(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 30 JUNE 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Job Creation—Challenges in Economy

1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What challenges are there in the economy to creating permanent and sustainable jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Firstly, the economy has to grow in order to create jobs. Treasury projects there will be a resumption in growth, with the economy growing at around 3 percent for each of the next 4 years and 170,000 net new jobs being created. The composition of the new jobs also matters. There is little point in having the job creation that occurred under the previous Government, based as it was on a temporary property boom, or a backroom bureaucracy that the economy does not need and cannot afford. That gave many New Zealanders false hopes, which have been dashed. That is why we are working on creating betterquality jobs in an economy focused on saving and exporting.

Amy Adams: What has been the economy’s recent record in creating sustainable jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In recent years, jobs in the export-related industries have shrunk, while most new jobs have been in Government-related sectors. For instance, since 2004 half of all new jobs have been in public administration, health, and education. Although these are important sectors, they have grown by more than 20 percent, which is over four times the growth rate of other sectors. Over the same period, employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing, and manufacturing fell. We simply have more workers in the mostly public sector industries, and not enough employment has been generated in the more productive parts of the economy that support the public sector.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he concede that inflation is forecast by Treasury in the Budget documents to reach 5.9 percent next year, while wages grow by only 2.6 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury is forecasting inflation somewhere at that level, which is just slightly higher than it was in 2008 when that member was in Government. At that time, there were no compensating tax cuts; this time, there are.

Amy Adams: What is the Government doing to create more long-term jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is intent on creating sustainable jobs, as opposed to what happened in the last 4 or 5 years. We have initiated a multibillion-dollar investment programme in productive infrastructure, increased funding for science and research to flow into wealth creation, and taken a range of measure in the Budget to re-orientate the economy towards saving and exporting, and away from Government spending and property speculation. It is pleasing to see that over 20,000 new jobs were created in the March quarter, and pleasing to see that there are forecasts of 170,000 new jobs being created over the next 4 years.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister is so confident that New Zealanders will be better off, why did he not include the full 5.9 percent inflation increase in the online tax calculator and let Kiwis decide for themselves?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have explained to the member a number of times, trying to incorporate that calculation simply is not logical. What the tax calculator does is to show that with the increase in GST and the reduction in income tax rates, almost all New Zealand earners are better off.

Amy Adams: Is the Minister aware of any policy options that would prevent the economy from creating permanent jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have heard some suggestions. They include increasing Government spending whenever anyone asks for a bit more of it, and crowding out job creation in New Zealand’s productive sectors. I have also seen suggestions that we should borrow a lot more money from overseas, recklessly running up more debt, and that we should increase the number of Wellington-based bureaucrats. None of those things would result in sustainable jobs. They are all suggestions of the Labour Opposition.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. Both sides of the House are too noisy. I cannot hear Dr Norman.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with Lloyd’s of London in its report from earlier this year, where it stated: “We are heading towards a global oil supply crunch and price spike”, and what steps is he taking to prepare the New Zealand economy for such a price spike?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Members of the public and businesses who are the users of fossil fuels are always taking into account changes in prices. Prices have been going up a bit lately, so I suspect that a number of them have been taking measures to reduce their consumption.

Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Prime Minister and asks: does he—[Interruption]—because that member never answers—

Mr SPEAKER: I guess when people interject, they are likely to get reactions, but the Minister should not use his open microphone to make that kind of comment.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. When Bill English said: “Why not me?”—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. That is enough of that. [Interruption] That is enough of that. The honourable Leader of the Opposition will ask his question.

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that after his tax switch New Zealanders will “be no worse off, and for the vast bulk they will be better off”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. The Government is increasing GST, but at the same time, it is cutting income taxes and compensating people who receive income support. It is very clear that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will be better off as a result.

Hon Phil Goff: How will the mum and dad, each on the average wage, who are paying $30 a week more for early childhood education for their child because of Budget-imposed costs be better off when that $30 by itself is much more than the tax cuts they will get between them?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am very pleased that the Leader of the Opposition raised the example of someone on the average wage, because someone on the average wage in the period of time that we have been in Government—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was specific to the person on the average wage with a child in early childhood education.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that the member makes a fair point. The question related to someone with a child in early childhood education and the claim of him or her paying $30 a week more. The Prime Minister’s answer should focus on that.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: When the Hon David Cunliffe has quite finished, we will hear the member’s point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I ask you to look at the Hansard later this evening, or perhaps even listen to the tape of this afternoon’s proceedings. You will see that that intervention came literally 20 seconds, if not less, into the Prime Minister’s answer, in which he said: “I am glad that the member raised the issue of the average wage, because”, and at that point, we had a point of order. The member could not have possibly anticipated where the Prime Minister was going to take it, and your suggestion that the Prime Minister’s answer was inappropriate was, I suggest, inappropriate.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker may not be as stupid as he looks. I invite the Prime Minister to answer the question.

Hon JOHN KEY: Let me say that you are neither stupid nor do you look stupid. But, anyway, let me go back. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition mentioned in his question people who are on the average wage and have a child, because under a National Government I am pleased to report that they are $48 a week better off with tax cuts than they were before. The couple he is talking about are Bill and Mary Smith, who live in Auckland. Their child goes to an early childhood facility that is less than 80 percent teacher-led and will face no increase. Bill and Mary rang me last night to thank me for the $48 a week.

