Questions and Answers - 25 June 2009

Questions for Oral Answer

25 June 2009

Questions to Ministers

1. Economy—Current Account Deficit

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

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to address the current account deficit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The near-record balance of payments deficit is a symptom of 9 years of poor economic management by the previous Government. At the start of the decade the balance of payments was relatively balanced. It has grown steadily to between 8 and 9 percent of GDP, and has been there for 3 years—one of the worst in the developed world. Many factors contributed, including out-of-control Government spending, households encouraged to borrow excessively, and an export sector that struggled with policy that made it difficult to be an exporter. The Government’s strategy is to reverse all that bad management, and to focus future growth on exports, quality investment, and jobs that are sustainable, not jobs based on borrowing like the job growth under Labour.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why, when 88 percent of New Zealand’s current account deficit is made up of the investment deficit, would the Minister want to liberalise the Overseas Investment Office rules, or does he think that flogging off more of our land and infrastructure amounts to a sustainable strategy for growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Overseas Investment Office rules have become bizarre, and it is taking up to 6 months for people to get approval for industrial sections next to a small creek. So, as with a lot of the other things Labour did, we have to get all the nonsense out of the process so that we can get decisions. Our main focus is on sustainable jobs and dealing with all those people who are suffering the pain of dislocation because they thought they had a secure job but it was based on excessive borrowing and Government spending, and now they have lost those jobs.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why, if the Minister is concerned about the current account deficit, did his Government axe the research and development tax credits and reduce funding for New Zealand Trade and Enterprise, both of which would have assisted New Zealand firms to innovate and gain new export markets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The previous Government had the mistaken notion that a Government could buy its way out of economic problems by applying taxpayer subsidies to whatever the problem was. Actually, those days are over. Overseas lenders will not lend us the money to do that. From here on, New Zealand has to earn a living, not pretend it is earning a living by buying it with taxpayer subsidies.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What imbalances did the Government inherit that contributed to the high current account deficit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: After 9 years of bad economic management, the imbalances in our economy have been severe. The public sector was growing rapidly, at the expense of the private sector. Over the past 5 years, core Crown spending grew by 50 percent, whereas the economy grew by 25 percent. The tradable sector has been in recession for 5 years. That is no way to run an economy. Unfortunately, thousands of New Zealanders are suffering the pain of dislocation because of those bad policies.

Metiria Turei: Why does the Minister’s Government continue to invest heavily in new motorways when, as today’s current account figures reinforce, New Zealanders are leaving their cars in their garages, and would it not be better in the immediate term to spend transport money on public transport services, thereby relieving the overcrowding on our buses and trains?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government shares the Greens’ objective of an efficient transport system. We are investing in better roads because actually buses need roads. We are also investing extensively in rail.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why, if the Minister is now ready to govern and if he is concerned about the current account deficit, did his Budget reduce tourism promotion funding, or does he think it proper to build a cycleway even though there are fewer funds to promote it, just so that John Key can show him who is boss?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a bit rich coming from a member of the previous Government, which in 10 years of record fiscal surpluses did not increase tourism promotion funding.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is an inevitable point of order. The Minister in response to the primary question and all three supplementary questions spent at least the lion’s share, if not all, of the answers rehearsing his take on the previous Government, and hardly any part of them talking about his own policies. It may be that he does not have any policies, but New Zealanders would like to give him the benefit of the doubt—

Mr SPEAKER: I have listened to the honourable member on his point of order and taken it seriously, but I invite him to reflect on the supplementary question he just asked and on whether it was a fairly political question. When he asks a fairly political supplementary question, he is likely to get a fairly political answer. I fear I cannot assist him on this occasion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Tourism, like other export sectors, has suffered from 9 years of a Government that had no understanding of business, that buried businesses in red tape, and that collected their taxes and wasted them on ineffective spending.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What effect does overseas ownership of New Zealand companies have on the current account deficit, and did the Government take that into account before inviting Mark Weldon to brief State-owned enterprise chairs on Government plans to privatise State-owned enterprises over the next 2 to 5 years, which is what he did at Treasury yesterday?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As usual, no one can rely on what that member says. Mark Weldon did not brief any seminar on Government plans. Whatever he said about partial privatisation—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Mallard put a question pretty directly to the Minister of Finance, and rather than answer the substance of Mr Mallard’s question, the Minister indulged in a personal attack on the member.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened carefully to the question asked by the Hon Trevor Mallard. Indeed the first part of the question was a very straight question. The second part contained an allegation about a person Mark Weldon addressing a seminar yesterday. In answer the Minister has disputed that. I believe that is a fair answer to the question. The Minister is disputing the information that the Hon Trevor Mallard built into his question. I think that is a direct answer to the question. He does not have to answer the whole lot. He is picking on the second part of the question, which he is entitled to do, and I believe he is answering it quite directly.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you have suggested that Mr Weldon’s addressing the meeting was an allegation. Both the Minister of Finance and I know that it is a fact, and he confirmed it.

Mr SPEAKER: Points of order should not be used to raise issues about the quality of the Minister’s answer. I heard the Minister specifically address the issue of Mark Weldon’s addressing some seminar. That was in direct response to the member’s question. I believe, to respond to the point of order raised by Darren Hughes, that that was absolutely within the Standing Orders. The Minister specifically answered the second part of the question, and I believe that it was a good answer.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister started his answer by saying that as usual the member’s word cannot be relied upon. That is an insinuation, and we had that discussion earlier in the week. Maybe I did not put my point to you as clearly as I should have. The Minister has been asked a straight question about asset sales, and he is free to answer about the substance of that. We do not need all the extra political stuff.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the specific point the member is making. I ask the Minister in replying to this question to desist from that kind of comment.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member’s statement is incorrect and he knows it is incorrect. Whatever statements Mr Weldon made were in his capacity as the chairman of the Stock Exchange. It is not surprising that he would like to see partial privatisation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the Minister of Finance briefed by the Prime Minister before Mr Weldon undertook a briefing yesterday in which he indicated that State-owned enterprises should change their strategic planning to prepare for privatisation over the next 2 to 5 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Metiria Turei: I seek the leave of the House to table a release from J P Morgan entitled “New Zealand’s current account deficit narrows due to plummeting imports”, and making it clear that petroleum and petroleum products and motor vehicle components experienced the largest decline in imports. It is dated today, 25 June 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: Who is this press release by?

Metiria Turei: J P Morgan.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a press release by J P Morgan. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand’s report on the balance of payments and investment position for the March 2009 quarter, which was issued this morning and shows a continued deterioration in the international investment position.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seeking to table a document that was made public this morning?

