(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 27 MAY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Banks, Australian-owned—Dividends Sent Offshore Over Last 5 Years

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the total amount of dividend payments sent offshore to the Australian owners of ASB, ANZ National, Westpac, and the BNZ over the last 5 years; if so, what is this amount?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I have not received any such reports, although the information that the member is after may be available through the annual reports of the banks concerned. However, he would need to ensure that the dividends that were paid had all gone to Australian owners; there may well be significant New Zealand investment in those banks listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand’s Financial Stability Report, released last week, finds that the overall banking sector’s profitability declined during the recession, but is now likely to improve as the economy improves.

Dr Russel Norman: Can he confirm that, according to the Reserve Bank figures to which he referred, in the 5 years to 2009 the overseas-owned banks drained about $9 billion out of New Zealand; and what was the impact on the New Zealand economy of that loss of capital?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will take the member at his word about that amount, which I presume is the accumulated profits of the banks. Clearly we are anxious, but if New Zealanders had saved more over the years we may well have been the owners of all our banks. But we should just keep in mind that over recent years we have had the advantage, through the recession, of the Australian banks being now among the 10 safest banks in the world. The fact that they have been profitable has been one factor that has helped us to get through this recession without a banking collapse. One has to look only at the effect of banking collapses on other economies to realise how fortunate we have been.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he think that the Australian banks were acting in the best interests of New Zealand in 2008-09, during the recession he referred to—a time when New Zealand was short of capital—when those banks repatriated about 85 percent of their profits to Australia and retained only 15 percent of their profits in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There could be a range of opinions about the way banks deal with their profits—and the member and I might share a concern about whether New Zealand’s interests are paramount in the minds of the Australian shareholders—but I think it will be some time before we get the whole picture with regards to 2008-09. The point to remember is that the banks were unable to borrow in world wholesale funding markets, which essentially meant the pipeline of cash coming into New Zealand was closed off, and it appears that the Australian parent banks lent significant amounts of cash to the New Zealand banking system in a way that probably enabled our banks to continue to provide mortgages and overdrafts to New Zealand households and businesses. I am a bit reluctant to criticise them for the most recent period of the last 2 years through the banking crisis.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree that if Kiwibank were sold to overseas owners, then any profits from Kiwibank would be added to this drain of capital from New Zealand, adding further to our current account deficit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s position on that issue is quite clear: there will be no sales of any assets in this term of office. If that position were to change, then the terms of that decision would be announced to the electorate before the election, so there would be plenty of opportunity to debate them, and then National would campaign on them.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of his comments floating the possibility of a partial privatisation of Kiwibank, what mechanism does he propose to use to prevent New Zealand shareholders in a privatised or partially privatised Kiwbank from passing their shares on to overseas owners?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that question directly, because the Government has not considered any of those issues at all.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the Kiwibank chief executive officer, Sam Knowles, that the big Australian banks are “comfortable, established incumbents with a focus on maximising profits, rather than competing” and that Kiwibank introduces a much-needed element of competition in the banking sector—competition that might be lost if Kiwibank were privatised and sold to overseas owners?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Dr Russel Norman: If Kiwibank is sold to Australia, will the Government require Kiwibank to change its theme song from “God Defend New Zealand” to “Advance Australia Fair”, or perhaps to “Advance Australian Profits”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would find that question easier to answer if it were not asked with an Australian accent.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek the leave of the House to table a potential Kiwbank advertisement to be used after this Government privatises Kiwibank.

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.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Health: Yes, including the very important statement that health expenditure as a proportion of GDP is at the highest level ever in New Zealand history.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does he think that elective surgery is a front-line health service; if so, how can he allow Wellington Hospital—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. It is perfectly acceptable for a visual aid to be used by the member and, therefore, the person assisting on the bench, but it is not acceptable for visual aids to be shown from other benches.

Hon Ruth Dyson: —how can he allow Wellington Hospital to close its theatres for a week to save money, delaying surgery for 150 Wellington residents?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that 11,000 more elective surgery operations were done in the first year of this administration; furthermore, the increase in expenditure will allow even more elective surgery next year. I also note that the health board the member refers to had a substantive increase in its funding in the Budget.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What district nursing services will be available to people in Palmerston North who have blocked catheters or oxygen supply breakdowns, or those dying in pain, if MidCentral

District Health Board goes ahead with its proposal to completely axe the entire night shift from district nurse services?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the increase in the level of funding for MidCentral District Health Board is $39 million over both last year’s and this year’s Budget, of which $13 million is in this year’s Budget. With that improved level of funding provided by the Government, the Government has confidence that first-class health services can be provided for the people of that board’s district.

