Questions for Oral Answer
4 June 2009

Questions to Ministers

1. Dr Richard Worth—Confidence

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

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement at question time yesterday that he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister on Tuesday, 26 May 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Why, then, did the Prime Minister express confidence in Dr Worth as a Minister on Tuesday, 26 May 2009, given that he has said subsequently he already lost confidence in Dr Worth on that date?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has made his view clear that he lost confidence in Richard Worth. The consequences of that include Mr Richard Worth’s resignation from his ministerial post.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that that answer addresses the question that I asked, which was quite straightforward: why did the Prime Minister express confidence in Dr Worth, given that subsequently he has said he had already lost confidence in Dr Worth at that date?

Mr SPEAKER: I was momentarily distracted while the Hon Bill English was answering, so could he repeat the answer to the question that the Leader of the Opposition has put forward. I apologise.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has stated that on that day he did lose confidence in Dr Worth. It may have been later in the day; he would need to go through a fairly detailed sequence of events to work that out. It is clear that as a result of that loss of confidence, Mr Richard Worth tendered his resignation as a Minister. He is now no longer a Minister.

Hon Phil Goff: If the Prime Minister lost confidence in Dr Worth on 26 May 2009, why did Dr Worth continue to hold responsibilities as a Minister and receive remuneration for that position for a week afterwards?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because the circumstances in which the Prime Minister lost confidence in him merited investigation in the interests of due process. As that member and every other member of Parliament knows, it is easy to make allegations about people. Allegations are often heard. Before a Prime Minister acts decisively, he or she needs to establish the facts of the matter.

Hon Phil Goff: If the Prime Minister had lost confidence in Dr Worth, and given the fact that the police investigation has not even started yet, why did he not require the resignation of Dr Worth on the day that he lost confidence in him?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For just the reasons that were given before in answer to the previous question. Allegations can be made. A Prime Minister might draw some conclusions of his or her own, but would need to go through a process that demonstrates natural justice and establishes the facts of the matter.

Hon Phil Goff: Given that we have not gone through that process, why, therefore, has Dr Worth been asked to resign?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that the Prime Minister did go through a thorough and decisive process.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister now accept that it was a mistake simply to take the word of Richard Worth with regard to the complaint that I referred to him privately on 6 May, and to accept Dr Worth’s word that there was no substance to that complaint, given the parallels between that complaint and the subsequent complaint that lead to his resignation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, the Prime Minister does not accept that. As a result of the enquiries he made regarding the earlier allegations, the results of those enquiries were communicated back to the Leader of the Opposition’s office about a month ago. If the Leader of the Opposition had concerns about how the complaint was handled, he had ample opportunity to raise those.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister recall, in the conversation that I had with him on 6 May, that there was extensive evidence by way of telephone logs and texts of communication between Dr Worth and the complainant; if so, why did he say there was no hard evidence not to accept Dr Worth’s word that there was no substance to the allegations?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is correct that the Leader of the Opposition made those statements in the phone call. That evidence was never presented to or sighted by the Prime Minister. After his investigations into the allegations were completed, the results of those were communicated directly back to the Leader of the Opposition. If he felt that more evidence should have been produced or a different conclusion could have been reached, he had the opportunity to communicate that to the Prime Minister, but did not.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister decide to force Dr Worth’s resignation only after he found out that the media were aware of a complaint that had been laid with the police?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, that is not correct.

Hon Phil Goff: On which date was the Prime Minister or the Minister of Police first advised that the police were investigating Dr Worth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would just have to go back and check the exact chronology there, but I think the Prime Minister would be able to tell you that it was on the day that Richard Worth’s resignation was announced.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What is the status of commitments I received from Dr Worth at a formal meeting with him as Minister of Internal Affairs at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 2 June 2009, considering that he had lost the confidence of the Prime Minister a week earlier?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Clearly any undertakings or commitments made by the Minister in his capacity as a Minister were made on behalf of the Government, and they will be honoured and followed through on.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did the Prime Minister allow Dr Worth to hold formal meetings and give formal commitments as the Minister of Internal Affairs a week after losing confidence in him?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the answer I gave to earlier questions, which is that the Prime Minister went through a thorough and decisive process of establishing the facts of the matter before Dr Worth offered his resignation.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from the office of Dr Richard Worth, Minister for Land Information, showing his continued decision-making role in the appointment of the technical reference group for the review of the Overseas Investment Act, dated 29 May, which is 3 days after the Prime Minister had lost confidence in him.