Hon David Cunliffe: That is correct, but it was not brought to the House’s attention.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that statistics release from this morning. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

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

2. Budget 2009—Decisions

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

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What were the main decisions taken in Budget 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The Government inherited a New Zealand economy in recession because of 9 years of bad economic management.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the question was a Government question and was expressed in very straight and simple terms, there can be no excuse for the Minister to begin his answer with a political soliloquy about the previous Government, as he has done in every response today, with either a personal attack or strange recounting of history.

Hon Rodney Hide: Mr Speaker, the Minister of Finance had got about four words of the answer out before David Cunliffe jumped to his feet. What the Minister of Finance was saying was that the Government inherited a recession, which I suspect was giving the context to the decisions of the Budget. I do not think there is any doubt that the Government did inherit a recession. I do not see how you could possibly prevent a Minister of Finance from saying what the situation was when it delivered a Budget.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the honourable member’s raising the point, but I think that the point of order raised by the Hon David Cunliffe is a valid point. The question was very straight. It asked what the main decisions in Budget 2009 were. I think that the answer should start at least by addressing that question and not by rehearsing matters do to with the previous Government. They may be part of an explanation, but the question was very straight. It asked what the main decisions in the Budget were.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government had to consider a very wide range of options in the Budget because it had inherited an economy in recession after 9 years of economic mismanagement. We focused on promoting jobs, cleaning up the Government’s books, getting debt under control, and setting New Zealand on the road to recovery. In the Budget the Government decided to maintain public services despite the poor fiscal outlook, maintain entitlements, invest in a way that supported thousands of jobs, clean up the reckless fiscal mess left by the previous Government, and get Government debt back under control.

Craig Foss: On what basis were Budget 2009 policy options accepted or rejected?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We asked officials to put a wide range of options on the table because of the difficult circumstances the Government inherited, and we welcomed their free and frank advice. Treasury is this afternoon issuing the documents related to the Budget that set out those early options. These are all available on Treasury’s website, and they confirm that if we had continued with the previous reckless growth in ineffective Government spending by the Labour Government, debt would have spiralled out of control.

Hon David Cunliffe: What does the Minister say to the 73 percent of New Zealanders identified in a Research New Zealand poll who think that his decade of deferrals to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in Budget 2009 has jeopardised the entire future of superannuation; and does he agree with Bernard Hickey that generations X and Y need to wake up to the massive intergenerational theft that is happening before their eyes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would tell them that the intergenerational theft occurred when the Labour Government mismanaged this economy so badly that it left us with a legacy of 10 years of deficits and a doubling of public debt even after the best efforts of a competent National Government.

Craig Foss: What were the main outcomes of Budget 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The outcome of the Budget is that the Government has found the right balance between protecting New Zealanders from the sharpest edges of recession in the short term while setting New Zealand on the road to recovery in the longer term. The Budget will support thousands of jobs, investment in infrastructure will clear economic bottlenecks, and we will improve New Zealand’s international competitiveness, and, as a sign of external confidence in the Budget, New Zealand is the only developed country that has experienced a mild upgrade in its credit rating.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister seen reports that the Superannuation Fund, ironically, made $587 million in profit for the month of May and is now back in the black, and will he concede that his decision to strip the Superannuation Fund of Government contributions for the next decade was short-sighted?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports about the progress of the Superannuation Fund. I have also seen reported commitments by the Labour Opposition saying that if Labour is running for office in 2011, apparently it will borrow something like $6 billion in catch-up payments, so that it can fill that hole. The fact is that when we have some surpluses to save, we will save them. But partly because of the recklessness of the previous Labour Government, which squandered 10 years of surpluses, we do not have any.

3. Adult and Community Education—Cuts

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

3. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What advice has she received about the number of adult and community education courses that are unlikely to be offered in 2010 as a result of the Government’s funding cuts in this area?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) : The Tertiary Education Commission does not purchase adult and community education on a course-by-course basis. Providers determine the number of specific courses they deliver within an overall funding allocation by the Tertiary Education Commission. The member who asked the question used to hold the delegation for adult and community education, so I presume that she would know that. The Government will continue to invest $124 million in adult and community education over the next 4 years.

Hon Maryan Street: Which of the following courses offered and supported by Tangaroa College in South Auckland does the Minister think should be self-funded by the participants: mathematics for Tongan parents, volunteer training and financial management advice to the Otara Budgeting Service, or making stepfamilies work, a parenting course run by Family Works?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Over many days in this House, I have explained to the member who has just resumed her seat the priorities for funding on adult and community education. The priorities are literacy, numeracy, and foundation courses. As Minister, I will not decide anything. The Tertiary Education Commission will make the decisions as to what providers are funded and for what courses.

Hon Maryan Street: What hope does the Minister offer to her Māori Party colleague, Te Ururoa Flavell, who said in a recent speech to the Adult and Community Education Conference 2009: “It would be difficult to have too much hope when the so called ‘future growth’ of the foundation learning pool; adult literacy educator grants; literacy in industry training and employee one-to-one literacy provision has been removed.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat to that member that the priorities in the middle of an economic recession for adult and community education, as have been explained to the Māori Party, are literacy and numeracy, foundation skills, and courses that will lead to employment for people.

Louise Upston: What reports has the Minister seen of commentators misleading the public over adult and community education funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen the release from the Labour list member Lynne Pillay, claiming that New Zealand Sign Language courses will be cut. That is absolutely not the case. New Zealand Sign Language will continue to receive adult and community education funding, because it fits within the Government’s adult and community education priority. [Interruption] The members on the opposite side of the House either want an answer or they do not. The courses will not be cut. That is scaremongering of the worst kind by the Opposition to members of those communities—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister for interrupting her answer, but, honestly, I could not hear it. I think it is important to remember that if I cannot hear her answer, I am sure other members of the House cannot. I am sure the House is interested in hearing the answer. [Interruption] I ask for a little bit more reasonableness in the volume of noise.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That absolutely proves the point that the Labour Opposition is not interested in the facts about what will be funded in adult and community education in the future. The members are more interested in producing another press release that is factually incorrect. New Zealand Sign Language will be funded; it will continue to be funded. If the members had asked the question, they would have got the answer.