Hon Phil Goff: How will the thousands of frail elderly people whom he has stripped of their home care worth about $30 to $40 a week be better off as a result of this Budget?

Hon JOHN KEY: I suspect they will respond the same way they did when I spoke to Grey Power and Probus Club members in Tauranga about a week and a half ago. There was an overwhelming response to the fact that I was able to tell them that a married couple on New Zealand superannuation in the time we have been in office has seen their fortnightly income go up by $142. Those pensioners were grateful that they have a National Government that is striving for growth, that is seeing a situation where after-tax wages are rising and therefore their pensions rise.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We let the Prime Minister make his full speech, with rhetoric, but I put it to you that I asked how the thousands of frail elderly superannuitants who have been deprived of their home care this year will be better off as a result of the tax switch, which takes away their home care and gives them much less in return.

Mr SPEAKER: I think on this occasion I have to say that the Prime Minister did answer the question. I accept that it was maybe not the way the member wanted. The Prime Minister could have challenged the statement in his question about taking home care away from frail elderly, so it is difficult for me to insist on a particular answer for that kind of question.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister say in the media this morning that wage increases would outstrip price increases, when I show to the House his Budget document from this year, which shows that increases in prices this year will be double increases in wages, and for the next 2 years the price increases will be one-third higher than the wage increases? They will not be better off, at least for the next 3 years, and the Prime Minister knows it.

Hon JOHN KEY: I utterly reject that statement from the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Phil Goff: My facts have been challenged. I seek leave of the House to table the document that shows exactly what I set out to the House. It is the Budget document, page 63.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not be doing that.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has not answered the question yet—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. This time Government benchers will be quiet. The Leader of the Opposition may recollect that he interrupted the Prime Minister’s answer with his point of order. I assumed therefore he had heard enough of the answer. Normally, the convention is to wait to the end of an answer to seek leave to table something. I think it is a bit rough for me to then ask the Prime Minister to come back and answer the question when he has been interrupted by way of a point of order by the questioner.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This could be new territory for the way points of order are interpreted. So, when the point of order interrupts an answer, does that conclude the answer? A Minister under pressure could arrange for a point of order from his or her own side in order to truncate the answer. I think that could be a very troubling development if it becomes the new standard. Or, perhaps, someone could say something deliberately offensive in order to generate a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: I invited the member to be a little bit sensible about it. The member asked the Prime Minister a question, did not like the answer he was getting, and interrupted with a point of order. That meant he did not like the answer, and chose to interrupt with a point of order. He cannot then go back and say that he now wants to hear more from the Prime Minister, when he did not like the answer he was being given. Supplementary questions are the way to pursue that.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an important point. I think everyone in the House and everyone listening to question time now appreciates the support you give to opposition MPs in making question time relevant, but it seems to me we have to also be careful that points of order should be points of order. We are noticing that points of order are being used, and every time a point is being made by the Opposition MPs they are putting in a political point. In effect, they are reinforcing a political message rather than making a simple point of order. I suggest to you, for the good order of the House, that it is a bit tough if you allow a questioner to constantly raise points of order through questions to, say, the Prime Minister, and each time that member makes a point of order he or she makes a political point with that point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I say very briefly that members over time have been studying experts in that area, and when we get to about half the level that that member used to—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. I invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to reflect on how that helps the order of the House. All I can say is that the Hon Rodney Hide has raised a reasonable point that points of order should not be used to try to score political points. Where I perceive that that is happening, members may note that I do not give them a lot of time—as the Hon Darren Hughes observed a moment ago. Where points of order are made for good cause, I take much more notice of them. The Hon Rodney Hide might note that when the honourable Leader of the Opposition sought leave to make a political point there, I closed it down pretty quickly by saying that we would not be doing that and I put it down pretty fast. It is in members’ own hands. If they misuse points of order, they cannot expect a lot of assistance from the Speaker.

Hon Phil Goff: How does the Prime Minister justify his claim this morning that wage increases will outstrip price increases, when his own Budget document explains that wage increases this year will be 2.6 percent and inflation will be 5.9 percent, and that wage increases next year and the year after will be less than the CPI inflation?

Hon JOHN KEY: The member is demonstrating to the House that he does not understand economics. The Governor of the Reserve Bank has made it quite clear that he will be looking through the inflation implications of the GST increase, and those GST increases—

Grant Robertson: But you’re wrong.

Hon JOHN KEY: I tell that member that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is not wrong; that is what he does. From that point on, New Zealanders will be a lot better off because of the personal tax cuts they get. I stand by the statement I made that New Zealanders will have a $4.3 billion personal tax cut or thereabouts that is funded off a $2 billion GST increase,

Hon Phil Goff: How will 500,000 home renters be better off when the Property Investors Federation has made it clear that the extra costs imposed on them in the Budget will be passed on directly to tenants, and tenants on average will be paying $34 a week extra in rent?

Hon JOHN KEY: They will be better off because as Treasury quite correctly points out in the Budget documents that the member has just been quoting, so I assume he has read them, it expects rents to rise by 1.4 percent over the next 3 to 5 years. That is an awful lot better than the 2.6 percent they went up by under the previous Labour Government. I must say that when I looked at the New

Zealand Herald this morning, I thought the subeditors had taken a little bit of licence. They wrote on the front: “John Key says we’ll all be better off, but extra costs are here ahead of extra cash”, and I thought to myself thank goodness it is not Prime Minister Phil Goff, otherwise they would have written: “We will all be worse off with more extra costs and no extra cash.”