Nicky Wagner: How much of the extra funding for next year that the Government has announced will go to district health boards?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the next financial year, district health boards will receive an estimated $407 million, taking the proportion of GDP that is being spent on health to the highest level ever. I think that demonstrates the level of commitment that this Government has to our important public health services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How can he justify the cut to the weekly visit from a nurse to Paraparaumu College, firstly cutting it back to fortnightly and, from 1 July, cutting it completely?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I draw on the considerable experience of Annette King, who, as Minister of Health, said that members, where they have individual cases, should raise them directly with the Minister’s office rather than in a very broad question that covers such a wide range.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Given that Associate Minister of Health the Hon Tariana Turia said that the closing of Kenepuru Hospital’s emergency department between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. would “put people’s lives at risk”, can we now expect the Government, of which Mrs Turia is a member, to get involved in this issue and ensure that that service is not cut?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is huge faith in Tariana Turia because she is such an effective Associate Minister of Health. On the specific issue of the Kenepuru accident and medical clinic, I can advise that Capital and Coast District Health Board has no plans to make changes to the services there. In fact, it is delivering a lot more services. There have been 4,000 more outpatient services this year from Kenepuru, and I think that is something we should all welcome.

Public Sector—Spending Relative to Economy

3. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Finance: How large is public sector spending relative to the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): There are several components of public sector spending: departmental spending and entitlements, and additional spending by State-owned enterprises and Crown entities. This is all consolidated into the total Crown accounts. Local government is also a significant part of the economy. When all those elements are included, total public sector spending to June 2009 was $93 billion. That was just over 50 percent of GDP. That figure has increased from 41 percent of GDP—or by $31 billion—in the past 5 years.

Aaron Gilmore: How will Budget 2010 address this growth in public spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The growth in public spending from 41 percent of the economy to 50 percent of the economy in the past 5 years is clearly unsustainable, and some of it was irresponsible. Budget 2010 has kept within $1.1 billion for new operational spending, and we are shifting $1.8 billion of low-priority spending over the next 4 years from low-quality and back-office programmes to front-line services and more effective public programmes.

Aaron Gilmore: Is the Minister aware of any plans to further increase public spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite the unsustainable, and, in some respects, reckless, increase in public spending over the last 5 years, I have heard several ideas that would increase public spending without any matching increase in productivity. Hiring about 3,000 more Wellington-based bureaucrats and extending a range of public spending on low-quality programmes with no regard for the debt that it would incur are ideas from the Labour Opposition.

Grant Robertson: Is the Minister aware of data from the State Services Commission that shows that the public sector decreased in size by 25 percent from 1989 to 2008 and has remained largely static as a percentage of the total workforce during that period, including being the same percentage when he was first appointed as a Minister as it was when Labour left office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member can pick any numbers he likes—[Interruption] Well, his 1989 numbers will include a very large New Zealand Rail and a very large New Zealand Post Office, which had large numbers of people working for them, and the Labour Government of the time decided they were far too big and decided to shrink them. The fact is that, along with most of the New Zealand public, we believe that much of the spending under the previous Government was reckless and ineffective, and we are fixing that problem.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave to table a document provided by the State Services Commission that shows that the number of people employed in the public sector has been static as a percentage of the employed labour force.

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.

State-owned Enterprises—Future Sale

4. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Finance: Is he considering selling or partially selling any State-owned enterprises in the future; if so, which ones?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No. The Government’s position is clear. We made a commitment to New Zealanders that there will not be asset sales in this term of Parliament. If the position is to change, we will campaign on that at the next election. In the meantime, we are doing a much more important job, which is fixing the damage done by 10 years of mismanagement of $200 billion worth of State assets—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —and I can tell you it is a very big job.

