THURSDAY, 5 MARCH 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Accident Compensation Corporation—Date Extension for Funding of Accounts

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

1. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Will the Government support an urgent law change to extend the date for full funding of ACC accounts?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : Yesterday I stated my intention to introduce legislation to push out the full funding date. The member is wrong to present the extension of full funding as a solution to the challenges facing accident compensation and the growth in levies. All it changes is when we pay, and, if costs double, as they more than did under Labour’s tenure, at some point levies must follow suit.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister accept that if the date for full funding is extended to 2019, then the big hikes in levies and registration fees that the Minister referred to yesterday will be substantially avoided?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, if the full funding date is moved forward we can make a difference in some of the accounts, but not all. I also note, though, that by pushing out the full funding date, the solvency ratios in the accounts do not improve—in fact, they deteriorate—and, furthermore, the debt goes on to the Crown balance sheet. The idea that simply pushing out the full funding date solves the problem in accident compensation in misleading and wrong.

Michael Woodhouse: Is the Minister surprised by Labour’s proposals for deferring full funding in order to take pressure off the motor vehicle levy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am. Last July Labour increased the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) motor vehicle licence and petrol tax levies by almost $50, at a time when the cost of petrol was over $2 a litre. Officials presented Labour with this option; it declined it then. How it changes its spots when in Opposition!

Sue Bradford: Is it true that Business New Zealand and Treasury are currently the sole drafters of the terms of reference for a full Government review of accident compensation?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, that is completely false. I have not had any discussions with either of those organisations about the changes that the Government will need to make in accident compensation, nor have officials. I wish to reassure the member that this Government is absolutely determined to ensure that New Zealand has a 24/7 accident insurance scheme that is both affordable and sustainable in the long term.

Michael Woodhouse: What other reports has the Minister received of misleading information about the ACC’s financial position?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yesterday I noticed that Mr Parker was keen to focus on the solvency ratio in 1999. I note, and the House will know, that the decision to move to full funding was made in 1998. So 25 years of residual funding had to be taken into account at that time, and the idea that somehow it would all be paid off in 1 year is simply absurd.

Michael Woodhouse: Will deferring the full funding date resolve the costs facing families from the blowout in the ACC accounts?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. Of the $2,400 increase in projected levies for families, 73 percent of that will come from the earners account. The earners account has a very small residual component, so extending out the full funding period will have a negligible effect. The average family would still face increases of over $2,100—

Hon Tony Ryall: How much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —$2,100—even with the proposal being advanced by Mr Parker.

Hon David Parker: Will the Government commit to extending the date for full funding in time to prevent the large and unnecessary increases in motor vehicle levies this July, or will the Minister let them go up unnecessarily, as he did with the employer levy before Christmas?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can assure the House that this Government is far more mindful of the costs of accident compensation on motor vehicle owners, on households, and on businesses than the previous Government ever was. Furthermore, this Government is prepared to make the changes to secure the long-term future of accident compensation, rather than to have it compromised by the sorts of policies that the previous Government had.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question was really very simple: would the extension be in time for the July increases, or not? Again, we had a diatribe from the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point that the member has made. I invite him to repeat his question, because there was no mention of timing in the answer.

Hon David Parker: Will the Government commit to extending the date for full funding in time to prevent the large, and unnecessarily large, increases in motor vehicle levies this July, or will the Minister let them go up unnecessarily, as he did with the employer levy before Christmas?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you, later today, to consider very carefully the transcript of the answer given by Dr Nick Smith in answer to the question that was first asked. If we are going to have to answer questions on the basis of supposition in the question, then I think we are in some trouble.

Mr SPEAKER: The part of the question that involved supposition did not require an answer. The bit that was very clear, in that question, related to the timing of a decision, and the Minister made no attempt to address that, in any shape or form. That is why I invited the member to repeat the question, and the Minister for ACC—

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The change in legislation in respect of motor vehicle levies will not be necessary for this Government to provide for a lesser level of levy increases than those proposed by officials.