Hon Phil Goff: How will home owners be better off this year when, for example, a young family in my electorate with a $300,000 mortgage will by the end of this financial year be paying $60 to $100 a week extra in interest rates on that mortgage, which will far exceed anything they will get in tax cuts?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am glad the member raised that, because when he was in office the cash rate—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific and precise. It asked how a family like this will be better off when their interest rates, this year, will exceed the amounts they get in tax cuts. There was nothing about a Labour Government.

Hon JOHN KEY: I think it will get a bit ridiculous if, firstly, the Leader of the Opposition is going to make open-ended statements that cannot be proven to be correct, and, secondly, if he gets to his feet and tries to interrupt me. The point I was about to make is a very clear point that specifically goes to the fact that interest rates were higher under a Labour Government—

Mr SPEAKER: We will hear the Prime Minister answer the question, and it is preferable for answers not to attack the questioner’s party or the questioner, first off. But let us hear the Prime Minister’s answer.

Hon JOHN KEY: Under a National Government official cash rates have been at virtually alltime lows. They are currently now at 2.75 percent, which means that the mortgage rate is currently 6 percent. Under a Labour Government the mortgage rate was 10.9 percent. One of the reasons that interests rate will not go up as fast under this Government as they did under the previous Government is that the way we get interests rates up is to have a Government that wastes a whole lot of money and puts pressure on the system. That is what Labour did for 9 years.

Hon Phil Goff: Which statement are we to believe: the statement that the Prime Minister made that Bill and Mary Smith rang him this morning, or his statement to Gerry Brownlee a moment ago when he said in answer to the question: “I just made it up.”?

Hon David Cunliffe: It was Bill and Mary English.

Hon JOHN KEY: Yeah! He can believe both.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask the Prime Minister to repeat that answer. Which was it: was it true—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! It seems members did not hear the answer. If the Prime Minister could assist.

Hon JOHN KEY: I did not hear the Christian name of the wife, so I am not sure whether it was “Mary”, but it was definitely “Bill”.

Question No. 3 to Minister

JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT): My question is to the Minister for Climate Change Issues. Did he tell—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. I say to the front-benchers of the Opposition, as it is the Labour Party this time, that the previous question is finished with. The interjections will stop. It is simply unreasonable for interjections to carry on like that when I have called a new question.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Minister’s Statement

3. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Did he tell Mr McPartlin in Blenheim last night that “if you’re not happy with us or believe climate change is a load of nonsense then at next year’s election vote for a party that doesn’t want an ETS”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I did receive a question at a large public meeting in Blenheim last night on the emissions trading scheme from a gentleman who asserted that the climate change science was a load of nonsense. I advised him that that was not the Government’s view, that there was sufficient scientific evidence to justify actions to curb our emissions, and that National had campaigned in 2008 on proceeding with a moderated emissions trading scheme this year. I also noted that he was entitled to support political parties that view the science as a load of rubbish.

John Boscawen: When he advised Mr McPartlin and other farmers, pensioners, small-business owners, and householders to vote ACT if they wanted to see the emission trading scheme dumped, did he have in mind the number of votes that ACT would need to achieve this?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I actually found that the number at the meeting last night who thought that the climate change science was a load of nonsense was a minority. I think that is reflected in the fact that the only party in Parliament that says the science is a load of rubbish is the ACT Party. I note that its support in the polls is not particularly high.

Nicky Wagner: Is the Minister aware of any inaccurate claims made at public meetings on the science and the emissions trading scheme that need correcting?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am. I have noted claims by Mr John Boscawen that the European emissions trading scheme impacts only on industry and has no impact on the price paid for power by businesses or households in Europe. That is not correct. Just like our scheme, although the obligation is on those emitters, the costs are transferred down to small businesses and householders. In fact, the international reports show that the cost impact of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme will be not more than half the costs of the scheme imposed in Europe.

John Boscawen: What does the Minister say to pensioners Kevin and Gabrielle Holden, who told 3 News last night that they are down to one bar on their heater, who will have to pay even more for their electricity from tomorrow because of the emissions trading scheme, and who will near freeze to death so that he can pay hundreds of millions of dollars to foreign-owned forestry companies like Fuji Xerox, Oji Paper, and Itochu, which did not even plant the trees?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The interesting thing in Blenheim, as was noted by its effective local member of Parliament—

Hon Darren Hughes: Who’s that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Colin King. He noted that the Marlborough area will receive $80 million for ordinary New Zealanders who have planted trees, as compared with the $9 million it will cost Marlburians in electricity and petrol price increases. I found at the meeting that there was real surprise that Marlborough was one of the regions with the largest area of forests that will earn credits under the emissions trading scheme.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a document that shows that climate change deniers John Boscawen and Alan Gibbs gave $300,000 to the ACT Party. It is from the Electoral Commission and is dated 29 April 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document?

Dr Russel Norman: The Electoral Commission.

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.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Culture Change

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he think the huge culture change within ACC has gone too far?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I am very conscious of the need to get the balance of accident compensation right between containing costs and levy increases and ensuring that

people receive their proper entitlements. Costs were clearly out of control under the previous Government, and a culture change was needed. I am closely monitoring the accident compensation review data, and would be concerned if there were an increase in the number of Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) decisions being overturned. There is no such trend. A similar proportion of claim decisions are being upheld now as were upheld under the previous Government, indicating that ACC has got the balance right.

