(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 12 FEBRUARY 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Recession—Government Actions for Economic Growth

1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Infrastructure: What steps has the Government recently taken to help ease the sharpest impacts of the global recession and prepare New Zealand’s economy for future growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister for Infrastructure): Our announcement yesterday of more than $500 million worth of quality building projects on schools, roads, and housing has been warmly received across the country, because it will make a real difference to communities and local businesses. In addition to our infrastructure package, we have already confirmed a programme of income tax cuts over the next 3 years—passed before Christmas—and sweeping changes to the cumbersome Resource Management Act, launched a $480 million package of tax and regulatory measures for small and medium enterprises, and are now working hard on providing better, smarter public services from our departments and ministries.

Craig Foss: What further measures will the Government take as part of its jobs and growth plan?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will be announcing further infrastructure projects in coming months, and we are looking forward to the Prime Minister’s job summit on 27 February, where we will pick up the best ideas for creating jobs and building a more productive, higher-income economy.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister tell the House what the real, additional cost of his infrastructure mini-package is, over and above what was in the plans already announced by the previous Labour Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the member’s benefit I will point out the process again. The Government has set aside an envelope of about $4.5 billion over the next 3 years—and he may remember his party criticising that aggressively back in August last year, when we announced it—

and yesterday took the first $500 million bite out of that $4.5 billion. We have never said it was all new spending; some of it is simply bringing forward projects that were already planned.

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

Mr SPEAKER: The member will be silent while a point of order is heard. Thank you.

Hon David Cunliffe: Respectful of your direction to Ministers to attempt to faithfully answer specific questions with specific replies, I seek your guidance. The question asked how much was new spending. The Minister has now admitted to the House that much of it was not new spending, but he has not answered the question or addressed it.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister, in his reply, mentioned a couple of figures that give the honourable member some guidance in response to that, and he will have another chance, by asking further supplementary questions, to seek further guidance.

Hon David Cunliffe: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member may note that I have ruled that I am not—

[Interruption] I am not going into the detail, but the Minister mentioned at least two figures that I recollect in his answer, which gives some guidance. The member will have the chance to pursue that further. [Interruption]

Hon Anne Tolley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to the comments made by the member opposite.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is quite correct. The member cannot imply that someone was not telling the truth. I ask him to withdraw and apologise for that.

Hon Chris Carter: I withdraw and apologise.

Craig Foss: Has the Minister seen or heard anything that remotely resembles an alternative plan to manage New Zealand through the recession that started under the previous Labour Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have heard a number of mentions of an urgent, visionary, bold, crosssectoral, comprehensive plan from the Opposition spokesperson on finance. He confirmed this morning that he might have something before an election, but he did not say which election.

Hon David Cunliffe: Taking just one example, what proportion of the funding announced for the famous—

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know my point of order, Mr Speaker. A question should be a question, not a statement.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly good point. The Hon David Cunliffe will please comply.

Hon David Cunliffe: What proportion of the funding announced for the now famous Kōpū Bridge yesterday is actually new money, and what proportion represents the new cost of bringing the date of that bridge forward by a few months or other cost increases?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If we count as new money projects that now have funding that were announced by Labour but were not funded by it, then pretty well everything we are doing is with new money.

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

Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be heard in silence.

Hon David Cunliffe: The Minister’s reply neither addressed the Kōpū Bridge—and could not have done, because that was funded—nor mentioned how much, which was the point of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister, in answering the question, said it was not funded. I cannot adjudicate on whether that is correct. The member will have further supplementary questions to pursue that particular issue.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I take it from that ruling that you are telling this House—and, of course, your rulings on these matters must be taken as the gospel truth—that the statement that something was not funded is not a factual statement, a point about which you can rule.

Mr SPEAKER: The point I was making, for the honourable member’s sake, is that the Hon David Cunliffe raised the issue of whether what the Minister had said was correct. That is not a valid point of order; I cannot adjudicate on that issue. If the member is not happy with the answer, he can pursue it further.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take from what you are saying that when the Government says something is not funded, it really means an appropriation has not yet been passed, which, of course, has not—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that is not a point of order, under any of our Standing Orders. He is most knowledgeable on the Standing Orders of this House, and that is not a point of order.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Maybe two nights ago I reiterated on behalf of the Māori Party the standard we took last year in respect of the pronunciation of Māori words. Unfortunately, some members were not in the House at that time, but the Speaker in the Chair at the time did ask all members to consider the pronunciation of Māori words. In light of the fact that I did talk with my colleague Mr Garrett that night about the pronunciation of Māori words, I ask that you give a general recollection of that discussion for the benefit of all members of the House today.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: First of all, it seems to me that if someone is going to raise that point of order, there must be a specific objection to a specific mispronunciation, and no such objection was raised. The second point is that we must allow for people making an honest attempt. I frequently hear English, Scottish, and Welsh place names mispronounced, not only in this House but even on television.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Following Dr Cullen’s objection, I say that I attempted to call a point of order at the time of the mispronunciation, but unfortunately others were ahead of me. That is point number one. Point number two is that the specific reference is to the Kōpū Bridge.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. Obviously, all members will do their best to pronounce both languages to the best of their ability, and none of us are perfect in that matter.