Hon Maryan Street: What is the Minister saying to the 1,676 students who participated in an adult and community education course run through Whakatane High School last year and to the 800 who have enrolled so far this year, who will not be able to avail themselves of the well-known parenting course for fathers and sons, and many other courses besides; or are all such courses simply hobby courses in her book?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said to that member in answer to her similar questions on Tuesday, parenting courses throughout New Zealand are funded by a variety of means: by the Department of Internal Affairs, by district health boards, by the Ministry of Social Development—and some have been funded through schools. The best advice that that member could give, as I have given, to those students who are being funded through Whakatane High School—

Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your guidance. The issue was raised in the House a couple of days ago of people moving to other parts of the House and then barracking, and I would like you to note that people from Labour are sitting on the front benches who do not normally sit there, and are barracking.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker, I think you have seen from our exchange that the major volume of barracking was, in fact, coming from me. You corrected me for it. The member has not been in the House that often, but I say that I have been shifted on to the front bench again recently.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear further. I am sure the member’s benchmate, Grant Robertson, has also been interjecting with considerable volume, and I just ask all members—I mean, I think the rule is sometimes fairly unworkable. Members move around the House these days, and it is unreasonable to expect them to stay in their own seats. All I would ask is that all members are reasonable with their interjections. Members should remember that the acoustics in this House mean that interjections from members at the front of the Chamber make it very hard to hear what is going on, because the volume at the front here can be very loud. All I am asking for is just a bit of reasonableness. Has the Hon Anne Tolley finished her answer?

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that mean that the rules have changed? For at least 19 years, as far as I am aware, the rule has been that if a member shifts seats to give himself or herself advantage, the member cannot interject. That is the rule. If you are going to change it, I think you should make it quite clear that you are changing the rule.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The rule, in fact, is that members cannot shift for the purpose of interjecting. There is a subjective test involved in that rule that only you, Mr Speaker, can decide. Even then, your decision is likely to be challenged.

Hon Rodney Hide: I think that is quite true, but who in their right mind would otherwise choose to sit beside the angry one—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not acceptable—[Interruption] Order! That is not acceptable. I ask the honourable member to stand, withdraw, and apologise to the House for that abuse of Standing Orders.

Hon Rodney Hide: I withdraw and apologise.

H V Ross Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, we have had enough. I have heard quite enough on this matter. The Hon Trevor Mallard was absolutely correct that members cannot shift seats for the purpose of interjecting more effectively or more closely. I am not changing the rules; all I am asking is that the House be sensible and reasonable. A certain amount of interjection is good and healthy. Where Ministers give provocative answers there will be interjection. That is good and healthy; it shows the interjector is listening to the answer, and that is good. But I just ask that it be a little bit reasonable. At times, there, it got so loud that it was difficult to hear. Had the Hon Anne Tolley finished her answer?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: OK. Point of order, the Hon Maryan Street.

Hon Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was under the impression that the Minister had not, in fact, finished her answer when the Hon Tariana Turia raised her point of order. I thought she was mid-sentence.

Mr SPEAKER: Only the Minister can be the judge of whether she had finished her answer.

4. Parental Correction Referendum—Proposed Member’s Bill

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

4. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that a light smack for the purpose of correction should be a criminal offence; if not, why will he not pledge to support my proposed member’s bill to make that point clear, thus removing the need for a referendum?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I believe the member’s first question is ambiguous and open to different interpretations. I note that the law already provides justification for smacking a child, including in the course of good care and parenting, so currently not all smacks are criminal offences. I will not be making a pledge of the sort the member describes, because in my view the current law appears to be working. In any event, the member’s bill is yet to be drawn from the ballot.

John Boscawen: Will he have regard to the referendum results; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The citizens initiated referenda are an opportunity for the public to have their say; I support the referendum for this reason. There is nothing we can do about the ambiguity in the wording of the current referendum in relation to smacking.

John Boscawen: Would he still regard the anti-smacking law as working if the majority of New Zealanders opposed a criminalisation of smacking?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has made it clear that if there was evidence that the law was not working, then he would change the law. It is his view that, up to now, he has not seen evidence of that.

5. Job Summit—Jobs Saved and Created

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

5. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: How many jobs will be either saved or created as a consequence of the six Job Summit work streams he is responsible for?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Associate Minister for Economic Development) on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: The six Job Summit work streams that the Minister is responsible for will collectively improve the environment in which business can prosper. For instance, in the case of the advancement of the energy and environmental initiative, with particular focus on housing, 1 week ago the Government launched the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart campaign, which will retrofit 180,000 houses.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question was directed to the Minister for Economic Development. Mr Brownlee has a role as energy Minister—although the notion of him and energy is a mathematical impossibility—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will stand, withdraw, and apologise, just as I asked the Hon Rodney Hide to do. The member has sought to abuse a member through a point of order. That is totally unacceptable.

Hon Shane Jones: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The six work streams that Mr Brownlee is responsible for as Minister for Economic Development do not include insulation.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is litigating the quality of the answer. The member will sit down. He cannot use a point of order to litigate the quality of the answer; he can use further supplementary questions to dig into the quality of the answer.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Job Summit designated six work streams. They did not—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. This is not a matter of order. At the end of the Minister’s answer, the member who is asking the question may claim that the Minister has not answered it. I will consider that if it arises. But he cannot raise a point of order in the way that he has, because we are still listening to the Minister’s answer. I have not heard the Minister abuse anyone in the House. I invite the Minister to start his answer again; I want to hear the answer to the question.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Minister is responsible for six Job Summit work streams, one of which, for the education of the questioner, is the development of an action plan to advance energy and environmental initiatives, with a particular focus on housing. In respect of that particular initiative, 1 week ago the Government launched a scheme called Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart. It will retrofit 180,000 houses over the next 4 years. This will create not fewer than 2,000 jobs. I wish the member would do his homework.

Hon Shane Jones: Why, in relation to his work stream “actively manage regulatory approval process for complex and/or major projects”, has it taken him 4 months to decide whether a ministerial task force should be established, when his fellow colleagues have established 22 reviews, or is he timing his decision to take effect in the next recession?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: This particular work stream is quite wide ranging. It includes reforming the Resource Management Act and establishing an environmental protection agency, and also, in relation directly to the role of the Minister, developing an infrastructure plan that is led by the Treasury infrastructure group, of which he is part. Frankly, this Government has done a great deal more on infrastructure than that lot did in 9 years in Government.

Hon Shane Jones: What criteria will he or his officials be relying upon in order to advance the policy to save iconic companies, as reflected in the recent select committee discussionand the discussion that is under way in the Ministry of Economic Development?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: One of the work streams is redeveloping business assistance schemes, which obviously relate to companies—[Interruption] They are business assistance schemes, for the information of those members who need to listen. This will involve establishing a new fund that will focus on providing greater and more targeted support for businesses that are seeking to internationalise New Zealand products and services. That is a very specific set of work, which the Government has to pick up because, frankly, the previous Government left the economy in a shambles.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I had difficulty in hearing part of that answer. Was the Minister, if I could ask him to repeat his answer, referring to business assistance schemes?

Mr SPEAKER: If the answer could not be heard, I say the Minister has been asked whether he was referring to business assistance schemes.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Stream No. 4—and presumably the questioner has researched the six streams—directly relates to business assistance schemes.

