Questions And Answers - Tuesday, 21 August 2007

Questions to Ministers

Finance, Minister—Confidence

1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Finance; if so, why?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because he is still a hard-working and conscientious Minister.

John Key: Does she agree with her Minister of Finance that targeting inflation through the operation of monetary policy may adversely affect the New Zealand economy—a view that he admits is probably at odds with the Reserve Bank; if so, like him, is she proposing a higher inflation environment for New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: If that were the Minister of Finance’s view I would be most surprised and I would disagree with it, but as it is not, I do not.

John Key: Has she asked the Minister of Finance why he no longer thinks that the current inflation targeting undertaken by the Reserve Bank works—a statement he made last Thursday in a speech to Ernst and Young; if so, why did he sign the policy targets agreement with the Reserve Bank only 3 months earlier, totally unchanged?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: What the Minister of Finance said last Thursday—and I recall it quite well—was that the consensus view for a long time had been that monetary policy could have no impact on the long run rate of economic growth, and the Minister of Finance expressed reservations about that consensus based on the fact that very long periods with an overvalued exchange rate could affect the confidence of the exporting sector to invest in future growth.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister support her Minister of Finance’s other musings, which included, amongst other things, the introduction of a mortgage levy or the invoking of section 12?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Prime Minister has already ruled out a mortgage levy. The section 12 issue has certainly receded further into the distance given changes to the exchange rate over recent times. But what the Prime Minister certainly did do was that when the New Zealand dollar was dropping, she did not support the Leader of the Opposition in calling for the New Zealand dollar to rise to US83c and thereby do immense damage to the exporting sector.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister think it is about time that we re-examined the workings of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that has produced today, in New Zealand, internationally the most volatile currency in the world and one that is doing such incredible damage to our exports in an export-dependent economy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are a number of matters there. First, exports have risen quite strongly over the last year despite the high dollar, particularly in some of the newer technology areas. The Finance and Expenditure Committee is looking at the operation of monetary policy, not so much at the issue around the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act itself. The Government fully supports the committee in undertaking that work and believes that a number of interesting and significant submissions have been made to the select committee.

John Key: Does the Prime Minister think that the Minister of Finance understands just how much of the borrowings that are used in the New Zealand economy come from offshore?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Yes; that is why he introduced KiwiSaver.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister think that it is now the time to consider more seriously the importance of exporters over currency traders, paper shufflers, and junk bond dealers?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish no disrespect to the member, but it was very difficult to hear his question. I do not know whether it is the sound system, but that question was almost impossible to hear.

Madam SPEAKER: I certainly heard it, I must say. Could the member repeat the question for the member.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister think it is now the time to reconsider the importance of exporters, in respect of our economy, over the interests of currency traders, paper shufflers, and junk bond dealers?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think it is appropriate that in consideration of economic policy the interests of the tradable sector, both those exporting and those competing against imports, rank very high in consideration—certainly more important than the interests of consumption.

John Key: If the Prime Minister thinks that the Minister of Finance understands the reliance that New Zealand has on foreign borrowings, why does she think that the Minister of Finance made a statement in his speech on Thursday, when the New Zealand dollar was at extreme volatility and had fallen 12c in the last 4 days, including that day, calling for the exchange rate to fall even further—a thing that caused enormous issues around the financial markets, forcing up the 90-day bank bills and causing a potential credit crunch in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I tell the member three things. Firstly, since that statement was made the New Zealand dollar has stabilised at around US69c. Secondly, the New Zealand sharemarket has stabilised. Thirdly, the Treasury bill issues today were oversubscribed six times.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister received any reports as to the effects of political parties that have not supported savings strategies within New Zealand, in either 1997 or in the last two efforts by the current Government; and what does she make of those who now complain about the dependence on foreign borrowings?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am aware that the National Party opposed KiwiSaver in its original form and opposed the additions to KiwiSaver, that its spokesperson on finance has said that savings are not important, and that its leader has consistently called for the dollar to go up higher.

John Key: In the Prime Minister’s opinion, why would the Minister the Finance make such a stupid statement as that of last Thursday calling for the exchange rate to fall even further and faster at a time when there was a global credit crunch that saw $400 billion being pumped into the global liquidity in the markets; and was he aware that at the time he was making that statement the New Zealand banks were very concerned about their ability to source credit, and, in fact, were meeting on just that topic?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The Minister of Finance did not say some of the things that the member said he did. What the Minister of Finance actually said was that the New Zealand dollar was still, at that time—and is still, right now—at the upper end of its normal range over the economic cycle at around US70c. In that situation it is quite likely that the equilibrium rate of the dollar is below where it currently sits. If the member thinks otherwise, I suggest he looks at the graphs.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Prime Minister surprised to find that inflation and borrowing are out of control when successive Governments have encouraged increasingly fast throughput of scarce resources and energy, have measured the quantity only of GDP and never its quality, and have taxed “goods”, like work and enterprise, rather than “bads”, like waste and pollution; and when will she ask her Minister of Finance to respect the limits of a finite planet?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: There are a number of misstatements in that question. Firstly, inflation is not out of control in New Zealand. It is actually well under the 3 percent limit at the present time. Domestically generated inflation has been running at around 4 percent per annum for the last 3 years. Although outside the band, that is scarcely kind of Zimbabwean in terms of the size of inflation. I think they are running at 100,000 percent per annum at the moment, and rising rapidly day by day. Secondly, it is not possible to generate sufficient Government revenue simply by taxing naughty things or things that we do not like. It is also necessary to tax all consumption goods and to tax every possible source of earnings within the economy. The member comes from a party that tends to support higher Government spending. It is not possible to generate something like $60 billion a year simply out of taxing waste streams and non-renewable resources.

John Key: I seek leave to table the speech made by Dr Michael Cullen last Thursday to Ernst and Young.

Leave granted.