Mr SPEAKER: What the Minister has just said is not a matter of order. The Minister may choose to incorporate that in an answer to the member, but the member’s question was very clear. I invite the Minister to answer it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member’s question was based on the supposition that the only way I can limit the cost of the motor vehicle levy increase is to change the legislation. That is not correct, and that is why it is possible for the Government to make a lesser levy increase.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is attempting to answer the question to me; it is the honourable member’s question, and I invite him to answer it. He is giving a perfectly good answer now. If he had only done that previously, then everything would have been in order. I have invited the Minister to answer the member’s question. He does not have to if he does not wish to.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I thought I had. I will answer again. The member’s supposition—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was trying to answer the question by way of a point of order. He cannot do that, because it is not a matter of order. He just needs to answer the question, not raise a point of order.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The supposition in the member’s question, that the only way in which I can contain the levy increases on motor vehicle owners is a change in the legislation, is not correct. The Government’s move to push out the full funding date will be in legislation that I intend to introduce into the House this year, so that it can be taken into account in the levy increases at the end of this year.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister accept that the PricewaterhouseCoopers report showed that $1.8 billion of the $2.5 billion increase in ACC liabilities is the result of decreasing investment returns caused by the global economic crisis and is not caused by generous entitlements, as he claims?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The decrease in investment returns is actually quite small. The key factor in the latest report that has increased the liabilities has actually been a reduction in the discount rate.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Exactly—cyclical.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Exactly! Even Dr Cullen is agreeing with me. The discount rate went up in 2005 and 2006, and, as the report that was presented to the House on Tuesday made plain, the underlying reason for the huge increase in liabilities is the fact that the cost of the scheme had more than doubled per year.

Hon David Parker: What does the Minister say to former train driver Terry Bristowe, who would again be denied coverage for his lost earnings if he was off work having had his train run over people, and to people who suffer medical misadventure and lose their earnings, and is he willing to assure them that they will remain covered after his changes to accident compensation coverage?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new National Government will not be making any retrospective changes, but it is true that Labour made extensions to the scheme that were not funded. We have the simple choice either to increase the levies, by $2,400 per average household per year, or to review some of the changes that have been made. It is the view of the Government that we need to save the scheme and to make it affordable as well as efficient.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, we had the Minister making a speech. Very little of that answer was relevant to the question that was asked, and I ask that you bring the Minister to order.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe I have been very fair in giving the member the chance to restate a question and obtain an answer on it. I do not believe that that point of order was remotely reasonable.

2. Accident Compensation Corporation—Financial Reports

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

2. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister for ACC: What reports has he received on “shonky figures” in ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : Mr Speaker—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not so much as said a word and I face a barracking of voices from the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: I am sure the honourable Minister is perfectly capable of dealing with that. It was clearly a fairly political question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Labour’s describing the PricewaterhouseCoopers report on the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) as “shonky” is a bit rich in the very week in which it has been confirmed that Labour’s Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2008 hid $1.5 billion in liabilities in a breach of the Public Finance Act.

Chris Tremain: What reports has the Minister received on taking responsibility for misleading reports?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The signed statement by Labour in the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update 2008 says: “I accept overall responsibility for the integrity of the disclosures … in accordance with the requirements of the Public Finance Act 1989.”, and that all material fiscal implications have been disclosed. They were not. Labour now refuses to accept any responsibilities, despite at least two of its former Ministers knowing of that $1.5 billion of liability—the largest breach on record of the Public Finance Act.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister intend to proceed with ACC levy increases that would cost the average family $2,400 per annum, as he said to the House yesterday, or was that alarmist talk to soften up people to the need for unnecessary cuts to entitlements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. This Government is not going to proceed with levy increases of that size; they are untenable. They are untenable, but they are the legacy that Labour left through its poor management of the ACC. We have the job of fixing it and saving the ACC, and we are up to that challenge.

Chris Tremain: What would be the effect on the ACC’s solvency ratio of deferring full funding?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If we adopted the approach that members opposite adopt to the challenges we face at the ACC, I am advised that the solvency ratios would decline all the way to zero within a period of 7 years. That is untenable, and that is why simply changing the full funding date is not enough; we will have to have a more comprehensive package of change to secure the future of ACC.

