(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 16 JUNE 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Kiwibank, Privatisation—Discussions with Minister of Finance

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When did he first tell his Minister of Finance that he had ruled out ever initiating the privatisation of Kiwibank?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: At the same time as he told the rest of the country: before the last election.

Hon Phil Goff: When he said yesterday that he had ruled out the full or partial sale of the parent company of Kiwibank, did he mean that he had ruled out completely the sale of New Zealand Post?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: He said what he meant.

Hon Phil Goff: Well, that is the problem. If that was what he meant yesterday, why did he tell Newstalk ZB on 8 June that it was possible for New Zealand Post to be sold and that Kiwibank was the asset that was off the table?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course the Prime Minister was correct—it is quite possible. However, the Government has made a different decision.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised this with you yesterday: this is a serious forum, where Ministers can be expected to be held to account. That means that they must make real efforts to answer and address questions. I do not believe that the Deputy Prime Minister did that. He is talking in riddles.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: One cannot get a clearer answer than the answer that was given to that question: it is possible, but the Government has made a different decision. That is perfectly reasonable; it does not need any elucidation. It is not the answer that the Opposition wants, but it is perfectly reasonable and it is factual.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, that cannot possibly be the answer, when the answer to the primary question was that this decision was made before the election.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty we are in now is that we are litigating the quality of the answer by way of a point of order. I think that on this occasion the Minister’s answer was a reasonable answer to the question. He said the Government had made a different decision on something. In fact, I was more concerned about the answer to the previous question, but the member seemed to be satisfied with that one.

Hon Phil Goff: If the sale of New Zealand Post is being completely dismissed now, how does the Prime Minister explain the fact that the Minister of Finance contradicted him completely in the Minister’s answers to questions before the Finance and Expenditure Committee on 10 June, which was last week, by saying he was going to “kick the tyres” on the sale of New Zealand Post and see whether it should be put up for sale? That is a total contradiction.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has said, consistently with National’s undertaking, that there will be no asset sales in this term of office. If that were to change, then the Government

will go to the people with a different policy and campaign on it in 2011. That does involve kicking the tyres.

Hon Phil Goff: How can the New Zealand public believe anything that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance say, when they said one thing in public last week and they contradicted it in Parliament this week, and they will contradict it again next week; why should this Government be given any credibility, at all, on this issue?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because the Government has stuck to its commitment to New Zealanders, which was that there would be no asset sales in this term of office, and that if the Government changes its position, then it will campaign on that at the 2011 election.

Hon Phil Goff: If Kiwibank and New Zealand Post are not to be privatised, why did the Prime Minister tell his post-Cabinet press conference on 31 May that it was possible there would be a partial float of Kiwibank shares to small investors; and when did he actually change his mind?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will articulate a position on asset sales, consistent with its commitment, before the 2011 election. I suggest that the Labour Party get out and get on with trying to sort out some of its policy, because it actually does not have any for the 2011 election.

Hon Phil Goff: How is it that the Prime Minister promised the country, on no fewer than nine occasions before the election, that Kiwibank would never be privatised, when the week after the Budget he talked about floating shares in Kiwibank for small investors?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has stuck to his commitment: Kiwibank has not been privatised.

Hon Jim Anderton: How does the Prime Minister reconcile his statement that the Government has done no work on privatisation with the Treasury statement that it is doing work on privatisation in order to find out why New Zealanders do not like it; and can he think of anything, at all, that might help Treasury to understand why New Zealanders do not like selling their publicly owned assets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury has spent most of its time working on improving the appalling levels of management we inherited of the $200 billion worth of assets that the taxpayer owns. Consistent with the Government’s position, in the Prime Minister’s words we will kick the tyres. Treasury will, from here, be doing some work on whether or not that is feasible.

Hon Jim Anderton: As the Minister has not answered as to the advice that Treasury might get in order to help it to understand the public’s opposition to the sale of publicly owned assets, does the Prime Minister need any help on that, because there is plenty coming from this side of the House?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, Treasury gets all the advice that it can get, from anywhere. That member could probably do with a bit of help from Treasury advice on his month-long world trip that included thousand-dollar dinners.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is that an appropriate comment from a Minister who spent half a million—

Mr SPEAKER: That was a flagrant abuse of the point of order system, and the member knows that. I will not tolerate that again; let me be very clear about that. The member’s question was extraordinarily free, in terms of the kind of answer that could be given. If members ask questions like that, Ministers are free to say darned near anything. The remedy lies in the hands of the questioner to ask clearer, more precise questions.

