Questions for Oral Answer
16 June 2009

Questions to Ministers

1. Banking Sector—Lending Practices

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

1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on lending practices in the banking sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : I receive regular reports from the Reserve Bank and elsewhere. The Government’s most important objective has been to ensure stability and orderly lending by the banking system. Experience overseas in the past year demonstrates the high cost of bank failures. I am pleased to report that our primary objective of ensuring financial stability has so far been achieved. We have strong banks that are able to continue lending.

Craig Foss: How has the price and availability of credit evolved over the past year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The general structure of interest rates is declining. The average variable mortgage rate peaked at 10.9 percent in June 2008, and had fallen to 6.4 percent in May 2009. Overall credit is expanding. In the year to April the total lending to New Zealand residents increased by $15 billion, or by just under 6 percent, and it has expanded in 10 of the last 12 months. All of this illustrates that the banking system is working in an orderly fashion.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister seen reports that show that although the Reserve Bank has cut the official cash rate by 575 points, banks have over the same period passed through less than half of this—a total of 243 points—to New Zealand businesses; and if this practice continues and the banks do not pass on the large cuts to interest rates, does he believe that New Zealand businesses will be getting the fair go that he expects from banks that have the backing of taxpayer-funded guarantees valued at $130 billion?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, of course there is going to be debate about whether the banks have passed on all the interest rate cuts, although I might stress to that member that the bank margin peaked at 260 basis points over the overnight cash rate in 2004, under his Government. That has now dropped.

Hon Darren Hughes: You’re in charge now.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are in charge now, and the bank margin has dropped to 210 points—about the lowest in 10 years.

Craig Foss: What other factors are influencing interest rates at present?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One factor that can influence interest rates quite directly is bank customers choosing to go to other banks that are offering lower rates, or customers choosing to go on to rates with different term structure. For instance, the current 6-month rate is considerably lower than the floating rate, and bank customers are free to choose that rate if they want to. I am sure that the banks will take notice of any change in market share if their floating rates are too high.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister believe that even though New Zealanders might be grateful that the Australian-owned banks are not going under, they would also be rather grateful if their Parliament would set up an inquiry into mortgage rates and credit card interest rates, and into the bonus payments made to bank chief executive officers, all of which remain very high?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, for many households and businesses interest rates seem to be too high, particularly if their incomes and revenue are dropping, or if people have lost their jobs. I must say to members that in the face of those adverse circumstances a parliamentary inquiry might be interesting, but it is not exactly clear to me how it would help those people who are feeling the pressure.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister seen reports of comments by Reserve Bank governor Dr Alan Bollard that: “I do think it’s time when banks have to look, as they ride through this recession, just how much pain will be borne by their shareholders and how much will be borne by the New Zealand economy.”; and does the Minister agree with the Finance and Expenditure Committee that an appropriate response by banks to the recession should include passing on reductions to the official cash rate, maintaining liquidity and ensuring it is available on as equal terms to businesses in New Zealand as it is to those in Australia, and recognising current economic conditions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I agree with all those comments. The one comment I disagree with is the inference by the Opposition spokesperson that emergency powers in the Reserve Bank Act ought to be used to try to make the banks lower their interest rates. That would be a bizarre response to the current situation.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders provide protection from members against misrepresentation. Perhaps the Minister could be invited to clarify which comments he is referring to.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will take his seat. The member can use further supplementary questions if he wants to challenge aspects of the Minister’s answer, but he cannot use the point of order process to debate the Minister’s answer. There is no provision in the Standing Orders for that. I have called John Boscawen.

Hon David Cunliffe: I am not seeking to trifle with your ruling, Mr Speaker, but the question that I asked might have been misheard by the Minister. The question did contain a number of quotes, none of which were from myself, but the Minister’s answer sought to draw other comments that he purports to have heard into debate. He is obviously fabricating this, because I have never made—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will take his seat. He must not make such accusations under a point of order. If the member reflects back on the question he asked, he will find that it was quite a long question. It had a first part where he said “and”, then he read a list of further matters. Obviously, with such long questions he is not always going to be happy with the answers he gets, but the member does have further supplementary questions in which to challenge the answer.

John Boscawen: Is the Minister satisfied that companies in the export sector are able to access bank funding as and when required?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have heard from a number of companies, small and large, that have difficulty in accessing credit. One reason we need to have strong banks is so that through a recession the banks are able to show some tolerance of the pressures that a number of companies are under. If the banks stop lending, people will lose their jobs.