Mr SPEAKER: When I get to my feet, I expect all members of the House to respond immediately. The question did not contain any political accusations in it, whatsoever. It just asked whether the Minister was considering selling or partially selling any State-owned enterprises in the future, and if so, which ones. It did not deserve an attack on the party of the questioner.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why, then, did he tell a post-Budget luncheon in Christchurch that the Government is considering making a change of policy “to free up capital and put product on the market for Kiwi mums and dads”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I made those comments in the context of discussing with that audience the need to lift our game with the $200 billion worth of assets that the Government owns. I pointed out to them that those assets will grow by $35 billion over the next 5 years, and that the Government is investing $6 billion per year in taxpayer-funded assets.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: When he suggested at the luncheon that “there is a strong demand among the mums and dads for a Kiwi investment model and if we put product into the market people would buy it”, did he also point out to the audience that Kiwi mums and dads buying a State-owned asset such as Kiwibank would be buying something that they already own through their payment of taxes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member has pointed to a comment that someone made to me after that discussion, but, as I said then and I will say again now, we have got on with the much more important job of improving the shocking level of management left behind by the previous Government. It did not care about the State-owned assets, and it did a very poor job of managing them.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What previous policies regarding the ownership of State-owned enterprises is the Minister aware of?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the years there have been a number of different positions. I am aware of a position stated by the previous Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Trevor Mallard, who advocated floats of State-owned enterprises so that they could be listed on the stock exchange. He told a TV programme in 2006 that “that could help give a bit of depth to our capital markets and get some transparency around those companies, and I think that would help.” Presumably, that is still the policy of the Labour Party.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member did not fully quote me. It was—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot litigate an answer by way of a point of order. There was nothing wrong with the answer; I just think the last bit was unnecessary. The Minister made an allegation as to the current policy of the Labour Party, for which the Minister has no responsibility. There was nothing wrong with the answer up until then.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Who is correct: the Prime Minister, who said: “No consideration has been given to selling any State-owned enterprises yet.”, himself as Minister, when he said last Friday that the Government is considering a change of policy to “put product on the market for Kiwi mums and dads”, or the Kiwibank chairperson, Jim Bolger, who said: “They’re clearly working away on what their privatisation strategy may or may not be.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister is correct. The Government has not asked for advice or considered any advice on the matters that were raised, because we have been so busy fixing up the mess that we inherited—$200 billion worth of assets are owned by the taxpayer, and that Government left them in a mess.

Rahui Katene: Does he agree with capital market task force chairperson Rob Cameron that it is time for iwi to begin thinking about how they are to organise themselves, and about which governance systems and investment vehicles they might use to play an active role in investing in New Zealand’s infrastructure; if so, what consultation has he had with iwi about the potential sale of State-owned enterprises?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have not had any consultation with iwi about the ownership of Stateowned enterprises. In the central North Island, for instance, a number of iwi have formed joint ventures with State-owned enterprises, which, I think, were sponsored by Dr Cullen of the previous Labour Government. We have certainly discussed with iwi their potential role in public-private partnerships, and I understand that a number of bidders for the first option of a partnership are consulting with iwi as we speak.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he stand by his statement last Friday that Kiwibank needs an “awful lot of capital”; if so, why did the outgoing Kiwibank chief executive officer, Sam Knowles, disagree with him when he said yesterday that Kiwibank is making enough profit to finance its growth, and if any additional capital is needed, it will be minimal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Kiwibank is growing, and the Government is keen to support that growth. We have had discussions with Kiwibank over an extended period about what is required for that. I have to say that the Government, as shareholder, does not share all the views that the Kiwibank management hold about what is required for growth.

Budget 2010—Environmental Initiatives and Bluegreen Vision

5. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for the Environment: What practical environmental initiatives is the Government funding in Budget 2010 and how do they align with the principles outlined in the Bluegreen vision for New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The Government’s key environmental priorities are climate change, water management, and improving air quality and waste management. Practical activity in all those areas is on the rise. The major priority on climate

change is implementing the emissions trading scheme, but there are also good complementary programmes for home insulation, clean heating, and solar water heating. The big ticket items in Vote Environment are for water-quality initiatives that are being ranked up. Budget 2010 also provides increased funding for practical weight initiatives through the waste levy.

Todd McClay: What specific funding commitments has the Government made for water-quality improvements in the central North Island?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is investing $92 million over the financial years 2009- 2014 in initiatives to clean up Lake Rotorua, Lake Rotoiti, Lake Taupō, and the Waikato River in partnership with local councils and iwi. This is a five-fold increase over what was spent on waterquality initiatives over the 5 years prior to 2009.