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

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

2. Benefits—Projected Spending

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

2. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the forecast for benefit spending, excluding New Zealand superannuation, over the next 4 years, and by how much does this exceed the Treasury forecast of December 2008?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : The forecast of total benefit expenditure, excluding New Zealand superannuation, over the next 4 years is $32.067 billion. That is $3.851 billion higher than the 2008 December economic and fiscal forecast.

Sue Bradford: How, then, will axing the $10.5 million a year Enterprising Communities job creation scheme assist in reducing these higher benefit costs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are in times when we are making tough decisions on what we continue and what we do not. The Enterprising Communities scheme did some good work in times past and when the economic situation in New Zealand was very different. We are in different times now and we are making different decisions.

Jo Goodhew: What reports has the Minister seen about projected benefit increases?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In addition to the increasing number of people coming on to the unemployment benefit, officials are forecasting increases in the invalids and sickness benefits, as well as increasing costs in supplementary assistance. Sickness benefits are forecast to increase 15 percent, costing $385 million. Invalids benefits are forecast to increase 2.5 percent, adding another $129 million.

Sue Bradford: Why, at a time of rising unemployment, is the Government cutting one of the last remaining programmes that helps particularly vulnerable unemployed people do socially and environmentally useful work in their communities?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say that we are making some tough decisions at this time, and we need to focus on providing services to more people. We could, for example, spend $145,000 over 3 years funding an arts centre that resulted in one full-time job and six part-time jobs, or we could spend the same amount of money and get full-time, unsubsidised jobs for 32 people through programmes and industry partnerships.

Sue Bradford: Has the Minister considered re-establishing a community economic development unit or function within her department, as proposed in the Green New Deal stimulus package released a couple of weeks ago; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen that package and we have been looking at it. The officials are doing a bit of work around it at the moment, and I would be very pleased to talk to the member further about it if we think it will gets the sorts of results we are interested in seeing.

Sue Bradford: Will the Minister advocate to her colleagues in Government that it picks up the whole Green New Deal package, which contains proposals that would save nearly half a billion dollars a year in unemployment payments and create roughly 42,000 jobs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure this Government is interested in continuing conversations with the Greens on some of their proposals. I look forward to seeing how they go.

Hon Annette King: How many jobs that would reduce the need for benefits has the Government saved through initiatives from the Job Summit so far?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am reluctant to give the exact number on that, because I do not have it in front of me. But from memory it was about 223 jobs the last time I looked at it, and the number is growing daily. We had over 83 organisations of 100-plus employees there.

3. Government Spending—Returns on Major Capital Expenditure

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

3. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has the Government received on the returns on major capital expenditure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : On 1 July 2008 the previous Government acquired KiwiRail Holdings for $690 million. Since then, taxpayers have provided further financial support of $322 million. Yesterday’s financial statements show a current valuation, made by PricewaterhouseCoopers, of $349 million or barely half of the acquisition cost. Taxpayers have thus lost at least $300 million, with no chance of recovering that loss.

Amy Adams: What other financial issues related to Government capital expenditure is he aware of?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There will certainly be ongoing financial issues relating to Government capital expenditure on KiwiRail. We expect it will take several years to sort out that mess. That matter comes on top of a track record of capital cost blowouts, such as the prison building programme where costs escalated by over 30 percent, and the new Supreme Court that started out as a $19 million project and ended up costing $83 million.

Amy Adams: What plans does the Government have to ensure that future capital spending is better directed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The economic outlook has changed considerably and the Government will need to ensure that every dollar of capital is spent effectively. One step we have taken is to establish the National Infrastructure Unit to oversee major capital expenditure. The unit will ensure that New Zealand’s long-term infrastructure needs are well understood, that major projects are subject to proper economic appraisal, and that the Government improves its procurement practices across the board.

4. Self-responsibility—Minister’s Comment

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

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her reported comment “… we need to encourage a level of self-responsibility …”; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I will give the context for that quote. To give the full quote: “Looking after those people who need it most is important. We are only strong as a nation if we look after our most vulnerable. But we need to encourage a level of self responsibility, looking after yourself, but caring about others.” I stand by that comment.

Hon Annette King: Did she consult the Minister of Māori Affairs before announcing the axing of the Enterprising Communities scheme, which encourages a level of self- responsibility, and which provides many services to Māori; if so, what did he say?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, we fully consulted on the changes in the Budget relating to the Ministry of Social Development. I am pleased to say that we are working on other initiatives that look to help Māori into employment. Some of those initiatives came through in the Budget, and we will be pleased to announce more as we go further ahead.