Hon Shane Jones: How does cutting $10 million from the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise budget help business assistance schemes?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The reductions in funding, of course, were almost invariably in areas that were unfunded. I might add that the Minister for Economic Development, the Minister of Finance, and the Minister of Research, Science and Technology are working on a programme to improve business-facing assistance.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very pithy and lucid. Ten million dollars has been cut. Please invite the Minister to repeat his answer, without saying it was unfunded. We cannot cut something if it does not exist.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty is for the Speaker to have specific knowledge on these things. The Minister did answer the member’s question, although I accept it may not have been to the member’s satisfaction. It is difficult for me to arbitrate on an issue such as that. I believe I have to allow that the Minister did answer the question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Although I fully respect that it is not for the Speaker to wade into judgments on the quality of the response nor the satisfaction of the member, I believe that my colleague’s point is a more technical one. It is not logically, mathematically, or indeed legally possible to cut something that has not been funded. That would mean there was nothing to cut. The whole point of a cut is that an allocation must have been in the Budget previously. I guess that is the point. On that technical point, I believe my colleague is on strong ground. Could ask the Minister to clarify his point, because we would love to know what he meant.

Mr SPEAKER: Members are relitigating the quality of the Minister’s answer. We cannot do that. Further supplementary questions are available to the member. If the member wishes to ask a further supplementary question I will listen very carefully to the Minister’s answer. I sense he does not wish to use a further supplementary question, in which case we will move to question No. 6.

6. State Houses—Sales to Tenants Scheme

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

6. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Housing: What reports, if any, has he seen in support of the policy of sales to State tenants?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : I have seen a number of reports, including a statement that the policy will “give long-standing tenants whose houses have become their homes the opportunity to buy the properties.” Additionally, “The sale of those houses and the purchase of replacement properties will assist the Housing Corporation to house more applicants off the waiting list.” These quotes are from the one-time Minister of Housing Phil Goff.

Tim Macindoe: What other reports has the Minister seen in support of the policy of sales to State tenants?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: One report I read noted that the policy would “allow the corporation to manage the rental housing sector better. The policy of the Government, however, will continue to see an increase in State house rental housing. It will not result in a reduction of State housing numbers.” This is sound policy, and I thank the current leader of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, for signalling it so well in advance.

Tim Macindoe: What criteria announced yesterday seem to have been given support by other parties?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It would appear that the sales being at the discretion of the corporation is also supported: “There would be restrictions on the sale of individual units in flats or blocks, or, for example, if this was strategically important.” I again thank Phil Goff.

Tim Macindoe: What criticism has the Minister received of the policy of sales to State tenants?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I was intrigued and saddened to read yesterday that Moana Mackey was concerned that some of the replacement houses would have 10-year leases. Interestingly, a parliamentary answer from the former housing Minister Chris Carter says that he signed up 572 new leases in 2005 and 468 new leases in 2006. Although buying only 268 houses in 2007, that year he signed up 420 leases.

Mr SPEAKER: Tim Macindoe. [Interruption] Members must show some respect to their colleague seeking to ask a supplementary question.

Tim Macindoe: Does the Minister have any advice for those wanting to know more about the policy?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Far be it from me to give advice; however, I suggest that people who are confused about the policy seek a briefing from me—

Hon Member: Or Phil Goff.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: —from Phil Goff, or from the former Minister of Housing Chris Carter. I personally believe that a coordinated approach to housing policy might be quite useful going forward.

Moana Mackey: If one of the Minister’s aims for this policy is to stimulate the building industry during tough economic times, as he said yesterday, when will the first replacement homes be built, given that the scheme does not start until September and he has no idea what the take-up will be amongst the very small number of State tenants who can afford it, and given the process that the Housing New Zealand Corporation will need to go through to identify or purchase land for the replacements?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Although I have the option to pass the answer on to Phil Goff or Chris Carter, who support the policy—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister should answer the question.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: —I inform the House that the Housing New Zealand Corporation will be increasing the number of State houses by about 1,550 over 4 years. As part of the increase, which we have planned for, we will build, buy, and lease houses to replace those bought by State house tenants, who for once in a decade will have the opportunity to go into homeownership.

Moana Mackey: Let us see whether he will actually answer this question. How does that policy help reduce Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting-lists, address affordable housing issues, or stimulate the building sector, when the Minister is promising to maybe build an unknown number of houses sometime in the next few years, yet, on the other hand, has stopped the building of 500 State houses and stalled the building of 500 affordable homes in Hobsonville?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: We have been very intrigued by the Hobsonville policy, which was first announced in 2002 by the Labour Government. It was announced about a dozen times, including three times in the 2005 election year and three times in the 2008 election year. When we came into Government, do members know what we found? There were no consents, no spade had hit the ground, and no house had been built. Members will be pleased to hear that the National Government has obtained consents. We are about to start the earthworks, and we will build some real houses in Hobsonville. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: There is no way that anyone can hear the honourable member seeking to ask a supplementary question. I ask for a little bit of order from the Government benches, please.

Moana Mackey: It is interesting that State houses are not real houses. How can the Minister be taken seriously on the issue of helping low-income families into their own homes, given that his No. 1 election promise for housing affordability was to ease the burden of mortgage repayments through an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts, and how will extensive tax cuts for the highest-income earners help low-income families pay their mortgages?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Although the member could access it herself, I would be happy to pass her the phone number of the Governor of the Reserve Bank, who will mention to her that interest rates are actually coming down.

Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We all appreciate the court jester routine, but the Minister did not answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I can understand the member’s concern. In fact, in a roundabout way the Minister did answer it, in that he indicated that lower interest rates make houses more affordable. I invite the honourable member to ask her question again, because the House was so rowdy that it was hard to hear the question, and I must say the Minister’s answer was not particularly well directed.

Moana Mackey: Thank you. How can the Minister be taken seriously on the issue of helping low-income families into their own homes, given that his No. 1 election promise for housing affordability was to ease the burden of mortgage repayments through an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts, and how will extensive tax cuts for the highest-income earners help low-income families to pay their mortgages?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: In the term of this Government mortgage interest rates have come down; so have taxes.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, not wanting to go to the substance of the Minister’s attempts at a response, it does appear that he is confused between rates and rates. Interest rates are set by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Tax rates are set by the Government. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: There will be silence. The member has made his point. I think, in fairness, the question related to affordability of housing—it was a fairly long question—and I think the Minister in his answer identified a couple of areas, including tax cuts, that he argues have made housing more affordable. I accept he has answered the question.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I seek leave to table a statement from the new face of the Labour Party, Phil Goff, that is a quarter of a century old.

