(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 22 JUNE 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Human Rights—Issues Raised with Chinese Delegation

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: When he raised human rights with the Chinese delegation last week did he raise the right to freedom of opinion and expression; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister): No, because the main focus of the discussions was on trade and economic relations between New Zealand and the People’s Republic of China.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he stand by his statement on Morning Report that MPs should be allowed to protest only silently, and is silent protest the kind of freedom of expression that he would have liked to discuss with the Chinese delegation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, the Prime Minister stands by his comments. Of course MPs have the right to protest. Equally, visitors to the Parliament of New Zealand have a right to conduct themselves in and out of the building with dignity.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that in order to have freedom of speech, one has to be allowed to speak?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and the member has the right at any stage to speak his point of view. I think the incident that we are referring to here amounted to slightly more than the member’s just speaking.

Dr Russel Norman: In reference to his first answer, if the Prime Minister did not raise freedom of expression in his discussions with the Chinese Vice-President, then what human rights issues specifically were raised with the Chinese Vice-President?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer that question, because I was not at the meeting. But I can confirm that human rights are raised regularly with the Chinese Government, both at ministerial and official level.

Keith Locke: Is he aware that the Chinese Government has imprisoned Tibetans for raising their own national flag, and will he uphold the right of New Zealanders to fly that same flag, even when the sight of it upsets a visiting Chinese dignitary?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Anyone in New Zealand is free to fly that flag, and, from what I saw of the recent visit, it was flown on many occasions.

Hon Rodney Hide: Has the Prime Minister seen Television New Zealand’s extended footage on its web page, which, at 18 seconds in, shows the Green co-leader Russel Norman clearly elbowing a Chinese official, and the Green co-leader assaulting the official before the scuffle over the flag took place?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen the footage, and it does show the co-leader of the Green Party shuffling a bit with the Chinese security. I think he was trying to prevent them getting in front of him. I think it also showed something else that has not really been referred to, and that is that

when, it looks like, a Chinese official went to take the flag from Russel Norman, the New Zealand Diplomatic Protection Squad protected the New Zealand member of Parliament from those security. I have to say, though, that as a whole it is a picture of an event that we would not like to see occur to our Prime Minister in a foreign country, and I do not think we should see it occur to any visitor to New Zealand.

Sue Kedgley: Can he explain why his Government is protesting vigorously against the Fijian Government because it is crushing democracy and human rights there, but is rolling out the red carpet to the Chinese Government, which is doing the same and even worse in China and Tibet?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The New Zealand Government deals with each of those countries on their own merits, relative to the history that we have with them. The New Zealand Government has clear views on how human rights should be exercised in Fiji, and equally clear views on how they should be exercised in China.

Dr Russel Norman: Has the New Zealand Government received an apology from the Chinese Communist Party Government for using physical force against a member of the New Zealand Parliament in the parliamentary grounds?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I suggest the member go and look at the footage on the Television One website. They may be expecting an apology from the New Zealand member of Parliament for the use of force on one of their security officials in the grounds of the New Zealand Parliament.

Pacific Economic Development Agency, Proposal—Treasury Advice

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: What concerns, if any, has Treasury expressed about the Budget proposal to give the Pacific Economic Development Agency $4.8 million as announced by the Hon Georgina te Heuheu on 20 May 2010?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): None that I am aware of. No money has been handed over. Treasury is engaged in a process that is focused on seeking value for money. It is assisting the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs to negotiate a suitable purchase agreement for providing job assistance and training opportunities for young Pacific people. They will ensure that there are clear deliverables, sound performance measures, sound accountability arrangements, and no duplication of existing funding or programmes—a process followed with regard to hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grants within the Government. One way or another, the Government is determined to use this small amount of new funding to assist the group that has probably been hardest hit by the recession, which is young Pacific Island youth with no skills and no jobs. We believe it is important that the Government takes action in order to make a difference.

Hon Phil Goff: In making the decision to allocate that money to the Pacific Economic Development Agency in the Budget, did he take account of the report in March from the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs that warned explicitly that this posed significant risks to the Government, that the agency was “untested and unproven”, that it had “not delivered on projects of any note”, and that it “does not have a good record of working …with other agencies”; if so, why did he go ahead with the proposal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That kind of advice is not unusual—

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it is not unusual, when officials are appraising new Budget proposals. As I have said, there is a negotiation going on now regarding the contracting arrangements. I might say that the proposals have a very clear track record; that is, they came from a conference that I believe the previous Labour Government convened for the economic and social transformation of Pacific Islanders, which produced a detailed document in September 2008. The propositions come from that document.