Families—Financial Support

2. RUSSELL FAIRBROTHER (Labour) to the Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has he received on proposals to reduce the amount of financial support available to New Zealand families?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): I have seen a report suggesting that Labour’s recent extension of the Working for Families package should be “put to the sword” to fund tax cuts. Under this proposal, 160,000 families would lose around $50 per week, 60,000 families would lose entitlements to tax credits, and the majority of the losers would be couples with annual incomes of between $45,000 and $80,000. This is another example of how the National Party’s policy of slashing Government spending to pay for tax cuts would in fact result in New Zealand families being put to the sword.

Russell Fairbrother: What has been the impact of Working for Families on Kiwi families with children?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The Working for Families package has enabled up to 360,000 Kiwi families to share in the gains New Zealand has made after 8 years of great Labour-led government. For example, a couple with two young children that is earning $45,000 a year is now over $7,000 a year better off. A couple with four children that earns $90,000 a year is over $6,000 a year better off. Seventy thousand Kiwi children are being lifted out of poverty because of this package. Unlike the National Party, a Labour-led Government wants to provide real opportunities for New Zealand kids and families.

Judy Turner: Can the Minister explain whether the delay in providing grandparents raising grandchildren, and other kinship caregivers, with more equitable financial support for foster parents is due to financial constraints, policy difficulties, or is it just not a priority?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member may not be aware that people who are in the position of supporting children through the unsupported child’s benefit or the orphans benefit just received around $20 extra per week.

Russell Fairbrother: What reports has he received on how much better off families are under Working for Families than they would be with tax cuts?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: I have seen a report where John Key says that no family will be worse off under National’s plan. I have also seen a report where he says that they would be. To help clear up that confusion, let me say that a two-child family with a joint income of $60,000 a year would lose as much as $82 a week under National’s plans, because the money that it would get from this would fund an across-the-board tax cut of less than $5 a week—$5 or $82; I think anybody can figure out it is better off with Labour.

Hon Bill English: Why does the Minister waste his time on speculating about hypotheticals, when he should be doing something about those people on the average wage who today pay more of their income in tax than they did when he came to Government, because his Government has done nothing to implement the promise it made, twice, to increase tax thresholds and reduce fiscal drag?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That cannot possibly be a question. The member began by asking: “Why does the Minister waste his time on speculating about hypotheticals …”, and then he made a statement. Which part of that has ministerial responsibility?

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, members are reminded that this is question time and not a time for making statements or debating. Could the member please rephrase that as a question.

Hon Bill English: It was a question, actually, but I am happy to state it again.

Madam SPEAKER: If the member is quite happy that it has actually gone through would he please be seated. I think my problem is the ministerial responsibility—whether in fact it was a question that would have been better directed to either the Minister of Finance or the Minister in charge of income tax, so the question is ruled out of order. Are there any further supplementary questions?

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Madam Speaker. In answer to an earlier question, Mr Maharey spoke about people being better off under Labour, and he seemed quite happy to make that statement, against general public opinion now, but nonetheless, he then surely opened himself up to a challenge about the assertion he is making as the Minister responsible for the family support package.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member for his contribution, but because it was a combination of question and statements that were made, it was very difficult to have the intent known. I have ruled accordingly.

Rodney Hide: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I think the difficulty is that there was a statement in there that was out of order, but if the question itself were properly phrased it would be within order. It was Mr Maharey himself who drew attention to the comparison of Working for Families with tax cuts, and it would strike me that having introduced tax cuts in his answer, that would allow a person to question that. It was the statement that was the problem.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, the member is quite right. I gave the member an opportunity to rephrase and he said he had already asked the question. I have ruled on this matter.

Gerry Brownlee: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr English made that comment before you ruled the question out of order. He did so knowing he had actually used two question words in the phrasing of his question. Confusion has been introduced by Mr Winston Peters—who knows he has confused things here—but essentially what Mr English said was: “When will the Minister…”, and then he spoke about an election promise that Labour has made twice and has not delivered on. In the context of both tax and family support it is quite reasonable.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member; he is relitigating my ruling. I have ruled on the matter and I have considered it fully. If there is any further debate I am afraid I will have to ask the member to leave.

Gerry Brownlee: Madam Speaker, this is a request that rather than to simply take a question off the National Party, you allow that question to be re-put, given that Mr English declined the opportunity, thinking he had asked the question, prior to your ruling that the question itself was out of order.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought for another question. Is there any objection? No objection.

Hon Bill English: When will the Minister do something about those families where the principal earner on the average wage was paying 19 percent of income as tax when he came to Government, and now is paying 23 percent of income as tax, when his Government twice promised to fix that problem and then refused to do so?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The member asked a little earlier about the speculation, and that is clearly not the case. I am just trying to clear up the fact that as Mr Key leaps from cloud to cloud, he tends to leave behind him a series of conflicting statements and what I wanted to say is that to clear up that confusion—

Madam SPEAKER: Would the Minister please get to the answer of the question. I ask the Minister to address the question with no interruptions until the Speaker has an idea as to what in fact are the thoughts.

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: What everyone in the House needs to understand is that every family with a household income over $27,000 currently getting family support would lose money if tax cuts of the kind that are being speculated on by the National Party were introduced. Someone with two teenaged children who is on $40,000 a year would lose $53; if a person were on $60,000 a year with two children, he or she would lose $82. The member needs to understand that the comparison is one that means we lose under tax cuts and we gain dramatically under Working for Families. That is what we have done over the last little while.

Australia and New Zealand—Relationship

3. Hon MURRAY McCULLY (National—East Coast Bays) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her statement, “Overall, the relationship New Zealand enjoys with Australia is the closest we have with any country. It rests on the firm foundations of common values; a comprehensive trade and economic partnership; a defence alliance; close and effective cooperation across many policy areas and, of course, on many family links.”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Murray McCully: Can the Prime Minister explain to the House how the public statements of senior Ministers over recent days in relation to Air New Zealand’s charter contracts with Australian defence forces, including Mr Goff’s accusation today that the Australian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Downer, had gone “off the deep end”, are intended to contribute to maintaining this country’s strong relationship with Australia?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I think I would put it this way: “and I think the right advice from MFAT should have been to tell them”—that is, Air New Zealand—“not to do it, simply because by association it involves them in something with which the declared position of the Government was not to be involved.” That is a quotation from Mr John Key, leader of the National Party.