Hon Annette King: Why did she say: “The money that went into Enterprising Communities hasn’t delivered the employment outcomes hoped for.”, in light of the success of the apprenticeship support scheme in Ōtorohanga, which has seen unemployment of people under the age of 25 reduce to zero since 2006, and youth crime drop by 75 percent; the Te Whangai Trust, which has trained long-term unemployed people with massive social problems, and 20 of them have got jobs as a result; and the Greenways Trust, which provides work for disabled people, to name but some. Or was she not aware of such programmes before she made her decision to axe them?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To be clear on some of the ones that the member has raised, I can say that certainly the Ōtorohanga scheme has been very successful, and its funding continues; the funding has not been cut. It has 3-year funding—it has funding for next year—and I am pleased that it will be going ahead. Ōtorohanga currently has just 48 young people on the unemployment benefit. Te Whangai Trust is in the same situation; its funding has not been cut. It had a contract for $173,000 last year, has a contract for $96,000 this year, and has a contract for over $60,000 for next year, as well as the $142,000 it gets in job subsidies.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Mayor of Ōtorohanga, Dale Williams, who said: “It’s disappointing that it’s being axed. It’s been the catalyst for facilitating a whole lot of projects around the country that are very worthwhile.”; if not, why does she not give him a call to find out how successful it is?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, it was the member’s own party that brought in the Enterprising Communities scheme, so she should know that it provides start-up grants for 3 years. When those 3 years are up, those community enterprises are supposed to be self-sustaining. They are doing some good work out there. We are not axing any of the current Enterprising Communities grants. They will see out their 3 years, and I wish them all future success in becoming sustainable.

5. Climate Change—Agriculture Sector Obligations

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

5. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently taken to help New Zealand’s agriculture sector meet its climate change obligations?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : On Tuesday I announced that the Government, as part of the Primary Growth Partnership, will establish the Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research. This bricks and mortar centre will be focused solely on developing solutions for reducing New Zealand’s agricultural emissions. The work of the centre will be vital in securing New Zealand’s future economic growth by delivering effective and affordable abatement technologies to the primary sector.

Shane Ardern: Why has the Government decided to establish the Centre for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Government is committed to ensuring that New Zealand meets its climate change obligations. Because of our unique greenhouse gas profile, with around 50 percent of our emissions coming from agriculture, we very simply have to find solutions to reduce agricultural emissions. The ongoing funding certainty from Government will provide the incentives for scientists and industry to commit to long-term projects required to solve these emission challenges.

Shane Ardern: What other steps is the Government taking to support research into agricultural greenhouse gas?

Hon DAVID CARTER: This centre is just the beginning. Our intention is that the New Zealand centre will link internationally and play a major role in an international research centre. A ministerial steering group is currently developing a set of principles to guide New Zealand’s work in this area, as well as funding commitments. My colleague the Hon Tim Groser informs me that the concept of an international research centre has been received with considerable interest and support overseas. This is of global significance to a collective effort, and New Zealand must be at the forefront of this work.

David Garrett: Has the Minister seen any reports on the cost to the agriculture sector of an emissions trading scheme; if so, how do those figures compare with the $6 billion reduction in GDP and decline in farm values of over 40 percent projected by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have seen a number of reports with various figures and costings for the agricultural sector. It is absolutely critical that we embark on finding abatement technologies to minimise the economic impact on the agricultural sector, because the sector is so vital to the economy of New Zealand.

6. Vote Education—Cuts

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

6. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Education: How will cuts in Vote Education “ensure that New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens”, as she stated yesterday?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : The premise of the question is that Vote Education has been cut. Well, that is not the case. We have made some reprioritisations but, despite a tough economic climate, Vote Education in Budget 2009 rises from $10.5 billion to $10.8 billion. I am very proud of that quality investment in education.

Hon Maryan Street: How does she reconcile cuts to adult and community education with the views of her colleague Bill English, who, as National Opposition education spokesperson, said: “For more than 50 years, night classes have provided a leg-up for people wanting to return to the education system. National supports these low-cost courses. The current system of night classes through schools works well and should not be tampered with.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There will still be funding for adult and community education in some schools, to community providers, to the Rural Education Activities Programme, and to wānanga, and other tertiary institutions, but in tough times we have to focus that money on funding literacy, numeracy, and foundation courses. I know that members of the Opposition are really disappointed that there will not be any taxpayer subsidy for courses such as how to dance at a party. I understand there is a rather disturbing YouTube that shows that Mr Mallard and Mr Hodgson could perhaps have done with attending those courses. But this Government has to redirect its funding to higher priorities.