Mr SPEAKER: Points of order should be made seriously and should not contain that kind of language. The Minister will not continue in that vein, or he will not continue with his point of order.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I seek leave to table a document titled “Ban on Sale of State Houses to be Lifted”, from the Evening Post.

Mr SPEAKER: What was the date?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It was 1986.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document from 1986. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I seek leave to table the long list of lease deals done by Labour Ministers of Housing.

Mr SPEAKER: This is a document?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It is a document—parliamentary questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We on this side of the House get homilies when we attempt to do that, and you have not given a homily on either the attempt to table the Evening Post clipping or the attempt to table Hansard. I would like some evenness on this.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ignore that last comment. Can I just make certain, for the benefit of the House, that it is a document that the member is seeking to table?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The parliamentary questions or the Evening Post one?

Mr SPEAKER: The document the member is seeking to table.

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It is parliamentary written question No 10587, giving a list of—

Mr SPEAKER: When was that parliamentary question asked?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Parliamentary written question No. 10587, in 2007.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, a parliamentary question is already on the record of the House. I accept that it is a few years back. Leave is sought for that purpose. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Moana Mackey: I seek leave to table the 2008 National Party policy promising tax cuts as an answer to housing affordability.

Mr SPEAKER: Having sought leave for the Hon Phil Heatley’s tabling, let me seek leave for that as well. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none.

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

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to address the issue of tabling documents that was raised as a consequence of the Hon Phil Heatley’s seeking leave to table various documents. I want to defend the right of Phil Heatley to do what he did. Mr Speaker, yesterday when you addressed the issue of tabling documents you referred to the report of the Standing Orders Committee. Arising out of that report, a change was made to the Standing Orders to require that documents be tabled when leave is granted for them to be tabled—and I congratulate the Speaker on enforcing it. Another way in which the Speaker has improved the tabling of documents is to make sure that the document exists rather than is going to be created, and I congratulate the Speaker on that.

But, Mr Speaker, in respect of your desire to dissuade members from seeking to table documents that are already a matter of public record, I suggest that what the Hon Phil Heatley did was within order, just as earlier practice by the Opposition was in order. I refer the Speaker to the report of the Standing Orders Committee, because its wording was quite careful. It states: “The primary purpose of … seeking leave to table documents is to inform debate …”, and that is why, as a general rule, we should not always be referring to documents that are on the public record. I think the wording of the Standing Orders Committee was quite careful. It referred to that being the primary purpose, but it is not the only purpose. There is a proper political purpose around the tabling of documents. It ought not to be abused by members coming to the House with long lists of historical documents that are of marginal relevance, but the Hon Phil Heatley did not do that then, and the Opposition has not being doing it in previous weeks.

Mr Speaker, I think the balance to be found is that if people waste lots of time with long lists of documents, then you should intervene. But where an occasional political point is being made, the best way for the Speaker to handle it, in my submission, is to let it flow. Members have the right to refuse leave. It will be political, but this is a political place. The business of the House should be allowed to flow.

Hon John Carter: Mr Speaker, although we would not disagree with the comment that has been made, I draw the House’s attention to the very fact that your rulings on this matter have been very good. Indeed, you put to the House the last application by Mr Heatley to table a document, on the basis that it was a historical rather than recent document. Your rulings have been that we are not expected to table documents that are newly created. It makes a farce of the parliamentary system if we seek leave to table documents that appeared yesterday. In that sense, your rulings have been very even and very fair. You have not ruled out our seeking the leave of the House to table historic documents—I do not think I have seen you do that—but you certainly have suggested to the House that the last thing we should want to do is to table, for example, yesterday’s Hansard, as that brings the House into disrepute.

Hon David Parker: Could I speak for just one further moment on the matter. What I am saying is that we in the Opposition find that some of the imputations that are being made as to whether our conduct is right in seeking leave are offensive. We should not abuse the privilege we have in this House by seeking to table a long list of documents and wasting the time of the House. It is proper that we do occasionally use the tabling process to make a political point. So, with respect, Mr Speaker, I do not think that the criticism you made of Phil Heatley was justified. If he was seeking to table a great big list of documents and was unduly wasting the time of the House, it would have been justified. That is my submission.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the honourable members’ points on this matter, because it is an important issue. The tabling of documents is an important part of our House procedures. The Hon David Parker referred to the review by the Standing Orders Committee, and I will quote from the report so that the members of the House are aware of what the Standing Orders Committee said. The review stated: “It is not desirable for members to seek to table documents that are already available as part of the House proceedings, such as replies to questions for written answer, parliamentary papers, select committee reports, Hansard, or the Standing Orders.” I have also made it very clear that I have considered it inappropriate for members to seek to table current newspaper articles or press releases that are readily available to members. But at the end of the day I accept that it is up to the House, which is why I may at times express my frustration at certain things being tabled. I do not believe I criticised the Hon Phil Heatley; I just sought, following on from the point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard, to establish exactly what the Minister was seeking to table. It seemed that it was a record from 2 years ago. I then put the leave. The House had a clear understanding of what the document was—it was a document, we established. I then put it to the House for its decision on the matter. I accept the point the honourable member is making, which is that I need to be careful not to make too much comment on these matters. But that was what the Standing Orders Committee said, and I believe that it was sound advice from the committee. I also think it is unhelpful for members to seek to table press statements from current newspapers, unless they are newspapers that the members of this House do not normally have access to, such as foreign newspapers and that kind of thing.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The only point I will draw to your attention is that the paragraph you read from was the same paragraph I read from. The prior sentence in that paragraph states: “The primary purpose of the procedure … is to inform debate...”. The Standing Orders Committee was acknowledging that that is the primary purpose but there are other legitimate purposes. I am just trying to draw the line in a little less of a black and white manner than the Speaker has been drawing it. I have no further contribution to make.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member.

7. Prisons—Māori Focus Units

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

7. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Associate Minister of Corrections: Does he agree with the intention of the Māori focus units that through developing a personal commitment to tikanga Māori values, offenders become less criminally motivated; if so, what plans has he to ensure the Māori focus units will become even more successful?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Associate Minister of Corrections) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou. Yes, I do, because the tikanga Māori programmes focus on manaakitanga, which teaches offenders to care and share with each other; kotahitanga, which creates unity as one group, even over gang patches; and rangatiratanga, which teaches them to respect individuals’ mana. So the Māori focus units are successful in that way. The guys are learning through their tikanga Māori. The basis of the report that has been produced will provide an opportunity to extend the services offered.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What actions will the Associate Minister take to address the increasing concern amongst staff that the pool of funds available for prisoner tikanga Māori programmes and staff training is diminishing?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have already met with the chief executive. We are using this report and targeting money in the best manner possible. I know that we have a lot of things we can do with the money that is there at this time.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What advice did the Minister give to his colleague the Minister of Corrections in response to the container-room proposal? Will that approach aid prisoner rehabilitation or are they intended to be the Government’s new-look Māori focus units?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I did not give the Minister any advice but I have seen the model based on containers. It is no better or worse than many cells that exist at this time. It is actually bigger than many of the cells in New Zealand’s prisons at this time, and it is much better than a lot of them.