Hon Jim Anderton: Can the Minister advise the House how the removal of $700 million from the special account for the New Zealand Fast Forward research and development fund, and its placement back into the consolidated fund, will help to prepare New Zealand’s economy for future growth; and can the Minister advise what has happened to the $700 million thus returned?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We felt that an arrangement whereby the Government borrowed $700 million to put into an account, which it would then use to buy Government bonds off the Government itself, was probably a waste of time.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Is the Minister telling the House that the steps he has taken so far are likely to raise productivity from the miserable 1 percent growth that we had under the Labour Government to the 3 percent that we had during the 1990s; if not, will he tell us what extra steps he plans to take?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some of the steps we have taken are directly focused on improving productivity. There is no single silver bullet, but the following are some of the measures I can quote to the member: the legislation for reductions in income taxation—which I know he favours—that we passed before Christmas; the small business package, which significantly reduces compliance costs; the legislation on the introduction of the 90-day probationary period, which we passed before Christmas; and the very significant revision of the Resource Management Act, which will be introduced to this House in the next few weeks.

Hon Phil Goff: Why does the Minister, and indeed John Key, continue to claim that New Zealand’s stimulus package is larger on a per capita basis than that of Australia, when Brian Gaynor points out that in fact Australia’s package is 67 percent larger per capita than New Zealand’s; and does he agree with Mr Gaynor’s statement that historically Australia’s bold and strong approach has been found to be far more effective than the “cautious and conservative” approach—his words—

that the National Government is following?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I am pleased the member asked that question, because Brian Gaynor is wrong. In fact, I will send the member a copy of an analysis that has been completed in the last week or so and shows that the extent of the stimulus to the New Zealand economy over the next couple of years is about the same size as that proposed by Australia.

Hon David Cunliffe: What scope for increased infrastructure spending would the Minister have had if the previous Government had followed his advice and spent the surpluses in the good years, rather than investing them to pass on to his Government one of the lowest Crown debt levels in the Western World?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The previous Government did spend the surpluses. That is why in the 2008 Budget it had to go out and borrow $13 billion—because of cash deficits. The other problem it created is that the whole area of infrastructure became so clogged up with regulation and misguided policy that it is hard to get decisive action.

Ministers—Confidence

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, and I am surprised to see the Leader of the Opposition questioning the confidence in the Ministers in the House but when our Ministers are out of the House he tries to gatecrash their photo opportunities because it is the only way he can get in the paper.

Hon Phil Goff: Why should the Prime Minister or the country have any confidence in the Minister of Housing, who in yesterday’s so-called stimulus package, claimed to be adding 69 extra to an existing 450 State housing starts, when in fact if the Minister looks at the 2008/09 appropriations, he will see the appropriation granted was for 650 houses, a figure that shows that the Minister is actually slashing State housing starts, compared with the Budget appropriation, by 131, and how does he justify such deliberate deceit?

Mr SPEAKER: The last part of that question was very marginal.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The country showed that it had no confidence in a Government that announced that it was going to complete 650 houses when all the way through it knew that it would never get to that target. This Government is being honest about how many houses can be completed.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table the 2008/9 estimates document, which shows that the Cabinet decision—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: How many did you build?

Mr SPEAKER: Order.

Hon Phil Goff: I think it is against the Standing Orders for somebody to interject on a point of order, and that member has done it quite frequently.

Mr SPEAKER: The Honourable Leader of the Opposition is not helping. He is meant to be making his point of order. I have silenced the House. He should please make his point of order.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table the 2008/9 estimates, which show that the Cabinet’s decision for the 2008/9 year was for a net increase of 650 State housing units; that shows that the Minister is actually slashing the number of State houses being built or required.

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

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether this is a good opportunity to ask you to consider this. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to table documents that are well tabled. He should know that the appropriations and the Budget are tabled each year.

What is the point of taking up the House’s time, tabling something that has already been tabled?

Does the Leader of the Opposition not realise that?

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a very good point. The purpose of tabling documents is to make available material that is not otherwise available to members. Of course, that document was available.

Hon Phil Heatley: I seek leave to table the statement of intent, which came out several months after that Cabinet decision, from Housing New Zealand requesting that the Labour Government cut its target to 530 net State houses because it did not have the funding to acquire them. That is an official document—

Mr SPEAKER: I was very tolerant in how long I allowed the Minister to describe that document—having just responded to a point of order by his ministerial colleague the Hon Rodney Hide—and the Minister should know that that document is already a parliamentary document and is readily available. I am not prepared to put the question for leave.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could I just be clear on this? You refused to allow the member to seek leave. I thought he was seeking leave to table a document that shows that even under the Housing New Zealand Corporation more housing starts were planned under Labour than the total announced yesterday. We would be very happy for that document to be tabled.

