THURSDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Job Summit—Agenda

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: What is the agenda for the Job Summit next week?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The agenda is publicly available on the Beehive website, and I suggest that the member looks at it. She will see a list of working groups and chairs. I can advise the member that much work on that agenda is going on outside the Beehive as we speak.

Hon Annette King: Why has the Prime Minister sanitised the agenda by excluding the research and development tax credit proposal when businesses, unions, and Treasury are universally supportive of this important measure to grow the economy and jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be interested to know that the agenda has been largely set by the chairman of the summit and the chairs of the different groups, unlike when the member was in Government and nothing could happen without agreement from the ninth floor.

Nathan Guy: Why is the Prime Minister holding a job summit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Judging by the strong interest in the Job Summit and the intensive work being put in by participants, those people share the Prime Minister’s judgment that we need an opportunity for people at the coalface of employment, who do not usually have direct interaction with Government, to share their views on how to deal with rising unemployment and to provide advice to the Government.

Hon Annette King: Who else interested in attending the Job Summit was declined admission by the Prime Minister, apart from some political parties; and why does he think that elected representatives of the people are not appropriate participants for his summit unless they come from the ACT Party, United Future, or the Māori Party?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A large number of people have been excluded from the Job Summit because there has been enormous interest in attending it. Attendance has been limited to a couple of hundred places. In my experience, elected representatives have ample opportunity to put forward their views, but people who are busy running businesses that are now struggling because of the economic downturn are not often asked what they think. The summit is an opportunity for them.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: When the Prime Minister said to the House last week that his Government does not distinguish between green-collar jobs and other jobs, because all jobs are important, did he mean that he does not care whether the parts of the economy that grow are sustainable, whether Kiwis build weapons or wind turbines, and whether Kiwis teach children or manufacture plastic Mickey Mouses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course the Prime Minister cares about whether New Zealanders are using their time productively and in the public good, but I think the Prime Minister would say that now is not a time for high-level philosophical debates; it is a time for direct action that will preserve any job and help create any other job that may be available to a person who has become unemployed.

Hon Annette King: Why has the Prime Minister decided to limit the involvement of some political parties in the search for measures that would create jobs to the parliamentary process only, as he stated in a letter to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: You had 9 years.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is one reason: the Labour Government had 9 years. This country has had the benefit of many, many thousands of attempts by the former Labour Government. This summit is the opportunity for people who are at the coalface to be heard. The Opposition can be heard every single day Parliament is open, and every other day in the media.

Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Can the Prime Minister give us assurance that there will be adequate representation of Pacific peoples at the Job Summit next week, and that all Pacific members of Parliament have been invited to attend?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister can give the member assurances about representations of Pasifika people. In fact, this morning I attended a fono here in Wellington that was intended, in the same way as the Māori hui held a couple of weeks ago, to elicit ideas that representatives of that community can present to the summit.

Catherine Delahunty: What percentage of non-government groups invited to the Job Summit are women’s organisations, given that women make up 46.7 percent of the workforce?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot tell the member the answer to that question, but I would say that the summit is not intended to be representative of everybody. The focus of the summit is on people who are at the coalface, in workplaces that are struggling because of the economic downturn, having their views heard, because they are a group that has little direct interaction with Government.

Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Can the Prime Minister assure the Pacific community that the Job Summit next week will be more than a talkfest and will provide real solutions with real outcomes that will keep Pacific workers employed during this economic recession; if so, how?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The proof of the capacity of the Job Summit’s ability to deliver real action to make a real difference has yet to be seen. We have not held the summit yet. But the Prime Minister can reassure the Pacific community that the Government will do as much as it possibly can to preserve the jobs that are there, and to help businesses to create the opportunities to replace any jobs that are lost. I do not believe the summit will find one simple answer, but I hope it will come up with a range of practical propositions.

2. “Three Strikes” Legislation—Effects

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

2. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Does he accept that had ACT’s “three strikes” legislation been in force before their deaths, 78 lives would have been saved because their killers would have been behind bars and unable to kill; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I accept that the legislation would have prevented lives from being lost outside prison, because potential killers would have been incapacitated. As to the exact number of lives that would have been lost, I think it is difficult to predict with any certainty how past behaviour would have been influenced by a law that is yet to be implemented.