3. Climate Change—Development of Low-carbon Economy

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

3. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with leading economist Nicholas Stern that “the development of a low carbon economy can provide new jobs and new opportunities for innovative businesses”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Successful innovation and adapting to new business circumstances and conditions are absolutely pivotal to creating new jobs. In this regard, how the economy adapts to future climate change, wherever that may lead, is, in principle, no different from any other economic change, and there are considerably many such forces now. That is why this Government is intent on building a flexible, productive, and competitive economy capable of weathering whatever storms lie ahead.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If that was a qualified yes, then which measures, if any, in the Government’s stimulus packages so far will create jobs from the development of a low carbon economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have not specified any particular jobs that will be related to the creation of a low carbon economy, but, as the member knows, this Parliament, like others around the world—notably that in Australia—are involved in a discussion about the most appropriate mechanism for carbon pricing. In New Zealand, it is partially in place now, and that will affect the decisions that businesses make that are consistent with lowering the carbon content of the economy.

Moana Mackey: Does the Minister agree that incentives such as research and development tax credits are important for assisting innovative businesses to develop low carbon technologies; and is it true that the Government is regretting its repeal of the previous Government’s tax credits and is scrambling to find a similar replacement?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This Government is involved in a wide range of activities to undo bad decisions made by the previous Government. One of those is the research and development tax incentive.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why did the Minister tell the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that “I think one crisis at a time might just do most Governments.”, when Stern and many others—Governments and UN organisations—have clearly shown that one can deal with both the climate crisis and the economic crisis with the same measures; and is it not time that his Government learnt to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know—because I have responded on behalf of the Prime Minister to her questions in the same way—the Government is contemplating measures that will have the effect of creating jobs as well as assisting households with, for instance, their insulation needs, thereby reducing their energy consumption. But we do believe that some of the rhetoric that we have heard from other countries is yet to be proven. In the end, it is yet to be shown whether, when large numbers of people are losing their jobs, other countries will choose any real policies other than those that will protect jobs or create new ones from any source, regardless of whether they are green or carbon neutral.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister aware of research done by the International Monetary Fund demonstrating that for every dollar spent on tax cuts there is a fiscal multiplier of less than one, whereas every dollar of Government spending can multiply 1.4 times? Is this not another argument for investing in “Green New Deal” solutions, instead of giving tax cuts to those earning hundreds of thousands of dollars a year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is an argument for 100 percent tax, and we do not go along with that. Sometimes we disagree with the International Monetary Fund, and I know that that member often does—in fact, most of the time. Part of this is about who makes the best decisions. Our view is that part of the case for lowering taxes is that in those circumstances New Zealanders get the chance to decide whether to reduce their debt, which many of them should be doing, or to increase their consumption in order to help the economy. We prefer that to a rigid pathway towards a green economy that has been chosen by bureaucrats and a few politicians.

Moana Mackey: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that there is a possibility that climate change science may deteriorate and that climate change sceptics may be right, and does he think that the Prime Minister’s comments to Investigate magazine are creating uncertainty and discouraging the creation of new jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister, particularly when I read the whole quote. But I have to tell that member that in the last few weeks no one in my electorate has come up to me and asked this Government to pursue the carbon-neutral sustainability workshop strategies written by Labour. What they are asking us to do is everything we possibly can to protect their jobs and create new ones.

4. Police—Code of Conduct

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

4. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Is the police code of conduct adequate for the administration of the police and the maintenance of public confidence in the police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) : I am advised that the New Zealand Police is confident that its code of conduct is adequate for the administration of the New Zealand Police and the maintenance of public confidence.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she think it appropriate for a senior police officer who was discovered by a volunteer community patrol slumped over the wheel of his police car, who was asleep behind a service station and was smelling of alcohol while recovering from a drinking session, who was seen only a few minutes later to be driving his vehicle erratically towards his home, and who then refused to take a breath test, to be then rewarded by being granted 6 months’ gardening leave on full pay?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As I have advised the member, employment inquiries with the New Zealand Police are matters that I cannot comment on.