Hon Jim Anderton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a wide-ranging question, although it dealt with a specific issue in terms of help for Treasury. But is it in order for the Minister to go even further and accuse a former Government Minister—as he has done, by implication—of expenditure excesses while on Government business overseas, when that was paid for by Ministerial Services—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I understand why the member is concerned about that. I just ask Ministers to be careful about that sort of thing. It will lead to disorder, and it is not helpful.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can he, with any credibility, give the answer that he gave to the last supplementary question, when he has gained, as a family, over half a million dollars from pretending to live in Dipton?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is to the Prime Minister, and it needs to be addressed accordingly.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly good point of order, and if the member’s supplementary question is to be in order, he needs to reword it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can his Minister of Finance have any credibility, when the Minister of Finance’s family has gained half a million dollars—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question went directly to the issue of the Opposition’s allegation that Kiwibank is being privatised. It did not stray from that, nor did any of the supplementary questions that have been asked around it. Indeed, the exchange with the Hon Jim Anderton was related to his desire to ask a question about the advice that Treasury has received on the privatisation issue. This supplementary question strays well off that particular focus on the primary question.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the question asked by the Hon Jim Anderton did not stray a long way from the primary question. The answer given by the Minister, though, introduced material that was somewhat different from the primary question. I thought about it as the member was asking his question—about whether it was in order. Given the answer of the Minister, though, he introduced a whole new dimension about members’ expenditure, and that has opened up this question somewhat further.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can his Minister of Finance have any credibility in these matters, when he has gained half a million dollars from pretending to live in Dipton?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member’s allegations are ridiculous, despite the fact that he makes them every day. I suggest that he takes those matters up with the former Speakers of the House, whom he is now accusing of having not followed the procedures.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. I have warned the Hon Trevor Mallard today, very clearly, and he has just abused the procedures of the House once more. What does he expect me to do—just ignore that abuse of the House? I say to the honourable member that on this occasion I accept that tensions are fairly high on both sides of the House, but he is on very, very thin ice. The Hon Trevor Mallard will get to his feet, and he will withdraw and apologise sincerely to this House for that serious abuse of this House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Finance and Expenditure Committee meeting on 10 June at which the Minister of Finance said the Government is working on the privatisation of New Zealand Post.

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What is the status of that document? If it is a committee document that has not been released—

Mr SPEAKER: It is my fault that I did not clarify that for the benefit of the House. I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition for the source of the document.

Hon Phil Goff: The source of the document is a Hansard transcript, not yet available publicly, in which the Minister of Finance made the comments that I said in my question he had made. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order. A matter is being considered—

Hon Phil Goff: I should add that that was said in an open session. It was open to the public.

Mr SPEAKER: Given that I am advised that the material is not yet publicly available, yet it was a public session of the select committee, I will seek leave of the House for that document to be tabled. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

2. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his recent statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that a new 25-bed ward was opened at North Shore Hospital yesterday by Dr Jonathan Coleman, which means patients will not have to wait so long to be admitted. That ward is a response to the 6-hour emergency department target. I can also advise that up to 10 of the beds will be available for acute stroke patients, and that means that, for the first time at North Shore Hospital, acute stroke patients will be located in the same part of the hospital. It is easier to deliver specialist services in one place, so the quality of care will be improved.

Dr Jackie Blue: What other developments are happening at the Waitemata District Health Board that will improve patient services, particularly at Waitakere Hospital in west Auckland?

Hon TONY RYALL: In the last few weeks Waitakere Hospital has done hip replacement operations for the first time, and that will be followed later this year by other joint replacements, such as knees, being delivered locally. I am also advised that Waitakere Hospital is launching 24/7 emergency services for children under 15 next month. That will further develop Waitakere Hospital as the local hospital for children in that area. That will save up to 3,000 kids and their families having to make the journey to Starship hospital out of west Auckland every year. That is very positive news for the people of west Auckland, and I thank the local member, Paula Bennett, for her part in advancing health services for the people of Waitakere.