David Garrett: Does he agree that saving lives and keeping New Zealanders safe is the first duty of Government; if so, given that there is strong evidence around the world to show that the “three strikes” legislation reduces homicides by up to a third, will his Government be supporting the passage of “three strikes” into law?

Hon SIMON POWER: In answer to the first part of that question, yes. In answer to the second part of the question, the member will know that throughout the development of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill I have taken seriously the agreement between the National Party and the ACT Party. That involves, of course, National giving the bill a fair hearing at the select committee, based on the evidence and submissions received. In keeping with that agreement, I am not prejudging the outcome.

3. Economic Programme—Public Confidence

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

3. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen any reports about public confidence in the Government’s economic programme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes, I have. Public confidence in the Government’s economic programme is partly reflected by confidence in the Government itself. A TV3 poll released last night showed that support for the Government has somewhat surprisingly increased to 60 percent, compared with 27 percent support for the Labour Party.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Better than the 22 percent that you got!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I remind the member that I know what that is like, and he will not like it.

Chris Tremain: What factors does the Minister consider have contributed to this public support for the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The polls, of course, are only a partial and passing measure of support. The more important support has been from those many businesses, organisations, and individuals whom we speak to every day, who are very pleased to see the Government moving decisively and taking meaningful action to assist people to deal with the economic downturn.

4. Corrections, Chief Executive—Performance Reviews

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

4. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Has she participated at the invitation of the State Services Commissioner in any performance reviews of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : Yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Did she seek any advice from the State Services Commissioner on the performance of Mr Matthews; if so, what information did she receive and when did she receive it?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It would be most inappropriate of me to discuss in the House an issue between the chief executive and the State Services Commissioner.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can she confirm that Mr Matthews received a positive performance appraisal from the State Services Commissioner and that at the time of the appraisal—just last week—the State Services Commissioner was aware of the content of the Auditor-General’s draft report?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Shane Ardern: Why did she ask the State Services Commissioner to establish who is accountable for the findings of the Auditor-General regarding the management of offenders on parole?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I did it because the Auditor-General found widespread non-compliance with sentence management requirements for parole, which meant that public safety may have been compromised.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can she confirm that Mr Matthews was, this morning, summoned to a meeting with the State Services Commissioner where a proposal was put to him that he resign; and, if he did so, he would be offered a highly paid sweetheart job within the Public Service for the next 6 months?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, and the member should know that the relationship is between the State Services Commission and the chief executive.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has she taken any advice regarding the law as it applies to constructive dismissal and how much her comments about Mr Matthews to date may end up costing the taxpayer; or, if she has not, is she just trying to grab a couple of headlines, for which the taxpayer will end up picking up the tab?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has she been advised that the Minister of Finance, Mr English, has received legal advice that indicates that she has compromised the Crown’s legal position in respect of Mr Matthews’ employer, which may result in the taxpayer having to pay out—for her mistakes—to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The questioner does not have the right to mislead the House. I have received no such advice, nor have I sought it.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, unless the member wants to make a ministerial statement.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member made a statement—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Senior members know full well that they cannot use a point of order to dispute a statement made by another member. They can, however, seek leave to make a personal explanation, or a Minister has a right to make a ministerial statement. At the end of a debate a member could take a call and correct a statement. At question time there is no provision in the Standing Orders for that. The member could, however, seek leave to make a personal statement, should he so wish.

Hon Bill English: I seek leave.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal statement. Is there any objection?

Hon Members: About what?