Hon Shane Jones: Why did the Bluegreen vision not disclose the Government’s intention to destroy water conservation orders?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Because we are not; we are very committed to improving water management. I challenge members opposite in terms of what has occurred in Canterbury with water management over the last decade—it was a disaster. I look to the quotes from Trevor Mallard, who acknowledged the huge problems we have in Canterbury with water management.

Todd McClay: What specific funding is provided in the Budget for the Environmental Protection Authority?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A total of $16.8 million is provided in Budget 2010 for the new national consenting function of the Environmental Protection Authority, but the Government is yet to make a final decision on the four-man structure of that new authority. We will be making an announcement in the next month, and legislation will be needed to introduce this new idea, which was introduced with the Bluegreen vision document.

Hon SHANE JONES: Why did the Bluegreen vision not disclose the Government’s intention to mine national parks?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I know of only one party that has mined national parks, and the only mine was a mine that was officially approved by a former Labour Minister of Conservation in the Paparoa National Park. The only area of national park that my colleague Gerry Brownlee is exploring is an area that the Department of Conservation did not even support being added to schedule 4.

Hon Member: Tell the truth.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is there any dim prospect that he could direct his attention to the question I actually asked?

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants the Speaker to take a point of order seriously he does not raise the point of order in that way.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the Department of Conservation approval, signed by Chris Carter, for the mine in Paparoa National Park?

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document, is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Shane Jones: How is it consistent with the principles of the Bluegreen vision to bury the national Coastal Policy Statement and ignore the national policy statement on water management?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The national Coastal Policy Statement review was started in 2002, some 7 years before National became the Government. I have been working very closely with Kate Wilkinson, the Minister of Conservation, to ensure that the new Coastal Policy Statement is a balanced document—

Hon David Parker: It’s all waffle.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, if David Parker wants to know what waffle is, he should read about what Labour did for 9 years with the Coastal Policy Statement. I can assure the member that we will have an improved Coastal Policy Statement that is good for New Zealand.

Alcohol Reform Agenda—Increased Excise Tax

6. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Justice: What advice did he receive from the Prime Minister when he consulted him before stating that “it is extremely unlikely that the Government will move to raise excise tax as part of its alcohol reform agenda”?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): The consultation referred to in the member’s question occurred in the context of a meeting of a number of Ministers including the Prime Minister. My statement echoed the collective view of that meeting.

Hon Pete Hodgson: At the time he received the advice from his Prime Minister was he aware that the Prime Minister had an existing interest in Highwater Vineyard Ltd?

Hon SIMON POWER: I simply followed the processes that were put in place in order for that announcement to be made. I outlined in the answer to the primary question how that came about. I have nothing more to add.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was: “At the time that he received the advice from his Prime Minister was he aware that the Prime Minister had an existing interest in Highwater Vineyard Ltd?”, so it was a fairly narrow question.

Hon SIMON POWER: My answer to the primary question referred to the consultation portion of the question. My answer to the primary question did not refer to any advice I had received from the Prime Minister. In fact, the consultation portion of the member’s question was verified by way of a written question he asked me some days ago but the issue of advice, as I understand it through the Clerk’s Office, was not verified, so I took a broad view concentrating on the consultation aspect, which was verified.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister has made an interesting point: he has told the House he did not receive any specific advice from the Prime Minister; the consultation was part of a general consultation with Ministers. That is why I believe he cannot answer more precisely about any advice it might be alleged he received from the Prime Minister. That is why I do not believe I can assist the member on this occasion with any further answer to that particular supplementary question, but I am sure the member would like to ask further supplementary questions.

Hon Pete Hodgson: At the time he was consulting with his Prime Minister was he aware that the Prime Minister had an existing interest in Highwater Vineyard Ltd?

Hon SIMON POWER: No, nor would I expect to be made aware of the matter in the event that there was no conflict.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just before that question was answered, Nick Smith made an extremely unparliamentary remark. I take offence and I know that other members take offence. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. I apologise to the member but I did not hear what the interjection was. I can only ask the Hon Dr Nick Smith whether he did, in fact, make an unparliamentary comment, and if he did I ask him to withdraw and apologise for it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek clarification. I referred to the member as a sewer rat—

