company would relinquish it.

Hon David Parker: Is the Government going to ignore the 35,000 submissions opposed to mining in national parks, or is he going to back down?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can assure members that a good number of those 35,000 submissions have been delivered to my office, so it has been impossible to ignore them.

Hon David Parker: If 35,000 submissions and 40,000 marchers opposed to mining in national parks are not enough, how many would be?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not sure. Tens of thousands of people marched on Parliament to protest against Labour’s foreshore and seabed legislation, but Labour did not listen to them.

Hon David Parker: Where will this end, given that his plan started with 467,000 hectares, then it was 7,000 hectares, and now it has been leaked to the media today that it is 3,500 hectares, and why does he not just acknowledge that national parks are too precious to mine?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The very interesting thing is that the only proposal for any activity in national parks is in Paparoa, which the member now accuses us of leaking to the media. I think that, like everybody else, he should just wait and see.

Hon David Parker: What other failed plans does he intend to pursue to create his economic step change when the cycleway did not do it, the Job Summit did not do it, the Budget did not do it, and his plan to mine national parks just will not fly?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have to ask what universe the member is living in. What planet is he walking on? If he had listened to even a little bit of the Budget last week he would have got a slight sense that this Government has a very good grip on what is required for the New Zealand economy. If he wants any further proof, he should look at the latest polling, which indicates that New Zealanders saw that Budget as being a clear blueprint from this Government for a better future.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the submission from Newmont Waihi Gold titled “Leave schedule 4 alone says mining company”.

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.

Border Control—Productivity and Security

11. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Customs: What commitment has the Government made to improve productivity and security at the border?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): Budget 2010 provides $75.9 million in capital expenditure over the next 4 years for a joint-venture border management system between the Customs Service and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. The new system will bring processes together, providing improved security and productivity at New Zealand’s borders. Modernising the ageing border management computer system will also deliver significant benefits for industry and travellers. Budget 2010 also provides $5.9 million of capital funding to the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drug trade through enhanced tracking and surveillance equipment.

Jonathan Young: What reports has he received on seizures of pure methamphetamine at the border?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Last week customs discovered 8.175 kilograms of pure methamphetamine, worth at least $6 million on the street, in the luggage of a tour group arriving at Auckland Airport. The best coverage I have seen of this was in, as Paul Holmes would refer to it, the “Royal New Zealand Herald”, which covered it well. This is the single biggest—

Hon Members: The “Royal New Zealand Herald”?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That is what Paul Holmes called it, so I will call it the “Royal New Zealand Herald”. This is the biggest single bust of pure methamphetamine at the border so far this year, and is one of the biggest ever made. As a result, seven Taiwanese people were arrested and have been charged with importing a class A controlled drug. This seizure is an outstanding example of the vigilance, expertise, and experience of our front-line customs officers.

Education, Minister—Undertakings

12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all undertakings she has made as Minister of Education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I have made a number of undertakings since I became the Minister of Education. I always make these in good faith and follow them through.

Sue Moroney: Why, then, did she state yesterday that participation in early childhood education had increased by less than 1 percent in the last 5 years, when Ministry of Education figures show that 16,389 more children were participating in 2009 than the 164,521 children participating in 2005, which is a 10 percent increase; did she get the decimal point in the wrong place?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not know where the member got those figures from. I am looking at some figures in front of me that show that in 2005, 54,224 children attended early childhood education, and the cost of that was $462 million. In 2009, 52,296 children attended—a drop of 1,928—and that cost $1.13 million. That is three times the amount, and we lost 2,000-odd children. That is a difference of considerable concern to this Government.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a serious attempt to be helpful. I think a million and a billion were mixed up in there somewhere.

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure the Minister meant a billion.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a document from the Ministry of Education, the annual education report of July 2009, showing a 10 percent increase in participation between 2005 and 2009.

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

Colin King: What undertakings has she made to the compulsory school sector about increasing funding for the front line?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I undertook to do my best to get more resources to the front lines of the compulsory school sector. I am happy to say that despite a very tight fiscal environment, this Government has delivered on that with a 4 percent increase in the operations grant.