Mr SPEAKER: The reason I am not prepared to put that seeking of leave to the House is that under the Standing Orders that kind of document is not meant to be tabled in the House, because it is already available to members. That is why I did not accept the member’s seeking of leave for that purpose.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to be pedantic, but I thought you were obligated when a member—probably especially when a Minister—seeks leave to table a document, to put that leave to the House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The previous report of the Standing Orders Committee drew this matter to the attention of members and strongly recommended that members should refrain from seeking to table things like answers to oral questions or written questions, etc., which used to happen some dozens of times a day under the previous Government from the then Opposition. I think it would be helpful if members followed that advice.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the points made by both honourable members. I will take advice on that issue, and if, in fact, I have erred today I will make it clear to the House that although members can seek leave when they should not, if they do seek leave then I should put that to the House. In fact, I will reverse my position; I will put to the House the member’s seeking of leave. Is there any objection to the document described by the Minister of Housing being tabled? There is no objection.

Thank you.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that the document that has just been tabled shows that the number of houses to be built under the Budget was higher than the number of houses the Minister claims he is increasing housing starts to, and that this, in fact, constitutes not a stimulus for job growth but a reduction in housing starts for the Housing New Zealand Corporation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member spent more time doing his homework and less time trying to get into the reflected glory of our successful Cabinet Ministers and their photo opportunities, then he would know that the previous Government actually funded only 450 new houses, despite the fact that it announced 650. That is why we had to announce yesterday a further sum of tens of millions of dollars in order to lift the number of State houses that will be completed this year. There is a difference between an announcement and doing it.

Hon Phil Goff: Why would the country have confidence in the Minister for Infrastructure when he discloses that the entire infrastructure package announced yesterday might keep 2,000 people in their jobs, when 10,000 jobs have been lost in the previous 3 months alone, and when Treasury estimates demonstrate that under existing Government policy settings New Zealand will lose 1,000 jobs a week—each and every week this year? Does that not show that this infrastructure package is hopelessly inadequate to address that problem?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister does have confidence in the Minister for Infrastructure, as can this country, because this country and the Prime Minister know there will be more announcements and more infrastructure projects coming online over the next 2 or 3 years.

They will be focused on productive investment that is designed to lift our long-term economic capacity. We do not believe that any Government programme will be able to prevent a significant rise in unemployment. That member should know that, because, under the previous Government, unemployment started rising.

Hon Phil Goff: Was that an admission by the Prime Minister that he has given up and that he accepts that those Treasury estimates are right and that we will see unemployment—already 9.6 percent for Māori workers—at around 7 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government hopes that unemployment will not reach those levels but it understands that it cannot turn back the tide of a recession. We need to do two things: protect people from the sharpest edges of recession and prepare this economy to grow again. The only thing that will help people who lose their jobs in the next few months will be enough confidence among businesses to invest in new jobs to replace the ones that are lost.

Hon Phil Goff: Why should the country have confidence in the Minister of Finance, when his action before Christmas in stripping three-quarters of a billion dollars out of the pockets of low and middle income families when they were promised those tax cuts in legislation is totally against the advice given by the chief economist of Moody’s, Mark Zandi, who said that those sorts of tax cuts are exactly the sorts of cost-effective measures needed to stimulate the economy and job growth, rather than the policies that this National Government has pursued instead?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The country showed its confidence in the National Government and its Cabinet by voting us in, in the last election, on a tax package we campaigned on. People can look forward to tax cuts on 1 April, particularly the people on low and middle incomes who will benefit most from the package.

Hon Phil Goff: Why should the country have confidence in the Prime Minister when his policy of drip feeding minor announcements in response to the economic crisis is exactly the opposite of what the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund is, in fact, recommending, and is contradicted by the United States Treasury Secretary, Tim Geithner, who said this week: “We believe that the policy response has to be comprehensive, and forceful. There is more risk and greater cost in gradualism than in aggressive action.”; clearly, we are getting gradualism, caution, and great conservatism?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are two reasons why the country can have confidence. The first is that in New Zealand, fortunately, we are not trying to deal with a collapsing financial system, which Secretary Geithner is trying to deal with—and, I must say, a bit unsuccessfully, it looks at the moment—

Hon Member: He’s got a Yale PhD.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: He has a John F Kennedy School of Government diploma. The second reason the country can have confidence is that, as I have explained to the House a number of times, New Zealand has significant fiscal stimulus in place now, comparable to Australia and the US. That is one reason why people feel they have more cash in their pockets and they are wondering when the recession is going to hit them. They have low interest rates, tax cuts, and lower petrol prices putting cash in their pockets.

Justice—Access for All

3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement in this House on Tuesday, 10 February 2009 that “This Government is committed to access to justice for all, not just for those privileged few”; and if he does stand by this statement, why?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): Yes; access to justice is important for all—none more so than the less privileged in society.

Dr Russel Norman: Did the Minister’s own Ministry of Justice provide advice that the Government’s proposed changes to the Resource Management Act would present an obstacle to people with legitimate cases but not enough money taking a case to the Environment Court; and is that “justice for all”?

Hon SIMON POWER: As I am sure the member is aware, I am not responsible for the planned amendments to the Resource Management Act. However, I am advised that the Ministry of Justice was consulted on the proposed bill, and in the course of the consultation it was satisfied that the issues around access to justice had been addressed.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was asking about a specific piece of advice from the Minister’s ministry. I am seeking to find out whether his ministry provided a specific piece of advice. I would ask the Minister to address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has further supplementary questions; I think he is asking a bit much there. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question.