Hon Murray McCully: Has the Prime Minister been advised by her Ministers who hold the shareholding interest in Air New Zealand that the airline currently conducts tens of millions of dollars worth of business annually with the Australian defence forces; and can she assure the House that that revenue has not been placed at risk by the actions of her Ministers in the past week?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I am advised that the total contract income from contract work last year was $18 million. I am further advised that on Friday Australian troops were transported from Sydney to Honiara, and that such transport did not require any advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade because it clearly was consistent with New Zealand Government policy. I am further advised that no attacks were made on Australia last week. The criticism was of the failure of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade to advise Air New Zealand correctly, and of the failure of the ministry to advise its Minister—and, indeed, other Ministers—of the approach of Air New Zealand, which clearly acted properly in seeking advice in that matter.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is climate change one of those areas of “close and effective cooperation”; if so, does the Prime Minister agree with the Australian Minister for the Environment, Malcolm Turnbull, that APEC leaders would not accept binding climate change targets, or does she agree instead with Opposition environment spokesperson Peter Garrett that without mandatory targets the APEC document made a mockery of claims that APEC would be the most important climate change summit in 15 years and exposed the Australian Government’s weak and inconsistent position?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The New Zealand Government will not intervene in arguments between Mr Garrett, who clearly has changed his views about climate change since being part of Midnight Oil, and the Australian Minister for the Environment. We do notice, however, that the Australian Government has announced a “cap and trade” system for emissions, and that is consistent with the approach being taken by the New Zealand Government.

Hon Murray McCully: Has the Prime Minister been advised that Air New Zealand provides extensive engineering services for the Royal Australian Air Force, worth millions of dollars annually, and earns substantial income from servicing the gas turbines on frigates operated by the Australian navy; and will she express confidence that none of those contracts are likely to be lost as a consequence of the actions of her Ministers in the last week?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: Let me spell this out as clearly as I can: the New Zealand Government did not support the invasion of Iraq. It has never been confused about its position on the invasion of Iraq. It has never held more than one position on the invasion of Iraq. Therefore, it does not deem it appropriate that a company of which it holds nearly 80 percent of shares should be seeking to make money out of transporting troops to the war in Iraq, and it is not going to surrender those principles for the sake of money. Of course, had Air New Zealand received advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it could still have proceeded to undertake those charter flights, but I am quite clear from the statements made publicly by Mr Palmer that had Air New Zealand had different advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, it would not have undertaken those charter flights. In that situation the issue would never have arisen, because it never would have applied for those particular charters.

Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister agree that one of our common values with Australia is nuclear non-proliferation; if so, how does she think Australia is upholding that current value in violating the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, by agreeing to sell uranium to India to make more nuclear bombs?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The New Zealand Government does have a very strong stance on nuclear non-proliferation. The Australian Government has engaged in uranium exports for many years. The exact nature and extent of those exports is a matter, at the moment, for debate between the two major Australian political parties. The New Zealand Government is not going to come into the middle of that debate.

Hon Murray McCully: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she became aware of an Australian Defence Force/Air New Zealand charter that carried troops to Honiara late last week as a consequence of a confidential no-surprises briefing by the airline to its shareholding Ministers; and can she explain why it was in New Zealand’s interests to use that confidential information to slag Mr Downer, when that was clearly not the purpose for which it had been provided?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I cannot confirm that. My understanding is that the Prime Minister is advised separately from the shareholding Minister, and there is only one such Minister, which is myself. That information was not used to slag Mr Downer at all; Mr Downer was not slagged at all last week. All the Prime Minister has done is take exception to, in our view, Mr Downer’s rather strong and over-the-top reaction to the fact that we were concerned about the lack of advice the New Zealand Government had received—a point on which the Government has been fully supported by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Key, who is clearly in disagreement with Mr McCully.

Hon Murray McCully: Can the Prime Minister advise the House why, according to her public statements, Mr Downer breached a convention by addressing the National Party conference recently, when it was perfectly acceptable for the then deputy British Prime Minister, John Prescott, and the Queensland premier, Peter Beattie, to address Labour Party conferences here; and can we take this as confirmation that there is now one rule for the Labour Party and another rule for everybody else?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, the House cannot take that conclusion from that. Firstly, Mr Prescott was the Deputy Prime Minister of a fraternal Government a long way away. Secondly, the Australian visitors are from state Governments, not the federal Government. The New Zealand Prime Minister has declined invitations to speak in Australia in a context that might be considered political. Thirdly, and most important, all those speeches were given in public, not in secret like Mr Downer’s speech to the National Party.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an article by Michael Costello, headed “Downer knows better” from the Australian, criticising the decision to send uranium to India.

Leave granted.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a second article. It is from the International Herald Tribune last Thursday, where Labor leader Kevin Rudd says he will tear up any nuclear deal with India.

Leave granted.

Business—Compliance and Red Tape

4. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Commerce: What action, if any, has she taken to combat red tape facing business, and how is progress being measured?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): We commenced the Quality Regulation Review in May of 2006 as a result of a commitment to address regulatory barriers to business growth. There have been two milestone reports to Cabinet since then. This has been an extensive review, which has included consultation with key stakeholders, and interviews and forums around the country, where we have listened to the concerns of business directly. The Government has already announced or implemented some of the red tape reduction measures that have arisen out of the review. However, I am due to present the final report to Cabinet soon, and I will be making announcements after that.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister believe that business does face a problem with high compliance costs, and when does she think there will be some relief in sight—not reports or consultation, but actual real relief in terms of costs facing business?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: New Zealand actually ranks very well by comparison with other jurisdictions in terms of red tape. However, I believe we can always do better. That is why we thought it was a good idea to go out and ask businesses what their concerns were and, at the same time as asking them what the problems were, ask them to identify solutions. That is why I think this has been the most effective review of red tape that this country has ever seen.