Hon Annette King: As part of that culture change, does he recall ACC saying: “We take our relationship with counsellors and clinicians seriously,”; if so, why has he not ensured that ACC takes seriously the warning from clinicians at Ashburn Clinic—health professionals who provide New Zealand’s foremost treatment programme for victims of sexual crimes, who have had no referrals from ACC since October, and who have had to lay off 10 crucial staff?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Clinical decisions, whether in terms of surgery or in terms of sensitive mental health issues, are properly made by clinicians. I would be concerned if decisions that had been made by ACC’s clinicians were being repeatedly overturned in the independent review process. That would suggest that ACC had got the balance wrong. In regard to the specific issue of sexual abuse, I have initiated an independent review, which is being done Dr Barbara Disley, and I am looking forward to receiving her report.

Hon Annette King: Does he recall ACC saying that it would like to explain the changes that have been made for victims of sexual crimes so that clinicians can see “what we are doing to improve service performance”; if so, how does he intend to explain the loss of the long-term residential service at Ashburn Clinic, which had helped victims rebuild their lives—a loss because of a $900,000 shortfall, while he boasts of a $2 billion surplus?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key decisions on whether clients go to Ashburn Clinic or receive care in other establishments should be made by clinicians, not Ministers. If Ashburn Clinic or any members opposite believe that people are inappropriately being turned down for treatment, the proper process for them to follow is to seek a review of the case. If the member has evidence of that, I would be more than happy to see it.

David Bennett: By how much did ACC’s claims and administration costs go up over the preceding 4 years, requiring a change in culture?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: ACC administration costs between 2004 and 2008 went up by an average of $50 million extra per year—that is, from $302 million in 2004 to $494 million in 2008. In the National Government’s first year we reduced those administration costs by $35 million. Claim costs between 2004 and 2008 went up by nearly $300 million extra every year—a rate of increase that was 5 times the rate of inflation. That was clearly unsustainable. As in so many parts of the Public Service, Labour let costs get out of control.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister not see that the change of culture and the push towards privatisation that he has lauded are exactly what led his appointed chair of ACC, John Judge, to say that doctors, in addition to facing disciplinary action, should pay financial penalties for medical errors?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, the member deliberately misquotes Mr Judge. He deliberately misquotes him, as is so often the case.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To deliberately misquote is to mislead the House. That allegation is not allowed to be made by a member of Parliament by way of answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the member makes. Perhaps the member could change his language so that he is not making that accusation.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member misquotes the chair of ACC, who has had an incredibly challenging job, given that the previous Government in just 3 years, according to the audited accounts, let the liabilities of the accident compensation scheme blow out by $10 billion. Mr Judge has had an awfully challenging job to try to get them under control.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister concerned that the chair of ACC is so obviously out of touch with the underlying principles of our accident compensation system that he is clearly pushing towards a litigious, Americanised private insurance model?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is way off beam. This Government is totally committed to an efficient, 24/7, no-fault scheme. But I make no apologies for this Government and Mr Judge looking at sensible ways that we can engage with the private sector to better manage claims in order to rehabilitate patients more quickly. I congratulate Mr Judge on reversing the decline in rehabilitation rates that occurred under the previous Government.

Hon David Parker: Why is the Minister so at ease with the undermining of the current accident compensation model by moves to privatisation and financial penalties for doctors—which is what John Judge did say, I tell the Minister—when it is abundantly clear that the Americanised insurance model that he and Mr Judge are pushing New Zealand towards leads to more conservative and expensive medical treatment as well as money being wasted on lawyers and insurance company margins?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Under any model to incorporate the private sector that this Government looks at, exactly the same entitlements will be involved and exactly the same independent review processes will be involved. Be we make absolutely no apologies for wanting to use the private sector so that we can rehabilitate people and get them back to work where they can make a positive contribution, rather than continuing the culture of the previous Government, which seemed happy to have thousands and thousands of New Zealanders sitting on accident compensation, not being rehabilitated, and not able to work.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from the medical director of Ashburn Clinic, which states: “Our primary concern is the care of the patients who are being denied treatment under the current ACC guidelines.”

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.

Pay Equity—Closing Gender Gap

5. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: Does she stand by her statement to the House on 18 June 2009 that the Government “will leave no stone unturned” in trying to close the gender pay gap?

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women's Affairs): Yes. The full statement was: “thanks to the support of the Prime Minister”—the Hon John Key—“and my senior Cabinet colleagues.”, who supported the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in receiving a Budget increase of $2 million over 4 years to do the work.

Catherine Delahunty: Can she confirm that on average women were paid 12 percent less than men when her Government took office, and that this is still the case?

Hon PANSY WONG: I have good news for the member. It was the case that the pay gap between men and women had been at 12 percent since 2001, under the watch of the previous Labour Government. After 18 months of the National-led Government, the pay gap is now 11 percent. I have more good news for the member. The 2010 OECD Gender Brief puts New Zealand’s gender wage gap at the second-lowest among OECD countries, when comparing average earnings for full-time workers.

Catherine Delahunty: What new steps has she taken to close the gender pay gap since June 2009, other than commissioning research?