Hon Bill English: On the matter raised by the questioner.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to make a personal statement in relation to the allegation made by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove. Is there any objection to the—[Interruption] Obviously any member is at liberty to deny leave but I do mention to members that it is most unusual to deny members the right to make a personal explanation. I remind members of that.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I point out to you, Mr Speaker, that the matters raised are matters about actions in relation to Mr English’s ministerial capacity. He can make a ministerial statement at any time; he does not require leave to do that.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly valid point of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has she received or sought any advice from the Minister of State Services regarding Mr Matthews’ performance; if so, what advice did she receive and when?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member will be aware that the relationship is between the State Services Commissioner and the chief executive. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a direct question as to whether she had received advice from the Minister of State Services, and, if so, when and what that advice was. The answer bore no relation to that. She rabbited on about an employee-employer relationship. I asked whether she sought specific advice from her colleague.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is in a fairly delicate area. I draw his attention to Speaker’s ruling 161/1, which states that members are not permitted to ask a Minister to respond to assertions that may have no validity to them—to outlandish assertions. I accept that that question was not in that category. However, the previous question clearly was, and perhaps I should have pulled the member up at that point. I think it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to respond to some questions on this issue when there are very important issues of privacy. The member needs to be careful in the way he is questioning the Minister on this issue.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The statute provides that when a performance review is undertaken by the State Services Commission, that review is made available to the Minister. We have already heard that there has been a performance review. The member is therefore clearly entitled to ask whether that review has been received by the Minister. Obviously he can ask whether she is prepared to tell us the nature of that review.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Just to clarify matters, I can tell the House that I have not received a performance review.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not helpful because it is not a point of order. The Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s point was a good point of order and he is correct. I invite the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to repeat his question, bearing in mind the sound advice given to the House by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to challenge your ruling, but I believe we have some difficulty because the Minister may have misled the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot allege that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am asking for your advice, Mr Speaker—could I finish. The member said in answer to a previous question that she had participated in a performance review. Now, in response to a point of order and in response to you, Mr Speaker, she says she has not received it. I see a gross contradiction there.

Mr SPEAKER: This is not a matter of order. Because the member is concerned that his question was not answered, I invite him to repeat the question that he put to the Minister so that we can all hear and make sure that the question is within the Standing Orders.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Has the Minister received or sought advice from the Minister of State Services regarding Mr Matthews’ performance; if so, what advice did she receive and when?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have heard reports that Phil Goff has said that I have the power to sack the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections. I have not.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to waste your time but I ask about this matter again. I asked the Minister a specific question: first, had she received any advice from her colleague. It was nothing to do with Phil Goff or anybody else. I asked her whether she had received advice from a ministerial colleague; and, secondly, if she had, what advice she had received and when. That answer bears no relationship given your specific rulings on this question.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. I invite the Minister to answer the question.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is inappropriate for me to comment further in relation to the employment of Mr Matthews, and his employer.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will be in debt to your knowledge, but I do not see anywhere in the Standing Orders where that question was addressed. She was asked a simple question that Ministers are asked every day: has the Minister received advice from a ministerial colleague? It is a yes or no answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. The member cannot demand a yes or no answer, and he should know that, as a senior member. I gave the member the chance to restate his question, and at the request of the member I asked the Minister to answer it. The Minister gave a perfectly valid answer, in that in the public interest she cannot give exactly the answer that the member wanted. That is a perfectly valid answer from the Minister. Every Minister is at liberty to judge that to give the specific answer the member might be looking for is not in the public interest. In respect of some of these issues, that is well the case.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can accept part of your ruling, but are you saying that a Minister can now refuse to answer the simple question as to whether he or she received advice?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That has always been the case in accordance with the ruling you have just repeated for the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard quite sufficient on this matter. The honourable member is quite right. It is the Minister’s judgment whether it is in the public interest that a question be answered, and the judgment as to that matter lies with the Minister. The Minister has made that judgment and I accept that absolutely. If the member wishes to ask another supplementary question he is at liberty to do so.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not disagreeing at all with your conclusion, but can I just clarify that you are saying that a Minister may decline in the public interest to answer a question of the House, but may comment on exactly the same matter to the media?