Shane Jones: Where does New Zealand currently rank in terms of the World Bank’s survey of the ease of doing business, and are there any improvements in the individual indices that may improve New Zealand’s ranking in the future?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: New Zealand ranks second only to Singapore in the survey, and that may improve as a result of the combined online company registration and allocation of an IRD number, which started last month. Sadly, it was a month too late for this year’s survey, but I raised it with the World Bank when I visited it recently, and there may be reference in its next report to what it regards as good practice.

Rodney Hide: Does the Minister really take comfort from that international survey, and has she, in her consultation trips around New Zealand, come across any person in business who believes that it is easier to do business in New Zealand than anywhere else in the world other than Singapore?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Any small-business operator who has operated in any other jurisdiction certainly knows that.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the most recent and best example of excessive red tape and compliance costs—namely, the Therapeutic Products and Medicines Bill.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

Electoral Finance Bill—Election Advertising

5. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Does a document need to be either supporting or opposing the election of parties or candidates in order to be counted as an election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Bill; if not, why not?

Hon MARK BURTON (Minister of Justice): As I have said in a previous answer to the member, clause 5 of the bill sets out the definition of election advertising. Alongside advertising that specifically mentions parties or candidates, the definition covers material that encourages or persuades people to vote for types of parties or candidates with reference to views, positions, and policies. It also covers advertising that takes a position on a proposition associated with a party or candidate.

Hon Bill English: Is it the case that since I asked this question last week the Minister has now read the bill, and how did it escape his notice and the notice of the whole Cabinet, over an 18-month period of policy making, that the definition of an election advertisement includes anything that takes a position on a proposition with which one or more parties is associated; does he stand by that as Government policy?

Hon MARK BURTON: The member clearly is not paying attention. The intent of this bill is not to hinder organisations that are going about their normal public awareness - raising and educational activities—I made that point to the member previously—but rather to ensure that in the context of an election campaign, activity that is reasonably described as campaigning is appropriately covered. Failure to provide this protection leaves our electoral system at the mercy of those who would seek to undermine it in the sort of way we saw in 2005, with the National Party endorsing a $1 million secretive campaign.

Hon Bill English: Is the Minister aware that the exemption for the media from the definition of “election advertisement” is quite narrow and, for instance, a newspaper website, as opposed to the newspaper itself, may not be exempt, and journalists’ blogs such as those that are regularly published now will certainly count as election advertising?

Hon MARK BURTON: As I think a number of my colleagues have urged the member, the place to go to have detailed examination and speculation and to seek expert advice about the interpretation of various clauses of the bill is the select committee. The member got up in the course of his question and said “maybe”; the member is speculating. The place for that debate and discussion is in the select committee. I have absolute confidence that the select committee will add to the value and accuracy of this bill.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister think this legislation would have been necessary if there had not been such wholesale abuse of the electoral laws in 2005, in particular by an alleged chauvinist, racist group called the Exclusive Brethren—

Hon Members: Pay the money back!

Rt Hon Winston Peters: —which was happy to associate with the National Party, a party which has still not paid its GST but has the effrontery to call that out to us?

Hon MARK BURTON: There is no doubt that the genesis of this legislation was the discovery that the rorts that were possible under the legislation in 2005, perpetrated on our electoral system by the National Party and its friends in the Exclusive Brethren, necessitated changes to our electoral law. I can say to the member—because he clearly has not got to page 54 yet—that clause 103(2) does help to address the issue of GST, which the member clearly needs assistance with.

Hon Bill English: Is it now the Minister’s position that after 18 months of policy making, extensive Cabinet discussion, and the personal interest of the Prime Minister, he cannot, as Minister of Justice, answer a question in the House about whether the exemption for the media from the election advertisement provisions includes websites or journalists’ blogs, and that given that the Government has no idea, it will now require the select committee to work that out?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I withheld from making this point of order. We have just heard Bill English ask his question largely in silence, but by way of contrast, I say that when I asked mine there was a barrage from about 20 people on my right, and you did nothing whatsoever to stop them. I am asking for the same rules to be applied no matter where the question is asked from in this House, and, I ask what you propose to do about that last comparison.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. I did ask members to observe courtesy to other members, to ensure that they are heard by other members in the Chamber.

Hon MARK BURTON: As I have said to the member on a number of occasions, the critical issue here is whether the matter that the member is referring to is and seeks to be election campaigning during the regulated period. The intent of this legislation is to ensure a level playing field. A neutral referee is provided for in this legislation to exercise judgment on those matters.

Gerry Brownlee: Where does it say that?

Hon MARK BURTON: The question really should be why the National Party does not want a level playing field and a neutral referee to make those decisions in our electoral system.

Hon Bill English: Has the Minister bothered to read the definition of “publication”, which includes the following provisions: to “(c) send to any member of the public by any means; or (d) deliver to any member of the public, or leave at a place owned or occupied by a member of the public;”, which, in practical terms, means publication is anything except shouting across the street.

Hon MARK BURTON: The member’s assertion is clearly wrong—the last statement.

Hon Bill English: No, it’s not. I read it from the legislation.

Hon MARK BURTON: The member’s statement that it covers anything except shouting across the street is clearly wrong.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm he is having difficulty in explaining Government policy and this bill to the House, and why does he think that the people charged with the enforcement of this legislation, being the police, are in any better situation than the Minister of Justice—who has had 18 months to think about it—to make interpretations?

Hon MARK BURTON: I am having no difficulty in explaining to the House that the purpose of this legislation is to prevent the sort of rort that Mr Key and the National Party were determined to perpetrate on the people of New Zealand in 2005. It cannot be allowed to happen again.

Health Services—Initiatives for Children

6. MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on new health initiatives which will benefit New Zealand children?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes, I have. Yesterday a comprehensive, free health check for 4-year-olds began in Wanganui, and today a second pilot begins in Counties Manukau. From February next year the roll-out will begin nationally. The Government’s aim is to have every 4-year-old child in this country ready and able to learn.