2. Auckland, Local Government Reform—Ministers’ Performance

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

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied with the way in which his Ministers have handled the restructuring of Auckland’s governance arrangements?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: How can he be satisfied with the way that he and Mr Hide have handled this matter when nearly two-thirds of Aucklanders polled by Reid Research Services and ShapeNZ said that consultation with them was inadequate, and only 13 percent said they thought it was adequate?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, there will be a full consultation process through the select committee. Secondly, Mr John Carter has had well over 20 meetings, and Mr Hide has been very busy talking to community leaders. My understanding is that when the Leader of the Opposition has been holding meetings and trying to drum up meetings about the super-city, those meetings have been very poorly attended indeed.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister intend to ignore the views of 70 percent of Aucklanders in the ShapeNZ poll, who said that there ought to be a referendum on this issue; if so, why is he refusing to listen to their desire to have a poll?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, we will not be holding a referendum, but I just heard that Mr Goff does not want to fill out the referendum we have currently, anyway. So he is obviously not keen on referendums.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is John Key reneging on the promise he made to Aucklanders before the last election that there would be a referendum on the poll, which he felt so strongly about that he was going to introduce a member’s bill to that effect?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because there has been a royal commission since then. I draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the New Zealand Herald this morning, in which the editorial said quite clearly that “if ever the case for a single city was clinched it was last week on Queens Wharf.” This is the same New Zealand Herald that pointed out, by the way, that all of the bluff and bluster from Mr Goff is simply about trying to make political capital. Even he will not say that he will repeal the super-city when it is in place after 2010.

Chris Tremain: What reports has the Prime Minister seen on the benefits of a unified Auckland, in terms of regional infrastructure?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen widespread support. I think Labour members actually support it, but they are not quite sure about their own future. I draw the attention of members again to the New Zealand Herald, where Bernard Orsman stated: “Such a fragmented approach to developing the waterfront is a strong argument for the Super City. At the very least there would be fewer heads to bang together.” If members do not have an opportunity to read the New Zealand Herald, maybe they could just read Metro. The cover says “I Love Super City: Why Rodney Hide has got it right.” What a wonderful publication!

Hon Phil Goff: Would it be hypocritical to promise Aucklanders that in any significant and irreversible decisions by council in future, they will get a referendum, as Mr Hide and Mr Key have promised in the Cabinet paper of 17 April of this year, but not to give Aucklanders the right to have the referendum on the truly critical issue of whether the restructuring of Auckland should go ahead in the form that he is trying to impose on Aucklanders against their will?

Hon JOHN KEY: Maybe the right way is to go back and ask ourselves why we are in this position. We had a royal commission that cost millions of dollars, and that had 5,500 submissions. We must ask this question because the then Labour Government was so frustrated with the governance structure in Auckland, and knew it was not working, that it wanted to change things. I note that in question time we have not heard a peep out of Trevor Mallard. He knew what it was like trying to organise a stadium in downtown Auckland. The super-city will deliver great results for Auckland.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That member supported it. He didn’t have the guts to say so.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the honourable member to show a little courtesy to his leader—

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, no, he’s happy—

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet and the member will be silent. I ask him to show a little courtesy to his own leader. I also ask members on the Government side not to provoke the honourable member.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well—

Mr SPEAKER: Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I recommend a deep breath. The honourable Leader of the Opposition is going to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it would be good to reflect in this case on the fact that the Prime Minister did invite a response, and the response was one that was very clear—

Mr SPEAKER: The member must resume his seat right now. The member will sit down right now because that is not a point of order and the member well knows it. The member does not have to respond to interjections. There is nothing wrong with an interjection; I was asking him to show his own leader a little courtesy because his own leader was seeking to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, tell John Key to stop telling lies, and tell—

Mr SPEAKER: The problem with the member’s interjection is that he accused another member of telling lies. He cannot do that and he knows he cannot do that. I am being very tolerant but I warn the member my patience is wearing a little thin.

Hon Phil Goff: Has John Key learnt nothing from his trouncing in the Mt Albert by-election where voters showed their anger at National’s refusal to listen to them on issues such as the super-city; or was it all just Melissa Lee’s fault?

Hon JOHN KEY: I learnt that New Zealanders want a Government that is going to take this country forward, that is going to show some vision for Auckland, and that has a sense of what that city and this country can be. That is why we are a Government that this week purchased Queen’s Wharf. We are a Government that is more than happy to campaign on the issues that matter. I have to say I am looking forward to the 2011 election—the sooner, the better.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I ask members to be a little more reasonable in their level of interjection. I found it hard to hear the Prime Minister’s answer.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did he agree with the decisions in the Cabinet paper of 17 April, that local government functions are to be restricted to the areas of water, refuse, and transport and that there is to be no public consultation document on these things; how is that compatible with the decision he has just made to have Auckland ratepayers spend $80 million on a party centre on Queen’s Wharf?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because that is the very Cabinet paper that agrees to review the functions of local government; no decisions have been made yet.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table two papers. The first is the Cabinet paper that refers to a decision to restrict the functions of local government and also for there to be no public discussion document on doing so.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon Phil Goff: The second document is a press release dated 7 September 2006 in the name of John Key where he wanted Aucklanders to decide whether the current local government—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a press statement. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection.