Mr SPEAKER: What a Minister may say to the media is not my responsibility as Speaker. My responsibility is holding Ministers to account in this House. I believe that I am trying to do that, but it is very clear that the Standing Orders say that an answer must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest. The judgment of that lies with the Minister. The members of the House can also decide whether the Minister has exercised that judgment wisely—it is not for the Speaker to make that decision.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I, slightly unusually, support you on that because I can understand the circumstances of this. It is a proper thing for the Minister to do where there is a very large payout at risk—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member knows that that was actually abusing the point of order process to make a political point, and that is not acceptable. A member as experienced as he is should know better.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can the Minister advise the House whether she has received any legal advice from the private sector or Crown Law regarding the comments she has made publicly in respect of Mr Matthews’ performance in terms of whether those comments may have well put taxpayers' money at risk, and prejudiced the Crown’s position; if so what was that advice, and when did she receive it?

Mr SPEAKER: I repeat the Speaker’s ruling that I quoted a moment ago that members should not be permitted to ask a Minister to respond at an outlandish assertion—the assertion that something a Minister has said could cost taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars is a fairly significant assertion. I invite the Minister to answer the question if she feels able.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

5. Truancy—2008 Survey

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

5. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on whether an attendance, absence, and truancy in New Zealand schools survey was held in 2008?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : I received a report that states there was no truancy survey undertaken last year. This means that the Government has no data of any sort on national and regional attendance and truancy rates since 2006. To ensure that this Government has solid and up-to-date information on national and regional breakdowns on truancy, I have ordered that a survey be carried out this year.

Nikki Kaye: What reports has she received about whether the previous Government knew about the cancellation of the survey last year?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a reply from the previous Minister of Education to a written question last year, where he stated: “the next Attendance Survey will be in 2008.” I have also seen a comment from the same former Minister in January this year, where he said that he was not responsible for ditching the survey and that at no point was he asked about it. That raises a very serious question for Mr Chris Carter: if he signed out this answer to a written question that states that the survey will be held in 2008, and the survey was not held then, why did he never ask why not?

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary for Education told the Education and Science Committee yesterday that, when one takes into account children who have enrolled in other schools and those who have emigrated, the truancy figure is 10 percent of the figure that the Minister has been using; if so, why does she persist with using this inaccurate figure?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This new Government knows that it is impossible to get students to achieve the qualifications they need to succeed, if they are not attending and engaged at school. I think that the member’s question completely highlights the negligence of the previous Minister of Education. The ministry is admitting that it does not have a clear idea of what exactly the truancy headcount is on a national or a regional basis. That is why this Government has ordered the survey to be done this year, as soon as possible.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will know what the point of order is. The question had two legs: was she aware of what the Secretary for Education said, and why does she use an incorrect figure. Neither of those legs was addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member the chance to repeat his question, because it was a clear question, relating very much to the primary question. I will let him repeat his question to the Minister, but I would ask him to ask only one question. Choose one of those questions and put it to the Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, I am happy for her to choose, if I repeat the question. She can choose either of them.

Mr SPEAKER: OK.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister aware that the Secretary for Education told the Education and Science Committee yesterday that, when one takes into account children who have enrolled in other schools and those who have emigrated, the truancy figure is less than 10 percent of the figure that the Minister uses; if so, why does she persist with using an incorrect figure?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a comment from officials that the 2006 survey was “the only information we have nationally on attendance. We have nothing else.” That is disturbing, and it is an indictment on the previous Government that it thought it was acceptable to have no up-to-date information on the truancy picture.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a bit of a déjà vu of the previous point of order. The question had two legs. One asked whether she was aware of what the Secretary for Education did. The second leg asked why she uses an incorrect figure. She did not address either of them.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot force a Minister to give exactly the answer the member wants. What the Minister did in that reply was to refer to information from the ministry in respect of truancy. She asserted that that information was the latest information that the ministry had. I cannot judge whether the ministry has put different information to a select committee. I have to take the Minister’s answer at its face value. I believe that she did answer that first part of the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is funding for this survey, which overstated truancy by 1,000 percent, a higher priority for her than funding to train teachers to work with gifted and talented students?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have no responsibility for the funding for the 2006 survey. I was not the Minister at the time.