Sandra Goudie: What can the Minister say about a code of conduct inquiry?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Nothing. As it is an employment inquiry it is a matter for the employer and is subject to privacy law.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will she then recommend to the Commissioner of Police changes she may feel would be appropriate to the police code of conduct so as to avoid this situation ever happening again?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The matter that the member refers to is obviously hypothetical, and I would think that the member should understand that under the Policing Act I do not have responsibility for the employment decisions of the New Zealand Police.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. I asked a specific question—not hypothetical—as to whether she, if she saw fit, would recommend changes to the Commissioner of Police in respect of the code of conduct. She is entitled to recommend anything she likes to her officials. That is a specific question; it is nothing to do with a hypothetical matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Where the member is seeking an opinion he may not necessarily get the opinion that he is seeking. I cannot assist him on that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister realise that her continued inability to properly condemn this incident is tarnishing the professional image of the police, who, on the whole, carry out their duties honourably and professionally; and does she agree with the Dominion Post, which noted: “For the sake of confidence in the police, the full facts of the Thomas case must be made public.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The supposition on which the member has based his question is incorrect.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister now show a modicum of leadership and express—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member has a right to ask his question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Thank you. I am glad to see the Opposition treat this issue very seriously, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will get on with the question please.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: When will—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The House will be quiet while the member asks his question.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are very clear that a person asking a question cannot make remarks or other suggestions in it outside the question. That is exactly what the member has done. He has not even asked his question and he has made a derogatory comment about the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that procedures in the last 60 seconds have not been great. Would the member please ask his question without provoking disorder.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: When will the Minister show leadership and express her condemnation of and outrage at this incident, given that the Commissioner of Police has said that the police officer in question had a moral duty to undertake a breath test; or does she exhibit outrage only when she is in this House being called to account, as the responsible Minister, by Parliament?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No matter what my personal views are on this matter, the fact is that police officers are entitled to employment law, and that member, as a member of the Labour Party, should actually have some regard to that.

5. Immigration Service, Pacific Division—Report

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

5. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister of Immigration: Has he received a report into Immigration New Zealand’s pacific division?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : Yes, I have received the Ernst and Young pacific division report, and it is being released via the Beehive website this afternoon. This latest review has found severe deficiencies across Immigration New Zealand’s pacific division. It paints a damning picture of a poorly performing service that was poorly led and lacked a clear strategic mandate under the previous Government. The division has become isolated from the rest of Immigration New Zealand over time, effectively acting in an autonomous manner, which is out of keeping with accepted practice.

Hon Tau Henare: What were the findings of the Ernst and Young report?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The report detailed serious concerns about divisional leadership that lacked accountability and transparency, failed to observe proper process, and created a fiefdom mentality. It described serious concerns about strategic direction under Labour, with no clarity over the divisions, roles, and responsibilities. The division’s management was poor, resulting in ongoing deterioration of service delivery, major inefficiencies, huge application backlogs, and concerns regarding financial processes and compliance. It has not served Pacific people well.

Hon Tau Henare: Who was responsible for the establishment of the pacific division?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The pacific division was the ill-conceived creation of the last Labour Government, and was set up by a former head of the Immigration Service, Mary Anne Thompson. It was never given a clear mandate by Labour. The leadership has been poor and the performance suboptimal. Despite knowing about problems with the pacific division, the last Government failed to take appropriate action. The mess described in this latest report is unacceptable.

Hon Tau Henare: What action is the Minister taking in relation to the pacific division?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have directed the Chief Executive of the Department of Labour to consider reintegrating all the activities of the pacific division back into the core of Immigration New Zealand. This will ensure that there are clear lines of accountability. I will appoint an independent adviser to report to me on the chief executive’s actions in relation to the pacific division, and to monitor service performance.

6. Corrections, Department—Sentencing and Parole Costs

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

6. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Corrections: Has she received any reports from the Department of Corrections on the costs associated with the passage of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : Yes.