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Dr Nick Smith will now get to his feet and withdraw and apologise to the House with some seriousness.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I would have preferred it to be done without a smile on the member’s face because I find that—[Interruption] Order! I find it offensive to use the open microphone to make such a further allegation when all I had asked was whether he had made an offensive remark. I take a dim view of that.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Has he met at any time with Foodstuffs (NZ) Ltd regarding the Government’s alcohol reform agenda; if so, can he recall with whom he met?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes, I have met with Foodstuffs and with a range of industry representatives. I met with the Alcohol Advisory Council and a whole group of people leading into discussions. The member might be interested to know that since the Law Commission has tabled its report I have met with no one, and will not do so until the Government responds formally to the report. But leading up to that time, I certainly met with representatives. Although off the top of my head I cannot advise the specific names of those with whom I have met, I can tell the member that I met with the managing directors of Foodstuffs (Auckland), Foodstuffs (Wellington) Cooperative Society, and Foodstuffs (South Island), and with Melissa Hood, whom I believe also has a role with Foodstuffs. In recent times I also opened in my electorate a Foodstuffs warehouse, where I am sure many employees of Foodstuffs were present.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is the Minister aware that the chairperson of Foodstuffs (Auckland) is also a shareholder in the Prime Minister’s vineyard?

Hon SIMON POWER: No.

Telecommunications—Trans-Tasman Mobile Phone Roaming

7. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Communications and Information

Technology: What work is the Government doing on trans-Tasman mobile roaming?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I and my Australian counterpart, Senator Stephen Conroy, have released a discussion document dealing with trans-Tasman mobile roaming rates. Many New Zealanders have been caught unaware of the costs of using their mobile phone—in particular, data roaming—in Australia. With large numbers of New Zealanders working and holidaying in Australia, and vice versa, it makes sense to examine whether the markets between the two countries are working effectively in this respect. We are therefore keen to hear the views of users, the telecommunications industry, and other interested stakeholders on this issue.

Melissa Lee: Why is the Government undertaking this work?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Preliminary work done by both Governments has found that although the features and quality of mobile services are reasonable, there does seem to be a lack of consumer awareness of prices, and the prices themselves seem relatively high. Trans-Tasman mobile roaming has the potential to bring great benefits for individuals wanting to stay connected, and, on an economic level, for companies doing business across the Tasman, as we move further towards a single economic market. However, these benefits will not be fully realised if the market is not functioning efficiently.

Budget 2010—Positive Ageing Strategy

8. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Senior Citizens: Which goals and actions of the Positive Ageing Strategy does Budget 2010 not contribute towards, and why?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister for Senior Citizens): Budget 2010 is good news for recipients of New Zealand superannuation, and therefore contributes towards all 10 goals of New Zealand’s Positive Ageing Strategy. In addition to receiving an income tax cut, recipients of New Zealand superannuation will be fully and permanently compensated for the increase in GST from 1 October 2010. This means that people who receive New Zealand superannuation will get a considerable increase in their after-tax income. I suggest that the member goes to www.taxguide.govt.nz and clicks on “I receive New Zealand super or veterans pension”, the large blue square, two down on the left, if he wants to see how much better off recipients of New Zealand superannuation will be.

H V Ross Robertson: Can he therefore tell the House how Budget 2010 contributes to objective 3.2 of the Positive Ageing Strategy: “Provide adequate assistance towards the cost of local authority

rates.”, when it has slashed $58 million from the rates rebate scheme, which could have helped thousands of senior New Zealanders remain in their homes and live comfortably and securely?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The matter of rates rebates will continue to be available to all New Zealanders.

H V Ross Robertson: Can he therefore tell the House how Budget 2010 contributes to the second goal of the Positive Ageing Strategy of “Equitable, timely, affordable and accessible health services for older people” when the Government has not given district health boards enough funding to even stand still, so they will inevitably have to make further health cuts that include home help services for the elderly, which have already been slashed, up and down the country?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Thanks to the very good leadership by the very good Minister of Health, Mr Tony Ryall, this Government has given the biggest share of GDP to health of any Government, ever.

H V Ross Robertson: Can he therefore tell the House what fight, if any, and what leadership did he show, and did he put up on behalf of the seniors of New Zealand, who, because of this Budget and other Government measures, are now facing a $5 a week increase in their power bills, increases in the cost of their food, increases in petrol costs and in doctors’ bills, and now face a long, cold winter under this Tory Government?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Unfortunately, the member appears to have his facts wrong; I suspect he read the Budget upside down. The fact is that this Government has made significant improvements in the amount of funding that superannuitants will receive.