Dr Jackie Blue: Does he stand by his recent statement that the new Government inherited a lot of problems in Dunedin, including important building needs that had been neglected for years?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, I do. That is why the Government has invested an extra $24.5 million in developments at the Southern District Health Board’s facilities in Dunedin. Included in those is a new neo-natal intensive care unit of 19 cots replacing a cramped unit that would meet the standard for three babies. That will improve the privacy of families and allow more parents to stay with their babies. We are also funding $15 million for new acute mental health facilities at Wakari Hospital. According to the Ministry of Health, Dunedin’s ward 1A—mental health—has the highest priority of any mental health unit in the country in terms of replacement, and it is good that the people of Dunedin finally have a Government that is prepared to invest in their hospital.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he tell the House yesterday that the MidCentral District Health Board budget is $505 million, when the Budget document confirms that it is $408 million?

Hon TONY RYALL: Because that member is not accounting for the additional electives money, the additional medicines money, and the additional services that will flow to district health boards. That member does not want to accept the fact that more and more people in the Mid-Central District Health Board’s area are getting better front-line services from this Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he told the House that health cuts were actually health changes, what comfort will that be to a terminally ill person in Palmerston North who has been unable to find any alternative to the night-shift district nursing service—an alternative service that the Minister assured the House was available?

Hon TONY RYALL: If the facts of that case are correct and the member makes it available to me, I will look into it. The hospice in Palmerston North is paid to provide those sorts of services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What will he say no to, when the district health boards cannot continue delivering their existing level of services because of a budget shortfall? Will he say no to further

cuts in services, deterioration in the quality of services, increased user charges, or increased district health board deficits?

Hon TONY RYALL: What I will say no to with regard to those district health boards is the culling of 30,000 patients who were promised surgery by the previous Government, and who were summarily data-cleansed from waiting lists.

Interest Rates—Effect of Increase on Cost of Living

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How do rising interest rates affect New Zealanders’ cost of living?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Interest rates are currently at 40-year lows. Last week, as a result of the recovering economy, the Governor of the Reserve Bank lifted the official cash rate for the first time since the middle of 2008. This lift will affect people in different ways. It increases returns on savings, which will assist groups like superannuitants, who generally hold lower levels of debt and higher levels of savings. On the other hand, rising interest rates increase debt-servicing costs for mortgage holders and businesses. The member will be aware of that as he was part of a Government that saw the floating mortgage rates reach 10.9 percent, and saw an official cash rate of 8.25 percent as recently as 2008.

Hon David Cunliffe: When putting together his recent Budget 2010 tax package, what consideration, if any, did he give to the extra pressure that $1.l billion of extra borrowing would put on Governor Bollard to raise the official cash rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax package is, in fact, broadly fiscally neutral, with some timing differences that lead to about a $400 million shortfall in the first year. I think the member needs to keep in mind that when interest rates are at a 40-year low, one thing is certain: they will eventually return to normal levels. Those normal levels for the official cash rate are quite a bit higher than the current rate.

Craig Foss: Why are interest rates beginning to return to normal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement points out that a range of measures were used to combat the global crisis. These included fiscal stimulus, a very sharp reduction in interest rates, and offering deposit guarantees. To date these measures have been largely successful: the financial system is sound, and the economy is growing again. To the extent that these measures are no longer needed, and the economy is growing again out of recession, interest rates will begin to return to normal.

Hon David Cunliffe: How does he expect New Zealanders to meet the extra mortgage payments that he says are now normal under National, when their tax cut will be eliminated by inflation rising to 6 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong about the tax cut and inflation, as we discussed at select committee. But I think New Zealanders are well aware that an increase in interest rates means that it would be good for those who have too much debt to try to reduce that debt. It also means that savers who saw their incomes cut dramatically through 2007 and 2008 will be looking forward to some increase in income from their savings.

Craig Foss: How will the Government’s management of the economy help keep interest rates lower than they would otherwise have been under previous Government policies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The point here is not so much whether there will be increases in interest rates—that is inevitable, not just in New Zealand, but around the whole of the developed world— but the extent to which we can ensure we do not repeat the mistakes of the past, which were to foster a speculative boom in property and fast-rising Government expenditure. Those were the policies of the previous Government that caused so much damage to this economy.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm that higher interest rates will make life tougher for Kiwi businesses, which face higher loan costs and, if they export, potentially higher exchange rates as a result?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no doubt that for people who hold debt, an increase in their interest rates means more outgoings to service that debt. But I think we all ought to be quite realistic here. When interest rates are at a 40-year low, and interest rates are starting to rise from levels of 1 and 2 percent around the world, we are bound to have an increase in interest rates, which will put pressure on people who are holding debt. Our task is to ensure that that cycle is not as vicious as the last one, which that member’s Government oversaw.