Maryan Street: Is there any precedent for similar checks of New Zealand children?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Indeed there is. The first Labour Government introduced free, comprehensive health checks for our children 60 years ago. Back then Labour was particularly looking for malnutrition amongst our children, and children’s health camps were established in response to what was found. Today’s checks, however, are probably even more comprehensive. They involve hearing, eyesight, height, weight, oral health, and so on, as well as any behavioural issues or developmental concerns that parents might identify.

Barbara Stewart: Will additional assistance be available for the parents of those children who are revealed during the course of the before-school checks to have serious problems requiring specialist help?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Yes, it will be available. Where necessary, a child will be referred to a health service or to an education or social service. Indeed, one of the reasons we are piloting this programme in Wanganui and Counties Manukau, starting this week, is to ensure we have sufficient capacity for such referrals.

Sue Kedgley: Has he received any reports about the likely health implications for New Zealand children of Chinese-made clothing, some of which has been found to contain formaldehyde at levels far exceeding those that the World Health Organization says can cause eye, skin, and nasal irritations, respiratory problems, asthma, and, in the long-term, cancer; if so, what is his ministry doing to ensure that New Zealand children are not exposed to unsafe clothing?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I have not received any formal reports on that issue in the last day. I have, however, read a report from Wayne Temple, who heads up the Poisons Centre in Dunedin, to the effect that formaldehyde in clothing is capable of causing a range of skin problems—dermatitis and the like—but is unlikely to be a source of respiratory or oncological problems.

Question No 7 to Minister

GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam): I seek the House’s indulgence to leave this question to a time when the Minister of State Services may be available to answer it.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? Yes, there is objection.

State Services Commissioner—Confidence

7. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) to the Minister of State Services: Does she have confidence in the State Services Commissioner; if so, why?

Hon PHIL GOFF (Minister of Defence) on behalf of the Minister of State Services: Yes; because he is an able and experienced civil servant with a reputation for integrity, who has served both Labour and National - led Governments over a long period of time.

Gerry Brownlee: Is she aware that her colleague the Minister of Finance has stated that he expects Dr Prebble to factor in Simon Murdoch’s failure to keep the Government informed of Air New Zealand’s charter flights to Kuwait, involving the Australian military, at the next performance review; and does she have confidence that Dr Prebble will have the ability to do that objectively, when he himself has failed to keep her aware of an important issue inside her State services portfolio?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I have no doubt about the ability of Mark Prebble to carry out the functions that he is required to carry out as the commissioner for State services. He has a long and proven track record of being able to do that. Occasionally, State servants, being human beings, make mistakes. Mr Brownlee might never admit to making a mistake, but people do—and Mark Prebble did, on one occasion. That should not be held against him in respect of his excellent track record as a first-rate and professional civil servant.

Gerry Brownlee: Why was Dr Cullen so quick to publicly state his disapproval of Mr Murdoch’s failure to keep Ministers aware of the issue, when the Minister of State Services was failed, for over 2 months by Dr Prebble, in exactly the same sort of way; and was that due to the fact that Dr Prebble was covering up for one of the Minister’s ministerial colleagues?

Madam SPEAKER: That question probably should have been directed, at least in part, to Dr Cullen. The second part was directed to the Minister of State Services, so I will allow that.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is quite improper for that member to make a serious allegation, in a kangaroo-court manner, that Mr Prebble was involved in a cover-up. I reject that, but, as the member knows, an independent investigation is being done by Don Hunn, another man in whose integrity the country would have confidence. Mark Prebble has specifically asked, firstly, that this investigation be independent of him, and, secondly, that any assessment that Mr Hunn has to make about Dr Prebble should not be withheld from publication. That is open, that is transparent, and the member, instead of making throwaway comments that affect the integrity of proven civil servants, should await the outcome of that inquiry.

Gerry Brownlee: Can the Minister confirm that the first the Minister knew of David Benson-Pope’s discussion with Mr Logan regarding the Madeleine Setchell employment matter, was, in fact, on 3 July, and that Mr Prebble’s file note will confirm that?

Hon PHIL GOFF: I can confirm from the Minister’s records that she first became aware of the issue on 3 July 2007. Could the member repeat the last part of the question, which was garbled?

Gerry Brownlee: I have got enough. I think I will leave it there, if that is OK.

Monetary Policy—Consensus

8. R DOUG WOOLERTON (NZ First) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received regarding an accepted consensus on monetary policy in New Zealand?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance): I think the conventional consensus, since certainly the passing of the 1989 legislation, is that the monetary policy framework does not have an impact on long-run growth. As I commented last Thursday, I am concerned that this view probably no longer holds in New Zealand, because of the way in which monetary policy has interacted with the exchange rate and confidence in the exporting sector.

R Doug Woolerton: Does the Minister agree with the reported comment of the New Zealand Exchange Chief Executive, Mark Weldon, that New Zealand should move from a strict inflation-targeting regime to a framework that targets long-run price stability and output, to ensure that exporters are not damaged by the fight against inflation?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No, I probably would not agree with that view, but I accept that the views expressed by Mr Weldon are well-thought-out. Indeed, his submission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee was one of a number of submissions that people put considerable effort into. Clearly, it is useful for the committee to engage with those submitters and report back to the House. I regret the fact that Mr English continues to regard this as some kind of useless exercise.

Hon Mark Gosche: Has he seen reports setting out competing views on monetary policy?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: I have seen two quite conflicting reports. The first states that the Governor of the Reserve Bank should not have increased interest rates on the last two occasions. The second states that the Government “has been saying too much and not doing enough”. These conflicting reports came, firstly, from John Key, and, secondly, from Bill English, who, as always, disagree on monetary and fiscal policies.