Hon Annette King: Has she seen estimated costs of $7.5 billion for an additional 14,000 offenders who will require another 24 prisons, and do these massive costs mean the National Government will not support the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill through all its stages?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Hon Annette King: When does she or her colleagues intend to inform New Zealanders that rather than only supporting this bill being referred to a select committee, the National Government has reached a deal with ACT to pass it through all its stages in exchange for ACT’s support for the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Bill, or is this a dirty little deal that they wanted to keep in the closet?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Sandra Goudie: What other reports on costs has she received from the department?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Today I was advised by the department that the previous Minister of Corrections, the Hon Phil Goff, asked the department to analyse National’s law and order policies. I can only assume that that was because his Government did not have any of them.

Hon Annette King: Is she aware that last night on the Back Benchers programme on Television New Zealand’s channel 7, Rodney Hide announced, for New Zealand to know, that you are voting for the bill—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I am voting for anything.

Hon Annette King: —that the Minister and her Government are voting for the bill because they have struck a deal over the gang insignia bill? That is why they are voting with ACT on this bill, but they are hiding it.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I was not watching the Back Benchers programme on TV last night; I was working.

David Garrett: Does the Minister agree with Ministry of Justice estimates that show that “three strikes” legislation will lead to an increase of just 70 beds over 20 years, costing $21 million at $300,000 per bed, and does she agree that had such legislation been in place when 78 people were killed, their lives would have been saved?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That is certainly the information I have been provided with.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the transcript of the Back Benchers programme last night, where Rodney Hide announced that the ACT Party voted for the gang insignia bill because it had struck a deal with the National Government on the “three strikes” bill.

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

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I seek leave to table a letter from the Department of Corrections to the then Minister of Corrections, dated 8 October 2008 and entitled “Impacts of Proposed Parole Changes”, which details the National Party policy.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none.

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

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I seek leave to table another letter from the Department of Corrections to the then Minister of Corrections, dated 16 October 2008, detailing further impacts of the proposed parole changes.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to that letter being tabled? There is none.

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

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I inform the House that the Labour Party is prepared to make one of its supplementary questions available to Mr Hide, if he would care to ask a question.

Hon Rodney Hide: First of all, may I beg the indulgence of the House to thank Michael Cullen for that—

Mr SPEAKER: The member must ask his question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Can the Minister confirm that if “three strikes and you’re out” had been in place, 78 New Zealanders would be alive now rather than their having been killed, which is what happened under the previous Government’s law and order legislation?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Certainly, if those offenders had been incarcerated, then, clearly, those 78 New Zealanders would now be alive.

7. Health Workforce—Voluntary Bonding Scheme

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

7. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: How will the Government’s voluntary bonding scheme help address shortages in the health workforce?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : The biggest challenges facing the New Zealand public health service today are workforce, workforce, and workforce. The Government’s voluntary bonding scheme offers student loan write-offs and cash incentives to graduate doctors, nurses, and midwives to work in hard-to-staff communities or specialties for 3 to 5 years. This scheme will encourage more of them to stay at home after graduation and make choices that will establish their careers here in New Zealand.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What response has the Minister received in relation to the scheme?