Hon Phil Goff: Who decided that the Pacific Economic Development Agency was not required to report under the standard reporting requirements set out under section 32A of the Public Finance Act?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a ridiculous question, because no money has been handed out. The agency concerned is in discussions with Treasury and the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs. I would have thought that the Labour Party would be pleased that the Government is paying attention to the plight of young Pacific people and that it is determined to take action to improve their prospects.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did he tell the New Zealand Herald that Mrs te Heuheu “went too far” in stating that the money was for the Pacific Economic Development Agency and that the money referred to was a general allocation for Pacific development, when the Budget document states specifically and explicitly that this money is allocated to the Pacific Economic Development Agency?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First of all, I did not speak to the New Zealand Herald. I advise the members of two things: one is that the money is described in a number of different ways in the Budget documentation; the second is that no money goes out until a satisfactory contract is negotiated. I would have thought that the Labour Party would be pleased that the Government is taking action to help those who are probably New Zealand’s most disadvantaged group: young, unskilled Pacific Islanders with no jobs.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a summary of service providers for non-departmental outputs that states explicitly that the Pacific Economic Development Agency is handed its money. That is from the Budget documents, on page 186 of the Information Supporting the Estimates.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think we should be seeking leave to table documents from the Budget, because the Budget is freely available to every member.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand that in normal circumstances a member would not seek leave to table something that is in the Budget, but since the Minister is clearly unaware of that fact, I think it is pertinent to the debate.

Mr SPEAKER: It is just not reasonable to waste the time of the House on putting the seeking of leave to table documents that have been made available to the House in just the last few weeks. It does not impede the member’s ability to use the bit from the Budget; I am sure he will make sure that the media has plenty of access to the page he is interested in. It does not need to be tabled in this House; it is already available to the House.

Hon Phil Goff: Why does the Minister not simply come clean and acknowledge that he, rather than Mrs te Heuheu, negotiated this deal, and that it was done without the normal standards of transparency, accountability, and due diligence that should have been followed before he included the commitment to a specific untested agency in the Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because that is simply not correct. The Government will not allow party politics and conspiracy theories to get in the way of using that money to help people whom the Labour Party has clearly given up caring about: Pacific Island youth who have no jobs and no skills. Labour spent all of last year saying the Government was not doing enough; now it says we are doing too much.

Mr SPEAKER: I allowed that exchange to carry on for a while, because members on both sides of the House had made comments that were not particularly helpful, but the noise level is just too high altogether.

Hon Phil Goff: In addition to the witch-hunt that has been launched to find out who leaked the report of the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs that has not been released, did his office at any time contact the Pacific radio station 531pi with regard to journalist Efeso Collins, who was suspended from that station for challenging the deal that he entered into with the Pacific Economic Development Agency?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, because we have been so busy working out how to help young Pacific Islanders with no jobs and no skills. We have not lost 10 minutes on that kind of politicking.

Hon Phil Goff: Was J R Pereira, or anyone associated with the Pacific Economic Development Agency with whom the Minister discussed this deal, active in any way in the National Party election campaigns of 2005 and 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have no idea, because I never met the man before some time in 2009. When this Government is dealing with the Pasifika community, we know that we are dealing with a community that overwhelmingly supports the Labour Party. So probably many of the people I have been speaking to were active in the Labour Party campaign in 2008.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] Have you finished, Gerry?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Members can see the disorder that occurs when members do not obey the rules. I apologise to the honourable member.

Hon Phil Goff: That was a very specific question. It could have been given a yes or no answer. It asked whether J R Pereira or any individual associated with the deal was also associated with the National Party campaigns of those years. That question was not addressed or answered.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the Minister clearly say that he did not know, and that he had not met the person until—I think he said in his answer—September 2009. He said he did not know, and that is a perfectly fair answer. If the member wishes to challenge that in the future, that is fine, but that is the answer that the Minister gave to the House today.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He said that in relation to Mr J R Pereira. My question related to Mr Pereira or any other individual; the Minister did not answer that.

Mr SPEAKER: He has to answer only one part.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, the question is one part. It asked whether that gentleman or any other was associated with the National Party campaign, so that is one question.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the fundamental point that the member is making: it is basically one question that he is asking. I ask the Minister whether he has any further information on that part of it.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you need to be a little careful here, because you will be requiring a Minister to answer a question about an area for which he has no ministerial responsibility. He has given a perfectly plausible answer. It is obvious what the situation is here. The Minister has no ministerial responsibility for the National Party campaign, any more than Phil Goff has for the Labour Party campaign, which last time was an abject disaster.

Mr SPEAKER: The point the member has raised is very interesting. I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard before I rule on it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: If you go back to the original question, it was very carefully phrased, and that was whether the Minister had met with, as part of those discussions, Mr Periera or others—that is, the discussions around funding. He then asked whether they were people the Minister had met with previously. It is a question of when he first met with the individuals: was it part of the Pacific Economic Development Agency funding, or was it when they were campaigning for the National Party?