Dr Russel Norman: Did the Minister’s own Ministry of Justice also advise that limiting appeal rights under the Resource Management Act would take away a fundamental right of New Zealanders, and how is taking away a fundamental legal right to appeal district plans to the Environment Court consistent with his commitment to “justice for all”?

Hon SIMON POWER: Advice was provided in respect of the bill, and I am advised that the ministry is satisfied that any issues that that member is raising have been addressed.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree with his ministry that when a cost is imposed on people’s access to justice, there is a group in our society who will no longer ever have their day in court, and that group is ordinary New Zealanders trying to fight corporate developers—whose legal costs are actually tax-deductible? Does he agree with his ministry that when costs are imposed, access to justice is restricted?

Hon SIMON POWER: I agree that costs and their relationship to access to justice have to be measured carefully, to ensure that the justice system provides open access for as many people as possible, and that is why I am confident that the resource management bill that will be tabled in this House at some stage in the next few days reflects those concerns in a proper and appropriate manner.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister aware of the key findings of the 2006 Te Puni Kōkiri report Māori and Council Engagement under the Resource Management Act 1991 that there is low-quality Māori participation in Resource Management Act processes, that most Māori groups cannot compete with professional planners and lawyers, and that basic costs stand in the way of Māori access; and how does he expect Māori to engage with the Environment Court process if, in addition, they have to lodge a bond just to get a foot in the courtroom door?

Hon SIMON POWER: No, I am not aware of that Te Puni Kōkiri report. But I can assure the member that any issue relating to security for costs, to which I believe the member is referring, is a matter for the discretion of the court, and that at the point that those orders or requirements are made, genuine cases where a plaintiff has limited means are considered.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware that before the power to award security for costs was removed from the Act, powerful applicants were using that provision to intimidate community groups, and were threatening to bankrupt them if they exercised their legal and democratic rights to object; and how does putting back security for costs improve access to justice?

Hon SIMON POWER: In answer to the second part of that question, I am advised there are adequate safeguards, such as fee waiver provisions and the discretion of the court not to require security for costs. I believe that issue addresses the member’s question.

Dr Russel Norman: Why will the Minister not simply admit that what his officials have advised him is true, which is that the changes National plans to make to the Resource Management Act will limit access to justice for those with limited money; and that if people do not have the money even to get through the door of the courtroom, they will never get access to justice in Aotearoa New Zealand under a National-led Government?

Hon SIMON POWER: I will admit no such thing. I will restate what I said earlier: I am satisfied that those issues of access to the Environment Court are met through mechanisms around discretion of security for costs, and through the new structure for filing fees, which will probably make the application of those fees and daily hearing costs cheaper than the District Court and High Court provisions as they currently stand. Those are sufficient, as is the advice that has been put into issues around the new Resource Management Act legislation to ensure that issues of access to justice have been addressed.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a page from the Te Puni Kōkiri report I referred to earlier that sets out the key findings and shows that Māori are restricted in their access to resource management processes, primarily due to financial restrictions.

Document laid on the Table of the House.

Social Services—Savings

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

Development and Employment: What savings, if any, have been made in her portfolio since she became Minister, in light of the Government’s aim to improve the value for money of the Public Service?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Social

Development and Employment: This Government has an unrelenting focus on delivering better outcomes for taxpayers. The Minister is working with chief executives to achieve greater efficiencies within her ministries, and expects that savings may be made in the process of the Budget round.

Hon Annette King: Is one of the savings under consideration the delaying or freezing of the roll-out of full funding to non-governmental organisations over the next 3 years, which was part of the Pathways to Partnership programme brought in by Labour and funded over those 3 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand that the department is in discussion with non-governmental organisations over a range of issues, particularly the problem arising for many non-governmental organisations where private sources of funding are drying up.

Hon Annette King: I will take that as a yes, and ask the Minister: how can this Government, which campaigned on public-private partnerships, be believed if the first casualty of its razor gang will be the non-governmental organisation sector—a sector that already provides services to New Zealanders in a partnership arrangement at bargain-basement cost to taxpayers, yet will be squeezed first, even though the Government can find money to give to business?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member should start her questions with a question word instead of a statement. The Government is—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member did not start the question with a question word and should be asked to ask it again.

Mr SPEAKER: In this place the member well knows that things go tit for tat. The Minister did not exactly answer the question the member asked, and therefore she assumed an answer. The Minister then, in answering a further supplementary question, invited interjection because of the way he started to answer the question. I think it is about all square, and I invite the Minister to answer the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has sent a clear signal that taxpayers’ money should be spent effectively and that spending will be restrained over coming years. We are working, in constructive partnership, with a whole range of groups that will be affected by the change in the external environment, and they are all being much more constructive than the Opposition.

Todd McClay: What programmes has the Minister seen that demonstrate the previous Government’s approach to delivering value for money?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can inform the member that the Minister recently visited a programme set up under the last Government where children were taken out of school for 6 hours a week to pat dogs in the animal shelter, providing animal therapy—whether to the children or the dogs, I am not sure. The parents and the children involved were as mystified about the outcomes of that Government-funded programme as the Minister was. I can assure hard-working New Zealanders that under a National Government such spending will not continue.