Hon TONY RYALL: The new scheme, which also applies to veterinarians and to teachers, has had a very positive response, particularly from young doctors, nurses, and midwives themselves, as well as from the health sector. Positive responses have been received from a great many organisations, including the College of General Practitioners, the New Zealand Nurses Organisation, the Medical Association, the Medical Students’ Association, the University Students Association, and the Public Service Association.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When the Minister issued a list of the areas that would be covered by the scheme, did he know that the people of Horowhenua and Kapiti had been bribed with stories of more doctors, nurses, and midwives before the election, and had been promised more local doctors, midwives, and nurses after the election and after the scheme had been announced—both bribes and promises from his colleague Mr Guy—and if so, why did he leave Horowhenua and Kapiti off the list?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is certainly interesting that the Opposition’s strongest criticism of the scheme is that it should be expanded to more places and groups. I advise the member that if a graduate doctor wishes to be a general practitioner in his or her third year after graduation and works in Kapiti or Horowhenua, then he or she will quality for the voluntary bonding scheme.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other steps is the Government taking to address workforce shortages?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is tackling workforce issues on many fronts. It is working to give doctors and nurses a much greater say in the running of the health system, in order to improve job satisfaction and make them less likely to leave. We are requiring district health boards to focus on the retention of doctors, nurses, and other health staff. We are funding an additional 200 medical training places and an extra 50 general practitioner training places.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has the Minister seen reports from the director of nursing of the West Coast District Health Board, from the College of Nurses, and from the College of Mental Health Nurses stating that this scheme would pull nurses away from primary healthcare, rural healthcare, and aged care; if so, what is his response?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have seen those reports and I have to say that this Government is doing something the previous Government did not do. Rather than relying on 55 workforce reports over the previous 9 years—55 workforce reports, and still we inherited a health workforce crisis—the voluntary bonding scheme and the other policies I talked about earlier will help make a difference.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Can the Minister explain why words such as “voluntary” and “bonding” are permitted words to be used, but words like “public health inequalities” and “social justice” are banned in his ministry? What is it about voluntary bonding that the Minister likes?

Hon TONY RYALL: I advise the member that the only instruction I have given the Ministry of Health is that it write its reports in English.

8. Housing Initiatives—Construction Industry and Waiting Lists

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

8. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Housing: Does he see any opportunity to simultaneously deal with the job losses in the housing construction sector and assist the nearly 10,000 people on the Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting list?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : Yes. That is why over the current full financial year we will see an increase of roughly 540 State houses—150 under Labour, and 390 under our watch. Of those 390 under our watch, 69 came from the recent cash injection. On top of this we are putting an extra $104 million into State house upgrades, as we are concerned about the squalor that tenants have been living in. So those on the waiting list will be helped, those State house tenants currently living in squalor will be helped, and the building industry will be helped.

Sue Bradford: Why is the Government aiming to build only a pitiful 69 extra State houses over the next few months when, for example, Australia is investing $6.4 billion in social housing for some 20,000 households?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Perhaps the member did not hear. We are actually providing 390 extra houses under our watch—69 of them from the cash injection. We are also upgrading the State housing stock that was left in squalor when the then Minister of Housing used money set aside for depreciation for State house acquisitions instead. Interestingly, the same Minister who fiddled the books in State housing fiddled the books at the Accident Compensation Corporation.

Hon Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I consider that reference to be unparliamentary. I take offence to it and I ask that you ask that member to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a fair point because of the implication of that allegation. I ask the member to withdraw and apologise.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I withdraw and apologise.

Todd McClay: Why is the Minister injecting an extra $104.5 million into State house upgrades over and above his already scheduled upgrade programme?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The report to the incoming Minister showed that the previous Labour Government had been taking money that was set aside for State house depreciation and spending it on acquisitions, letting State houses to fall into a disgusting state of repair. The National Government has addressed this problem. This policy will see builders in work. I am very interested as to why the Green Party is criticising National for increasing State house numbers, doing up the State housing stock so that we cannot be accused of being a slum landlord like the previous Government, and providing jobs for the construction industry. Why are members opposite supporting slum landlords—

Mr SPEAKER: An answer is not time for a speech.

Sue Bradford: Why is the Minister heading down a path of job destruction in the community housing sector with changes to funding that are likely to wipe out a number of organisations when, instead, he could much more productively be part of leading a “Green New Deal” that would see a much-needed acceleration of house building in both the State and community housing sectors?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It is true that the previous Government funded many millions of dollars of capacity building. When in Opposition I asked the Government what that meant in terms of the community housing sector, and was told that no houses had been built with that money. Under this Government capital funding for the community housing sector has been increased from $12 million to $20 million. We are proud that houses will actually be built. We are not interested in capacity building, which builds nothing.