Hon PANSY WONG: I was going to give a very fulsome answer, but I know that Mr Speaker does not like Ministers to give long answers. All I can say is that 18 months down the track, the pay gap has closed by 1 percent. We obviously have done something right.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member for interrupting her further supplementary questions, but that answer did not address the question: “What … steps has she taken …?”. There was no reference to the question, at all. She said that she could give a long answer—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no; we have heard sufficient. I think the member makes a fair point of order. The question asked about what moves or what steps—I could not hear the exact word—the Minister has taken to help to close the pay gap. Although I accept the Minister’s point that the Speaker does not want to hear an answer that goes on endlessly, one measure might have been helpful, if the Minister had such information.

Hon PANSY WONG: I will try my best. The Ministry of Women’s Affairs has five projects on the go. The first one is to address flexible work practices. We already have the research result, and are sharing it with the Institute of Chartered Accountants. I might elaborate on that. We found out that one of the very good firms of chartered accountants, BDO Taranaki, provides an excellent example of how flexibility has contributed to dramatic bottom line results, such as lower staff turnover—

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about what new steps has she taken, other than commissioning research. She is just describing research.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and there will not be any comments. Forgive me, but I thought I had heard the Minister talking about a policy about flexibility of pay arrangements, which the research appeared to show was having an impact. I thought that was exactly the kind of information that the member was seeking.

Catherine Delahunty: The Minister was referring to flexible working hours, not gender pay equity. My question was specific to gender pay equity actions that she has taken—

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled that the Minister has answered the question. After I accepted that she did not answer it initially, I believe that she has now indicated a policy measure of the Government’s that, in her view, is changing things. The member may—[Interruption] I say to the front benches on both sides of the Chamber that that is enough.

Catherine Delahunty: How does research into an existing problem help to solve that problem, if no new policies are introduced as a result of the findings?

Hon PANSY WONG: I am quite happy to go on with my answer. Plenty of leadership is being exercised by the National-led Government in terms of, for example, flexible work practices, which contribute to closing the pay gap. Women may have to take time off work to look after the family, and if they do not return to work on the same pay as previously, that contributes to the pay gap. We are working with the Institute of Chartered Accountants on robust case studies about how other companies can copy a model that would enable women not just to achieve pay equality but also to aspire to break the glass ceiling, in terms of women in senior management and leadership roles. I am just so fortunate and privileged—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon PANSY WONG: —to be working with these fantastic women in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: That is enough. [Interruption] Some members on the Labour front bench of this Chamber will be leaving soon, if they do stop being so discourteous. Catherine Delahunty asked a question, and the House has a right to hear the answer. The rabble going on just now was totally unacceptable. I was watching, and I saw that many discussions were going on and members were totally ignoring what was going on in the House. That is totally discourteous. Members may not like the Minister’s answer, but it was the Minister’s answer, rightly or wrongly. The public can judge the quality of it; it is not for members to treat it with discourtesy.

Catherine Delahunty: Did she ask the Minister of Finance to carry out a gender impact analysis of the Budget, to determine whether anything in it would make the gender pay gap worse?

Hon PANSY WONG: First of all, intelligent men and women in New Zealand understand that economic growth is the ultimate answer whereby we can all have a good living wage and a good quality of life.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will resume her seat. I invite Catherine Delahunty to repeat her question, and I ask the Minister to listen to it. I ask the Minister now to treat the House with courtesy, to listen to the question, and to please answer it.

Catherine Delahunty: Did she ask the Minister of Finance to carry out a gender impact analysis of the Budget, to determine whether anything in it would make the gender pay gap worse?

Hon PANSY WONG: No, I did not explicitly ask for that, but I do not believe that anything in the Budget has made it worse, because I have just demonstrated that the pay gap has closed from 12 percent to 11 percent. So the Government must have done something right.

Catherine Delahunty: What exactly, in the Minister’s opinion, is the role of the Minister of Women’s Affairs in trying to close the gender pay gap, if it does not include introducing new policy or discussing the impact of Government policies such as the Budget on the gender pay gap with her colleagues?

Hon PANSY WONG: The Minister of Women’s Affairs is providing the leadership. The National-led Government has aspirational goals for women in terms of leadership, paid employment, equality, and eliminating domestic violence in New Zealand.

Carol Beaumont: How can the Minister claim that flexible working practice is an initiative of her Government, when National voted against it?

Hon PANSY WONG: We did not do that. I have just demonstrated—

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has made a factually incorrect statement, and I think she—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is not a point of order. It is up to the Minister to answer questions, and she has to stand or fall on the accuracy of her statements. That is not to be questioned by way of a point of order.

Hon PANSY WONG: No, we voted against flexible working hours, but we are talking about flexible working practice. Just as Mr Speaker invited me to listen to an earlier question, I invite those members to listen carefully to the answers. In the project that we are doing with the Institute of Chartered Accountants, we are talking about whole, flexible, working practices.