Primary Sector, Innovation—Primary Sector Partnership

9. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently taken to further primary sector innovation?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): Yesterday I was delighted to announce three successful funding bids under the Government’s Primary Growth Partnership. These three bids will collectively see $45 million invested in primary sector innovation projects, and will add significant value to the New Zealand economy.

Sandra Goudie: What type of work will be funded under these projects?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The successful projects fund a diverse range of work, including a major supply-chain programme to expand the production of merino fine wool, a programme to develop better harvesting technologies for forestry on steep country, and a project to develop birddeterrent grasses. These projects are just the beginning, and we can expect a number of further significant announcements around the Primary Growth Partnership in coming months.

David Shearer: Why will he not offer an apology to scientists and businesses who have waited almost 20 months for funding, after he cut the $700 million out of the Fast Forward Fund, and when KPMG has warned that it could be only 5 years before we lose our competitive advantage in agriculture?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The member who asks the question is the one who should be apologising to scientists. The last Government developed a fund for $700 million and did not receive a single application for it. It was a figment of the imagination of Labour members. It was an absolute fantasy of an idea.

Hon Damien O’Connor: What real commitment does the Government have to research and development in the primary sector, given that it has cut over $20 million from the Primary Growth Partnership in this year’s Budget?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Government has made no cuts to the Primary Growth Partnership. We currently have $320 million of projects submitted to the Primary Growth Partnership. We have $160 million worth of projects under active investigation, and, as announced today, $20 million has been approved. There have been no cuts.

John Boscawen: What does he say to farmers, National Party members, and Rural Women of New Zealand, who say that the best way for the Government to further primary sector innovation is to defer the emissions trading scheme, which is imposing such costs and uncertainty when no other country on the planet is putting its farmers through it?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I always speak in a very friendly tone to Rural Women, Federated Farmers, and the farmers of New Zealand. It is a bit difficult for them to now ask us to defer the emissions trading scheme. The member should realise that it started on 1 January 2008 under the previous legislation. Deferral is now simply not an option.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Is it not true that Budget 2009 had a total of $190 million in the Primary Growth Partnership’s 4-year appropriation, that Budget 2010 has just $169 million in the Primary Growth Partnership’s 4-year appropriation, and that that equates to a cut of over $20 million?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I take this opportunity to again assure the member that there is absolutely no cut at all to the Primary Growth Partnership’s funding. I am happy to take that member through the Budget documents so that he can better understand them.

John Boscawen: Does he stand by his statement to the Dairy NZ Farmers’ Forum on 5 May in respect of spurring primary sector innovation that the emissions trading scheme will cost only 2.5c per kilogram of milksolids in 2015; if not, why not, and what is the correct figure?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes.

Hon Damien O’Connor: What assurances can he give to small, innovative primary sector research groups that their Primary Growth Partnership funding applications will be fairly assessed, when in the first round of grants allocated, which were just announced by the Minister, $15 million of the $20 million went to Merino New Zealand, whose chief executive officer sat on the advisory panel dishing out the money?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I can assure the member that every application put before the Primary Growth Partnership will be well considered by the investment advisory panel. I am aware that in the case of Merino New Zealand, Mr Brakenridge stood to one side and took no part in any discussions on the application from his company. At the end of the day, the decision about how the money is dished out is not made by the investment advisory panel or by me as the Minister of Agriculture; it is in the hands of the Director-General himself.

John Boscawen: I seek leave to table in the House the current issue of the National Farming Review, with a photograph on the front page of the Minister of Agriculture protesting against Labour’s “fart tax”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection? I beg the member’s pardon—there is objection.

John Boscawen: I seek leave to table in the House a statement from Liz Evans, vice-president of Rural Women of New Zealand, released yesterday calling on the Government to delay the implementation of the emissions trading scheme.

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

John Boscawen: I seek leave to table a copy of David Carter’s speech to the Dairy NZ Farmers’ Forum, where he quotes a cost for milksolids—

Mr SPEAKER: I have been reasonably patient on this seeking of leave to table documents, but that speech is readily available to all members. It is not as if the House does not have access to that information.