Hon Annette King: Is one of the savings a directive to the staff of Work and Income not to use the 7.5 kilometre Northern Gateway Toll Road unless there is an emergency, thereby spending $6 in additional travel costs to save the $2 tolls—not forgetting the extra travel time? Applying that approach to the Minister’s value-for-money exercise, would it result in even greater expenditure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the member that the Ministers have given no such direction.

They are focused on the substantial job of cleaning up the mess left by the Labour Government, and ensuring that the $1 billion now spent on running the Ministry of Social Development and the grant programmes will be spent effectively over the next 3 to 5 years.

Schools—Building Projects

5. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received about the response to the Government’s plan to fast track school building projects?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): I have received many glowing reports. Sector organisations have praised the plan. The School Trustees Association has welcomed the fast tracking of property. The New Zealand Principals Federation has stated: “the education sector is grateful to have received the lion’s share of the recovery package”, and it believes that the package is a “great start” for the education sector.

Colin King: Has the Minister seen any comment from school principals on the announcement yesterday?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I have. I have seen a comment from Denise Torrey, the principal of Somerfield School, who said that the package “certainly gives us a leg up that we didn’t have before, which is pretty exciting,”. Sandra Aitken, the principal of Point Chevalier School, has called the funding “a welcome contribution” and said that the money “means we can get things done and out of the way quicker, so kids can just get on with learning”.

Hon Chris Carter: Does the Minister agree with her colleague, the Minister of Finance and Minister for Infrastructure, who said on Morning Report today: “If we could have announced more yesterday that was ready, we would have,”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The previous Government left a property division of the Ministry of Education that needed a huge effort to find projects that were ready to go. This is a disaster. This Government has had to reorganise a division that was in a disastrous state. The member should be ashamed of the state in which he left that division.

Aaron Gilmore: Can the Minister explain how the school building projects have been fast tracked?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a number of ways in which these projects have been brought forward. In relation to the five new schools announced yesterday in Northland, Auckland, and the Bay of Plenty, they have all had their opening dates brought forward by between 1 and 2 years so that construction can occur as soon as possible. In relation to the money for refurbishments and replacement buildings, I am advised by the ministry that construction on these projects will be able to begin a minimum of 6 months earlier than they would normally have started, because we are bringing these funding rounds forward. That is really important for our schools, which are desperately in need of this money, and it is really important to keep people in work in construction and related industries.

Hon Chris Carter: Given the Minister’s answer to a previous question—

Hon Simon Power: No, start with a question. That’s not a question.

Hon Chris Carter: Mr Speaker, can I continue?

Mr SPEAKER: It would be helpful if the honourable member were to actually ask a question.

Hon Chris Carter: Can the Minister explain why no funding was announced to bring forward building projects at Taupo-nui-a-Tia College, Epsom Girls Grammar School, Glen Eden Intermediate School, Green Bay Primary School, and Papatoetoe High School, which all have projects ready to go and which were all listed in Labour’s mini-Budget plan for the post-2008 election period?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am happy to provide that information to the member. If he puts it down in writing to me I will find out exactly where those projects are at.

Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill—Fiscal Cost of Initiatives

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What is the fiscal cost of those initiatives in the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill, which were not part of the Taxation (International Taxation, Life Insurance, and Remedial Matters) Bill introduced by the last Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The fiscal cost of the new initiatives in the Taxation (Business Tax Measures) Bill that the member refers to over the remaining 2008-09 year and the 2009-10 year is $355 million, and the fiscal cost over the next 4¼ years is $69 million.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Minister aware that under the Labour Government policy, use-ofmoney interest rates would have reduced to a reciprocal 4.66 percent by now, under half what he is planning to charge; and why does he continue to punish small businesses in the current economic conditions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is another one of the fairy tales that Labour was telling during the campaign. That was an announcement made during the campaign, but for which there was no funding. If we added up all the promises that the Labour Government made against the Budget allocation that it said it would stick to, they would have blown the lid off it.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What is the fiscal cost of the tax initiatives announced as part of the small-business relief package?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fiscal cost of the whole package is $484 million over the next 4¼ years. The main measures in it are a reduction of use-of-money interest, which has a cost of about $70 million, and removing the uplift on provisional tax payments that are due in May this year, which means that about $0.25 billion will stay in the bank accounts of small and medium enterprises. Of course, over the next 2 or 3 years that will be recovered by the Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: What, according to the current formula, would the use-of-money interest rate be as of April this year if the Minister had not announced his plan to move the rate to 9.73 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot tell the member that off the top of my head, but I can say his naive belief that because Labour said it would do something there was actually any money or any plans to do it, is nonsense, and that applies to about a hundred things it announced in the last 12 months.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How does the small-business relief package benefit the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am pleased the member asked that question. It will benefit the economy in two ways. First, it will provide some short-term stimulus to businesses by, for instance, leaving $0.25 billion of provisional tax cash in their bank accounts. Second, it also achieves longerterm gains, as the Government is succeeding in doing with regard to many of its decisions, in that it reduces compliance costs and will help to build business confidence, so that as this economy comes out of recession businesses will invest and employ. That is how we will replace the jobs that are lost over the next few months.