Mr SPEAKER: The interesting point, though, that has been raised by the Hon Gerry Brownlee is whether the Minister has any responsibility for whether they were involved in anything to do with the National Party. I have to confess that is a very good point. The member is perfectly at liberty to question the Minister about discussions with them, about what decisions were made, and all that kind of thing. But the Minister is not remotely responsibility for whether they were involved with the National Party. That is the dilemma I have. I will hear the honourable Leader of the Opposition, briefly.

Hon Phil Goff: I just wonder whether you could give consideration to that ruling, because clearly when an Opposition is holding a Government to account, it needs to know what the motives might have been for acting in an unusual and different way. One of the motives might have been that there was some association: it might have been personal, or it might have been political. I

submit to you that that is a proper issue on which a Government should be able to be held to account, if we are to have transparency around these sorts of decisions.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member, and I do not want to be difficult in this. But if he thinks back to the previous Parliament, he will remember a number of questions revolved around the role of the Prime Minister as leader of the Labour Party versus her role as Prime Minister, and the House spent some time teasing those issues out. I am loath to go back and muddy the waters. I feel that the Minister, in his first answer to the question, did not refuse to answer it; he said he just did not know. I think that is a reflection of the fact that a Minister is not responsible for who is involved with the National Party. I understand the dilemma the member is getting at, but I do not want to go back to muddying the waters by allowing members to be able to question Ministers about their party affairs, because the House has teased out those issues before. I will give it more thought. At this moment I intend to rule in favour of the point of order of the Hon Gerry Brownlee that I should not be asking the Minister to answer any further on a matter to do with the National Party that is not this Minister’s responsibility as a Minister. However, I will take advice on the matter, and if I have erred in this ruling I will come back to the House on the matter.

Hon Phil Goff: Can I rephrase the question?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I can quite allow that, on this occasion.

Economic Recovery—Job Creation

3. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received showing new jobs are being created as New Zealand continues to build its economic recovery?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand, in the latest household labour force survey, reported that total employment increased by 22,000 or 1 percent in the March quarter. This was driven by an increase in full-time employment, and is the largest quarterly increase in jobs since before the global financial crisis began. The Budget forecast also shows that the economy is expected to create 170,000 jobs over the next 4 years. It is pleasing that the economy is beginning to create new jobs, after a recession that began under the previous Labour Government in early 2008.

Craig Foss: How does the employment growth in the March quarter compare with recent trends in the employment market?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Previous job creation has mirrored the basic imbalance in the economy: too much growth in the domestic and Government sectors and not enough in the tradable or incomeearning sector. Since 2004 over half of all new jobs created have been in public administration, health, and education. By contrast, combined employment in agriculture, horticulture, forestry, manufacturing, and transport declined by over 40,000—that is, 40,000 fewer jobs in the earning side of the economy. There is a need to create more jobs in the tradable sector to earn the income to support the jobs we have in health and education, which grew four times faster than job growth in the rest of the economy and now make up about a third of all jobs.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the forecast for employment forecasting only half as many new jobs as under the previous Labour Government; and of those, why is Treasury saying that only 5.7 percent of them have anything to do with any measure in his Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the reasons that we are not creating as many jobs as we could is that we have to undo the damage done by the previous Government. Since 2004, as I said, half of all new jobs were created in the health and education sectors. This Government simply does not have the option of pumping up jobs with debt-funded growth in public spending. We are going to create jobs in the earnings side of the economy, which unfortunately shrank by about 40,000 jobs under that Government.

Craig Foss: How did Budget 2010 help position the New Zealand economy for faster growth and the creation of more jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First of all, the Budget focused on growth right across the economy, not just in the Government sector, which had been the problem in the last 4 or 5 years of the previous Government. Treasury forecasts show steady economic growth of about 3 percent per year. That shows that there will be around about 170,000 new jobs and that the incomes of the average household are expected to rise by about $7,000 over the next 4 years. We do not have the choice of creating a whole lot of new Government-funded jobs, because the Government has significant deficits. In this respect, we are in the same position as Governments all around the world. We have to grow our economy this time by growing the tradable and the income-earning side of the economy, not the spending side of it.

Hon David Cunliffe: Following on from that statement, given that the Minister said that New Zealand’s external liability was our largest single vulnerability, what measures are in the Budget to address that; or were commentators right when they said there was nothing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member will be familiar with the measures in the Budget. One of the reasons that we focused on a tax switch from direct to indirect taxes was to increase the cost of consumption and to make it less attractive for people to borrow for speculative property investment. On the other hand, we want to encourage savings, investment, and new jobs. We believe the Budget will achieve that, and in the long run it will have some impact on the net international investment position.