Colin King: What new initiatives in Budget 2009 will help the export education sector contribute to the economic recovery?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is very important for us to support our export education sector, and we have been able to do that through Budget 2009. The previous Government taxed schools with a $900 export education levy for every international student. Despite tough economic times, we have managed to more than halve that figure to $420. That leaves more money in the hands of schools and will help them to attract more international students. We have also committed an extra $2 million to international education promotion over the next year to help attract more students to New Zealand.

Hon Maryan Street: What does the Minister say to the Arai Te UruKōkiri Training Centre, a Māori training provider of Māori and Pasifika young people in Dunedin, which, with the disestablishment of skills enhancement funding, will be unable to run its 10-year-old chef training programme, or does the Minister think that is a hobby course like Moroccan cooking?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The skills enhancement programme was one that was continually undersubscribed, and the target market for that programme is the focus of our Trades in Schools and our Youth Guarantee initiatives, and we will announce more about them shortly. Those very students will be picked up and brought under those initiatives in a more focused way.

Hon Maryan Street: What effect will cuts to industry training funding have on the Pipiwai Agriculture Training Centre in Dannevirke, and will it be able to continue to provide its land-based training courses in fencing, farm machinery handling, and business and finance to mainly young Māori men, or does the Minister think those courses are hobby courses like gardening in the wind?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We are not cutting funding to industry training. The only difference we have made is that although the previous Government gave a CPI adjustment, for the first time, to industry training last year—it had promised it for the out-years but had not funded it—we have said that we will not continue it. If we are cutting funding, then in fact the previous Government must have cut funding to industry training for the previous 8 years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why has the Minister claimed support for export education, when her budget shows that she has cut the educational counsellor network, cut the export education innovation programme, reduced the number of international doctoral research scholarships from 38 to 10, and cut out the domestic status for German and French masters students, which has been part of the New Zealand - Europe relationship for decades?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have to answer only one of those questions. In answer to the member about educational counsellors, I tell him there is a great deal of concern amongst the export education industry that in fact those counsellors are not as effective as we would like them to be. But we have not cut them; they are still in place. We are merely cutting back on some of the fundings. All the previous Government wanted to do was spend, and some of the spending was ineffective—some of it was very ineffective.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a press release dated 30 January 2006, in the name of the Hon Bill English, entitled “Night school classes under threat in the Bay of Plenty”.

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

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a speech given by the Hon Bill English on 18 March 2005 to the Community Learning Association Through Schools conference in Christchurch.

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

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a report from the Westport News of Wednesday, 3 June, entitled “Budget cuts kill courses”.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a press statement, or a cutting—

Hon Maryan Street: It is an article from a newspaper.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that article from a newspaper. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table two further articles: one is from the Waikato Times entitled “Night classes face chop”, and one from the Manawatu Standard, entitled “Dark times loom for night school”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two press articles. Is there any objection? There is objection.

7. Unemployment—Reports

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

7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What recent reports has she seen on unemployment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I have seen a number of reports on unemployment. Although unemployment is increasing, jobs are still available. In the week ended 22 May 2009, 1,474 people went off the benefit, compared with 1,361 at the same time last year—that is, 113 more people cancelled their benefit. That same week, Work and Income had 904 new vacancies on its books.

Kelvin Davis: Why was nothing in Budget 2009 targeted at reducing the number of Māori unemployed, or at retraining and upskilling Māori so they are better positioned to gain employment once we come out of the recession, as we all know that the Māori unemployment rate is set to spiral?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I disagree with the member’s assertion. Quite frankly, heaps in the Budget will go to support Māori employment and training.

Hon Members: Name them!

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let me give members just one example, perhaps, of many we could give. The Open Polytechnic has opened about 1,500 training opportunities for those who have been made redundant or who are on the 9-day working fortnight, and that is having success for Māori with its flexibility.

Katrina Shanks: Can the Minister advise the House on how New Zealand’s employment market is holding up in an international context?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Compared with similar countries our employment figures are holding up quite well. On the official household labour force survey our unemployment level is at 5 percent, while that of Australia is at 5.4 percent, that of the UK is sitting at 7.1 percent, that of the United States is at 8.9 percent, and the formerly high-flying Irish economy is struggling under 10.6 percent unemployment.

Carmel Sepuloni: Is the Minister aware that Pacific people are disproportionately affected by this recession, with their present unemployment rate being 13.1 percent; if so, why was nothing in Budget 2009 targeted at reducing the number of Pacific unemployed, or at retraining and upskilling Pacific people so they are better positioned to gain employment once we come out of this recession?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As far as Pacific people are concerned, I received a letter just last week from a group that said how thrilled they were with the investment into infrastructure, because they see that as generating many jobs for their people. They can work on our roads; they can work on those sorts of projects. I commend the Minister of Finance for investing in those projects and for opening up jobs for all peoples.