Housing—Critical Issues

7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Housing: What critical issues in the housing portfolio has he had to recently address?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): I have had to address the issues surrounding the $2 billion deficit in State house maintenance that occurred during the previous Labour Government’s slum landlords tenure, where it diverted deep depreciation money away from upgrades, leaving the State housing stock in a sorry state. Yesterday’s announcement of an additional $104 million in the next 18 months will go a long way to making sure that families, our current tenants—many of whom have kids—will live in decent, healthy conditions. Phil Goff and his team should be ashamed of themselves.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the extreme length of that answer. Yesterday we had one answer that was about 2 minutes long. That was a very long answer. The Standing Orders are quite clear that answers should be concise. The Hon Phil Heatley’s answer was not a concise answer.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I just point out to you that the first two questions today took nearly half an hour. The main reason for that was the length of questions being put forward by the Hon Phil Goff. If we are going to infrequently have long questions, that would be OK if it were just infrequently, but if we are going to have a restriction on answers, then, Mr Speaker, please apply it to questions as well.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: If the member had objections to the length of questions asked in question Nos 1 and 2, he should have raised that at the time. The fact that the question may have been overly long at question No. 1 is not a reason for an answer to be overly long at question No. 7.

Mr SPEAKER: Both members have raised a relevant point of order. I am troubled by the length of time some answers are taking. Some Ministers are very good at very succinct answers, but likewise some questioners are taking far too long trying to put far too many points into supplementary questions. I have let it go, but if members want me to curtail both questions and answers a little, I am prepared to do that. So I stress to members that if it goes on too much longer, I will stand and cut a Minister off if the answer to a question goes on too long—and likewise for a questioner.

Katrina Shanks: What other issues has the Minister of Housing had to address in his portfolio?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have had to address yet another unmet Labour Government commitment. As Phil Goff said, Labour had committed to 650 net State houses this year.

Unfortunately, the statement of intent that came out early last year from Housing New Zealand Corporation said it will have to reduce this to 530 houses because it does not have the funding. My understanding is that the corporation will have to reduce it again to 475 houses because Labour never funded it for that.

Hon George Hawkins: Why has the money appropriated in the Budget for 650 new State houses, and reflected in the Housing New Zealand statement of intent, been cut by his announcement yesterday, and how honest is it to package a cut as an increase?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Housing New Zealand Corporation was never funded for 650 new houses; that is why it put out a statement of intent saying that it will have to drop it to 530 houses, and why it has informed me that it has funding for only 475 houses. George Hawkins and his team never funded 650 houses, or 530 houses, and barely 475 houses.

Tim Macindoe: In light of yesterday’s announcements, what is the new National Government—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member did not start with a question. We are going to be very picky about these things; we have to be picky all the way.

Mr SPEAKER: The member might note that it is helpful to start a question with a question word.

Tim Macindoe: What is the new National Government delivering in this financial year, in light of yesterday’s announcements?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Let me be crystal clear. There will be a net increase of roughly 540 houses this financial year: 154 under Labour and 390 under National, which will include the 69 that we announced yesterday. Labour funded 154 and we are funding 390. How is it that we are doing better for State house tenants than they were?

Hon George Hawkins: Does he agree with the statement made by John Key describing State housing as “economic vandalism”; and how can New Zealanders take National’s commitment to State housing seriously when “National’s MPs inherently don’t have a desire to expand the level of State housing in New Zealand. It’s not an issue that is dear our core constituency.”, as Tony Ryall said?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Labour Government allowing State houses to fall into disrepair was economic vandalism.

Police, New Zealand—Confidence

8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Does she have confidence in the police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes, and I am surprised that, by implication, the member does not.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister agree with me that victims, their families, and the community are not interested in her trivialising the issue of escapes by providing clever and technical answers to parliamentary questions about whether the escapes happened under the watch of the Department of Corrections or the New Zealand Police, when she is the Minister responsible for both portfolios?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure members of the public would like the member to get his facts right before he comes down to this House to make such statements.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What specific action has the Minister taken to reassure victims, their families, and the community that she will stem the tide of escapes, apart from touring the country and asking everyone else for his or her ideas on how she should do her job?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have asked the police for a report on how these escapes happened, and I have received that report. What I have found out is that despite the 9 years of a Labour Government, it never took any steps to rectify the law that currently prevents the police from routinely holding prisoners in restraints. Not only that; the Labour Government’s occupational safety and health laws required the police to have an escape hatch in every police van.

Sandra Goudie: What recent reports has the Minister received on policing in Counties- Manukau?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have received a report from the police that shows that violent crime in Counties-Manukau increased by 69 percent in the 4 years from 2003-04 to 2007-08. Recorded violent offences per 10,000 of population are up from 124.1 in 2003 to 191.9 in 2007. The police advise that the district faces constant pressure from rising crime and urgent calls for service.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a tediously long answer to a very simple question that required a very simple answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made a perfectly fair point. The Minister was going on for far too long in answering the question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can the Minister confirm two facts: firstly, that under the previous Government escapes were reduced by 84 percent in 9 years, and, secondly, that thus far under her watch, in the last 3 months, the rate of escapes from police custody is one of the highest in the last 3 years?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Judith Collins may answer one of those questions.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Sandra Goudie: Did the police refer to significant additional resources; if so, what significant additional resources were they referring to?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: This Government intends to assist the police to fight crime and protect the public. There will be 300 new sworn police in front-line roles ine Counties-Manukau by the end of 2010. The law-abiding citizens of South Auckland deserve better than they ever got from the previous Labour Government.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. At what point will the Minister call a meeting with community leaders, including those in the gangs, to look at finding enduring solutions to situations such as those that occurred in Murupara 2 weeks ago and Pomare this week?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have no intention of calling meetings with gangs.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Will the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member should have the chance to ask his question. Show some courtesy, please.