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

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the end of the Prime Minister’s answer he was quoting from an official document. I wonder whether he would be good enough to table that for the House. I know that it has already been tabled but it would be good if it could be tabled in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Even the Prime Minister must be called, to contribute in this House. I also call to order the Leader of the House, who was loudly interjecting when the Hon Darren Hughes was raising a point of order. I know that this is the first day back after an adjournment, but I urge members to have a little order. Leave was sought to table a document that the member claimed the Prime Minister was quoting from. I ask the honourable Prime Minister whether he was quoting from a document.

Hon JOHN KEY: I was, and I seek leave to table the Cabinet document that is on the website of the Department of Internal Affair-s, so Mr Hughes and the rest of the Labour caucus can know what is going on.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

3. Resource Managment Act—Consents

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

3. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for the Environment: What number of consents were processed outside of the statutory time frames as identified in the latest Ministry for the Environment report on the administration of the Resource Management Act; and how does this compare historically?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : Over 16,000 resource consents—from homeowners, businesses, and farmers—were late last year, amounting to just over 31 percent. Compliance rates improved during the 1990s but have deteriorated in every report since 2000, with the worst ever level of non-compliance last year. These sorts of delays cost New Zealand heavily in jobs and investment. Improving productivity in this area is an important priority for the new Government.

Chris Auchinvole: Is the Minister aware that on top of the breaches of the statutory time frames in 31 percent of cases, the councils have dramatically increased their use of their powers to double their allowed time; if so, what steps does he intend to take to address this practice?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is quite correct: there has been a ninefold increase in extensions, which now affect 28 percent of resource consents. Some councils automatically grant themselves a doubling of time. The Government is working with the Local Government and Environment Committee to put some constraints on this practice, thereby limiting extensions for those consents that are particularly large or complex.

Amy Adams: Is the Minister aware of the delays in getting consents from Environment Canterbury for the Akaroa wastewater treatment plant, which has resulted in effluent polluting the harbour for years longer than necessary; and does he have particular concerns about Environment Canterbury?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Environment Canterbury scored 84th out of 84 authorities, with it breaking the law in 71 percent of consent applications. For notified discharge consents, such as that which the member notes, its compliance rate was an appalling 3 percent. I have written—[Interruption] It is interesting that members opposite did nothing about it for 10 years. I have written a firm letter to Environment Canterbury, making plain that this non-compliance is not acceptable. I have also written to the other eight authorities that are breaking the law more often than they are complying.

Amy Adams: Will the Minister consider using his powers under section 25 of the Resource Management Act to replace Environment Canterbury, given not just its rock-bottom performance in last year’s report but the fact that its performance had deteriorated from that described in the report 2 years earlier?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Environment Canterbury fairly notes that its performance is compromised by the particularly challenging issue in Canterbury around freshwater management, and central government needs to take a greater lead in providing better tools in that regard. However, I also note that Environment Canterbury’s performance is hopeless in all consent categories, for which there is no such excuse. I do not rule out using those powers, and await the response to my letter in which I have challenged the organisation to provide, within 60 days, a plan as to how it will fix this serious problem.

4. Budget 2009—Ministry of Social Development Changes

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

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What consultation did she undertake with Ministers before making changes in Budget 2009 relating to the Ministry of Social Development?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Verbal and written.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister consult the Minister of Māori Affairs on cuts to the Step Up Scholarships and merit-based scholarships, all of which encourage a level of self-responsibility and provide opportunities for Māori; if so, what was his response?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There was high-level consultation with all of our coalition partners on all decisions around Budget 2009, and I am sure that that was part of it.