Kelvin Davis: Can the Minister explain why yesterday at the Vote Corrections estimates hearing the Minister of Corrections, Judith Collins, said that she had not yet seen details of his Whare Oranga Ake proposal, yet just hours later he was discussing the proposal on Close Up, or is this just another example of Cabinet Ministers not communicating with each other, and keeping each other in the dark while they drum up support for their pet schemes?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: It is an example of the Minister’s confidence in her Associate Minister—me—to carry out this project. I have briefed her on it, but in terms of the details, the member is quite right, she has not seen it. But officials up and down the country are working on it. Kia ora.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What does the Minister think are the key success factors in rehabilitating Māori prisoners to reduce reoffending?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: What seems to be applicable for Māori inmates in particular is programmes of healing, where they face their crime, what they have done, and realise that they have created victims, and so on. A lot of people go through the prison system without having to do that. The second one is training inmates to enable them to take up a livelihood when they leave. The most important factor is whānau mentoring support when they leave prison. Lack of that support is one of the main reasons for recidivism.

Hon Darren Hughes: When did the Associate Minister brief the Minister of Corrections on the details of this proposal?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have spoken to her about it and brought it up a few times. She knows that it is different.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Now and again ever since I have been there. That is all we have done; we have talked about it. She said “Go ahead”, and I am going ahead and working with the departmental officers. Kia ora.

8. Budget 2009—Research and Development Investment Initiatives

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

8. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What initiatives were in Budget 2009 to increase private sector investment in research and development, given recent reports showing business sector investment in research and development is at 0.51 percent of GDP—one-third the OECD average?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology) : The key Budget initiatives in Vote Research, Science and Technology were the increases in the Marsden Fund of $9 million, $8 million for the Health Research Council, and $10 million for the Crown Research Institute Capability Fund. The Crown Research Institute Capability Fund will enable Crown research institutes to better engage with business. But in addition to that, there is also the primary growth partnership under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry vote. That is $30 million this year, rising to $70 million over the next few years. That will enable that ministry to engage very effectively with the primary sector. As the member knows, the Minister of Finance, the Minister for Economic Development, and the Minister of Research, Science and Technology are working on further improving firm-facing business assistance.

Moana Mackey: Does the Minister stand by his comments at the Education and Science Committee yesterday that New Zealand is not at a competitive disadvantage compared with Australia as a result of the cancelling of our research and development tax credits and the expansion of Australia’s research and development tax concessions?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, I do. The problem with research and development tax credits—and this is well known amongst tax accountants—is that they are open to abuse. Essentially people can re-categorise their expenditure and make those claims.

Hon David Cunliffe: Where’s the evidence of that in this case?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The evidence is actually accountants telling me that. That is the weakness of all tax-based claims of this nature.

Dr Paul Hutchison: How does expenditure on the Marsden Fund and the Health Research Council support business development?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: One of the interesting things about the Marsden Fund, which is primarily for fundamental research, is how fundamental research can build businesses in ways that were not anticipated. A good example of that would be the BLIS Technologies example. In that instance the research came out of the Health Research Council and it led to the establishment of a particular company. It is the same with Syft Technologies, which came directly out of the Marsden Fund. It is a very interesting example. The study was actually about extraterrestrial chemistry. No one would have thought that would lead to a business entity, but in fact, it did. That is the importance of fundamental research, and it is why the Marsden Fund benefits private business.

Moana Mackey: Who should we believe: the Minister who thinks that research and development tax credits are a bad idea, or the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association chief executive, John Walley, who said that research and development funding in New Zealand is not working, and: “the majority of our OECD competitors including Australia, the United States and the United Kingdom have incentives for R&D investment. R&D is an internationally mobile component of business, so if firms can get better tax rules elsewhere then R&D activity is likely to leave.”?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: That is precisely why the Minister of Finance, the Minister for Economic Development, and the Minister of Research, Science and Technology are working on how better to get firm-facing support. For instance, the Government recognises the importance of TechNZ and it has continued funding it. When money is spent through TechNZ we know that it is going towards supporting a particular project. The problem with tax credits is that they are so susceptible to re-characterisation by tax accountants.

9. Employment—Supporting People into Work

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

9. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing with different industries to support people into work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Work and Income currently has 78 industry partnerships and has committed over $10 million towards supporting people to get into work. I will name but a few of the organisations we are working with: the Marine Industry Association, the Fire Protection Association of New Zealand, Master Painters New Zealand, the Motor Trade Association, and the New Zealand Chambers of Commerce and Industry. The list goes on and on, and over the next 12 months Work and Income expects to place a further 3,500 people into work through these industry partnerships.

Katrina Shanks: Can the Minister give us more examples of these partnerships?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. In the aged-care sector Work and Income has signed into six partnerships, providing employment for around 60 people to date. These people are also being given the opportunity to continue to learn new skills and develop career paths that will have ongoing, long-term benefits.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What is the name of the fund, which she referred to yesterday at the Social Service Committee, that is the alternative source of support for ill and disabled people who seek to get into paid work now that she has scrapped the health and disability innovation fund? What is the name of that alternative fund?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What we discussed yesterday at the Social Services Committee is the fact that a range of services and support is available to people who have disabilities and are looking at going into work. Work and Income is totally supporting them to get the services they need around them. Work and Income is working through a range of support services for them.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did the Minister tell the select committee that there is an alternative source of funding, when there is not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are enterprise allowances for those working through Work and Income. We outsource a number of programmes for those with disabilities so that they can get help with CV writing, help with their interview skills, help to get the range of available services, and help them to get into work. Those programmes are there, and we have actually just contracted $250 million worth of contracts for services to help people into work. There is certainly assistance available.

Katrina Shanks: Will there be any training or upskilling involved with regard to these new partnerships?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. For people who are placed through this scheme, we will continue to provide ongoing mentoring and training. In the case of McDonald’s, a mentoring programme will be offered to youth referred by Work and Income. The programme includes up to 12 weeks’ pre-employment training as well as up to 12 months’ on-the-job mentoring to assist the trainee to achieve service industry qualifications with McDonald’s. This programme is being run jointly by Work and Income, McDonald’s, and the Hospitality Standards Institute, and it will be piloted in selected stores by November 2009.