David Garrett: Has the Minister seen any reports on the number of people being fired without reason and ending up on the unemployment benefit as a result of the 90-day trial period law? Does she agree that ACT’s amendment, which brought the legislation into effect earlier, was a good one?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have not seen any reports of undue stress for those people. Instead we are seeing people get opportunities that they would not normally have had. We are hearing from employers that they are offering jobs because they know that those people can get into the jobs. It has been quite positive. I thank that member for raising the issue.

Katrina Shanks: When did the unemployment rate start to increase?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Opposition may laugh, but it is great that, after three consecutive quarters of unemployment levels rising under its watch last year while when its members sat back and did nothing, we saw the ReStart redundancy package, the Job Support Scheme, and the success of the Prime Minister’s Job Summit within months under this National Government. All we get is scaremongering and exaggeration of numbers from the Opposition; there was no real action when it had the chance.

8. Vote Education—Cuts

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

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What were the major cuts to Vote Education and what was the reason each was made?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : I will say again that, overall, Vote Education rises from $10.5 billion to $10.8 billion this year. In anyone’s language that is an addition, not a cut. We have reprioritised some funding. One example is that we are not proceeding with the teacher-child ratio changes in early childhood education, at a saving of $275 million, because that money would have done nothing to increase participation in early childhood education. Instead, teachers would have been soaked up by existing services, making it harder to staff new services in areas of great need. We have been unable to proceed with very large commitments made by the previous Government to the tertiary sector, because there was no funding for them. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard has the floor.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister take ministerial responsibility for the list of Budget 2009 education savings on her ministry’s website:

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.

Allan Peachey: What new initiatives have been funded through Budget 2009?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a large number of initiatives, and I am very proud of them all. One in particular of which I am extremely proud is that the Government will be investing an additional $51 million in special education services to help more students access the Ongoing and Reviewable Resourcing Scheme. These children have high to very high needs, and we will be helping more of these children than the previous Government did. In fact, when this initiative is fully rolled out, an extra 1,100 children will be assisted with special education services.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How will the approximately 1,000 teachers to be dismissed in 2011 be selected: will they be selected from schools that are performing well, or from schools that are performing poorly; will it be done on a random basis, with one teacher selected from every second school; or will it be done by way of the answer that Bill English has just whispered into the Minister’s ear?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have decided that we will review the complexity of the formula-driven funding entitlements and funding streams administered by the Ministry of Education. The savings of $50 million will represent just 1.5 percent of the school staffing cost. The Government, like everyone in tight times, has to look at all areas of expenditure, to ensure that funds are being spent effectively to improve educational achievement.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although the question was a longer one, it was relatively simple. The question asked how the teachers who are to be dismissed will be selected. That was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member reflects back on his question, he will realise that he built an assertion into it. If I recollect correctly, he asked how the 1,000 teachers—

Hon Trevor Mallard: We are agreed on the figure. We’re not arguing about that.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe that the honourable Minister gave a rather different response to that assertion, and that is the dilemma. When the member puts an assertion like that into the question, it is difficult to get the exact answer he is looking for, because there is no evidence that that is exactly what will happen.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that across the House we can agree that 1.5 percent is approximately 1,000 teachers. I do not think the Minister will deny that. She certainly did not deny it by way of her answer.

Mr SPEAKER: We must not debate the answer by way of points of order. The member obviously has further supplementary questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just go back to my original point of order. There was a plain question about how the teachers to be dismissed will be selected. That was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I accurately reflected the member’s question; let me see whether I can accurately reflect the answer. I think the Minister said that the formula by which these resources are allocated will be reviewed. I take it from that answer that there will be a change to how the resource is allocated, but she cannot tell the member exactly what he wants to know at this stage. The member can pursue that in further supplementary questions.