Hone Harawira: Will the Minister insist that in future, given the shambolic debacle of the recent police terrorism raids into Tuhoe, the police Māori strategic adviser, Superintendent Wally Haumaha, be fully consulted on every major incident involving Māori groups or communities; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I will not politicise the police by telling them how to do their job, but I will say—[Interruption] Just calm down. I will say to the member that, as he will be aware, matters relating to the Tuhoe raids—which were made under the Labour Government—are being addressed.

Gangs—Government Clamp-down

9. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received regarding the Government’s plans to clamp down on criminal gang activity?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I have received a report from New Zealand Police endorsing the Government’s plan to clamp down on criminal gang activity. The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill will make it easier for the police to conduct surveillance of gang communications, and will enhance police investigations by enabling interception warrants to be obtained for a wider group of offences committed by gangs. The police will be very pleased to have this tool once it passes through this Parliament.

Chester Borrows: How will the bill help the police to deal with fortified gang premises?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Gangs and Organised Crime Bill will mean that more of these gang fortifications can and will be removed. The police have welcomed the Government’s intention to increase the number of successful raids on these fortifications, and the police aim to maximise the effectiveness of this change. The police are also undertaking further work to identify other initiatives to tackle gang fortifications and gang activities.

Chester Borrows: Why is the Government clamping down on gangs, and how does the Government’s approach to gangs differ from the previous Government’s approach?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Labour Government’s record on gangs was one of dithering and hand-wringing. It failed to produce any laws that would reduce gang powers—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who was the National Prime Minister who wore a Black Power jacket?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: —and in that particular case that member will have read about the appalling incident reported in today’s Dominion Post about a Lower Hutt mother who was forced to flee from her home and community with her children, after being terrorised by Mongrel Mob gang members. Under that Government, that was tolerated; under this Government, it is not.

David Garrett: Will the Minister consider introducing laws, such as those enacted in South Australia, that make gangs illegal organisations; if so, when can we expect to see such measures before this House?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand that that South Australian law has been in force for only a couple of months. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition went over with the transport spokesperson, but not the law and order spokesperson, to look at that law after it had been working for a couple of months. The Minister of Justice is intending to go. We will look at how that law actually operates, and at just how successful it really is. If it is successful, we will certainly be looking at doing that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How will the situation in the Hutt be helped by the decision under this Government to take police out of the upper part of the Hutt Valley—where Pōmare is—as already announced, and take them to Auckland?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That member is quite wrong, and if he did any basic work as a local MP he would know that. That member should remember that this Government will give 600 extra police to the whole of New Zealand, including 300 in Counties-Manukau. If that member did the most basic work as a constituency MP, he would have been along to see the local police and would have been told that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can that be consistent with the decision that was announced last week to strip senior staff out of the Hutt Valley?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: If that member did the most basic work as a constituency MP, he would have realised that the local commander has in fact asked to consult on how the police can best police that area. That would involve the member in taking some initiative and going to speak to the police, and giving the local commander the benefit of constituents’ views. But I understand that member does not really care very much about the Hutt Valley any more.

Minimum Wage Review—Submission

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Labour: Did she explain in person to the Minister of Māori Affairs her reason for rejecting his submission on the minimum wage review; if so, what was his response?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): No.

Michael Woodhouse: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the minimum wage?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes. I have seen a report from the Otago Daily Times, which, unlike the member, could understand that this Government’s decision on the minimum wage was “able to appeal—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister understand that she is making disparaging remarks about one of her own colleagues?

Mr SPEAKER: That is most inappropriate. That was not a helpful point of order, Dr Cullen. I apologise to the Hon Kate Wilkinson. Could she please resume her answer.

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes. I have seen a report from the Otago Daily Times, which, unlike Mr Mallard, could understand that this Government’s decision on the minimum wage was “able to appeal to the sense of fairness and realism of much of the middle New Zealand."

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can I ask the Minister why she chose not to meet with Dr Sharples, or even to ring him up about this?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: As I answered yesterday, I received a letter from the Minister of Māori Affairs. I also read a submission from Te Puni Kōkiri. We took those submissions into consideration when calculating a fair, balanced, and realistic minimum wage.

Electricity—National Grid Investment

11. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: What reports has he seen about investment in the national electricity grid?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I have today seen a report from Transpower stating that it will accelerate a $50 million upgrade programme to maintain and strengthen structures on the national electricity grid. The programme will bring forward required maintenance that had been planned to occur over the next 10 years. It will focus on tower maintenance, civil work, and substation maintenance. I am advised further that an additional $50 million of investment in conductor upgrades will be announced shortly.