Hon David Cunliffe: On top of increased mortgage payments, increased childcare costs, and recent increases in power, what other price movements can he expect hard-working New Zealanders will face as a result of his Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: They will face two other movements. One is an increase in their aftertax income because of across-the-board tax cuts, and the other is increases in their gross income as this economy grows. Those are both built into the Budget forecasts and into public expectations.

Health, Child—The Best Start in Life Report Recommendations

4. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: Are there any recommendations from the Public Health Advisory Committee’s report on child health, The Best Start in Life, that he will not be implementing; if so, for what reason?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): I have received that report. I advise the member that the report and its recommendations are being considered by the Ministry of Health in the development of its child health work planning. It is simply too early to say which recommendations may or may not be implemented.

Kevin Hague: Does he agree with the report’s conclusion that New Zealand’s child health outcomes compare poorly internationally, and that these outcomes are low, in part “because gaps have widened between the health status of different groups in our communities over the past three decades”; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL: I certainly agree that we can do a lot more to improve the health status of New Zealand children. Information will be coming out in the next couple of weeks that will indicate that some of that variation and that difference between different deprivation groups have been improving in recent times.

Kevin Hague: Did the Minister raise with his colleague the Minister of Finance the OECD report that ranked New Zealand 29th out of 30 countries last year for child health and safety; if so, why did the Budget not do anything to close the gaps between the haves and have-nots?

Hon TONY RYALL: I know that the Minister of Finance is aware of that report, and, in fact, the Budget has done quite a lot to improve health services for New Zealand, particularly in child health. The Government remains strongly committed to achieving its vaccination target, as well as other important health goals.

Kevin Hague: Given the findings of the Public Health Advisory Committee’s report, why has his Government chosen to prioritise elective surgery for adults over child health services in the community?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has been investing in both. We certainly are putting money into child health services around the community. One of the Government’s six health targets is lifting the rate of immunisation for young New Zealanders, and for the first time ever we have got to 85 percent. Information will be coming out in the next few weeks that will show that people in the lowest deprivation areas have had a significant uplift in that area. The Government is also investing strongly in elective surgery. We think it was unacceptable that in the last 9 years the Budget doubled and fewer people got service.

Kevin Hague: Why has the Minister chosen to ignore the rheumatic fever epidemic in New Zealand children referred to in the advisory committee’s report, which sees infection rates 14 times worse than the OECD average and which disproportionately affects poor, Māori, and Pasifika children?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government does not ignore that information. We have inherited a lot of problems in the health service, and although they might have been ignored under the previous Government, under this one they are not.

Kevin Hague: Could the Minister explain some of the Government’s initiatives to tackle rheumatic fever?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is working assiduously in a number of areas. The changes we are making in primary care, for example, will help in the prevention. Also we have made significant investments in a number of areas such as our home insulation programme, and also the investment we are making in vaccination.

Kevin Hague: Has the Minister received any advice that the Public Health Advisory Committee’s recommended way forward to improve child health and safety is not the best way of doing so; if so, what was that advice?

Hon TONY RYALL: As the member knows, there are 21 recommendations in that report. As I indicated earlier, it is too early to say which of those may or may not be accepted.

Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the report from the Public Health Advisory Committee, The Best Start in Life: Achieving effective action on child health and wellbeing.

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.

Kevin Hague: The second document I seek leave to table is a report from 2009 from the OECD, Economic Valuation of Environmental Health Risks to Children.

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.