Hon Bill English: For how much longer does the Minister of Finance intend to keep suggesting that he might change monetary policy, only to have every suggestion he makes be knocked over by the Prime Minister, and still believe that he can be credible?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: The member is actually quite wrong on that. The difference between him and me on it is quite simple: we both probably support the general framework of monetary policy, but I am willing to discuss ideas about how its operation can be improved. He seems to think that the last word on all of this was spoken sometime in the mid-1980s, and nothing has changed since then. Well, life has moved on, I say to Mr English.

R Doug Woolerton: What support has the Minister seen for moves to address the issues relating to our monetary policy, including that a single focus on price stability has the effect of crippling the export sector on which New Zealand depends; and does the Minister agree that it is time for some rational debate on our monetary policy framework, such as that sought by New Zealand First when we attempted to table our Reserve Bank (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill, a move that was blocked by the National Party?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: All rational suggestions from New Zealand First are welcomed and should be broadly debated. My own view remains that a single focus on price stability is probably still preferable, because when there are multiple objectives the bank is placed in the position of deciding from time to time which objective it is trying to meet, and that can lead to quite confused accountabilities.

Hon Bill English: Can the Minister confirm that the real reason he keeps raising issues about monetary policy is that he realises that New Zealand households are facing among the highest interest rates in the developed world and, with the dropping dollar, reduced purchasing power, and that is bad news for the Labour Government, which has mismanaged growth, and he is trying to find some way of blaming someone else for it?

Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN: No. What the member should perhaps realise is the fact that interest rates have had to be ratcheted up so high for so long a period, and the exchange rate has been so high for so long a period, might raise some interesting questions about the operation of monetary policy, and that an intelligent, open-minded person would not be afraid of discussing them. Welcome to the world of intelligent, rational debate, I say to Mr English.

Corrections, Department—Confidence

9. SIMON POWER (National—Rangitikei) to the Minister of Corrections: Does he have confidence in his department; if so, why?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR (Minister of Corrections): Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

Simon Power: How can jailed members of youth gang Juvanyle Crip Boys be allowed to post photos of themselves from inside Mount Eden Prison on to a social networking website that apparently also features a photo of Helen Clark arm in arm with gang members, titled “Cripn’ Clark”?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I am led to believe they used cellphones.

Simon Power: How was an inmate at Rimutaka Prison able to use a cellphone to allegedly mastermind via Thailand an order of $1 million worth of methamphetamine while at the same time a 10-month inquiry into corruption at the prison was being undertaken?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: That matter is currently under investigation. I have been informed that the Department of Corrections works very closely with the police in identifying and finding the cellphones, and all those involved in that drug ring, and smashing it.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Minister aware of any other criminal offending organised by telephone from criminals behind bars; if so, when?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: Unfortunately, yes. A prisoner called a TV show, diverting a call made from the prison phone, to discuss his escape and the intention of three other prisoners to escape. Following investigation a statement was made: “The more I have investigated the abuse of prison phones, the more I have become concerned. Inmates are organising bank robberies, ordering drugs, arranging death contracts and leading gangs through misuse of the phone system. It just makes a total joke of the justice system.” That was said by the former Minister of Corrections Nick Smith in 1998. That National Government did nothing; we are clamping down on cellphone use in prisons.

Simon Power: How does the Minister reconcile his department’s acquiescence in allowing an inmate to allegedly hire a public relations company to soften his image, when it refused to allow an inmate to pay for his own private drug treatment to beat his addiction?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: I guess that the member is referring to Arthur Taylor, a man who has absolutely no credibility within the corrections system. The member incorrectly, as he so often does, says that the prisoner Justin Rys was not allowed to get a drug and alcohol counsellor paid for. That is, in fact, incorrect. The member is wrong again. Justin Rys has, in fact, been able to get access to that counselling, if he so wishes.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Minister have any evidence to back up the damning indictment of the prison system made by Nick Smith as Minister of Corrections about 9 years of a National Government and the misuse of telephones in prisons?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: There is a huge amount of evidence. The performance of the corrections system under our Government has been outstanding. The escape rates have dropped 80 percent. We have moved on every area of contraband. I hope to make an announcement around the issue of cellphones very shortly.

Simon Power: Can the Minister confirm his department’s response to the Law and Order Committee during the estimates process that, despite the construction of four new prisons, more than half of New Zealand’s prisons’ capacity is “below standard, need to be replaced, decommissioned, or refurbished by 2014-15.”; and how will the creaking prison system cope when the most recent muster forecast for 2007 has already been exceeded by 131, well before peak season in September?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: It is a fact that we have clamped down on dangerous and violent criminals. We have locked up more of those people. It is also a fact that a lack of investment by the previous National Government has resulted in a running down of many of the prisons in this country. However, that member cannot have it both ways. If he criticises us for putting in under-floor heating and for providing proper facilities, he cannot criticise us for then having facilities that are not up to that standard. I ask the member to get it right.

Simon Power: Why were guards allegedly told to “stand back and watch” during riots at Rimutaka Prison, when the bill for intentional damage by inmates this year is already $1 million and sure to rise?

Hon DAMIEN O'CONNOR: That is an allegation regarding the actions of guards at that time. I applaud them for handling that incident correctly. The total money spent on repairing vandalism within prisons is less than 5 percent of the total maintenance budget. I would suggest that that is around the figure that most public institutions around this country would spend on repairing vandalism.

Viet Nam Veterans—Memorandum of Understanding

10. STEVE CHADWICK (Labour—Rotorua) to the Minister of Veterans' Affairs: What announcements has he made about the memorandum of understanding signed between representatives of veterans of the Viet Nam War and the Government in December 2006?

Hon RICK BARKER (Minister of Veterans' Affairs): A cross-party announcement will be made later today, launching Tribute 08. During the joint working-group’s extensive consultation in 2005, Viet Nam veterans spoke of the negative response they personally felt on their return to New Zealand. Tribute 08 is a commemoration to acknowledge the service of Viet Nam veterans and those who died, and the sacrifices of their families. It is an important step to allow the healing process to begin. Veterans’ organisations are keen that all political parties should come behind this process, and broad support shown for Tribute 08 would be pleasing. I look forward to the actual event being held next year, on Queen’s Birthday weekend.