6. Unemployment—Treasury Forecast

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What is Treasury’s most recent forecast for unemployment and when did he receive this forecast?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Treasury’s latest full set of economic forecasts was presented in the Economic and Fiscal Forecasts December 2008. The central forecast showed a peak in the unemployment rate of 6.5 percent midway through 2010.

Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen criticisms from both business and union leaders saying that the Minister should have been seeking more frequent forecasts on unemployment; and how can he make the best decisions without this crucial information in these extraordinary times?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury does its forecasts; it is beginning another forecast cycle. I expect I will find on my desk some preliminary estimates from that forecast cycle. It is important to understand that there is a difference—and the member, perhaps, does not know this—between forecasts and updates. Forecasts are when Treasury goes through its cycle to make its own judgments about where unemployment will get to. Probably every day, and certainly every couple of days, information comes across my desk that tells us what is actually happening to unemployment, and we monitor that closely.

Amy Adams: What updates on developments in the domestic and global economies does the Minister of Finance receive from Treasury?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The updates that I receive are openly shared with everybody. In fact, Opposition members can go to Treasury’s website and they will see regular and full monthly updates on the current situation of the New Zealand economy, including what is going on with unemployment. I also receive regular briefings on developments worldwide, as well as ad hoc briefings from the Reserve Bank and any number of other organisations that send me their information.

Hon David Parker: Why has the Minister been so cavalier about New Zealand unemployment forecasts when he knows that rising unemployment will cause misery for thousands of New Zealand families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That question is typical of the nonsense we expect from Labour members, who think that getting forecasts fixes the problem. Well, it does not. We all know, and I will tell the member in case he does not know, that every unemployment forecast shows unemployment rising to around 7 percent in the next 18 months to 2 years. The Government is spending a lot more time on the measures that it needs to take to protect existing jobs and to replace those jobs that will be lost. It was typical of the Labour Government that it spent more time ordering forecasts so it could announce them than actually doing anything.

Hon David Parker: How does the Minister reconcile his position at the Finance and Expenditure Committee that he is not preoccupied with all the details and has not been getting more regular Treasury forecasts on unemployment with his Prime Minister’s statement that the Government constantly gets updated advice, and that “that is what you would expect a prudent and conservative Government to do”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I reconcile them by giving exactly the same explanation I just gave to that member. Doing a full round of economic forecasts is an expensive and time-consuming activity. Treasury did one in December, and it is starting on one now for the Budget. That is the forecasting activity. Alongside that we receive regular updates on all measures of unemployment, day by day and week by week. I would have to say that the trend is obvious and the need for action is obvious. Whether a forecast changes by 0.2 percent is of less interest than the actions needed to be taken to protect jobs and get on with creating new jobs.

Hon David Parker: Do the answers the Minister gave to these questions apply the same logic he uses to assert that he inherited a poor position from the last Government—yet he went ahead with higher total tax cuts, weighted to those who are already better off; and does he think this is why commentators like Fran O’Sullivan are already questioning his judgment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member is asserting that the new National Government took over the economy in fine shape, he is wrong. We took over with a record balance of payments deficit, record household debt, and growing Government deficits. It will be a big challenge to turn around those problems. Since then the global financial crisis has started to have an impact on the economy, and that doubles the urgency with which the Government needs to move. That is why we do not sit around ordering more forecasts for what we already know is a difficult situation.

7. Oil and Gas Exploration—Promotion

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

7. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What measures has he taken to promote oil and gas exploration in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : The Government has already taken a number of steps to promote oil and gas exploration in New Zealand. Before Christmas, I transferred $3.5 million of expenditure from Vote Economic Development to Vote Energy, in order to pay for the acquisition of a 1,000-kilometre line of seismic data in the Regina basin. This work will start in March.