Police, Minister—Statements

5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all of her statements?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): If I am truthfully and accurately quoted in full context, yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she stand by her statement to the Law and Order Committee this morning that “The Government has delivered on its promise of putting more blue suits on the street.”; if so, why is the Auckland district, which saw an 8.1 percent in violent crime last year, budgeted to have 32 fewer police by the end of next year than it had a year ago?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Just suits—no bodies in them.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Talking of suits, yes, the Government has delivered more police, and we look at the police in terms of the national area, rather than simply one district over another. The Commissioner of Police fully explained the matter of blue suits to that member this morning.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Considering that total crime in the Waikato district has increased by 9.1 percent and violent crime has increased by 11.8 percent under her Government, how safe should the people there feel, knowing that she intends stripping 18 police officers from that district by the end of 2011?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Of course, I have no intention of stripping any police officers from any area, but I can say to the member that, despite all his best efforts, public confidence in the police has risen to the highest levels yet: 79 percent of people say that they are satisfied or very satisfied with the overall performance of the police, in 80 percent of cases the service met or

exceeded expectations, and 88 percent of people say that they were treated fairly in their dealings with the police. Despite what that member says, people can feel safe under a National Government.

Dr Cam Calder: Does she stand by her statement that this Government is serious about taking away the profits of crime and putting gangs out of business?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. I am very pleased to advise the House that the police have restrained $50 million of assets since the Government passed legislation last year to make it easier for the police to crack down on illegal gang profits. Since December 2009, 94 cases have been referred to the new asset recovery unit, with most relating to either cannabis or methamphetamine offending. From those cases, 61 specific assets have been identified for potential confiscation, with the biggest category being cash and bank accounts worth $12 million, followed by $10 million of residential property. The first actual forfeiture order under the new legislation was for $55,000 worth of motorcycles owned by the Killer Beez gang. I seek leave to table a graph produced by the police that shows the rise in the value of assets seized since 2005.

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 Clayton Cosgrove: How satisfied should Wellington people feel that Counties-Manukau is receiving 257 new police officers in the same period of time that they will lose 46 police officers, even though violent crime is increasing here in Wellington and the Minister claims that it is rapidly decreasing in Counties-Manukau?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, the people of Wellington should feel very satisfied that, under this Government, we will not be taking officers out of Wellington to go and help out Counties- Manukau every time there is a murder, which is what had to happen under Operation Cavalry, when the previous Government was in power.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Mr Speaker, this document has been tabled before a select committee—just so you know. I seek leave to table questions 1 and 2 from the Vote Police report Police Response to 2010/11 Estimates: Examination of Vote Police: Supplementary Written Questions, where it details the cuts—

Mr SPEAKER: This is information to be—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is not readily available. It was tabled just this morning.

Mr SPEAKER: But it will be readily available. There is a movement to table documentation that is made available to select committees. It will be readily available to members of the House. I think that we should not be wasting time seeking leave to table that sort of documentation, because it will be readily available to all members. It does not need to be tabled.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply make the point that you have deemed that when a document is not readily available at the time of tabling—and I think you allowed one of our colleagues to table a media statement that had been released but was not readily available as it had not been circulated—it is fine to seek to do so. All I ask is that you be consistent, please.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I do not think we should mix up what are effectively reports to select committees, or papers that belong to a select committee, with the example given, which was a newspaper article from a foreign print publication. In this case I think we have let that one go through before, and should not have. If a committee has not released all of the matters that pertain to a particular report of that committee, it is a circumvention of the Standing Orders and of the conventions of Parliament to come in here and seek leave to table it through different means. I can indicate that we will object to this leave should it be sought.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I sought advice from the clerk of the Law and Order Committee before I came into the House as to whether this document had been tabled and was available for public

release. It is as I have said. Secondly, I make the point again that it is not readily available to members at this point because it has not been circulated. I simply ask for a consistent ruling.

Mr SPEAKER: If members seek through this device to short-circuit the proper procedures of select committees, I have some concerns about that. There is a proper process for information provided to select committees to be released; otherwise, we will end up with endless time being wasted in this House on members wanting to table stuff that will be released by select committees, which is the proper process for it to be released. The information is publicly available, and the member is perfectly free to wave it under the noses of any journalist he likes, but we are not going to waste the time of the House tabling stuff that is available to the House through the proper channels.

Budget 2010—Money Committed Under Community Response Model

6. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Social Development

and Employment: What money was committed under the Community Response Model in Budget 2010?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): New money of $90.5 million is going to communities via the Community Response Model. It is based on the same model as the Community Response Fund and is about letting communities decide for themselves what does and does not work.