Hon George Hawkins: Will the Minister admit that he was wrong to suggest scrapping the $1 billion retrofit of New Zealand homes, which would have injected much-needed investment into a building industry that is facing job losses; if not, why not?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: There was a dream and promise of $1 billion. There was no money. I cannot believe that George Hawkins says that he supports putting $1 billion into housing upgrades, when his Government left the State housing stock in serious disrepair and was a slum landlord.

9. New Zealand Skills Strategy—Status

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

9. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Labour: What is the status of the New Zealand Skills Strategy?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) : The Skills Strategy is currently under consideration, and I note that many of the actions under the 2008 Skills Strategy action plan continue to be implemented.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she brief the Prime Minister on the strategy, before the Job Summit?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have had many discussions and conversations with many of my ministerial colleagues before and after the Jobs Summit, and that conversation continues.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question specifically asked whether she had briefed the Prime Minister; it was not a general one about other ministerial colleagues. I ask you to ask her to address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The question certainly was specific—had she briefed the Prime Minister—and the answer was that she had briefed many Ministers. I do not see why the Minister should not actually answer the question that was asked. I would ask the Minister, if she is able to—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not your job to have an opinion on whether Ministers should answer questions you want them to answer. Your job under the Standing Orders, as Dr Cullen pointed out yesterday, is simply to decide whether the question has been addressed. I share Dr Cullen’s view that to take a role beyond that is to take on a burden that eventually you may find difficult to get out from under.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to read the relevant Standing Order. The first thing that the Standing Order requires is that the Minister answer the question. The nature of the answer must address the question. The question asked whether the Minister had briefed the Prime Minister. That is a fairly plain English question. I invite the Minister to answer.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer to that question was also plain English, with respect. She said she had briefed many ministerial colleagues. The Prime Minister is one of her ministerial colleagues. There were numerous meetings leading up to the Job Summit. Naturally, the Prime Minister was pivotal to those. Was there a specific briefing? That was not what was asked. The question was whether he was briefed, and the answer was given.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to give that answer.

Hon Bill English: Oh, come on!

Mr SPEAKER:The Minister does not have to answer. If it is not in the public interest to answer a question, the Minister does not have to give an answer, but when a question is very plain the Minister can easily answer it, because the Minister knows the answer. The public has a right to have the executive held to account in this House. I invite the Minister, if she is able to, to answer the question.

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Of course I have had discussions, briefings, and conversations with the Prime Minister and other ministerial colleagues, both before and after the Job Summit.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard has the floor to ask his question. [Interruption] The Leader of the House will respect the member asking the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister satisfied that the Prime Minister understood the strategy when he answered questions in the House yesterday; if so, why?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes.

David Bennett: Has the Minister seen any reports on the New Zealand Skills Strategy?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have seen a report that states: “Labour should be encouraging job hunters and small business, not scaremongering. It is simply irresponsible.” That was from the Newmarket Business Association, and it referred to Trevor Mallard.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Labour front-benchers to show respect to their colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard, who is seeking to ask a question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why is the Minister satisfied that the Prime Minister understood the strategy when he answered in the House yesterday?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Because we have the very best Prime Minister that we have had in this country for the last decade.

10. Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—Concerns

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

10. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Does he have concerns about the operation of the Government’s retail deposit guarantee scheme; if so, what are those concerns?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The Government stands behind the retail deposit guarantee scheme, but I am concerned to ensure that it is not putting taxpayers’ money at undue risk. Therefore, I have asked officials to have a look at the scheme to ensure that we are managing the risks taken by the taxpayer, as intended.

John Boscawen: Why does the Government’s retail deposit scheme subsidise finance companies, some of which have already gone broke, when the Reserve Bank recommended that finance companies should be charged for the true cost and true risk of the taxpayer guarantee?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In hindsight it is not difficult to see that aspects of the scheme may have been designed in a way that dealt better with the risk that taxpayers were taking. However, I stress that at the time decisions were made—back, I think, in October last year—there was a premium on providing depositors with the kind of guarantee that would prevent a run on finance companies or on a bank, and in the trade-off between getting a guarantee in place and getting it perfect, I think they probably made about as good a decision as they could.