Allan Peachey: How has the Government supported parental choice in early childhood education and care?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am very proud of the fact that we are bringing kōhanga reo and playcentres into the 20 free hours early childhood education scheme. The previous Government had an ideological point of view that only teacher-led early childhood services could be quality services. Well, this Government believes that parent-led services can also be high quality. We are happy to support parents of children in those institutions. I look forward to the Opposition attending kōhanga reo and playcentres and telling them why they do not deserve to be classed as quality services.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister seriously telling the House that, to use her figure, 1.5 percent of teachers will be dismissed in election year and she does not yet know how they will be selected?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What I said to the member in answer to my previous question was that we would be reviewing the complexity of formula-driven funding entitlements in the funding streams administered by the Ministry of Education. The savings of $50 million would represent only 1.5 percent of school staffing costs. We will be in discussion with the sector about how that may be achieved.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders and, especially, Speakers’ rulings make it clear that if a short answer can be given, it should be. The answer to my question was yes, and that should have been the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member knows that he should not use points of order to debate the answer like that. He must stop doing that. It is totally contrary—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I’m saying I agree with her.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should be not interjecting—[Interruption] Both sides will not interject when I am ruling on a point of order. I urge the member not to abuse the point of order system. It is not in keeping with the Standing Orders.

9. Budget 2009—Arts Support

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

9. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What has the Government done to support the arts in Budget 2009?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) : Budget 2009 has provided extra funding to artistic and cultural organisations in order to provide security in tough economic times. National is committed to ensuring that all New Zealanders have access to world-class cultural experiences. This was achieved by the injection of some new funds and the reprioritisation of poor-quality spending proposed by the previous Government, for example, the grandly named Gallipoli memorial project that in reality was a grant of over $350,000 to enable a single unnamed painter to paint a couple of landscapes. This Government is determined to ensure the arts receive value for money in tough economic times.

Todd McClay: What reports has the Minister seen about the Government’s Budget announcements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I am very pleased to have received very grateful and supportive messages from those actively engaged in the sector who appreciate the constraints we all operate under in tough economic times. Regrettably, these contrast with reports I have seen from the Opposition spokesperson for arts, culture and heritage. She accused the Government of “slashing the regional museums budget by $20 million.” If she read the Budget carefully, she would have seen in black and white that a largely unused, one-off appropriation she and her colleagues signed off had returned to baseline.

Todd McClay: What other reports has the Minister seen of engagement with the arts, heritage, and cultural sector?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have seen reports addressed to me as Minister from the Opposition spokesperson who is responsible for Labour’s engagement with the arts and cultural sector. In three separate requests for a briefing by officials she has repeatedly shown a complete ignorance of the name of the ministry, which she managed to get wrong in new and innovative ways every time, while also asking the chief executive of the Arts Council to brief her on the activities of the ministry. I intend to see that her briefing, which I am delighted to say will proceed, begins with the correct name of the ministry and ends with lessons on how to read Budget documents.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Why did the Minister tell the public during the election campaign that National would maintain the current level of taxpayer funding for arts, culture, and heritage, then go out and cut overall funding in the Budget, and does this not demonstrate that his word is about as good as a personal guarantee from John Key?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, the Government identified a number of savings to taxpayers as a result of its value-for-money review earlier this year. That allowed reprioritisation of the low-quality junk spending that that lot preferred. We want to concentrate on practical assistance to front-line arts and cultural services. When the member receives her briefing and learns the correct name of the ministry, she will learn a lot more about that.

10. Tobacco Point-of-sale Advertising—Ban

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

10. IAIN LEES-GALLOWAY (Labour—Palmerston North) to the Associate Minister of Health: What international evidence has she received to suggest that banning point-of-sale tobacco advertising can lead to a reduction in the prevalence of tobacco use amongst teenagers?

Hon TARIANA TURIA (Associate Minister of Health) :Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnātātou katoa. I have received advice from the Ministry of Health summarising recent international developments relating to tobacco product displays in retail outlets. The report noted that a Western Australian parliamentary committee that was considering a bill that included a measure banning tobacco displays in retail outlets has accepted that in other countries a decline in the smoking prevalence rate in 15 to 19-year-olds had accelerated following a ban on tobacco displays.

Iain Lees-Galloway: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the Minister of Health’s assertion on 4 March 2009 that “there is no international evidence that shows a clear link between banning tobacco displays and reducing smoking rates.”?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I suggest that that member ask that question of the Minister. I am not responsible for comments he makes.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question is set down to the Associate Minister of Health, because she holds delegated responsibility for tobacco policy. She represents Government policy in respect of tobacco policy, and she has been asked by that member how she reconciles two positions within the Government. She is required to answer that question. She holds the delegation.