Jo Goodhew: Can the Minister give an example of ministerial consultation?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. After 9 years of strategising and consulting, the previous Government pretty much delivered nothing for our disability sector; we have already established a high-level Ministerial Committee on Disability Issues to provide leadership and improve decision making across all of the Government. It is unprecedented that senior Ministers regularly meet specifically on disability issues.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister consult the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment, the Hon Tariana Turia, before drastically reducing over the next 4 years the training incentive allowance, a programme that has given a hand up to many people on the domestic purposes benefit; if so, what was her response?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I did consult. Let us be clear here with the facts: people will still be eligible for the training incentive allowance; it is only the level that we are restricting.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister consult the Associate Minister for Social Development and Employment on the impact of closing Child, Youth and Family service centres in 10 areas around New Zealand; if so, did the Minister assure her that cuts in social worker numbers would not lead to cases like the tragic case reported in the paper this week of a young wheelchair-bound boy, who was alleged to be beaten, burnt, and starved because social workers took 4 months to respond in Manukau, one of the areas that is to be closed and lose 24 staff?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure that as a previous Minister, that member will be very careful of making assumptions about children in the department’s care given via the media and reported purely there. As far as consultation is concerned, that has certainly been widespread and made in conjunction with my Associate Minister.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the Minister consulted and whether she gave an assurance. She did not answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that when she puts more than one question into a supplementary question, the Minister has to answer only one of them. I believe that I heard the Minister answer one of them.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Minister say that she had consulted the Minister of Māori Affairs about cuts in the Budget to the funding of the enterprise and community initiatives, when Minister Sharples has categorically denied that any such briefing took place; and will she give a guarantee that all the consultation she has claimed took place actually occurred?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As previously stated, there have been high-level discussions with the Māori Party on all Budget decisions. Certainly, there has been consultation between our offices on all of the changes within that. When it comes to Budget 2009, I have heard from the Māori Party how delighted its members are to see $10 million going in, over the next 2 years, to the Māori Economic Task Force, and how delighted they are to see $400,000 going into strengthening relationships between the Government and community voluntary organisations.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table an answer to a written question to the Hon Pita Sharples, in which he says that he has received no briefing on funding cuts to the enterprise and community initiatives, although the Minister said in the House—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

5. Corrections, Department—Management of Offenders on Parole

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

5. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: What is the Government doing to enable the Department of Corrections to improve the management of offenders on parole?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : The Government is providing an extra $255.9 million to the department to manage offenders on community sentences and parole efficiently, and in a manner consistent with public safety. This funding will provide for the recruitment and training of additional staff, and will also enable the department to address the concerns raised in the review of parole management by the Auditor-General.

Sandra Goudie: How much of the funding will go towards improving the management of offenders on parole and home detention?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: A total of $103 million, made up of $71.2 million in operating funding and $31.8 million in capital. This funding will enable the department to improve the quality of management of offenders on parole and home detention, rather than just covering the increased volumes.

Sandra Goudie: What else is the Government doing to assist the Department of Corrections to safely manage offenders in the community?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As well as the significant increase in funding, an expert panel is currently reviewing all the procedures and performance measures that are used in the management of those offenders. The panel has significant expertise, and I am confident that it will guide the department as it makes necessary changes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How will the management of offenders on parole be improved by the fact that the number of police vehicles is to be slashed by 10 percent, and that police will find it more difficult to get the questions about parole—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: She’s the Minister of Corrections.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why don’t you listen? And police will find it more difficult to get to the scene of the crime if an offender on parole does transgress?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think the member should put a question to the Minister of Police.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that I put to the Minister was: “How will the management of offenders on parole be improved …”. It went on to ask about whether the cuts in the police vehicle budget would have an impact, given that police will find it more difficult to pursue offenders who are on parole if they transgress. The primary question was about the management of offenders who are on parole. The Minister cannot just slip her way out of this one. If she has cut the police budget by 10 percent—

Mr SPEAKER: Members must not use the point of order process to make a political attack. It is totally out of order. The member wants me to support him in his point of order. How does he think it helps his argument when he abuses the point of order process? It does not help. I might also add that when the member responded to an interjection while asking his question, he included the Speaker in his response to the interjection. So there are a couple of sins that the member has committed. The Minister is the sole judge of whether they have ministerial responsibility for an issue. Unless it is an absolutely fundamental issue, the Speaker cannot be the judge of whether ministerial responsibility lies with the Minister. The Minister has said that the matter is one that should be properly addressed to the Minister of Police. As Speaker, I need to accept that assessment by the Minister.

6. Finance, Minister—Statements

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

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his recent statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister stand by his statement on 10 June 2009 to the New Zealand Herald that “taxpayers are supporting the banks, and we want the banks to be able to demonstrate that they are going to support businesses and households through a tough time in the economy, even if it affects their profits a bit.”, and also his statement on 14 May 2009 to the Press that “it [$4.5 billion] is a big profit and we would expect that in the next financial year they will be less profitable.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes; they sound to me like quite insightful and forceful comments.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister therefore agree with a statement made on the same day as the first quote, by the Prime Minister, John Key, on One News that “our big aim is that if the Reserve Bank governor does cut rates tomorrow … it flows through to what consumers are paying because in the last cut Alan Bollard made it ended up with the banks and not consumers.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As is usually the case, the Prime Minister’s comments are much more insightful and forceful than mine, and, I think, express the political issues very directly and effectively.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Does the Minister stand by his statement that Budget 2009 will help New Zealanders through the recession and set this country on the road to recovery?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do stand by those statements, but I am concerned that those would be at risk if the Labour Party’s policies to borrow billions of dollars for the Superannuation Fund and to borrow billions more for the Waterview Connection were put in place. That would certainly push interest rates up further.