Craig Foss: What were some specific measures the Budget took to help New Zealand’s most vulnerable to improve their skills and to secure jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget continued a couple of schemes that have been focused particularly on our young people. One is the Job Ops scheme, which provides an employment subsidy. The anecdotal evidence is that a significant proportion of those young people are going into jobs at the end of the scheme. There is also the Community Max scheme, which, again, appears in anecdotal evidence to have been relatively successful. We have also allowed for more places in tertiary education, focused on our younger people. But, most important, we are trying to build the confidence of businesses to invest and to employ, because unless a business decides to create another new job, there are no new jobs.

Welfare —Minister’s Definition of Long-term Welfare Dependency

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

Development and Employment: How does she define long-term welfare dependency in light of her statement that “I don’t think it’s just the length of time, at all”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): That is right: I think the length of time is incredibly relevant, but I do not think it is the only consideration. I also went on to say that we could look at those beneficiaries who should have been work tested but who choose not to be, so they are not living up to their obligations. We would have to ask whether they have become dependent on the benefit instead of getting out there and looking for work as they should.

Hon Annette King: If she is not using the length of time on a benefit as her definition of welfare dependency, why does she continue to give the example of people on a benefit for 4 years or more as the people she is targeting, without mentioning that they might be disabled, terminally ill, or caring for small children, for example?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As I have quite clearly said, I do not think that it is just the length of time that people have been on a benefit. When we have over 3,000 people who have been on the unemployment benefit, for example, for longer than 2 years, I certainly would have questions about their dependency and whether we were able to move them into work as well. So the length of time is not the only consideration, but it is an important one.

Hon Annette King: Can she clarify what she meant when she said “The definition of dependency will come down to the individual, and also as a group.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think that what the member may be referring to is that there are people who have been on the invalids benefit for quite some time, and they actually need to be. So we are considerate of those who have long-term illnesses and need State support, and we will be equally looking after them as they need to be looked after.

Hon Annette King: Who is right: John Key, who said we have a serious and growing problem with long-term welfare dependency; or the Minister, who said last week: “Some may be leaning towards dependency and some may be dependent, but then a huge proportion of them are not. They will move off and on for a short period. Some will be there for a lifetime, and with good reason.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am quite clear that over 9 years we saw 51 percent of people getting sicker, and on the sickness benefit. It seems that under 9 years of Labour, the population got more sick.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that that answer was quite a long way from the question, and perhaps the Minister might like to address it. She did not do so at the select committee, but I am giving her another chance today.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have is that, if I remember correctly, the honourable member asked the Minister who was right. Maybe the Minister could respond a little more to that specific question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Both are right, as I have quite clearly stated, as it is not one little definition. I just say that while that side of the House is busy trying to define things, we are busy getting on with the solutions.

Hon Annette King: Does she stand by her statement at the National Party mainland conference this year that “What were initially National’s slogans have manifested into real policy.”; and is it not her problem that “welfare dependency” was used as a slogan during the election campaign and now she has to spend a million dollars on a working-group to figure out what the slogan meant?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I just think that it is quite clear that, yes, I do stand by what I said at the mainland conference. It is quite clear that while members on the other side of the House are trying to decide whether there is a welfare dependency problem, we are getting on with addressing the actual, real issues that are facing us when we have a population that is becoming more dependent over a period of time.

Jo Goodhew: Why is this Government so concerned about the impacts of long-term dependency?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Quite simply, because New Zealanders deserve better than a life on welfare. Dame Carol Black, in the UK, recently reported “For most people their work is a key factor in their self-worth, family esteem and identity.” I am passionately supporting a welfare-sustainable system that supports those who can get into work as they can.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a quote from an obscure newspaper, the Oamaru Mail, in which the Minister says that these—

Mr SPEAKER: No, we are not going to be tabling that. I take it that the article is recent, so we will not be seeking leave to table it—nice try, but no.

Climate Change Policy—Emissions Trading Scheme

5. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he agree that New Zealand should not be doing more than the rest of the world on climate change, and, if so, why did he tell the House on 24 September 2009 that “This emissions trading scheme will be the first of any country outside Europe, and on 1 July 2010 will be the most comprehensive by including transport, industrial, and energy emissions.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes, it is the Government’s policy that New Zealand should do its fair share on climate change. Our emissions are 24 percent above 1990 levels, and have grown at one of the fastest rates of any developed country. Our moderated emissions trading scheme is balanced and takes a responsible approach, which will drive

investment in renewable energy, energy efficiency, and the planting of trees, without an excessive cost burden on the economy.