Jonathan Young: What are the benefits of the seismic data acquisition programme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The provision of seismic data to exploration companies stimulates oil and gas exploration in New Zealand waters. To date, the previous Government’s seismic data acquisition programme, at a value of $21 million, has generated new exploration expenditure commitments of approximately $1.4 billion from the private sector.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: What a great programme—a great Labour programme.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It therefore had a return ratio of 1:80. As the previous Minister of Finance, Dr Cullen, says, what a great programme it was, which makes it all the more surprising that he cut it. He actually cut it out of existence in his 2007 Budget. Recognising the benefits of that programme, this Government is doing some work to see what we might be able to do for the future.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen the Fitch Ratings report dated 6 February 2009 that predicts that his repeal last year, under urgency, of the thermal baseload generation moratorium will result in “a continued dependence on thermal plants” for New Zealand, and that to run them “New Zealand faces the prospect of imports of either LNG or CNG, likely to be significantly more expensive than gas from existing fields”, “exposing New Zealand to higher and more volatile international oil and gas prices”; and what does that say about his Government’s vision for energy independence for New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen reports that New Zealand has secure gas supply to perhaps as far out as 2025. I have also seen reports that show New Zealand is an extremely prospective place, where there may well be considerable further oil and gas deposits. We want those deposits to be found. Further, I say it is extraordinary that the previous Labour Government was so opposed to the use of thermal electricity generation, yet last winter more than 50 percent of New Zealand’s electricity needs were met from thermal sources. It is also staggering that during the time of the so-called sustainable Labour Government, the use of thermal fuels for electricity grew astronomically.

Jonathan Young: Has the Minister taken any other measures to promote oil and gas exploration in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. Before Christmas, as the previous questioner asserted, we did remove the ban on thermal baseload electricity generation. We also opened bidding for new petroleum exploration permits in the Raukūmura and Northland basins. We are very optimistic about what may come from that.

8. Company Bail-out Criteria—Advice

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Finance: What was the advice he received over the kinds of businesses and circumstances in which the Government would consider a bail-out?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : I refer the honourable member to my answer to yesterday’s question No. 4 on substantially the same issue, because this is substantially the same answer. It is not appropriate to speculate on the circumstances of any particular business, particularly listed businesses, in this House. The honourable member is well aware of the requirements of the Cabinet Manual in that regard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When did the Minister ask for advice, and when did he receive it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I asked for advice on this matter, I think, before Christmas, simply because it was evident to me that many other Governments were also getting advice—if not setting up schemes—and because we are in a time when the unthinkable seems to happen every week.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Government considering ensuring that there is a proper return from any funding to firms through, for example, an equity stake on a model similar to Air New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not intend to speculate on models, as I think I said to the media yesterday. Any Government participation would have to be a last resort. The hurdle would be very high and any company seeking Government assistance would have to pay a high price for it, in the same way as the guarantee provided to banks for their wholesale fund-raising has a high price attached to it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister release Treasury advice on this matter before next week’s Job Summit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is unlikely. The advice is under discussion and may well end up being Budget sensitive.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has anyone in Treasury prepared a list of firms that the Government might consider supporting?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: To the best of my knowledge, no. I have not seen such a list nor asked for one.

John Boscawen: Why would this Government even remotely consider propping up a private company like Fisher and Paykel Appliances when it clearly has the very simple option of making a pro rata cash issue to its existing shareholders to raise any additional capital it might need?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I reiterate a point I made yesterday. Any company would be expected to pursue all its commercial options, and any company out there that is considering seeking Government assistance should take that advice.

9. Shared Equity Scheme—Reports

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

9. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Housing: What reports has he received regarding the shared equity home purchase pilot?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : I have seen reports on the shared equity pilot, which was a flagship Labour policy to address housing affordability. I have seen reports advising that, despite the promises that the pilot would see between 500 and 700 families helped under the scheme over 2 years, actually only 21 loans have helped 21 families in the first 7 months.

Chester Borrows: Has the Minister seen any reports on how the shared equity home purchase scheme was developed?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Yes. I have reviewed 12 announcements between 2004 and 2008 heralding the shared equity scheme. When the scheme was finally delivered many years later, in the pre-election environment, the market had changed, and as the paltry 21 loans clearly illustrate, the scheme was a case of too little, too late. National promised to keep the pilot. We will keep the pilot, but we do not hold much hope for it.