Budget 2010—Effect on New Zealand Households

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How can the vast majority of Kiwi households be better off after the Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I encourage the member to go to the website www.taxguide.govt.nz to see how the tax changes on 1 October will do that. The GST income tax switch initially sees an average family with two children about $25 a week better off, a typical average wage worker about $15 a week better off, and a superannuitant couple about $11 a week better off. Even when other general forecast inflation is taken into account, the benefits of the tax package get bigger over time. This is because after-tax incomes are forecast to grow more quickly than price increases in the 4 years to 2014.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that some of those price rises he is talking about include power price rises, what steps is he taking as shareholding Minister to signal to power companies that raising prices to generate higher dividends is unacceptable?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will be aware, the Prime Minister has made some pretty direct comments about that matter over the last couple of days. I might say that the record on power prices under that former Minister’s supervision was pretty awful. They went up something like 60 or 70 percent during the time of the previous Labour Government.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What action will he take if power companies raise prices excessively, or will he simply continue to sit on the sidelines and watch? [Interruption]

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did not actually hear the question. Could I have it repeated?

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the member to repeat his question, but I ask the Minister to not interject while he is being asked questions. I ask the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to repeat his question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What action will he take if power companies raise prices excessively, or will he simply continue to sit on the sidelines and watch?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the Prime Minister pointed out, only some power companies would be affected by the emissions trading scheme. Consumers are now more than ever able to swap from one power company to another. The member may also be keeping track of the moves the Minister of Energy and Resources has made, through the Electricity Industry Bill, to restructure the industry so it becomes more competitive.

Aaron Gilmore: How do the benefits of Budget 2010 tax changes increase for New Zealanders over time?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The benefit of Budget 2010 for an average two-child family increases to about $28 a week by 1 October 2011—1 year past the tax cuts. It then rises to about $41 a week by 1 October 2014. For a typical wage earner, it rises from $15 a week to about $23 a week by 2014. Once the 170,000 new jobs forecast in the Budget are taken into account, household disposable incomes from all sources and after tax increase by over 25 percent by 2014.

Hon David Cunliffe: If he is so concerned about energy companies keeping prices down, why did he pressure those companies last year to deliver bigger dividends to the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be aware that power company performance needed to improve pretty significantly. Under his Government power companies put prices up something like 60 or 70 percent—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: 72 percent.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —72 percent. They paid low dividends, and they just ran fat on costs. We are making them perform better by holding price increases to a minimum, and paying significant dividends to the Government. They are doing a better job now than they did under Labour.

Aaron Gilmore: How were New Zealanders materially worse off as a result of price increases before the 2008 election?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Electricity prices soared by 72 percent in the 9 years up to 2008. The previous Labour Government’s emissions trading scheme was poised to push up inflation by twice as much as this Government’s current scheme. It is a bit rich to hear from the Opposition about the impact on the Consumers Price Index of the emissions trading scheme, when it was going to push it up twice as far. In fact, in the year to September 2008—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The point of order is not a new one. I see that you were listening carefully to the way that the Minister answered the supplementary question scripted by one of his own team, which specifically asked about matters pertaining to a period before he was Minister of Finance. I submit to you that by focusing his whole answer on matters that were outside his current jurisdiction and then mischaracterising Labour’s position he is well outside Standing Orders.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We should not get into debating points on these points of order, but I fear that the member across the Chamber has done exactly that. The reality is that Mr English as the Minister of Finance in the Government was instrumental in halving the emissions trading scheme costs—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now getting into genuine debating material. I think the question was highly marginal. It asked the Minister about a period prior to the commencement of the Minister’s responsibilities, and that is why I was listening very carefully to the answer. The answer was fine to the point where it started to make assertions about the impact of the previous Government’s policy. That is where it started to depart from Standing Orders. We have heard enough of that answer. I ask members to be mindful of that.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a press release from the Hon David Parker that announced the doubling of increases in power and petrol prices from the emissions trading scheme that was advocated by the members opposite.

Mr SPEAKER: A press statement?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: A press release.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not be tabling press releases.

Crime, Victims—Increased Support

7. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Justice: What reports has he received in response to the range of initiatives for victims of crime that he launched yesterday?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): I have seen a number of positive reports on the initiatives that the Government launched yesterday. The police have said that the new on-the-spot safety orders will save lives. Survivors’ advocate Louise Nicholas stated: “New assistance for victims for sexual violence will help improve victims’ path through the criminal justice system.” Families of homicide victims have also welcomed yesterday’s announcements, stating that the new entitlements will help to ease the financial burden placed on victims’ families. I am proud of the support that this Government has given and will continue to give to victims.

Simon Bridges: What other reports has he seen?

Hon SIMON POWER: I have seen one report from the Opposition law and order spokesperson that described the Government’s new victims’ compensation scheme as magical. There is nothing magical about this Government delivering on its promise to set up a victims’ compensation scheme within a year. What is magical, or perhaps mythical, is the last Government’s promise to set up a victims’ compensation scheme. It was promised in 1994, 1996, 2005, and 2008; incidentally, it was never delivered.

Lynne Pillay: Has the Minister seen reports from the thousands of sexual abuse survivors and victims and experts in the field who are questioning whether justice is blind and disinterested when it comes to counselling for victims and survivors of sexual abuse?

Hon SIMON POWER: I see a range of reports from a range of groups who have a range of views on all of these matters.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question. I asked whether the Minister had seen reports. He talked about a range of reports.

Mr SPEAKER: I have listened to Lynne Pillay’s supplementary questions over this last week and my advice to the member is to think carefully about the supplementary questions she asks. I have allowed questions to go through that are outside the Standing Orders. If the member wants a Minister to give a precise answer, she has to make her questions more precise. In asking the Minister whether he has seen reports, goodness knows what kind of answer she is expecting from him. I cannot help her to get a particular answer when she asks that kind of question.