John Boscawen: What is it about New Zealand’s treatment of transport, industrial, and energy emissions that makes New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme more comprehensive than the European scheme on 1 July this year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member has claimed that the European emissions trading scheme does not have any effect on households. That is incorrect. Although the cost of the European emissions trading scheme is directly charged on the producers of electricity, that is, of course, passed on to consumers in exactly the same way as in New Zealand. A key difference between the European emissions trading scheme and the New Zealand scheme is that we have only a half obligation, and for that reason the cost of the New Zealand scheme for consumers and businesses will be less than half of that which is imposed on the 29 countries in the European scheme.

John Boscawen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question. He made the claim last year that our scheme was more comprehensive, and he has just set about explaining why it is less comprehensive. I ask the Minister to explain why our system is more comprehensive. Those were his own words last year.

Mr SPEAKER: I have to admit that the question asked by John Boscawen was a very clear question. He asked exactly that—why the New Zealand scheme is more comprehensive by including these things—and I am not sure that the Minister—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are a number of differences and there are a number of similarities with the European scheme. For instance, different European countries have a carbon tax specifically on transport. We have included all those sectors in the emissions trading scheme, albeit only at a half rate—that is, the scheme on 1 July requires emitters to be responsible for only onehalf of their emissions.

Dr Cam Calder: What response has the Minister had to the Government’s moderated emissions trading scheme, including at the 16 meetings he has spoken at around the country?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There is some opposition at both ends of the political spectrum, with some New Zealanders concerned that we are moving too soon, and others concerned that our scheme is too slow and too soft. I think that most New Zealanders support the Government’s approach of carefully balancing New Zealand environmental responsibilities and our economic interests. I note that only about 80 people joined today’s anti - emissions trading scheme protest outside. That is actually about the same number who, 6 months ago, were protesting that our policy was too soft. That reinforces the fact that we have got the policy balance about right.

John Boscawen: I seek leave to table a letter from Nova Energy, dated 31 May, advising about increases in the price of gas as a consequence of the emissions trading scheme, which starts on 1 July.

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 Assets—Government Policy on Sales

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement to the Finance and Expenditure Committee that “it is going to be pretty difficult to maintain” the value of New Zealand Post and TVNZ, and if so, will he rule out ever selling these State-owned assets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by my statement. Both those Government-owned businesses face particular challenges from technology, which is fast moving and is putting considerable pressure on the revenues of both organisations. In relation to the second part of the question, I simply repeat the statements made by the Prime Minister, who has ruled out

the sale of Kiwibank and its parent company, New Zealand Post. In respect of other assets, the Government’s position is quite clear: there will be no asset sales during this term of office, and if that position changes, then the Government will take it to the electorate for 2011.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why, when John Key had ruled out selling Kiwibank or its parent company just days before, did the Minister volunteer to the Finance and Expenditure Committee the prospect of selling its parent? Was that accident or design?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that is not actually what happened. I think it would be negligent of the Government if it was not able to talk about the real challenges of owning assets that are challenged by technology and could potentially lose value. I think it is important for taxpayers to understand that the Government owns $200 billion worth of assets on their behalf. At any given time some of them are going up in value, some of them may be obsolete, and some of them are going down in value because of events that are beyond the Government’s control. I think it is important that the Government is free to be transparent about what is happening to assets that were paid for by New Zealanders’ hard-earned taxes.

Hon David Cunliffe: So which of the Minister’s positions is correct: his position in 2008 that Kiwibank will “eventually” be sold, his position the day after the Budget that he is considering putting Kiwibank up for sale, his refusal to rule out selling Kiwibank or New Zealand Post, John Key’s promise that they will never ever sell Kiwibank, or his position today that it will now be up for sale in a second term?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is talking nonsense. If he listened to the answer to the first question, he would know clearly what the Government’s position is.

Amy Adams: What assets does the Government own, and what are its objectives in respect of them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government owns a very large asset portfolio worth, as at June last year, $219 billion. As the Budget stated, we expect that over the next 4 years the value of Government assets will grow by around $35 billion. Given the size of these assets and the fact that they have been grown off the back of New Zealanders’ taxes and people paying their power bills, we owe them a very high standard of stewardship. The Government’s main aim is to ensure that all public assets are well operated and deliver high-quality services to the public. I might say that that was not the case under the previous Government, whose stewardship could be described as at best negligent, and at worst damaging.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with the TV3 poll that showed that 85 percent of Kiwis oppose the sale of Kiwibank, that 80 percent of Kiwis oppose the sale of any State assets, and that 53 percent of Kiwis say that John Key cannot be trusted; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I find myself agreeing with some parts of the TV3 poll and disagreeing with other parts. The part that I agree with is that Phil Goff’s leadership ratings are going down. It has also become quite apparent from the way that Chris Carter has conducted himself that Helen Clark is much more influential—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Both sides have offended equally, I would say, and therefore we will just take a deep breath and cool down. A point of order was called by the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: As you will be aware, the primary question was specific to the question of the sale of Kiwibank, and so were the poll results that I referred to around the privatisation of assets. I argue that it is outside the ambit of both the primary question and the Standing Orders for the Minister to play it in the way he did.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The question that the member asked was whether the Minister had seen the TV3 poll. He then said it showed something, and asked whether the Minister agreed with it. It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to put the poll in context, which I think he did very well.