Steve Chadwick: What progress is being made on implementing other aspects of this memorandum of understanding?

Hon RICK BARKER: Good progress is being made by the joint implementation group, which consists of Government agencies and representatives of the two Viet Nam veterans’ organisations, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Associaton and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. The most important task is getting a full and accurate register of Viet Nam veterans. So far, 3,621 Viet Nam veterans and their families have registered. Ex gratia payments are being made. The trust deed of the Viet Nam Veterans and Their Families Trust, worth $7 million, has been signed and a cheque for $250,000 to the Ex-Vietnam Services Association (Neville Wallace Memorial) Children’s and Grandchildren’s Trust has been presented. Work is almost complete on free medical checks, and I could continue. Tribute 08 represents another important part of delivering for Viet Nam veterans and their families.

Pita Paraone: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Given a recent report that has indicated that a number of veterans have had declined their applications to Veterans Affairs New Zealand, for consideration under the arrangements reached between Government and the bodies that represented these veterans, can the Minister advise what will be done to address the health needs of these veterans and their families—needs that have arisen as a result of veterans having served their country in what was described as a “toxic environment” in Viet Nam?

Hon RICK BARKER: I cannot speak on those details because the member has not been specific about them, but if he cares to contact my office I will certainly investigate the matter immediately. But I can say to the member and to this House that Veterans Affairs New Zealand currently pays out 1,381 war disablement pensions to Viet Nam veterans. So we are taking up the issue of Viet Nam veterans and addressing their health needs.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Madam Speaker. Kia ora tātou. Is the Minister aware that at 4 p.m. today Viet Nam veterans will parade on Parliament in protest against what they describe as “the Crown’s consistent and despicable rejection of Viet Nam veterans’ health and welfare concerns”, and would he not agree that the continued refusal of the Government working party to meet Māori veterans on marae, or to consider the impact of dioxin on the veteran community and others, is responsible for the enduring sense of anger and injustice these people experience?

Hon RICK BARKER: There are a number of parts to that question. Firstly, the Government has negotiated in good faith with the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services Association and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association and has come to an honourable agreement. That honourable agreement covers all of the nine points raised in the open letter by Viet Nam veterans that was signed some years ago. All of those nine points have been addressed, either in part or in total. The memorandum of understanding has about 60 different points, and is extensive and ongoing. Finally, I make the point to the member that the Government, through Veterans Affairs, is paying out just on 1,400 war disablement pensions to Viet Nam veterans, and that these war disablement pensions cover all aspects of health, including the results of exposure to dioxins and the toxic environment. This Government does care about veterans’ health and is doing everything it can to ensure they are well looked after.

Te Ururoa Flavell: How does the memorandum of understanding cater for the issue of support and counselling available to veterans—who returned from Viet Nam shell-shocked and traumatised, resulting, in some cases, in alcohol dependency—and the subsequent intergenerational impact of this drug on their children?

Hon RICK BARKER: That is generally today called post-traumatic stress syndrome, and I am pleased to be able to report to the member that Veterans Affairs funds a substantial amount of counselling and support for veterans who have post-traumatic stress syndrome. If that member is aware of people who could benefit from that, I would be very pleased if he could make their names known to me and I will ensure that they and their families get the support necessary to help them.

North Shore Hospital—Sculpture

11. Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) to the Minister of Health: Was a sculpture unveiled at North Shore Hospital recently; if so, by whom?

Hon PETE HODGSON (Minister of Health): Yes; the Prime Minister in her role as Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage unveiled the sculpture at North Shore Hospital on Friday, 10 August.

Hon Tony Ryall: Did the Prime Minister on that day visit the North Shore Hospital emergency department, where patients are languishing on trolleys in corridors for up to 4 days, and where ambulances are being parked up to provide more waiting areas for patients—or was the Prime Minister more interested in unveiling a sculpture that, ironically, represents “hope in places where it is needed most”?

Hon PETE HODGSON: I would have hoped the member would know the answer to his question. The Prime Minister did take a brief and unscheduled look through—[Interruption] It was for about 15 minutes. She looked through the North Shore Hospital, especially the emergency department. She then reported to me, within 24 hours, that she felt the emergency department was not up to scratch and that she felt it needed to be fixed. I agree with her.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister think it is quality care for a North Shore woman with a shin infection to sit from 10 in the morning until just before midnight, hooked up to a drip, in a public waiting area of the emergency department, waiting to get on to a hospital trolley, where she waited another 18 hours before finally being admitted to hospital; is that the quality service that this Prime Minister has promised?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Struggling though I am to draw a link between fine art in the public health system and the member’s question, my answer is that no, I do not think it is acceptable. I do not think the Waitemata District Hospital Board emergency department is providing an adequate service; I do not think so.

Hon Tony Ryall: Does the Minister agree with me that emergency departments are barometers of how well an entire hospital is doing, and why is it that so many of the country’s emergency departments are gridlocked and unable to provide the timely care that their patients are seeking?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The health, if you like, of an emergency department is an important indicator of how the health system is going as a whole, but it is by no means the full story. What happens in New Zealand every winter—and it is happening to an even greater extent in Australia now—is that the flu season, which of course affects health professionals, means that an increase in demand, coupled with a reduction in supply, comes to pass. In particular, what happens is that wards get blocked because the hospitals are full, then the flow ends up in the emergency department, which is a really difficult position for health professionals and patients to find themselves in. In the case of the Waitemata board, however, the situation has been complicated by the fact that it is the fastest-growing district health board in the entire country. Over the past five years, the population increase there has been greater than the entire population of Southland.

Ann Hartley: Is the Minister satisfied with the situation in the emergency department?

Hon PETE HODGSON: No, I am not, and neither is the board satisfied. Neither, of course, are the staff satisfied, and, as we have learnt, neither is the Prime Minister satisfied. In the House recently I said that the Waitemata board’s emergency department response times are the worst of all 21 district health boards. But let us also talk a little about solutions, instead of just about problems.