Chester Borrows: How will the Community Response Model get better outcomes for families?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: For too long the Government, based in Wellington, has imposed its solutions on communities. National believes in local solutions to local problems, hence the Community Response Model will also include making decisions about the current spend of the $110 million family and community services group funding.

Chester Borrows: How will the Community Response Model forums ensure communities have their say?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We said it and we meant it. What works in Tokoroa is quite different from what might work in Timaru or Wanganui, as the member knows. No longer will we dictate from above. We trust communities. The Community Response Model will have local people and local officials on it.

Hon Annette King: When she said the Community Response Fund was for high priority services, did she include the Barnardos family centre in Māngere, which this week was advised that six of its workers are to be made redundant and that this vital service to families in South Auckland is to be closed; and if this service is not a high priority, what are the requirements to meet her criteria?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member was not clear why the Barnardos family centre is being closed, or whether it is because of the Community Response Fund. I am not aware of why Barnardos in Māngere might be closing. The reality is that it has all sorts of different ideas and different ways that it runs its organisation, and we certainly trust it to do that.

Education, Associate Minister—Statements on Gifted and Talented Students

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of

Education: Does she stand by the statement in her blog about Gifted Awareness Week that gifted and talented students are “often overlooked as the attention of parents, politicians and teaching professionals is often drawn to students who are getting into trouble or underachieving”; if so, what is she doing about it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Minister of Education) on behalf of the Associate Minister of

Education: Yes. The Ministry of Education is currently working with three providers to ensure continued improvement for gifted and talented students. The ministry is developing a range of online tools to support teachers so they can plan effective learning programmes for those students,

and they can be easily integrated into the classroom. The Associate Minister of Education has also established an independent advisory group to provide her with independent advice about how to incorporate international best evidence into provision for gifted and talented students in New Zealand.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with the Education Review Office’s assertion in its 2008 report on gifted education that schools providing well for their gifted learners have had ongoing, indepth professional development support; if so, why has the advisory and professional learning support for teachers in gifted and talented education been cut?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The steps I outlined in answer to the substantive question are the steps that the Associate Minister and the ministry have taken in response to the Education Review Office report, which said that about 50 percent of schools were found to be either somewhat or not appropriate or responsive in the provision for gifted and talented students.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of her concern about gifted and talented students being overlooked, why do the national standards not acknowledge students who are well above the standard as they acknowledge those who are well below it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is one of the reasons why the Associate Minister has moved to make some changes in the support of gifted and talented students. It is important that those changes are integrated with national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question. The question part of it asked why the national standards do not acknowledge students who are well above standard, when they acknowledge those well below standard.

Mr SPEAKER: I must say I thought the Acting Minister of Education, in answering on behalf of the Associate Minister, said that changes were being made to the national standards policy to meet the needs of gifted students. I thought that was exactly what the Minister said in his answer.

Travel, Trans-Tasman—Progress on Streamlining Travel

8. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Customs: What progress has the Government made on streamlining trans-Tasman travel?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): We have made absolutely excellent progress. Yesterday at Wellington International Airport I officially launched the SmartGate automated border clearance processing system for holders of New Zealand and Australian passports. This is the second New Zealand—

Hon Annette King: Where was my invitation?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Annette King keeps calling out and asking where her invitation was. I can tell the member that I checked and she got one, yet not one Labour member came, and for that I am sorry.

Hon Annette King: No.

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: That member got an invitation; I checked. This is the second New Zealand international airport to install the SmartGate system, after it was launched for passengers arriving at Auckland. The system has made arrival processing much quicker and easier. A survey found that 94 percent of all people surveyed rated SmartGate as either nine out of 10, or 10 out of 10.

David Bennett: What reports has he received on the performance of the SmartGate system at Auckland Airport?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The good news keeps coming. The SmartGate system at Auckland Airport has absolutely outperformed everyone’s expectation. It has enjoyed a rapid uptake by travellers, with around 50 percent of eligible New Zealand passport holders now using it. More than 190,000 people have been processed through it. The average time for processing a passenger through the electronic SmartGate is 22 seconds—22 seconds. It is fantastic. Auckland

Airport has achieved this level of uptake in just its first 4 months of operation; it took Australian airports more than 4 years to get to the same level.