Mr SPEAKER: I have to be honest with the member. As I listened to his question, I thought: “Here’s a problem.” The member asked whether the Minister agreed with these aspects of a poll. I

understand the member’s point of order: he is pointing out that he asked about certain aspects of the poll in respect of these issues. But to expect me to then confine the Minister to any kind of answer, when the question started by asking whether he agreed with a poll that showed something—I really cannot assist. Any other approach to the poll, I might have had some opportunity to assist, but when he started the question by asking whether the Minister agreed with the poll—which, I believe, is how the member started the question—I really cannot assist.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just a small point. You have got into the habit of saying things like: “Both sides have offended equally.”, and that is not quite accurate. You will find that the members of the Māori Party, the ACT Party, United Future, and the Green Party are sitting here like paragons of virtue.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to those parties. On this particular occasion, at least, I was referring to both the National Party and the Labour Party in the House. I apologise to other members who might have felt offended by my comment. The member made a perfectly fair point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why did he not tell Gerry Brownlee that both he and the Prime Minister had discussed John Palmer’s comments that Solid Energy should be partially privatised before they were made public? Was it to try to cover up that the Government is now considering privatising Solid Energy, given that John Key agrees that Solid Energy needs more capital?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member, I am sure, understands that if an entity like Solid Energy has plans to expand, it will need access to capital. Those are matters that we would expect a growing organisation like Solid Energy, Kiwibank, or any others to discuss with the Government. We take our responsibility as a shareholder seriously.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific about why the Minister had left Gerry Brownlee out of the loop, and he did not address that part of the question, at all.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable Minister.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong.

Mr SPEAKER: The House has got a bit untidy and it is my fault. I accept responsibility for that, but at least we got an answer to the member’s question.

Energy Efficiency—Promotion to Businesses

7. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: What steps is the Government taking to encourage businesses to be more energyefficient?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Research by the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has identified about $2 billion per annum of achievable energy savings in the business sector. The authority provides energy audits to help businesses identify those opportunities. With over 600 audits completed so far, we can see that for every dollar invested in an energy audit about $7.50 in savings opportunities is identified.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What are the economic benefits of the business energy audit scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In the last 5 years the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority has invested $3.9 million in the scheme, and accumulated annual energy savings of around 500 gigawatt hours, which equates to around $65 million in bottom-line cost to business. This equates to a cost of about 1c per kilowatt hour of electricity saved, which compares very favourably with the cost of new electricity generation of over 8c per kilowatt hour. What is more, savings made in business become part of the baseline for the years ahead.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

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

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that the Government is investing in health the highest percentage of GDP ever, at the same time as health boards are increasing their front-line services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he said on Sunday, 20 June of this year that National would not be closing the wage gap with Australia for doctors as a means of stopping our doctors leaving our shores in droves, had he forgotten that closing the wage gap with Australia was exactly what he promised to do in his press statement of 30 September 2008?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government will not be able to close the wage gap with Australia overnight. But this Government is taking a lot of steps that will do that, and one of those steps is our substantial programme of tax cuts announced last month. An average hospital doctor on $165,000 a year will be better off by $7,000 before GST.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he promised that front-line health services would be increased under National, was he excluding the elective surgery and supportive services that are not happening this week at Wellington Hospital, which has closed down to save money?

Hon TONY RYALL: As the member would know, it is up to the Capital and Coast District Health Board how it manages its staff leave. I can tell the member that elective surgery is being performed at Wellington Hospital today, as it was yesterday, and all acute surgery is operating as per usual. Capital and Coast District Health Board delivered 6,600 elective operations last year— more than ever before. I also tell the member that its emergency department is seeing about the same number of people it saw last week. We have inherited from Labour a deficit of $60 million at Capital and Coast District Health Board, and we are slowly trying to manage that legacy of failure from the party opposite.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other comments has the Minister of Health made about health services that he stands by?