Mr SPEAKER: She answered the question. She said she is not responsible for what another Minister might have said. And she is a Minister outside of Cabinet, so that seemed to be a perfectly reasonable answer. [Interruption] She was asked to reconcile two statements, as I recollect the question. It is perfectly within the Minister’s ability to say she cannot reconcile those two statements.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect—not immediately—on that ruling as it applies to Associate Ministers when substantive Ministers are making comments in an area where Associate Ministers have delegated responsibility. It has certainly been our impression in the past that, as with any other Minister, when they get the job, when they have the pay, and when they have the cars, they should answer the questions.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that is a disingenuous request on the part of Mr Mallard. This sort of issue has been dealt with over and over again by Parliament. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 165/3, which has been given in this House by former Speaker Wilson and which, I think, goes right to the heart of this issue. It deals with the quality of an answer. An answer may not be satisfactory for the person who asked the question. None the less that is the end of the matter, as it cannot be further debated. An answer is given, and an answer is accepted.

Hon Peter Dunne: Mr Speaker, I draw to your attention to Speaker’s rulings 147/4-6. I submit that Speaker’s ruling 147/4 goes to the heart of this issue. It states: “it is necessary to know what delegated area of responsibility each Associate Minister has. Associate Ministers cannot be asked questions across the whole portfolio in the way that a portfolio Minister can.” I submit to you that the Associate Minister was answering the question in respect of her delegated responsibility. The supplementary question that was posed to her related to the conduct of the portfolio as a whole, and that was what Speaker Hunt ruled as not being permissible back in 2000.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. I think the Hon Peter Dunne has raised a very pertinent ruling in Speaker’s ruling 147/4. I think that my ruling would be that the Hon Tariana Turia answered that question within the requirements of her portfolio responsibilities.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Did she advise the Minister of Health to accept the recommendation of the Health Committee that the Government require tobacco and cigarette displays in retail outlets to be out of sight; if not, why not; if so, why was she ignored?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The Minister and I have certainly discussed this issue, and my understanding is that the Minister stated that the—

Hon Darren Hughes: What did the Minister advise? [Interruption]

Hon TARIANA TURIA: Are you asking me a question too?

Mr SPEAKER: That will be the end of interjections. I am on my feet. The Minister does not need to respond to interjections from other members. The Hon Tariana Turia can complete her answer.

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I certainly agree with the statement the Minister of Health made on 3 March, which said we are continuing the efforts to reduce smoking rates and tobacco use, and to explore new effective initiatives to support that. They include the ongoing discussion between him and me on the banning of tobacco at the point of sale.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the last series of points of order we were told that the Associate Minister could not comment across the whole of the portfolio. Then we had an answer that was a quote from the Hon Tony Ryall. But Mr Lees-Galloway’s question was about the advice the Associate Minister gave to the Minister in terms of her delegated responsibility. Reading out a quote from Mr Ryall does not tell us what advice she gave him in an area she has responsibility for.

Mr SPEAKER: Does the honourable Minister want to speak to the point of order?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: I am happy to answer the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: My point is simply this. If the Minister gave no answer at all, which is also permissible in the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings, then the Opposition would be on their feet and really going to town about that matter. The fact is that the Associate Minister attempted to give an answer. For Opposition members to virtually tell you that they think that answer is not good enough breaches many of the conditions for answering questions that are long established in this House.

Hon David Parker: The Leader of the House misunderstands the provisions of the Standing Orders if he thinks that Ministers can merely get up and say they will not answer a question because they do not want to. They could claim that there is a public interest in their not answering questions, but, unless they claim that, they are required to address questions.

Mr SPEAKER: One of the dilemmas I have with some of these questions is the difficulty for the Speaker in determining whether the Minister has answered the question in a manner that is consistent with the Standing Orders. With primary questions it is much easier, because the question is on notice and Ministers have time to prepare answers for them. With supplementary questions like this, it is more difficult. What I am prepared to do for Ian Lees-Galloway on this occasion is—as I realise that he is getting very close to the end of his supplementary questions—to allow him to repeat his question without the loss of a supplementary question.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Did the Associate Minister advise the Minister of Health to accept the recommendation of the Health Committee that the Government require tobacco and cigarette displays in retail outlets to be out of sight; if not, why not; if so, why was she ignored?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: No, I did not advise the Minister of that, because he sat on that select committee and heard that advice. But I have certainly talked with him about the matter of tobacco displays and the banning of them, and the Government has agreed that at some point we will look at that issue, when we have all the evidence in front of us.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does she agree that the refusal of National Ministers to accept her advice as Associate Minister of Health is in fact one reason why, in her own words, “this brave country” is failing to act on tobacco displays?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is quite right that you expect Ministers to address questions and do a much better job of requiring that than has been seen in the past. But the difficulty we have here is that the question just asked resolutely refuses to acknowledge the answer that the Associate Minister just gave. It was incompatible with that answer. She said she gave no advice, because the Minister was on the jolly select committee. Now Iain Lees-Galloway is saying the Minister did not take the advice. Well, how could he, since none was given?