Pacific Economic Development Agency—Minister’s Meetings with Representatives

9. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: Which individuals representing the Pacific Economic Development Agency, in addition to J R Pereira, has she met with since becoming Minister?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister of Pacific Island Affairs): I am pleased and proud to say that in the course of my ministerial duties I have met with many representatives of Pacific communities, in fact hundreds, around the country. To the best of my knowledge the only representative of the Pacific Economic Development Agency I have met is Mr J R Pereira. Other representatives of that organisation may or may not have been present at one or some of the many functions that I have attended.

Su’a William Sio: Did she discuss with Mr J R Pereira, Mr Ulu Aiono, Mr Ulafala Aiavao, or Mr Mose Saitala a Budget appropriation for the Pacific community; if so, when?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: To the best of my knowledge, leaving aside the three other people the member has mentioned, I have not discussed any Budget proposal with any of those individuals.

Su’a William Sio: Which individual members of the Pacific community in Auckland did she meet to discuss an appropriation from Budget 2010 for the Pacific Economic Development Agency?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: None.

Su’a William Sio: Was she present when Mr Bill English met with Mr J R Pereira and representatives of the Pacific Economic Development Agency prior to, and immediately after, the 2010 general election; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No, I was not present. If not, it was probably because I was doing something else—possibly attending another Pacific function, which is what happens.

Housing Innovation Fund—Announcements

10. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Housing: What recent announcements has he made regarding the Government’s Housing Innovation Fund?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): Recently I announced another six projects that will receive just under $8 million from the fund. These projects will help provide 20 new properties in Queenstown and eight new properties in Nelson. Another four projects will benefit Māori directly with 44 new properties to be built in Northland, Tauranga, and Whakatāne through the Māori Demonstration Partnerships.

Todd McClay: What is the aim of the Housing Innovation Fund?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The idea of the fund is to encourage partnerships with community housing organisations where the taxpayer fronts up with some cash and so do the community housing organisations. To date this programme has helped fund 169 new houses, with the Government giving $20 million and the community $40 million. So for every dollar the taxpayers put in, the communities put in $2 and we have 169 new houses. It is a brilliant fund.

Question No. 11 to Minister

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): My question is to the Minister of Consumer Affairs and asks: “What evidence from the experience of the many other countries who use interest rate caps does she have to support her conclusion that interest rate caps are ‘not a viable solution’ to the problem of fringe lending?”.

Mr SPEAKER: Does some Minister intend to answer the question? [Interruption] I call the Hon Bill English.

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): On behalf of the Minister, she has not considered that in detail.

CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question has been on notice and I directly quoted from the Minister, so I am sure she has considered it.

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Acting Minister of Consumer Affairs): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the House. This question was set down for me and I was slightly distracted. I apologise and I am happy to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: This is a—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet at the moment. I must say that this is the first time I have seen this occur in my 26 years in Parliament. If the member was going to seek leave for something helpful to happen, that would be—but by the look on the member’s face, I am not sure—

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I seek leave for this question to start again.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Interest Rates, Caps—Overseas Experience

11. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What evidence from the experience of the many other countries who use interest rate caps does she have to support her conclusion that interest rate caps are “not a viable solution” to the problem of fringe lending?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Acting Minister of Consumer Affairs): The Minister has said that she has reservations that interest rate caps are a viable solution to the problem of fringe lending, as interest rate caps are a relatively blunt tool to deal with a complex problem. Based on advice from the Productivity Commission, the Australian Commonwealth Government likewise has reservations, particularly about the impact on access to credit. As a consequence it is not prepared to include interest rate caps in its credit reforms without further review of the costs and the benefits. It would be prudent for New Zealand to wait to consider evidence from the Australian evaluation, which is under way.

Carol Beaumont: Why is she focusing only on interest rate caps in Australia, when they have been implemented right across the OECD, including in the USA, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Canada, and Japan; and when will she join with many other countries and put a cap on interest rates as one means of taking action against loan sharks?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I appreciate that the member said that it is only one measure, because the Government has several initiatives that address issues around fringe lending. They include the review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act, the implementation of consumer dispute resolution schemes through the Financial Service Providers (Registration and Dispute Resolution) Act, and the review of consumer law.

Carol Beaumont: Does she agree with consumer law expert Bill Bevan that the responsible lending provisions of my bill, the Credit Reforms (Responsible Lending) Bill, are “a clear improvement to the current law”?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No.