Hon TONY RYALL: I stand by our comment that we are not prepared to be a Government that over 9 years doubles the amount of money in the health service and provides fewer elective surgeries for the people of New Zealand on a population basis. Under this party in Government, 13,000 extra people got elective surgery last year, which means more hip replacements, more cataracts fixed, and more people who no longer have back pain.Hon Ruth Dyson: When he was described as having a counteroffer for every home support cut that was described to him—cuts also described as cruel, unfair, and frightening—was he saying that the thousands of New Zealanders who have had their home support cut in the last 12 months were ripping off the system; if not, why did he use two examples of fraud to justify those cuts?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is quite unfortunate that that member opposite continues to try to ignore the facts that have been made available to her, particularly in Wellington, where, she knows, in the last 9 months about 650 people have come off home support, 650 have come on home support, and 82 have had their home support increased. We know that every year about 15,000 people come on to home support and 15,000 people go off, and this Government is putting more money into important front-line services, including home support.

Film Heritage—Preservation Initiatives

9. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What is the Government doing to preserve New Zealand’s film heritage?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): In Budget 2010 the Government announced a one-off injection of $2 million extra funding for the Film Archive for crucial film preservation work. Delays in doing this work over the years have placed many historic films documenting New Zealand’s history and culture at serious risk of being lost for ever. This Government recognises the importance of film to New Zealand’s cultural heritage.

Nicky Wagner: What other work is the Film Archive doing to preserve rare motion pictures?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Film Archive has entered into a partnership with the United States National Film Preservation Foundation to repatriate and preserve 75 historic American motion pictures. These rare nitrate films, including John Ford’s full-length feature Upstream, will be accessible to both American and New Zealand audiences. The partnership and the importance of these films were reflected in recent widespread international media coverage, from the New York Times to the Guardian—which should please the Labour Party—and that shows why this Government’s investment in preserving our film history is so important.

Hon Steve Chadwick: On what date can we expect the Minister to release the Government review of the New Zealand Film Commission?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I understand from Sir Peter Jackson that he is heading off overseas on 23 June, and it will be available on or before that date.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Coastline in Customary Title

10. Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his statement that 2,000 kilometres of coastline could be put into customary title?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): If the member reads the transcript from the relevant interview, he would see that the figure came from the interviewer, not me. I agreed that the figure would be an in-the-round guesstimate of that. It could be less than that figure, of course. It will depend on iwi entering into negotiations or making an application to the court, and it will depend on the facts as presented at any negotiation or in court.

Hon Jim Anderton: As the Minister’s long answer seemed to be a long way of saying yes, is handing over the title of up to 2,000 kilometres of land that belongs to all New Zealanders consistent with this statement made by Gerry Brownlee on the Agenda programme on 10 March 2007: “National has made its position on this clear right from the start. We believe our beaches and our lakes should belong to all New Zealanders.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The position is absolutely consistent with what Mr Brownlee said. What we are talking about is customary title. The member’s question seems to assume that it is some kind of fee simple title, and that is wrong.

Hon Jim Anderton: How, then, is the explanation of the Minister to the primary question consistent with this statement made by Gerry Brownlee on Morning Report on 17 July 2007: “Labour has traded away the birthright of all New Zealanders and the unrestricted ownership through the Crown of all foreshore and seabed, and turned it over to racially based control.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Public access is guaranteed and a new form of customary title will be developed, and that is the position under the current regime. I am not interested—as that member is an expert in—in delving into the ancient past. I am dealing with the present and the future.

Hon Jim Anderton: If the Minister is not interested in the two quotes from Gerry Brownlee that I have already given, then how can any of his attempted explanations about handing over the title of up to 2,000 kilometres of land that belongs to all New Zealanders be consistent with this statement of Gerry Brownlee made on Eye to Eye with Willie Jackson on 7 July 2007: “National says the beaches should belong to all New Zealanders, and we oppose race-based legislation.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The member in his dotage here is becoming more and more garrulous—

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no—[Interruption] I am on my feet. I say to the Minister that that answer is totally unacceptable. The member cannot abuse another member just because he asked a question. If I recollect it, the member asked the Minister how he reconciled the Government’s position with a statement made by a senior colleague earlier. That might have a political overtone, but it does not deserve abuse of the questioner. The House is interested in hearing the answer.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Where we get to today is as a result of an agreement made after the 2008 election with the Māori Party. A review was conducted of the Foreshore and

Seabed Act, and what we are trying to do is to come up with a proposal that takes this country forward. I would hope that the honourable member would be interested in joining with us on this, rather than in being so destructive and negative.

David Garrett: Can he guarantee that the public will have not just access to the foreshore and seabed under customary title, but free public access, and that no iwi or hapū will be permitted to charge members of the public who are enjoying traditional customary leisure activities on the foreshore and seabed under this customary code?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: If anyone is enjoying a customary leisure activity on the foreshore and seabed, I have already made it abundantly clear that public access is guaranteed, and I cannot for the life of me conceive of any reason why there would be charging for the average New Zealander enjoying public access along the lines of what the member said.