7. SAS, Deployment in Afghanistan—UN Security Council Resolution

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

7. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Which United Nations Security Council resolution formed the legal basis for the deployment of the New Zealand Special Air Service to Afghanistan as part of Operation Enduring Freedom from 2001 to 2005; and would that resolution apply to any further deployment in 2009?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) :I am advised that the previous Government cited UN Security Council resolutions 1368 and 1373 as the legal basis for the SAS deployment to Afghanistan. On 10 November 2005 the then Minister of Defence, the Hon Phil Goff, explained the legal position as follows: “International forces were sent after the unanimous passing through the UN Security Council of resolutions 1368 and 1373 on 12 and 28 September 2001. These expressly reaffirmed, with respect to intervention in Afghanistan, the inherent right of countries to individual and collective self-defence, as recognised by the UN charter.” With regard to the second part of the member’s question, that is a matter that the Government would turn its mind to in the event that it was required to make a decision in relation to a further deployment.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister confirm that Operation Enduring Freedom has the legal backing of regular, renewed mission mandates decided by the UN Security Council?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I can advise the House that New Zealand’s present deployment in Afghanistan, the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team, is part of the International Security Assistance Force, known as ISAF. The International Security Assistance Force is mandated by the United Nations Security Council in accordance with the United Nations Charter. The present mandate was set in Resolution 1833 on 22 September 2008, which extended the International Security Assistance Force’s authorisation to 13 October 2009.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question pertained to Operation Enduring Freedom, not the International Security Assistance Force. I ask you if I may repeat the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister gave an answer to the question. The member has further supplementary questions, and I think he could use his further supplementary questions to pursue the answer the Minister gave, at this stage. I invite the member to do so.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the fact there are two separate missions undertaken in Afghanistan—one, the International Security Assistance Force, which does indeed, as the Minister said, receive the legal backing of regular renewed mission mandates as decided by the Security Council, and another, Operation Enduring Freedom—my question remains: can the Minister confirm that Operation Enduring Freedom has the legal backing of regular, renewed mission mandates as decided by the Security Council?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: My ministerial responsibility is for New Zealand’s efforts with regard to Afghanistan. Currently, New Zealand’s deployment is undertaken through the New Zealand provincial reconstruction team and is part of the International Security Assistance Force, and that mission carries the mandate of resolution 1833, passed by the United Nations Security Council on 22 September 2008.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Which member states’ self-defence rights are being exercised under article 51 of the UN charter through Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, 8 years after Security Council resolution 1368?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: If the member wants a detailed response to a detailed question of that sort, he will need to give me notice. I will then be able to give him such a response.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was a question expressly about this issue on the list of questions for oral answer. The Minister has had some hours to research, and clearly has investigated the issues with great detailed knowledge. He cannot now stand up and claim he does not know enough about the issue because it is too complicated for him. Or is that his answer? He does not know.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, I turn your attention to Speaker’s ruling 163/3. I think that if you read it you will see that the difficulty here is that the member has asked a question that invites the sort of answer he got today. It was perfectly reasonable and perfectly within the Standing Orders as ruled by Speaker Hunt in 2004.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further assistance on this matter. The Minister gave a perfectly reasonable answer. This international law is quite a complex area. The Minister has been careful to make sure he does not give the House incorrect information. He has quite reasonably said that if a specific question is put down, then he will provide the information. I do not believe that that is unacceptable to the House; I think it is a perfectly reasonable response to the House.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would be very happy to rephrase the question in a manner that would allow the Minister to answer it today, if you will allow me to.

Mr SPEAKER: The Green Party has a further supplementary question and is perfectly at liberty to ask it.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I do not wish to take up a colleague’s extra supplementary question. I can rephrase my question.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot allow members to go on endlessly rephrasing questions. The member will resume his seat. He will either use the fourth question available to his party today or he will put a further question on the Order Paper for the future.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister endorse last Friday’s call by Kai Eide, the chief of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, for an urgent review of US special forces operations in Afghanistan, because American air raids are killing so many innocent Afghan civilians?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The Government is aware of the concern expressed by the United Nations mission in Afghanistan chief, Mr Kai Eide. In fact, I discussed those precise concerns with him when I met him in Afghanistan recently. The point Mr Eide makes is that there is always a risk with the use of special forces that there will be heightened casualties. That is a point he has made directly to the NATO forces and the International Security Assistance Force over some months now. I understand that there will be ongoing dialogue on that point. In that respect I endorse the manner in which he continues to take up this matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Because I think there is a lot of interest in the House on this particular issue, I want to make it clear from the Labour Party’s perspective that if Dr Graham seeks leave for an extra supplementary question, we will not oppose it.