10. Dr Richard Worth—Confidence

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

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

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: I refer the member to the response to question No. 12 on Tuesday, 16 June.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Prime Minister believe that to date his handling of the resignation of Dr Richard Worth as a Minister has been spot on, or does he think there might be room for improvement?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Spot on.

Hon Pete Hodgson: How many times has the Prime Minister changed his mind so far about whether he would or would not say anything about his loss of confidence in Mr Richard Worth as a Minister; and should he ever have the chance to decide this again, would he try to change his mind on fewer occasions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Has the Prime Minister avoided specifically answering questions for the past 2 weeks on the grounds that it is not in the public interest, or is it more true that he does not have any additional substantive information to withhold, and is therefore just avoiding answering questions in the first place?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an either/or question, and it could not possibly be answered with a one-word rejection.

Hon Rodney Hide: It is quite clear that if the Minister is asked a question with two limbs, he needs to answer only one of them. It is quite clear that that is what he did.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is quite correct.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Prime Minister think, in retrospect, that a better way to handle this issue might have been to say at the outset something like: “I have accepted Dr Richard Worth’s resignation as a Minister, on the basis that he has repeatedly failed to keep me informed of matters he should have informed me on, including a police investigation into matters of a sexual nature that may or may not be of substance, and that my tolerance of his failure to respect my no-surprises policy has reached its limits.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister acted decisively and swiftly. Mr Worth is no longer a Minister and no longer a member of Parliament. This Parliament has been spared the shambles that used to occur under the previous Government, where even people who were accused of breaking the law hung on for years, collecting their salaries.

11. Modern Apprentices and Industry Trainees—Numbers

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

11. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What recent reports has she received on the number of industry trainees and modern apprentices?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) : I have received a report on the industry training and modern apprenticeships statistics for the first quarter of this year. That report, which will be released today, shows that the number of industry trainees held firm from the December 2008 quarter to the March 2009 quarter. In fact, there was a marginal increase. In addition, we have seen a 4 percent increase in the number of modern apprentices. Previous economic downturns have seen business shed trainees, which has stopped them from taking advantage of the economic upturn when it came. I am very proud of the fact that the report released today shows that this Government is giving industry the confidence to retain, and, in some cases, to add to the 133,454 industry trainees it has.

Colin King: Has the Minister received any further reports from the industry on industry trainee numbers?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am very heartened by comments from the Industry Training Federation, which stated: “By and large employers are actually responding quite differently in this recession than in the past. There is no doubt some firms are shedding labour, but the general picture is the opposite. … they are doing their best to hold on to people;”. It is very important that businesses retain their trainees, but it is also important that businesses continue to take on more trainees so that we grow our skills base.

Hon Maryan Street: How does the Minister reconcile her statement in relation to those figures: “Good quality tertiary training is vital to improving the country’s skills base so we can take full advantage of the eventual economic upturn.” with her confirmation today that polytechs will have to turn away some 6,000 aspiring students, who will no doubt end up on the dole instead?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Easily, and that member only quotes part of what I said in that interview. I said that I was hoping that polytechs would be prioritising the courses that are particularly aimed at young people, Māori, and Pasifika people, who are the worst sufferers in a recession. They are the first people to be made redundant or who are unable to find education. I was asking the institutions to prioritise courses that led on to employment. That will take care of many of those people.

Colin King: Has the Minister received any reports on commentators using misleading industry trainee figures?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes. I have seen a statement from the Hon Phil Goff, where he alleges that 2,800 trainees are out of work. Well, Mr Goff conveniently forgot to mention two points about that figure. Firstly, the figure was the number of trainees out of work in the building and construction sector across the 14 months leading up to March of this year. He was complaining about trainees being put out of work during 9 of the months when he himself was a front-bench Cabinet Minister, which was a bit of a spectacular own goal. Secondly, Mr Goff neglected to mention that in that same newspaper article that he plucked the 2,800 figure from, it was pointed out that already 1,200 of those workers had found new training opportunities.

Hon Maryan Street: How does the Minister imagine that New Zealand will emerge better skilled from the recession with her continual squeeze on polytechs, which is foreshadowed to get worst next year, and the continual knock-on effect on industry training organisations; or is she relying on her investment in private schools to do the job?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is a ridiculous assertion by that member. We are in middle of an economic recession, and that means that this Government has to set some priorities around funding. We have made some responsible decisions. I have asked tertiary institutions to prioritise the courses that will lead on to employment, and that will deliver skills to people who are seeking employment. If that member is saying that we have slashed industry training, then when Labour was in Government, it must have done the same thing. It only gave the CPI funding increase to industry training for one out of 9 years. So if we have cut it, the previous Labour Government must have cut it too.

12. Roading—Transmission Gully

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

12. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Can he confirm that the latest benefit-cost ratio for the proposed motorway through Transmission Gully is in the range of 0.36 to 0.50, and would he give the green light to build a motorway where the costs outweigh the benefits by up to a factor of three?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I can confirm that it is likely that the benefit-cost ratio for the Transmission Gully route is less than one. It will be similar for the alternative coastal route, as well. It is clear there are no inexpensive options here because of the very rugged geography north of Wellington, which makes construction difficult. The member asks if I would ever give the green light to an infrastructure project with a poor benefit cost ratio. I point out that benefit cost ratios are just one of a range of factors that are taken into consideration.

Sue Kedgley: Why would the Government consider building a new motorway on an active earthquake fault line, a motorway that, the Minister of Transport’s advisers say, could take even longer to clear than the coastal highway in the event of an earthquake?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member makes some valid points around the Transmission Gully project, but there are also lots of difficulties with the coastal route, including some of the environmental concerns around it, and some of the risks there in terms of route security. So there are no easy options, as I said before. The Government will have to make a decision before the end of the year in terms of which one to promote.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that the most optimistic assumption that his officials have given him is that it would take 3 weeks for Transmission Gully to be reopened after a large earthquake; and does that not undermine what is the main rationale for Transmission Gully, namely that it would provide an alternative route out of Wellington in the event of an earthquake?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sadly, if we took into account only how long it would take to reopen routes once they were closed by an earthquake in the vicinity of New Zealand’s capital, a number of roads would never have been built.

David Bennett: Are there any infrastructure projects with poor benefit cost ratios that the Government has given the green light to?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: One example that springs to mind is the electrification of Auckland’s commuter rail. The project has a benefit cost ratio of around 1, to quote Treasury. But, as I said in my answer to the primary question, fortunately for that project, benefit cost ratios are one of a range of factors that are taken into consideration. Furthermore, as research by the Motu group shows, benefit cost ratios can be boosted significantly when wider economic development effects are fully captured. This is especially relevant to an important regional project by the Wellington to Levin corridor, which will serve the economy of the whole lower North Island and not just Wellington.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that the steepest section of Transmission Gully is a 3.3 kilometre climb that is roughly twice as long and half as steep again as Ngauranga Gorge, that truck operators have indicated that it would be too steep for many of them to use, and that escape routes and “arrestor beds” would need to be build for out-of-control vehicles?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can confirm that the gradient would be roughly similar to that of the Ngauranga Gorge, and that it would be about twice as long.