Hon Tony Ryall: There are no solutions!

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member does not want to know about solutions, does he? [Interruption] Does he want to know?

Madam SPEAKER: We will have the answer in silence.

Hon PETE HODGSON: The solutions come in the form of, first of all, more money, and the budget for the Waitemata board increased by 8 percent just last month; second, they come in the form of more beds, and 21 extra beds will be opening next month; third, they come in the form of more staff, which the board can now afford, and it is actively hiring both doctors and nurses; and, fourth, they come in the form of changes to the way it manages patient flow. There is a particular issue about the design of the emergency department in that particular hospital.

Hon Tony Ryall: Why, after 8 years—

Hon Maurice Williamson: Eight long years!

Hon Tony Ryall: —after eight long years in Government and $5 billion extra a year, is the Government only now admitting there are problems at North Shore Hospital, after successive Ministers of Health in that failed Government opposite have justified the appalling performance that North Shore people have received in their emergency department?

Hon PETE HODGSON: The member carefully frames his question as though nothing happened in the first 6 or 7 years. Let me give him one statistic. [Interruption] He does not want to hear the good news. Let me tell him that 6 years ago the number of doctors in Waitematā totalled 320, and right now the number of doctors in Waitematā totals not 320 but 570. If the member wants to do his sums, he will find that is a 78 percent increase in the number of doctors in that one district health board. So let us not say that this is something that has occurred because nothing has happened; let us just say—

Hon Tony Ryall: Why is it worse?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Oh, the member does not want to know. If he does not want to know, I do not mind.

Madam SPEAKER: The member has an opportunity to ask supplementary questions. Disorder is being created by constant interruptions.

Dr Jonathan Coleman: Does the Minister understand what an insult it is when the Prime Minister goes to North Shore Hospital to unveil a sculpture and in her speech she does not even mention the real issue of the failing accident and emergency department, and does he not realise that the ideal spot for a sculpture representing “hope in places where it is needed most” is actually the Labour Party caucus room?

Hon PETE HODGSON: Once again, the gentleman opposite takes the cigar for the smart alec comment. The truth of the matter is that the Prime Minister made an unscheduled visit to the emergency department immediately after she had unveiled the sculpture; she then got ahold of her health Minister and said she was not happy. There is a bunch of action around that, and we are looking forward to some improvement, which we can undertake because we are a party that does not get out of bed in the morning only to reduce the tax take. Our Government proudly invests more into our health system, and we will see that investment come to fruition.

Hon Harry Duynhoven: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. In the supplementary answer before last, you asked that the House hear the answer—after the Minister was interrupted several times—in silence. Immediately to your left, members were severely barracking the Minister all the way through his answer. We then had another supplementary answer and precisely the same thing occurred, except that the barracking was much more widespread. Even when you were quite stridently giving you request to the House just then for order, a member on the National side of the House was interjecting on you. Please, will you throw some of them out.

Madam SPEAKER: The member’s substantive point is justified, and I will ask members to bear that in mind. As you know, I try to have a robust debate in this House, but when there is a denial of the right of any member to be heard by means of orchestrated barracking, then members will leave this House.

Hon Tony Ryall: I seek leave to table an email of a report of a stunned onlooker at the Prime Minister’s visit to the emergency department, who said she walked through very quickly, making no eye contact with any of the people on the trolleys.

Madam SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Financial Sector—Regulation of Non-banking Section

12. DAVE HEREORA (Labour) to the Minister of Commerce: What action does the Government intend to take to improve regulation of the non-banking financial sector?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Minister of Commerce): In June this year I announced decisions arising from the extensive review of financial products and providers and financial intermediaries. Those decisions were to register all non-bank financial institutions, strengthen the current model of trustee supervision, strengthen the prudential regulation of non-bank deposit takers, provide for more comprehensive regulatory oversight of financial intermediaries, and provide for effective consumer dispute resolution and redress.

Dave Hereora: Can the Minister confirm that this review is the last stage of an extensive programme of financial sector reforms?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, which is why it is important to continue the process that has been carefully developed with key stakeholders, and that follows sound regulatory analysis and principles. However, given the recent finance company failures, I have asked my officials to examine whether there are any common threads in these failures, and to see whether any intermediate steps can be taken to improve the regulatory environment in the interim. I am also discussing this issue this week with the head of the Securities Commission to ascertain whether she feels that the Securities Commission has sufficient powers, along with the trustee companies that provide front-line supervision, in light of these failures.

Dave Hereora: Has the Minister seen the report in the New Zealand Herald this morning warning investors they need to do more homework before putting their money into finance companies; if so, what is her response?

Hon LIANNE DALZIEL: Yes, I have; I believe that the report contains very sensible advice, including the kinds of questions that investors should ask their financial advisers, such as whether they have read the prospectus, why they are recommending this particular investment, and what they know about the directors and financial management of the company. When we announced the decisions of the review of financial products and providers, I made the point that some of the products on the market are mis-priced, which means some investors do not realise the real level of risk they are taking with their hard-earned money. That is why asking these questions is so important.

Questions to Members

Regulatory Responsibility Bill—Submissions and Timetable

1. RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: How many submissions have been received to date on the Regulatory Responsibility Bill, and what is the timetable for the hearing of submissions?

GERRY BROWNLEE (Chairperson of the Commerce Committee): I am informed that the Commerce Committee has received some 180 submissions, and that the overwhelming majority of those submissions are in favour of the bill, as was the case at the House vote when the bill was read for the first time. The select committee will set down a hearing programme that allows all those who want to be heard to be heard, and expects to report the bill sometime in mid-November.

Rodney Hide: Is it too late for members of the public to make a submission to the Commerce Committee—would it be possible for the committee to receive those submissions?

GERRY BROWNLEE: The select committee’s deadline for submissions was 10 August, so the official period has closed. However, I am certain that should people wish to make a submission on this particular bill, the committee would be prepared to at least receive those in the interim. One of the things that is striking about this bill is the overwhelming number of submissions in favour of it

ENDS

© Scoop Media