Hon George Hawkins: Why is the Government making it so hard for young Kiwis to get into new homes, when on the other hand its leader seems to be offering Fisher and Paykel shareholders the promise of extensive help?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The new Government is not making it harder for young Kiwis to get into new homes. In fact, that appears to be getting easier for them. But we are equally concerned about those who bought homes recently and are seeing their asset being eroded.

10. Housing Innovation Fund and Rural Housing Programme—Proposed Changes

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

10. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Housing: What changes is the Government planning to the Housing Innovation Fund and the Rural Housing Programme?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : As promised in National’s manifesto, we will be increasing the Housing Innovation Fund’s capital funding from $12 million to $20 million. Labour did not budget for the Rural Housing Programme for the current year. Unfortunately, the Housing New Zealand Corporation is having to fund the programme out of its own income. We are talking to the Māori Party and iwi groups about how this type of scheme can continue in a different form, but certainly with scale providing new houses such as those in papakāinga housing developments, perhaps through the Housing Innovation Fund.

Sue Bradford: What is the Minister’s response to Northland District Health Board member Craig Brown, who has raised concerns that the rural health programme may not continue past June this year despite poor housing being one of the most serious health issues in Northland?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I agree with Mr Brown that health issues are associated with housing, rural housing, Māori housing, and State housing. That is why this Government was shocked to find that the Housing New Zealand Corporation had become a slum landlord under the previous Government.

Sue Bradford: Can the Minister guarantee that the increased funding he announced for the Housing Innovation Fund, which the Green Party welcomed, will not take away funding from existing programmes like the Rural Housing Programme?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Rural Housing Programme is not currently funded through the Housing Innovation Fund; they have two different income streams. In terms of the Housing Innovation Fund increases, all I have ever had is people praising the fact that we are putting more money in. We are going to put it into organisations that have a track record, that have an asset base, and that can deliver more housing for more people with scale.

Sue Bradford: How does the Minister expect most community sector housing groups to survive if their capacity grants and feasibility funding is removed, which is what has been suggested for the Housing Innovation Fund; and if the fund is going to be available only for capital costs, where else does he think community sector housing groups, including iwi and hapū groups, are going to get their funding from?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am advised by colleagues that Labour gave undefined capacity grants in a number of areas for no reason and with no accountability. In the housing area, we will be giving capacity grants only to those groups that have a track record, that have assets such as money or land or other properties, and that have provided housing in the past. The message is: “If you have no capacity, there will be no grants.”

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister not understand that if community sector organisations, including hapū and iwi organisations, do not have infrastructure and capacity funding and the ability to do feasibility studies on projects then they will not be able to achieve anything, even though the community housing sector is such a potentially rich source of jobs that meets real and desperate housing needs?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: We are happy to provide capacity grants to groups that are going to provide houses, and that are proven to have provided houses in the past. We are not going to feed the endless groups that mushroomed up under Labour for no reason. They have to deliver houses, and real roofs for real families under real pressure.

11. Public Service—Cuts to Job Numbers

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

11. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of State Services: Is it Government policy not to cut job numbers in the core public service?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: The Minister of State Services has no responsibility for what is not Government policy but I can tell the member that it is the Government’s policy to cap the size of the core bureaucracy.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I question the first part of that answer. It may be Government policy not to do something or to do something— so it is Government policy not to do something else, so the Government has policy for not something, as the member was trying to imply—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that is a point of order, though it is a clever play on words.

Grant Robertson: What, given that answer, is the Minister’s definition of the core public service?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The bit that is not going to be cut.

Louise Upston: What is the rationale for the Government’s policy to cap the number of people working in core Government administration?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As the Minister of State Services said in the House earlier this week, after 9 years of a free-spending Labour Government, the number of back-office public servants is out of proportion to that of frontline staff. The Government is determining that the focus will go on to improving frontline services for New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the statement from the State Services Commissioner at the Government Administration Committee yesterday that Ministers are still working out what constitutes core Government administration; and how is it responsible to call for a cap on something that he has not even defined?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can tell the House that it is not the intention of this Government to go on some slash-and-burn exercise through the Public Service, as the Labour Opposition appears to want us to do. Careful consideration is being given to how we give effect to this policy. It is our policy to cap the size of the core bureaucracy in New Zealand.