Carol Beaumont: When she said in answer to my written question that access to low-cost credit was an issue, does she agree that interest rates of 55 percent or even 80 percent are not low cost, and that a measure such as an interest rate cap would lower these rates?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Of course 80 percent is high, but I note that the member’s bill would set the rate at 48 percent. I think the member is aware, from the Ministry’s surveys, that the interest is about 38 percent. I make the point again that it is a blunt instrument to deal with what is a complex problem. The Government has a number of initiatives under way.

Carol Beaumont: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My bill does not mention 48 percent—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot litigate the answer by way of a point of order. She could ask another supplementary question if she wishes, but she cannot do it that way.

Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table an email from Darryl Evans, from the Mangere Budgeting Services Trust, outlining three case studies that involved the interest rates referred to in my supplementary question.

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.

Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table an email from Bill Bevan, from the Whitireia Community Law Centre, in regard to the responsible lending provisions of my bill.

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.

Carol Beaumont: I seek leave to table answers to written questions from the Minister where she refers to low interest—

Mr SPEAKER: We are not going to do that.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Extent of Customary Title

12. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Attorney-General: Will customary title give its iwi holders an effective veto over coastal activities such as aquaculture, building or extending a building over foreshore or seabed, and undertaking any excavation of the foreshore and seabed, given that customary title grants title-holders “the right to permit activities that need a coastal permit or resource consent”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): Iwi with a customary title will have the ability to permit specified activities in their area of title, subject to guarantees protecting public access and existing use rights. This is a basic property right; this Government believes in property rights.

David Garrett: How many years does he estimate that it will take the Crown, the courts, and iwi to determine the number and extent of customary titles in the foreshore and seabed of New Zealand: 10 years, 20 years, or perhaps 100 years?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As long as it takes to get a just result. The quality of justice is not determined by the speed with which things are done.

David Garrett: Is he able to assure the people of New Zealand that customary title will not be granted to iwi by the Crown or the courts over any part of the following: Ninety Mile Beach, Raglan Beach, Wainui Beach, Ōhope Beach, or Pīhā Beach?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I do not think that it would be helpful to get down to that level of detail in answer to a parliamentary question. These are fact-specific matters, and I will deal with the matter in that way.

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very deliberately precise, and it asked the Attorney-General whether he could give an assurance regarding customary title over certain very discrete, identified pieces of New Zealand coastland. But what we got was a waffly answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I believe that the answer from the Minister was that he would not give that assurance.

Hon David Parker: How much more of the foreshore and seabed does the Attorney-General expect will be subject to customary titles as a consequence of the change to the threshold test that applies to territorial customary rights—that change being to no longer require continuous ownership of contiguous land—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member who is asking his question, and I will invite him to start again. It is a serious question, and I could not hear it with the unnecessary interjection across the House.

Hon David Parker: How much more of the foreshore and seabed does the Attorney-General expect will be subject to customary titles as a consequence of the change to the threshold test that currently applies to territorial customary rights—that change being to no longer require continuous ownership of contiguous land, while still requiring continuous exclusive control of the foreshore and seabed concerned?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: With respect, that is a very good question, and it is an important question. I believe, in answer to the member, that we are not talking about very much, at all. The overarching requirement is the exclusive possession test. This becomes a factor, not a requirement. At the end of the day I do not believe that it will result in very much more foreshore and seabed becoming the subject of customary title. But that is a good question.

Rahui Katene: How will the tests for customary title accommodate the special circumstances of iwi and hapū who have been affected by raupatu, fraudulent land transactions, or other breaches of the Treaty?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The tests for customary title do not prevent iwi that have suffered raupatu or other forms of land loss from seeking customary title. They can do that either by negotiation or by application to the court. They may not be able to satisfy the test, but this is a jurisdictional question; we are not in the business of preventing them from at least being able to make the claim.

Rahui Katene: How will customary title translate into development, occupation, and usage rights for hapū and iwi, “as though they were the owners of the land”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Within areas that have a customary title, iwi will have the same permission right as other property owners. They will also have development rights and will own the minerals that were confiscated by the 2004 Act, and by that, obviously, I exclude gold, uranium, silver, and petroleum, as I indicated in an answer yesterday.

ENDS

© Scoop Media