Chris Auchinvole: Where will this important infrastructure work take place?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The work will be mainly in rural areas and will take place all around New Zealand. The work will employ relatively high levels of local labour and use locally sourced materials, so it will provide much-needed economic stimulus in those parts of New Zealand.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen the description of the programme by the Transpower chief executive, Patrick Strange, as “essential maintenance work” brought forward—that is, neither major nor new? And is not the Minister’s attempt to trumpet it as “upgrading the national grid” typical of the overselling by this Government of its so-called stimulus package?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No
Chris Auchinvole: Does Transpower have any other work planned for the electricity grid?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, it does. I am advised that Transpower has over $3.8 billion worth of projects planned to reinforce the national grid. These projects either have commenced construction or are in the planning stages. The Government is currently looking at ways to fast track some of those projects by removing some of the regulatory roadblocks to that investment. There will be further announcements soon.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table two statements. One is from the chief executive of Transpower describing the programme as “essential maintenance work” and one is from the Minister describing it as “upgrading the national grid”.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member seriously wants to have them tabled, could we deal with the first one first. That was the statement from—

Charles Chauvel: Transpower.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that statement being tabled? There is no objection. And the second one was?

Charles Chauvel: From the Minister describing this programme as an upgrade of the national grid.

Mr SPEAKER: I guess I am obliged to seek leave. Is there any objection? There seems to be no objection.

Broadband Plan—Commencement Date

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

Information Technology: What is the Government’s target date for the commencement of its $1.5 billion broadband plan, given reported anxiety in the industry?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): At the time the policy was originally announced we advised that the new Government would spend the first year consulting the public and industry, and getting the investment structure right. By year 6 we will have rolled out ultra-fast broadband to businesses, schools, health facilities, and the first tranche of homes. By year 10 we expect that 75 percent of the population will have access to ultrafast broadband.

Clare Curran: Is the Minister planning to use electricity lines companies as a vehicle to roll out its broadband plan, as suggested in today’s New Zealand Herald? Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is working through a range of options and will have more to say on that very shortly.

Melissa Lee: Who has expressed the most anxiety over the Government’s ambitious plans to invest $1.5 billion in ultra-fast broadband for New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It would appear that the person who is most anxious, according to the New Zealand Herald this morning, is the former Minister for Communications and Information Technology, the Hon David Cunliffe. I am just trying to divine whether he is genuinely anxious, is anxious for party political reasons, is a naturally anxious person, or is going through a personally anxious period as he tries to work out when to make his bid for the leadership of the Labour Party.

Clare Curran: Why, in the current economic climate, is the Minister seeking to reinvent the wheel on the roll-out of broadband and creating anxiety and loss of confidence in the telecommunications sector, when he would be better to use the existing industry-supported mechanisms developed by the previous Labour Government?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The previous plan by the previous Labour Government was for a $325 million grant scheme. Our plan is for a $1.5 billion investment in ultra-fast broadband. I note that the biff was so urgent for the previous Government that it took it 8 years of its 9 years in Government to get around to announcing it.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table an article in the Sunday Star-Times, titled “Nervous telcos play second-guess game”, which claims that the National Government does not have a clue how it will implement its broadband plan.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has described the document perfectly adequately and—here we go again—is seeking leave to table something in the newspaper, which the Standing Orders Committee made very clear is something we do not wish to see happening. I am obliged to seek leave but I think members will reject it. Leave is sought. Is there objection? There is.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague was seeking leave, there was a barrage of interjections, and you validated those interjections by indicating what was already being indicated by the members opposite. I suggest that that is not appropriate.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will take his seat. I accept that there were faults all round. The member, in seeking leave, went on far too long. It was my fault that I let the member go on too long in describing the press statement. That led to disorderly behaviour by some members. I accept that it was actually my fault that that happened. I will now put the request for leave again, just to make sure there is no misunderstanding. Leave has been sought to table a press statement. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table an article in today’s New Zealand Herald that speculates that the Minister is planning to use electricity lines companies but also—

Mr SPEAKER: We now have a clear understanding of what that press statement is. Is there any objection to that being tabled? There is objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During that seeking of leave, Nick Smith interjected. You did not call him on that. I think all of us over here could hear him, and we just want to know whether the rules will apply both ways.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The issue that concerned me was that you, Mr Speaker, had just given a ruling and guidance to members that they should not seek leave to table newspaper articles. It was somewhat a deriding of you as Speaker for the member to immediately get to her feet and seek leave to table another newspaper article. It was almost like she was snubbing the Speaker, and that caused me concern.

Mr SPEAKER: [Interruption] When the Speaker is on his feet the member the Hon Darren Hughes will be silent. We had a new member seeking to table press statements—and I do not blame her because plenty of members have done that. The Standing Orders Committee reviewed this issue and has given clear advice to the House that that should not become our practice. I am not able to decline leave as I tried to do when leave was sought by the Minister the Hon Phil Heatley. I was wrong and I should have let him seek leave for that, as I was obliged to put to the House the member’s seeking leave to table a press statement. The Standing Orders Committee has made it very clear that this is not good practice for this House, and I urge all members to refrain from seeking to table a press statement unless it is in some exceptional circumstance. I think we should let the matter rest there.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you going to rule on the original point of order that I made, which was that Nick Smith interjected during a point of order? You have not yet.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. I am ruling on it. As I heard it Nick Smith just gasped at what was going on. That is the end of the matter.

ENDS

© Scoop Media