Sue Moroney: Does she stand by her statement yesterday to the House that estimates by early childhood education providers that the costs to parents of her funding cuts could be as high as $60 per week were “pretty poor maths”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In fact, what I said to the House was that the member’s maths was pretty poor.

Sue Moroney: Can she confirm that the subsidy for a 2-year-old at a centre with 100 percent qualified staff will drop by $1.51 per hour, and can she calculate the approximate cost of this funding cut for one child who accesses 40 hours of that early childhood education service; how are the Minister’s numeracy standards today?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I explained yesterday, this Government is in the position of having to fund three times the amount for early childhood education for very little increase in participation. We have set a target of 80 percent qualified teachers, and we have removed the extra incentives to pay for more than 80 percent qualified teachers. That is a change to the subsidy to early childhood services.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, that was a pretty direct question. I think that, although there was a little bit around it, it asked the Minister to multiply $1.51 by 40.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point that the question started out as a very blunt question, but at the end of it a gratuitous comment was added about how the Minister’s maths is today. If members want the Speaker to help them get an answer to a question, they must cut out gratuitous remarks.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister stand by her commitment not to introduce bulk funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the ability to reduce the number of staff in schools below that of the staffing schedule, as outlined in her Budget papers, a feature of bulk funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. I presume that the member is referring to the flexibility that we are trying to build into school funding, and the ability for schools to get all the resources that they are entitled to, by allowing them at the end of the year to convert into cash any staffing entitlement that they have not used up during the year. Schools have reacted with great delight to the ability to do that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the ability for schools to take cash instead of replacing buildings, as she announced in her Budget papers, a feature of bulk funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Not in my book, no. Again, it is to try to give schools the flexibility to use their funds in the way that they see fit. This Government trusts schools and boards of trustees to make good decisions for their children.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What features of bulk funding are now not part of the school funding system?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have no responsibility for the Labour Party’s policies.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was what features of bulk funding are now not part of the school funding system. The fact—

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Speaking to the point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Minister. [Interruption] I apologise to the Minister. A point of order is being heard.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member started on this track of questioning by asking me to confirm that I had ruled out bulk funding. Therefore, it is not part of my policy or this

Government’s policy, so it must be part of Labour’s policy if its members continue to ask questions on it.

Mr SPEAKER: No, we will not get into that. [Interruption] There will be silence. I think the Minister’s explanation is not unreasonable. Since she did tell the House that bulk funding was not part of her Government’s policy, she cannot really tell the House what features of her current policy are not part of bulk funding. She has no view of a bulk-funding policy. Although I accept the answer was a little unusual, I do not think it was totally outside the bounds of the Standing Orders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she understand the features of bulk funding; if so, what features of bulk funding are now not part of the school funding system?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat that this Government has no policy on bulk funding.

Mr SPEAKER: That was not the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of question time is to question Ministers about Government policy, so asking a Minister to speculate about a policy the Government does not have is completely unreasonable.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard, because it is an interesting point that has been raised.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think all I was doing was asking the Minister to differentiate between the Government’s policy and bulk funding, and, going back a step, it was a question of whether she understood the features that were the differences. If she does, then it is not a hard question to answer.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Minister answers to the House for her policy, not for policies that have been rejected by New Zealanders. The Minister has made it very clear that it is not one of her policies, so what on earth would she be comparing it with if not the Labour Party policy?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no; we have gone far enough. It is an interesting issue that has been raised, actually. That is why I let the points of order go on. As the Leader of the House pointed out, question time is about holding the Government to account over the Government’s policies. If the Minister had introduced bulk funding in one of her answers, the member would have been absolutely at liberty to question her about that, what she understands by it, etc. But if I recollect correctly the flow of questions—I stand to be corrected here—I believe that it was one of the questioners who introduced the issue of bulk funding. The Minister has denied that the Government has any involvement with that policy. Therefore, asking her whether she understands that policy is not actually strictly relevant to holding the executive to account. I have to agree with the honourable Leader of the House on this occasion that it is not reasonable for me to ask the Minister to answer that question any further. If the Minister had introduced the notion of bulk funding in her answer, there would be no problem, but given the way that it was introduced, I believe that I cannot ask the Minister to answer that any further.

ENDS

© Scoop Media