Mr SPEAKER: Normally, if questions are to be allocated to another party, the Speaker needs to be notified.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, we are not allocating a question; the member will be seeking leave.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to ask one further supplementary question on that basis.

Mr SPEAKER: Which will be taken from the Labour Party?

Hon Members: No.

Mr SPEAKER: I beg members’ pardon. [Interruption] A point of order is being dealt with, and it is my fault that the House has become disorderly. I apologise for that. Leave is sought by the member to ask a further supplementary question. Is there objection to that course of action? There is objection.

8. Adult and Community Education—Cuts

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

8. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How does she expect cuts in adult and community education to “… ensure that New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens” as she has stated previously about the Government’s aim in Vote Education?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education) : The Government remains committed to adult and community education, and will spend $124 million over the next 4 years on this sector. This investment will be focused on literacy, numeracy, and foundation skills that create job opportunities and pathways to further training and study, as a response to the growing number of unemployed in the current recession.

Hon Maryan Street: What has the Minister for Tertiary Education to say— given the cuts to adult and community education—to the over 400,000 people acquiring additional skills through various forms of adult and community education on an annual basis, and how does she expect them to participate in the economic recovery?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: A good proportion of those people will be able to continue to get adult and community education, because the Government will be spending $124 million on these courses over the next 4 years.

Hon Maryan Street: What has the Minister to say to the, potentially, 15,000 adult and community education tutors who are likely to lose their jobs because of the adult and community education funding cuts, and how do those job losses fit with the Government’s commitment to job creation in order to stimulate the economic recovery?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister has made it clear that the intention of the policy changes has been to be able to fund higher priorities. Adult and community education has positive value, but in the current environment, with sharply growing numbers of unemployed, we need to focus on the skills that will keep people connected to the workplace and enable them to pick up work once the economy recovers.

Catherine Delahunty: How many people will lose access to a reintroduction to learning—other than literacy and numeracy courses—that could possibly lead to jobs, as a result of the cuts to adult and community education?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will maintain a wide range of opportunities for people to access introductory learning. But we have made it quite clear that our priority over the next few years will be the large number of people who have lost their jobs or will lose them. We will focus on providing them with the tools to stay connected to the world of work and obtain the skills that will enable them to get a job when the economy recovers.

Catherine Delahunty: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was quite specific. It asked how many people would lose access to learning. He has not answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that if the honourable member were to reflect on the question she just asked, she would see that it was not possible to provide an answer to it. It was on a matter in the future, and no one can give a precise answer on that. I do not see how she can insist on the Minister giving the answer that she might want to hear, because that is not the way that the Standing Orders are written.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As part of the Budget process, both the Minister for Tertiary Education and the Minister of Finance have received reports that would indicate the effect of these changes. I think it is pretty unreasonable for you to say that they cannot answer the question, when they have reports that would indicate exactly the answer to the question that has been asked.

Mr SPEAKER: If the honourable member had phrased her question in the way that the member has just suggested, it might have been easier to get the answer she was seeking.

Hon Maryan Street: What has the Minister to say to the possible 230—to be a little more precise—adult and community education tutors in the Hamilton region alone who are likely to lose their jobs, and how do these jobs losses fit with the Government’s commitment to job creation in order to stimulate the economic recovery?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is continuing to spend $124 million on adult and community education. But we have made it clear that in these times, when there is large growth in unemployment and the Government faces constraint on its spending, our top priority will be people who have lost their jobs or who will lose them, to ensure that they have the skills to become participants in the economy again.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table the PricewaterhouseCoopers adult and community education report entitled Economic Evaluation of Adult and Community Education Outcomes, dated June 2008.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

9. Hoki Fishery—Reports

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

9. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Fisheries: What reports has he received regarding New Zealand’s hoki fishery?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) : The Ministry of Fisheries’ latest science shows that things are looking good for New Zealand’s hoki fishery. The western hoki stock is recovering well after several years of very slow growth. My understanding is that the stock is now within sustainable target levels. The eastern hoki stock continues to show good results.