Hon Darren Hughes: What is the Minister’s funding preference for the building of Transmission Gully: entirely from the National Land Transport Fund, through borrowing, or via a public-private partnership?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have not expressed a preference for the funding of Transmission Gully. First we have to make a decision on the corridor priorities for the whole of the Levin to Wellington corridor. Those decisions will be made prior to the end of this year.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that Transmission Gully is expected to increase car trips in the morning by 20 percent and in the evening by 25 percent, while simultaneously reducing rail trips by 13 percent, and why on earth would the Government support a motorway that is predicted to increase congestion and reduce public transport?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not convinced that increasing the use of one mode of transport over another will necessarily cause further congestion. It may just mean that the particular mode is easier to use. I do not have those figures to hand for the member, but I will follow them up for her.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that, in summary, the advice that he has received from his officials confirms that Transmission Gully is a lemon with an uneconomic benefit-cost ratio, which will create greater congestion around Wellington, and will be of little or no benefit to the region in the event of an earthquake; if so, why on earth would the Government consider building this lemon?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If Transmission Gully is a lemon, then I am afraid the alternatives have a certain citrous smell to them as well.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the advice to the Minister from the Ministry of Transport, which identifies the flaws in Transmission Gully that I have outlined. It is dated 10 December 2008.

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

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

Questions to Members

1. 2009-10 Estimates of Appropriation—Progress of Consideration

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

1. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of the 2009-10 Estimates of Appropriation?

CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): The committee began its consideration of the 2009-10 Estimates of Appropriation on 29 May 2009. It reported to the House on the Supplementary Estimates of Appropriations for the year ending 30 June 2009 on 8 June 2009, has referred a number of examinations to other subject select committees for review and report, and has heard evidence in relation to its examinations of Vote Finance, Vote Audit, Vote Revenue, and Vote SOE.

Hon David Cunliffe: When does he expect those subsequent reports will be reported to the House?

CRAIG FOSS: The committee is required to report its examinations for the 2009-10 Estimates of Appropriation to the House by 28 July 2009.

2. Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill—Progress of Consideration

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

2. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill?

CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): The committee considered the bill at meetings held on 13 May 2009, 27 May 2009, and 3 June 2009. The matters discussed are proceedings of the committee and are therefore confidential to the committee.

Hon David Cunliffe: Are any other bills currently before the Finance and Expenditure Committee; if so, when does he expect that they will be reported back?

Mr SPEAKER: I am advised that it is not in order to ask that supplementary question, because the primary question was in relation to the Methodist Church of New Zealand Trusts Bill, and supplementary questions should relate to that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not going to dispute the effect of your ruling, at all; I think it is correct. But I think it is also relatively important that you take responsibility for the ruling and say that the question is out of order, rather than that you were advised; otherwise, you are putting the ruling on the Clerk, and that is not very fair.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the honourable member’s point. I was just being honest about the fact that I was not 100 percent certain about it myself.

3. Banking Practices—Inquiry

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

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee: When will the Finance and Expenditure Committee next give consideration or make a decision on the proposed banking inquiry?

CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee) : The committee is scheduled to consider this matter at its next meeting.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why was insufficient time provided to the committee to allow it to give full consideration to the matter this week, as he indicated to the House would be the case in response to my oral question on 18 June 2009?

CRAIG FOSS: I am sure the member knows it is a very busy committee. Yesterday we dealt with an 830-page tax bill, two estimate reviews, and two sets of audits. It is a hard-working committee that makes its best endeavours to work its way through the agenda. I am sure that member will participate fully.

4. Vote Health—Progress of Consideration

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

4. Hon LUAMANUVAO WINNIE LABAN (Labour—Mana) to the Chairperson of the Health Committee: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of Vote Health?

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (Chairperson of the Health Committee) : The committee heard evidence from the Minister of Health and ministry officials at its meeting on 17 June 2009. Standing Order 328(2) states: “All committees must report to the House on their examinations of the Estimates within two months of the delivery of the Budget.” The committee clerk is currently preparing a draft report.

Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: Given that Vote Health is the only vote for the committee, and there is no legislation before the committee, why did the committee resolve not to conduct an inquiry into the quality of health care for older people?

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member, but the chair of the committee is not responsible for the resolutions of the committee. They are matters that the committee decides and they are not the prerogative of the chair.

Dr PAUL HUTCHISON: I would be delighted to answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I invite the honourable member to ask a supplementary question within the Standing Orders.

Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: When the committee has finished consideration of Vote Health, will it have time to reconsider my proposal for an inquiry into the quality of health care for older people?

Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, that is a matter for the committee and not a matter specifically for the chair.

Hon Darren Hughes: The chairperson of the committee sets the agenda for the business before the committee, and that is what the question goes to the heart of—will there be time for the chairperson to put that on the agenda?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I rule on the matter, I will just check with the member asking the supplementary question whether that is an item of business before the committee. [Interruption] I do not see how the chair of the committee can therefore be asked to answer on the matter. I have allowed the member two supplementary questions. I think I have been perfectly reasonable on the matter. We must now move on.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think we have had examples of several questions that go to the heart of select committee processes rather than the substance of decisions, and members on this side of the Chamber are fully aware that they are not within the Standing Orders to ask. I seek some clarification on your ruling. The question asked by my colleague was, essentially, whether there would be room on the timetable for a potential item of business. It would not be logically possible to ask that question if an item had already been scheduled. It cannot be out of order to ask whether it would be possible to make time; that would go to the question of whether there are too many other items of business, and that was exactly the point my colleague sought to make. I ask you to explain why it was out of order to ask whether there would be time to ask a further matter.

Mr SPEAKER: I like the honourable member’s attempt to bring the question within the Standing Orders, but obviously a question to a member must relate to a matter for which the committee has charge, and that is in front of the committee. I suppose that a question could be asked whether the committee has any spare time in the future, but a member cannot ask the chair of the committee about the possible consideration of a matter that is not before the committee. I think I have allowed the member two supplementary questions. I really need now to move on. I think that is only fair and reasonable. The House has come to the end of questions for oral answer.

Hon Luamanuvao Winnie Laban: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought you were inviting me to rephrase my question.

Mr SPEAKER: No; I allowed the member two tries at a supplementary question, and I think I have been reasonable.

ENDS