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened to that answer very carefully. The question began with “Can he guarantee”. His answer, at the tail, was—

Mr SPEAKER: We have heard sufficient. When members ask Ministers whether they can guarantee issues like that, it is extraordinarily difficult. The member cannot expect a yes or no answer with regard to a guarantee like that. I think that the Minister gave a reasonable answer to the member’s question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kei te whakaae atu ia ki te kōrero a te rōia Māori a Moana Jackson nā te teitei rawa atu o te taumata mō te customary title, tē taea te whakatutuki; ki te kōre, he aha āna kupu atawhai ki ngā whānau, ki ngā hapū, ki ngā iwi?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The translation was not very helpful, I regret to say.

Mr SPEAKER: Perhaps the Minister did not hear especially the early part of the question. Would the member mind assisting to make sure the Minister does understand the question?

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does he agree with Māori lawyer Moana Jackson that the standard that has been set for proving customary title is so high that it is practically impossible to meet; if not, what assurance can he give whānau, hapū, and iwi otherwise?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I thank the honourable member. There will doubtless be some iwi who can meet the test for customary title. Any application to the courts or any negotiations will be able to be dealt with on the facts, unlike what happened under the 2004 Act. Although many iwi may be unable to obtain a customary title under the new tests, they will still be able to enter into negotiations to obtain recognition of customary interests.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He aha tāna whakautu ki te kōrero a te rōia a Prue Kapua “he tino taiapa te nui o te utu ki te kawe i te take nei ki te Kōti Teitei mō ngā iwi mē ngā hapū”? [What is his response to the statement by counsel Pru Kapua that “the exorbitant cost is a real barrier for tribes and subtribes to take this matter to High Court”?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: All litigation is expensive, but the High Court option is the best option because of the lack of availability of judicial review, the ability of the High Court to sit with experts, the ability of the High Court to refer matters to the Māori Appellate Court if there are questions of tikanga or fact, and the limited number of appeals. So I believe that the High Court route is ultimately less expensive.

Electricity—Generated from Renewable Resources for March 2010 Quarter

11. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How much of New Zealand’s electricity generated in the March 2010 quarter came from renewable sources?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Seventy-three percent.

Budget 2010—Access to Appropriate and Affordable Housing

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: What initiatives in Budget 2010 will guarantee that all New Zealanders have access to appropriate and affordable housing?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): We are committed to assisting those most in need. The most significant Budget commitments we made were the income rents subsidy of $560 million, helping 60,000 families; the accommodation supplement of $1.2 billion, helping 250,000 individuals; and the one-third of a billion dollars committed to insulating private homes, helping 180,000 people.

Moana Mackey: How does slashing the budget for acquisition and improvement of State houses by more than 80 percent and slashing the Healthy Housing programme by 62 percent help achieve this goal, particularly for those people like the young woman waiting for a kidney transplant highlighted in yesterday’s Dominion Post, who has been waiting for an appropriate Housing New Zealand Corporation home for more than a year?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: When we took over the Government benches we found that the State housing stock had been left in serious disrepair. As part of the stimulus package to help the country through the recession, we decided to inject $120 million into repairing State houses and acquiring some more. That is now coming to an end. We are now at a more constant funding level. We will be upgrading 8,000 houses in the next 12 months.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. How many New Zealanders have been supported in buying their own homes this year through the extended Welcome Home Loan scheme?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: From 1 July 2009 to May 2010, 1,660 Welcome Home Loans were settled, which translates to access to home finance of $348 million for 2,500 New Zealanders.

Moana Mackey: That applause will make him feel better. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I must have missed something. I have no idea what went on there, but all I know is that the House was totally disorderly and disrespectful to the member I have called, Moana Mackey.

Moana Mackey: Does he agree with the figure provided to the Social Services Committee by the Housing New Zealand Corporation that only a net 282 homes will be added to the State housing stock over the next year; and does he believe that is adequate to address the growing Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list, which now stands at nearly 11,000, 400 of whom are in severe housing need?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: A range is given of, I think, between 242 and 302 State houses that will be acquired this year. We are not only acquiring State houses but also upgrading them, because we do not believe that current tenants should live in shabby conditions just so that we can acquire new houses, as happened under the previous Government.

Moana Mackey: If the Housing New Zealand Corporation is not able to “sharpen their pencil” and find savings out of baselines to acquire and maintain State houses, will the acquisitions and maintenance work not happen?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have already made it clear that up to 8,000 State houses will be upgraded in one form or another over the next 12 months, and we will be increasing our State housing stock.

ENDS

© Scoop Media