Education, National Standards—Feedback from Parents

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: When she said yesterday that “This is a bedding-in year for the Standards and feedback from parents is vital”, did she include the feedback from the more than 37,000 New Zealanders who have signed a petition expressing deep concern with the Government’s national standards policy?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes. I am always happy to receive feedback from parents about national standards. I note, however, that the union that organised that petition has a long history of opposition to the standards and of spreading misinformation. But I say to the member that I will take those 37,000 unionists and I will raise him the 1,050,000 New Zealanders who voted for a National Government to introduce national standards in reading, writing, and maths.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When she said that from the beginning of 2011 some additional funding would be available to support students at primary and intermediate schools who are not meeting national standards, did she mean that additional funding will go to all students who are not meeting national standards via their schools, or only to the schools that are not meeting the national standards overall?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have not said anything about that extra $36 million going specifically to schools as yet. The most important thing about the national standards is what the next steps are, and we are working on that now.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to quote from a letter from the Minister and then table it. The letter states—

Mr SPEAKER: No—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister that states: “From the beginning of 2011 some additional funding will be available to support primary and intermediate students who are not meeting the national standards.” [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to table a document. He is describing the document from the Minister. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can she, therefore, confirm that extra funding will be available next year for all students who are below or well below national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can confirm that in the Budget $36 million is available from the beginning of next year, over the next 4 years, to address the national standards.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I deliberately made it a very specific, very detailed question. I asked whether the Minister can confirm that it will be available—

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. His question was commendably to the point. But I think it is fair to say that the Minister answered it in a way that makes it fully clear that those decisions have not been made yet. That is the clear impression I got from the Minister’s answer.

Allan Peachey: What feedback has the Minister received from practitioners on how parents view national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Principals and teachers throughout the country are getting on with the job of providing good-quality information to parents about their child’s progress. One email from a practitioner stated: “We have now completed our first written reports to parents using the national standards. Feedback has been positive, along with our face-to-face parent interviews. I also believe that for the first time in my years as principal, we are now seeing much more focused reports to parents being made about progress, because the standards require a sound judgment in reading, writing, and maths.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why is the Minister prepared to tell a parent that money will be available for students, but she is not prepared to tell this House that?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is ridiculous. The Budget quite clearly shows that $36 million is available to address the national standards. I have been at public meetings around the country saying that $36 million is available from the beginning of next year to address the national standards. It is no secret. The details of how that money will be spent have not yet been published.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When she stated: “This is a bedding-in year for the Standards …”, was she accepting the statement of the over 37,000 New Zealanders who asked her to trial the standards, and the statement from her key adviser on the standards, John Hattie, that if she cannot convince the vast majority of teachers that her national standards will lead to improved literacy and numeracy, they will be abandoned?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Effect of Change in Investments

9. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Climate

Change Issues: What reports has he received on changes in investments that are good for New Zealand and will help reduce emissions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): There has been a marked shift in two areas. First, there has been a sharp increase in renewable energy investment. Eighty percent of the new consents lodged—by capacity—are for renewable power, whereas prior to 2008 most new investment was for thermal power stations. That is significant because the largest percentage increase in emissions by sector has been in the electricity sector, where our emissions are up 120 percent on 1990 levels. The second shift is in forestry. The last decade saw the worst period of deforestation since records began in the 1930s. We are seeing a sharp increase in forestry investment because of the emissions trading scheme, with significant increases in forest area over the next 4 years projected by the annual forest intention survey of the University of Canterbury School of Forestry.

Chris Auchinvole: What advice has the Minister received on how much the emissions trading scheme will reduce emissions by, and will it enable New Zealand to meet its Kyoto obligations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised the emissions trading scheme will reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 19 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, and, based on current projections, will enable New Zealand to meet its Kyoto targets. The saviour for New Zealand is the large expansion of forestry in the 1990s, which is offsetting our approximate 25 percent increase in gross emissions. The longer-term concern is that as those forests reach maturity, we will be quite exposed. That is why it is so important that we take steps now to constrain emissions growth and encourage new forest plantation.

Chris Auchinvole: What changes did National make to the emissions trading scheme, and how does it impact proportionately on the costs borne by businesses and households?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The most significant change we made was reducing by half the cost for both householders and businesses. Without our amendments, the price impact on fuel and power prices would have been more than double. That is why I find the cries of concern from the Opposition about the cost impacts of the emissions trading scheme lack credibility. Some people have claimed that our amendments shift the relative burden between households and industry. That is not correct. The costs of both are halved. There is no greater allocation to industry than would have occurred under Labour’s scheme, albeit we did as we promised and ensured that small and medium sized businesses are not discriminated against by the support for trade-exposed industries.

Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation and Treatment Centres—Closures

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Minister of Health: How many reports of drug and alcohol rehabilitation or treatment centres closing down or considering closing down has he received since becoming the Minister of Health?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister

of Health: The Minister has received some official reports of drug and alcohol centres coming under financial pressure. He has received no official reports regarding the actual closure of drug and alcohol rehabilitation or treatment centres. I can advise the member that funding for those services comes under the mental health funding, and that the mental health funding is being increased by around $174 million over the next 4 years.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has the Minister of Corrections ever advocated to him to retain or increase the funding for the St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim and the Care NZ clinic in Ōtāhuhu, which are threatening to close down?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am not able to advise the member of what discussions there have been between the Minister of Corrections and the Minister of Health, but I can tell that member that I am advised by the relevant district health board that the contract for two extra

treatment beds at St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre is not being renewed. That contract was agreed pro rata at $56,000 per annum, or $90,000 for 15 months. However, the Ministry of Health has since November 2009 funded one special detox bed for methamphetamine users, at a cost of $42,000 per annum. In relation to Care NZ, I am advised that the Ōtāhuhu clinic has been running an alcohol and drug treatment service for many years, receiving around $250,000 per annum, surprisingly enough funded by the Hutt District Health Board. I am further advised that the Hutt District Health Board has given funding to the three Auckland district health boards that have advised Care NZ that the contract due for renewal in 2010 will not be renewed. The intention is for the three district health boards to provide services differently, although I understand that the Counties Manukau District Health Board is approaching Care NZ to provide some services locally, but at a different level.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree with the Minister of Corrections that drug and alcohol problems amongst offenders are best dealt with in the community rather than in prisons; if so, why has he discontinued funding for programmes such as those of St Marks Adult Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre in Blenheim and the Care NZ clinic in Ōtāhuhu, both of which have been providing successful community rehabilitation services for offenders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think I have explained the situation quite clearly regarding Care NZ and the St Marks clinic, and there is no question that Ministers have a united position on this matter.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does he agree with the statement from the Minister of Corrections in the House yesterday that other Ministry of Health - funded services will pick up the slack from the St Marks closure; if so, how does he expect the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board will manage, when its mental health budget decreased by nearly $650,000 between last year and 2010- 11?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I would have to check the Hansard to see what was said, but it is quite clear that Ministers have a united position on this matter, and the overriding fact is that an extra $174 million over 4 years is going into mental health. There is plenty of money available for services, but district health boards have to make reprioritisations within that.

Rahui Katene: Is it appropriate for district health boards to compete by taking the funding from existing successful services and utilising the funding to help to prop up their own budgets, as is the case with the Waikato District Health Board; and what can the Minister do about that?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is up to district health boards to find the best value for the funding that they receive. Contracts are not renewed or are ended for a variety of reasons.

Bowel Cancer Screening—Pilot Programme

11. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What recent announcements has the Government made with respect to a bowel cancer screening pilot for New Zealanders?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) on behalf of the Minister of

Health: In the recent Budget, the Government announced a bowel cancer screening pilot costing $24 million over the next 4 years. Bowel cancer is the second-highest cause of cancer death in New Zealand. In 2007 almost 3,000 people were diagnosed with bowel cancer and 1,252 people died from the disease. A nationwide bowel cancer screening programme could over time reduce the death rate by up to 36 percent, saving up to 270 lives per year.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What will the pilot do, and what is the progress to date?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: This pilot will give us a clear idea of the sector’s ability to do the required colonoscopies in the future, and the costs and benefits of rolling out a full national bowel cancer screening programme. Requests for proposal are about to be issued, and the programme should be up and running in 2011. It will cover a minimum of 60,000 people aged 50 to

74, and I note that the previous Labour Government, despite having 9 years and plenty of money to institute this programme, never got around to doing this.

Housing—Access to Appropriate and Affordable Housing

12. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he believe that all New Zealanders should have access to appropriate and affordable housing?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): Yes. As I have stated repeatedly in the House, this Government is committed to assisting those New Zealanders most in need.

Moana Mackey: Why is he axing the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s shared-equity scheme from tomorrow, given that before the election he promised to continue it at least until his still-unfunded Gateway Housing scheme was available?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The shared-equity scheme was a Labour scheme. It was a 2-year pilot that promised 550 homes to new homeowners; over the 2 years it delivered 30 homes. We considered that the pilot did not work.

Moana Mackey: Does he think the low uptake of the shared-equity scheme might have something to do with the fact that, according to the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s Senior Communications Adviser, Michelle Williams, the corporation was told after the change of Government to stop promoting the scheme?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Yes, it would be fair to say that this Government decided we would not spend millions of dollars on advertising that could be spent on homes.

Moana Mackey: Are tax cuts still National’s No. 1 policy for addressing housing inaffordability; if so, can he confirm that this year’s tax cuts are meant to compensate for an increase in GST, cost of living increases across the board, rent increases, and, now, housing inaffordability, and how far does he think someone on the minimum wage can stretch $3 a week?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Certainly, delivering more people more money in their back pockets after a day’s work is part of the policy of addressing housing inaffordability, because it gives them more money to pay off their mortgage or pay their rent, and to make a whole bunch of choices. It is better than a shared-equity scheme that was supposed to deliver 550 houses, but ended up delivering 30 houses.

Rahui Katene: What priority has the Minister given to assisting Danielle Koveskali of Tītahi Bay into appropriate housing, and what action will he take to address the fact that she has had to wait for more than a year for the Housing New Zealand Corporation to address the mouldy State house she lives in, even though Danielle, who has renal failure and is on dialysis, has been told by her doctors that she must be moved for the good of her tenuous health?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I understand that the Koveskali family is on a high-priority list to be relocated to another 4-bedroom property. However, the family has declined properties that have been offered to them in the past as they considered that the properties did not meet their needs. That is fair enough and that is their decision, but the Housing New Zealand Corporation can offer them properties in the area only as they become available, and we will certainly be doing so.

ENDS

© Scoop Media