11. Foreshore and Seabed—Te Puni Kōkiri Advice Regarding NgātiApa Appeal

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

11. Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Labour) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What advice, if any, has he received from Te PuniKōkiri on the main aspects of the Court of Appeal decision Attorney-General v Ngāti Apa (2003)?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) :Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnātātou. The advice that I received from Te PuniKōkiri was that the NgātiApa decision provided clarity.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: How can the Minister argue that position, when the Chief Justice herself in her statement said: “The outcome of the appeal cannot establish that there is Māori customary land below high water mark. And the assertion that there is some such land faces a number of hurdles in fact and law ...”? How does the Minister reconcile that statement with his view that Māori own all the foreshore and seabed?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The Hon Dr Cullen asked me what advice I had received from Te PuniKōkiri, and that is the advice I received.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. What advice has the Minister received about the former Government’s response to the Court of Appeal decision Attorney-General v NgātiApa?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Tēnā koe. I have received a report from the Waitangi Tribunal that states that the Crown’s policy response breaches the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, and gives rise to serious prejudice—namely, that cutting off Māori access to the courts and effectively expropriating their property rights puts them in a class different from, and inferior to, all other citizens, and that the policy takes away opportunity and mana and in their place offers fewer and lesser rights.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: How does the Minister reconcile the quoting of that report, issued before the bill was actually drafted, with the statement by Mr Gerry Brownlee that, of the interest that was thought to be held in common through Crown ownership and subdivided amongst the public and Māori, Labour has traded away the birthright of all New Zealanders, and the unrestricted ownership of the Crown of all the foreshore and seabed, and turned it over to racially based control?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I am not responsible for Mr Brownlee’s statements.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: What other reports has the Minister received in relation to yesterday’s announcement of the Foreshore and Seabed Act review?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Tēnā koe. I have received a statement by the Labour Party, stating: “Labour will constructively engage with the Government over the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act,”. I have also seen a report of comments from the Hon Shane Jones to Māori media that criticises the review. This is yet another indication of Shane Jones’ seeking to undermine the Leader of the Opposition and to position himself as a suitable candidate for Labour Party leadership.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Has the Minister read the Foreshore and Seabed Act in its entirety; if so, how does he reconcile his many statements on this matter with sections 33 to 45, covering customary title and applications to the High Court for rulings, and sections 46 to 61, covering customary rights orders and applications to the Māori Land Court for rulings?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Yes, I have.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What advice, if any, has the Minister received on the legal and policy dimensions arising from the Court of Appeal decision Attorney-General v NgātiApa?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have received a report from Cara Conroy-Low, of Victoria University, who concluded that: “The government had an opportunity to help create vibrant and positive race relations in New Zealand, but failed.” The analysis of Ms Conroy-Low was that the Foreshore and Seabed Bill had been motivated by a desire on the part of the Labour Party to portray itself as not favouring Māori but, rather, siding with non-Māori. The review announced yesterday, therefore, enables the politics of division and conflict to be replaced by a new era of nationhood, in which we can look afresh at this situation rather than take sides.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister stand by his previous view that Māori will “lose their culture and identity.” with the passing of the Foreshore and Seabed Act; if so, what is his evidence, over 4 years after its passing, that Māori no longer have any culture and identity?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: That statement was made in reference to cutting off customary rights.

12. Oil Production—Maari Field

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

12. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Has he received any reports about oil production commencing in the Maari field?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : Yes, I have seen a report that the Maari oilfield off Taranaki has started to produce oil. The field is expected to yield 50 million barrels of oil in its 10 to 15-year life, producing revenue for the Crown of approximately $1.5 billion in both royalties and taxes.

Jonathan Young: What are the benefits of oil production in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are many benefits to New Zealand other than the royalties and taxies I mentioned. In the case of the Maari field, about 200 people have worked offshore during its installation and drilling operations with a further 60 people expected to be employed in the longer term as the years progress. The project has also employed engineering firms in Taranaki and it has given a boost to many services in the area, ensuring a positive employment effect.

ENDS

© Scoop Media