Colin King: What work has been undertaken by the Ministry of Fisheries and the industry to make these results happen?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The industry and the Ministry of Fisheries have been working together on a rebuilding strategy to help the western stock’s recovery, and catch limits have been progressively reduced. A successful rebuilding strategy in the hoki fishery was actually part of a requirement for Marine Stewardship Council recertification. These results show the good faith of all parties, and the robustness of the Marine Stewardship Council certification. We are keen to see other fisheries certified by the Marine Stewardship Council, so having success in hoki is very, very important.

10. Vote Education—Students with Special Needs

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

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Associate Minister of Education: Which reductions within the appropriations in Vote Education in the 2009-10 Budget will adversely affect students with special needs, and what input did she have into those decisions?

Hon HEATHER ROY (Associate Minister of Education) : Some year-by-year appropriations that affect a small group of students with special needs will not be continued. However, this has been more than offset by additional funding that is being provided in other relevant programmes for students with special education needs. I have been consulted as part of the process of developing these decisions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister support the cutting of support to the most physically disabled children; if so, why?

Hon HEATHER ROY: As I said in the answer to the primary question, a small group of students with special needs will not have their programme continued, but this has been more than offset by the increase in funding provided to the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme.

Aaron Gilmore: What additional funding for students with special needs was allocated in the appropriations in Vote Education in the 2009-10 Budget?

Hon HEATHER ROY: From the 2009-10 financial year to the 2011-12 financial year this Government will spend an additional $51 million on the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme, and an additional $10.7 million on the School High Health Needs Fund. By contrast, the previous Labour-led Government only increased the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme funding by $14 million from the 2004-05 to the 2007-08 year. This increase was spent on alleviating cost pressures only, and did not fund one extra student.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Trevor Mallard. [Interruption] I have called the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: But I did not seek the call, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: OK. I call David Garrett.

David Garrett: What input does the Associate Minister currently have into ensuring that special education funding reaches as many students as possible?

Hon HEATHER ROY: As has already been shown in the 2009-10 Budget by an additional 1,100 Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme - funded students and an extra 250 special high-health needs - funded students, the Government is committed to ensuring there is more support for students with special education needs, and it has made special education a priority. That is why responsibility for special education has been delegated to me as an Associate Minister. The current way of supporting students with special education needs was developed in the mid-1990s. A lot has changed since then, and we need to be sure that the Government’s investment in special education is delivering positive outcomes for children and young people. I am responsible for conducting a review of special education. The review will examine how well special education is working and how it can be improved. The details of the review are being developed and will be publicly announced once they are finalised.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister stand by her blog post last Sunday supporting Gifted Awareness Week; if so, why?

Hon HEATHER ROY: Yes, I do. It is Gifted Awareness Week, and I hope the member is going take advantage of the many activities that are going on throughout the country. However, that question is completely irrelevant to the primary question; it is outside the scope of the appropriation that the member asked about in his primary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Associate Minister’s answer giving her support to Gifted Awareness Week, did she support the 100 percent cut to teacher professional development in this area?

Hon HEATHER ROY: As I just outlined in the previous answer, this area is outside the scope of the appropriation that is being talked about.

Mr SPEAKER: In providing her previous answer the Associate Minister opened up a field of legitimate questioning. When a Minister gives an answer, members are able to question that answer. I invite the Associate Minister to reflect on that. I note the member who asked that question has not sought any further clarification of it, but I am alerting the Associate Minister to that point.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Shall I put the question again, so that the Associate Minister has another chance to answer it?

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to do that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why, in light of her answer to my previous supplementary question, did the Associate Minister support a 100 percent cut to the teacher professional development budget for gifted and talented students?

Hon HEATHER ROY: I support the initiatives put forward by the Minister of Education, as an Associate Minister.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. How will the 2009-10 Budget address inter-sectoral relationships in order to ensure that the services provided to children with special needs are effective, rather than overlapping, fragmented, or responsive to a crisis situation?

Hon HEATHER ROY: As already stated, the Budget allowed for an extra 1,100 Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme – funded students, and an extra 250 students to be funded under another scheme. By contrast, the Labour-led Government did not increase the funding for any students. The review that I talked about in an earlier answer will also address these questions. It gives us an opportunity to look at the most effective way to allocate special education funding in the future.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What funding is provided to enable the families of children with special needs to be able to support their children’s experiences at school?

Hon HEATHER ROY: In the 2009-10 Budget, the Government announced an additional $51 million would be spent on Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme – funded students. That allows an extra 1,100 students to be funded. An extra $10.7 million will go to the School High Health Needs Fund. That will fund an extra 250 students.

11. Community Response Fund—Reports

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

11. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she received on the Community Response Fund?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I have seen a report that shows that 19 regional forums will have been held by the end of this week. One forum attracted over 300 people. To date, information has been distributed to over 1,500 people and organisations, and in 1 week 2,500 had accessed information from the website. The evidence speaks for itself. The National Government listens to the needs of the non-government sector and takes action.