Grant Robertson: Is the reason the Minister will not define what the core Public Service is that he wants to ensure he can move the goalposts so that his plans to cut jobs fit within his yet-to-be-defined cap; if not, what is the reason?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has a policy to cap the size of the core bureaucracy in New Zealand. As the member has already been informed at the select committee by the State Services Commissioner, that is a work in progress.

12. Māori Homeownership Rates—Decline

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

12. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Housing: What steps is he taking to address the reported decline of homeownership rates amongst Māori, with the proportion of Māori who own their home having fallen from 61.4 percent in 1991 to 45.2 percent in 2006?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : We are taking a number of steps that will help the general population and will also help Māori first-home buyers, such as streamlining the Resource Management Act and the Building Act to make building cheaper, reducing taxes so there is more take-home pay to service a mortgage, and keeping interest rates under control through better Government spending when interest rates look set to rise as the economy recovers. We are also speaking to a number of iwi and hapū groups and the Māori Party about how the Housing Innovation Fund can help and how papakāingahousing can be advanced.

Rahui Katene: What advice has the Minister received from his officials to account for the significant increase in the proportion of Māori in rental tenure from 38.6 percent to 54.8 percent?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have seen the report called Maori Housing Trends 2008. Māori have been hit by the same challenges as other New Zealanders who have found that property prices and rents have got out of reach in recent years. However, I am aware that this has been exacerbated for Māori, in particular, because they often need larger—and therefore more expensive—houses, which are more costly to rent.

Rahui Katene: How will the Minister respond to the recent qualitative research on Māori housing experiences that found that rural renters are more often exposed to poor property conditions, lower levels of maintenance, and less choice?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: What the member says is true. In fact, many of the rural renters were renting State houses that were in a serious dilapidated condition because the Labour Government decided to spend depreciation funds on acquisitions. The renters were living in smelly, damp, disgusting conditions, and that is why the National Government will do up those houses. Furthermore, we are working with Māori housing providers on upgrades, providing papakāinga housing, and advising Māori on how they can access the Housing Innovation Fund.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

12. Māori Homeownership Rates—Decline

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

12. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Housing: What steps is he taking to address the reported decline of homeownership rates amongst Māori, with the proportion of Māori who own their home having fallen from 61.4 percent in 1991 to 45.2 percent in 2006?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : We are taking a number of steps that will help the general population and will also help Māori first-home buyers, such as streamlining the Resource Management Act and the Building Act to make building cheaper, reducing taxes so there is more take-home pay to service a mortgage, and keeping interest rates under control through better Government spending when interest rates look set to rise as the economy recovers. We are also speaking to a number of iwi and hapū groups and the Māori Party about how the Housing Innovation Fund can help and how papakāingahousing can be advanced.

Rahui Katene: What advice has the Minister received from his officials to account for the significant increase in the proportion of Māori in rental tenure from 38.6 percent to 54.8 percent?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have seen the report called Maori Housing Trends 2008. Māori have been hit by the same challenges as other New Zealanders who have found that property prices and rents have got out of reach in recent years. However, I am aware that this has been exacerbated for Māori, in particular, because they often need larger—and therefore more expensive—houses, which are more costly to rent.

Rahui Katene: How will the Minister respond to the recent qualitative research on Māori housing experiences that found that rural renters are more often exposed to poor property conditions, lower levels of maintenance, and less choice?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: What the member says is true. In fact, many of the rural renters were renting State houses that were in a serious dilapidated condition because the Labour Government decided to spend depreciation funds on acquisitions. The renters were living in smelly, damp, disgusting conditions, and that is why the National Government will do up those houses. Furthermore, we are working with Māori housing providers on upgrades, providing papakāinga housing, and advising Māori on how they can access the Housing Innovation Fund.

ENDS

© Scoop Media