Budget 2010—Protection for Workers and Businesses

10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement “Much of our attention has also been focussed on the economic downturn and exploring means to

help protect workers and businesses from the sharp edges of the recession” , and if so, which Budget 2010 initiatives will help to achieve that?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): Absolutely. It was a very good statement made back in March 2009, but actually we are no longer in a recession—tough times, yes, but recession, no. Budget 2010 has set this country on the path to greater economic growth, and workers and businesses now have greater confidence in the future. Our talented Minister of Finance has overseen the biggest and fairest reform of our tax system in 25 years, and Kiwi workers are the big winners.

Darien Fenton: How will the Budget 2010 decision to allow young workers hired through the Job Ops scheme to be fired within 90 days with no right of appeal against unfair dismissal help protect those already vulnerable workers?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Feedback from employers and others on the Job Ops scheme has been incredibly positive. The only request was that it be more flexible. It now is.

Darien Fenton: Is it fair that employers can receive a subsidy of up to $5,000 through Job Ops—presumably, in recognition of their help in bringing down youth unemployment—but then can fire those subsidised workers within 90 days, with no fear of an appeal against dismissal?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Questions about the funding policy of Job Ops are better directed at the Minister for Social Development and Employment. But I understand that that has been taken into account.

Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware that the Minister of Finance told Māori business leaders at a post-Budget breakfast on Tuesday that the best answer when he is asked what is in the Budget for Māori is 179,000 new jobs over the next 4 years; and what strategies has she employed to ensure that Māori are actively targeted to gain these 179,000 new jobs?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes. The department has developed partnerships with iwi to develop and analyse local and national labour market information, including the development of a set of interactive labour market tools. However, we expect all New Zealanders to benefit from our prudent financial stewardship of our economy.

Darien Fenton: How will removing the redundancy tax credit—which was designed to ensure that workers made redundant through no fault of their own would not end up having to pay a higher level of tax—help to protect those workers from the sharp edges of the recession?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: That tax credit, as I understand it, was created because of questions of unfairness in Labour’s high tax rates. That problem has now been addressed by reducing tax rates, and, indeed, lowering all tax rates.

Leaky Homes—Reaction to Proposed Package

11. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What reports has he received on reaction to the Government’s proposed leaky homes package?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Very, very good news, actually! Three of the key, most affected local authorities—that is, Wellington City Council, Waitakere City Council, and North Shore City Council—last night all voted unanimously to support the Government’s leaky home package. Together, these three local authorities account for 31 percent of the total houses affected. Another two major councils affected will be voting tonight.

Paul Quinn: What other reports has he received in reaction to the Government’s proposed leaky homes package?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: It is fantastic news, again. There has been a huge number of inquiries to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal and the Department of Building and Housing. Eighteen new weathertightness claims have been lodged already, from 103 homeowners, in the 10 days since the announcement, which is more than the total number of claims received during the entire month of April, and there have been 300 inquiries from existing claimants about changing their applications. The good news just keeps on coming.

Broadband, Ultra-fast—Selection of Private Investment Partners

12. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister for Communications and

Information Technology: Can he guarantee that the process currently under way to select partners in the Government’s ultra-fast broadband initiative will not be delayed to suit the interests of the incumbent carrier, Telecom New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I can confirm that the current process being conducted by Crown Fibre Holdings will not be sped up or slowed down, or even remain the same, for the benefit of any bidder. Crown Fibre Holdings is currently conducting a competitive process designed to produce the best possible result for New Zealanders. The company has some flexibility in the timetable at its own discretion, if that would enhance the outcome for taxpayers and consumers.

Clare Curran: Will he guarantee that the funds the Government has set aside for investing in new fibre infrastructure will remain dedicated to the roll-out of new fibre infrastructure?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes.

Clare Curran: Does he agree that there is no public benefit in diverting funds into a purchase of Telecom’s old copper network?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has been clear all the way along that it does not intend to spend money purchasing existing infrastructure from any existing bidder.

Clare Curran: When does he expect the first roll-out of ultra-fast broadband resulting from this initiative to occur?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The current expectation is prior to the end of this calendar year, which by my count would make it roughly 5 or 6 years ahead of when the previous Government managed to achieve something in the information and communications technology area.

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour): I seek leave to table a document showing that there has been a $20 million cut to the Primary Growth Partnership funding over a 4-year period.

Mr SPEAKER: Would the member mind telling us what the document is?

Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR: The document is a Budget assessment by a research unit, and I am sure that the Government will want to challenge that document and check it for itself.

Mr SPEAKER: The document is from a research unit. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

ENDS

© Scoop Media