Katrina Shanks: How much money can community groups apply for, under the Community Response Fund?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This is an opportunity to go on record and clear up some of the myths out there. Non-governmental organisations will be able to access up to $50,000 in one funding round, and for exceptional cases up to $100,000. There will be three rounds per year, and organisations will be able to apply more than once. Applications for the fund can be made at any time.

Katrina Shanks: What level of interest has there been from non-governmental organisations in applying for the fund?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There has been a huge sense of relief that the funding promised under the Pathways to Partnership will stay within the social services sector, and, yes, this Government will deliver it differently. The Government has already started talking with the sector about how we will move forward together, and in particular how the sector can ensure a high degree of alignment of services and not duplication.

Hon Annette King: What is the Minister’s reaction to the Women’s Refuge, which has said that the change to Pathways to Partnership in favour of the Community Response Fund is a backward step, that baseline funding is now in a shaky position, and that the Minister’s policy puts rural and isolated communities further at risk?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would certainly encourage them to apply to the fund. But let me also put forward Mr Murray Edridge, who has said: “We are very pleased the Government has acknowledged that the demand on social services in the community … is increasing”. Let me also put forward Trevor McGlinchey, from the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services, who has said that prior to the recession, providers of social services were already expressing that concern. There has been such a huge outcry from non-governmental organisations, which are extremely grateful for this funding.

12. Dr Richard Worth—Confidence

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

12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : As I said on 3 June, Dr Worth’s conduct did not befit a Minister, and I would not have him in my executive.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Was his loss of confidence linked to his coming to a view that Dr Richard Worth may have offered ministerial appointments inappropriately?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have no intention of going into the specifics, but I can say that I am satisfied that Dr Worth did not meet the standards that I set for my Ministers, and, therefore, when I lost confidence in him I sought his resignation.

Hon Pete Hodgson: If his loss of confidence was “nothing of a legal nature”, as he said yesterday, nothing to do with Dr Worth’s trip to India, because that was all aired some months ago, and nothing to do with Mr Goff’s phone call to the Prime Minister about 6 weeks ago, because he has discounted that, then what was it about?

Hon JOHN KEY: As I said, I will not go into specifics, but it is fair to say that I lost confidence in Dr Worth, and, on that basis, he could not remain a Minister.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When he said yesterday that “I saw information I felt I needed to act on. I acted.”, what was that information?

Hon JOHN KEY: I will not go into specifics. For a start, Dr Worth is now a member of the public; he is not a member of the executive, he is not a member of Parliament, and he is not a member of the National caucus. All I can say is that if I see information of that nature, then I will act, and I would act again if I saw that kind of information again.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was inevitable that at some point I would need to raise a point of order under Standing Order 377(1), which states: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” My submission to you, Mr Speaker, is that the last answer—we will stick with just the last answer—did not seek to address the question asked.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an interesting point that the member has raised. However, as Speaker, I cannot be the judge of the public interest in a matter like this. I have to rely on a Minister’s view of whether providing more information is in the public interest. I cannot be the judge of that. From what I heard the Prime Minister give in his answer, his assessment of the public interest is that it is not his intention to say any more about the matter, and he gave the reasons why. I will hear the member further, though.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I am happy to accept that ruling. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a new point of order. Given that this is a matter that certainly took the attention of the media yesterday, that has certainly taken the attention of the media over recent days, and that certainly is in the interest of members of the House, I wonder whether the Prime Minister is entitled to come to a view as to what is in the public interest and what is not, when it is blatantly obvious to many people that this matter is in the public interest.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the genuineness of the member’s point of order. These are, obviously, difficult issues. I have to repeat that, as Speaker, I cannot make that judgment; only a Minister can make the judgment as to whether providing certain information is or is not in the public interest. I therefore have to accept the Prime Minister’s assessment that, now that Dr Worth has retired as a Minister, which is the principal issue—and he has retired as a member of Parliament, too—there are matters of privacy at stake. I cannot second-guess the Prime Minister’s judgment on this matter, and I therefore have to let the Prime Minister’s answer stand.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Has the Prime Minister told his Cabinet colleagues why he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have given them a broad outline, but I have not gone into specific details, either.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Has he told his caucus colleagues why he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have gone into broad details, but I have not given them specific details, either.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Did he lose confidence in Dr Worth for a single reason or for multiple reasons?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not going to go into the specifics of the matter, but it is fair to say that if somebody does not enjoy my confidence, then he or she will not remain as a Minister.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Mr Speaker, supplementary—

Mr SPEAKER: I am advised that the Labour Party has used its full allocation of supplementary questions.

ENDS

© Scoop Media