Mr SPEAKER: The particular issue involved here is not one of order. If a member who is asking questions wishes to waste a supplementary question by ignoring an answer that has been given or repeating a question he or she has already asked, that is the right of the member who is asking questions. I should not rule out the question. My dilemma now, though, is whether the Associate Minister will remember the question she was asked. Can I check with her whether she remembers it? I am happy to have it repeated.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Does she agree that the refusal of National Ministers to accept her advice as Associate Minister of Health is in fact one reason why, in her own words, “this brave country” is failing to act on tobacco displays?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: It is difficult for people to take advice when one does not give it.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. What was the reaction of the participants who attended the recent Māori Tobacco Intelligence Summit to the proposal to ban tobacco displays?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: The participants were all deeply committed to reducing the prevalence of tobacco smoking amongst Māori communities, and there was a very positive response to my speech.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister explain how she could discuss the issue of point-of-sale advertising with the Minister but not tell him what she thought?

Hon TARIANA TURIA: That was not the question I was asked. I was asked whether I gave the Minister any advice about the select committee, and I said no, I did not.

11. Pig Farming—Sow Crates

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

11. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is it his opinion that keeping sows in crates for weeks on end where they cannot even turn round is cruel; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : It is my opinion that it is cruel and unacceptable to have sows in crates indefinitely. This Government is committed to best practice in animal welfare, which is why, after viewing the recent disturbing footage, I have taken action and demanded that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee review with urgency the pig code of welfare. I hope the member and members of the public will make their views known to the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee.

Sue Kedgley: Will the Minister make a commitment in this House that he will personally visit a range of intensive pig farms in New Zealand, preferably with the media, so that he can see at firsthand the suffering of pigs in sow crates, or will he continue to rely on the advice of the chair of the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, who claimed on television recently that pigs are probably happy in sow crates?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have already visited a number of pig farms. I did not do so with the media, because I will make sure that best practice in animal welfare is delivered based on science and reason, not on blind emotion as that member would wish it to be.

Sandra Goudie: What reports has the Minister seen on the review of sow crates?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have seen reports that the previous two Labour Ministers of Agriculture, the Hon Jim Sutton and the Hon Jim Anderton, refused to ban sow crates, and emphasised the need for the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process to be followed. I have also seen a report of the deputy leader of Labour, the Hon Annette King, on Newstalk ZB last month, supporting this Government’s approach to the sow crate issue and agreeing with the actions I was taking. This is the responsible approach, and I thank Labour for taking that approach.

Sue Kedgley: On the Minister’s recent visits to intensive pig farms in New Zealand, did he discover that the practices that were screened on television recently are widespread in some pig farms, and will he therefore do as he and the Prime Minister promised and use his powers as Minister to require changes to the pig code, including the phasing out of sow crates; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I ask that member to familiarise herself with the Animal Welfare Act. By law, I cannot override the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process and ban sow crates immediately. Sections 70 to 79 of the Act make it absolutely clear that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee process must be followed. That is the law that was passed by Parliament. I intend to adhere to the law, and I think that member should stop being irresponsible and should adhere to the laws of this land.

12. Aorangi School—Buildings

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

12. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Education: What progress has been achieved in honouring the commitments that the Ministry of Education made to Aorangi School in 2006 to replace the rotting buildings so that children are no longer forced to learn in cramped, damp, and cold buildings?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : I am advised by the ministry that it is meeting the costs of health and safety issues as and when they arise. With regard to the review of the school’s overall capital programme, this review will be concluded shortly. I have arranged to go down and speak to the school’s board and principal in 2 weeks’ time.

Rahui Katene: Why have students at Aorangi School had to continue learning in dilapidated and relocatable classrooms riddled with rot and moisture and with no insulation, even though the previous Minister of Education announced in June 2007 that Aorangi School would be rebuilt as a “21st century learning environment”, and the Prime Minister made a commitment before last year’s election that he would not let pupils “freeze at my old school”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I want to ensure that the children at Aorangi School are in a suitable learning environment. That is why I decided to review the school’s request for additional capital and why I will go down and speak to the school’s board and principal in 2 weeks’ time to discuss it with them. I assure that member that I am advised that at least $270,000 has been spent on health and safety issues, including an electrical upgrade, the installation of heat pumps and dehumidifiers, and ongoing monitoring of air quality.

ENDS

© Scoop Media