Questions for Oral Answer

23 July 2009

Questions to Ministers

1. Social Development and Employment, Minister—Confidence

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

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes the Prime Minister does, and he has a lot more confidence in the Minister than a certain Charles Chauvel had in a former Minister when, as president—

Mr SPEAKER: The question did not ask “if so, why”, it simply asked whether the Prime Minister had confidence in the Minister.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question was open-ended. I am allowed to give reasons, comparisons, analogies, and anecdotes that back up my answer. Surely you are not going to rule that out.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is the sole judge of those matters, and where the Speaker perceives that it will lead to disorder the Speaker may ask the member to desist.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister for Social Development and Employment advise the Prime Minister that her decision to cut the Enterprising Communities scheme would lead to 3,000 job losses; if so, how can he have confidence in a Minister who is creating more job losses than job opportunities?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has a great deal more confidence in the Minister than a certain Charles Chauvel had in a former Minister when, as president of the Labour Youth Council in 1988, he told the then employment Minister, Phil Goff, to “take action or resign”. Charles Chauvel is probably feeling the same way today.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question asked by the deputy leader of the Labour Party might have been a little political, but it was also very specific. It referred to an enterprise training scheme and the effect on jobs of that action. That issue was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: It would have been helpful had the Hon Bill English actually referred to the supplementary question in some way in his answer, and I invite him to do so now.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Hon Annette King: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister who claimed that the Restart package was a great success and the answer to New Zealand’s skyrocketing unemployment, when, since its introduction, around 100 people a week have signed up for it, whereas 1,300 people a week are signing up for the dole; and is that really what he thinks is the answer to unemployment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, the Prime Minister does have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment. The Restart package is innovative, it is successful, and it is targeted at people who need assistance. The record of the Minister is really quite startling: we have been in recession for seven quarters now, and we have an unemployment rate that is amongst the lowest rates in the OECD. Despite the fact that Australia has not had a recession, our unemployment rate is lower than Australia’s.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister seen any alternative proposals for reducing unemployment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has not seen any alternative proposals for reducing unemployment. He has seen Opposition proposals for the expansion of welfare. That, of course, will do nothing for jobs. Mr Goff’s views on expanding welfare are impractical, unfair, and unaffordable, but that is not surprising. He thinks he can keep making policy in the way that Labour did when it was in Government.

Hon Annette King: Did the Prime Minister agree with the decision of the Minister for Social Development and Employment’s to abandon National’s social development election promises aimed at helping sole parents into training and back into work in order to give them and their families a chance at a better life; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister for Social Development and Employment has not abandoned those policy objectives—

Hon Annette King: Oh yes, she has.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, she has not abandoned those policy objectives, and the Prime Minister fully supports the Minister in making decisions that set priorities and fund effective programmes. That sometimes mean we do not fund programmes that do not work well.

Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister stand by his pre-election commitment to help New Zealand’s most vulnerable people, especially those who live on “Struggle Street”; if so, when the Minister for Social Development and Employment says that tough decisions need to be made, why is it that the first people to suffer are those who are on “Struggle Street”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, that is not correct. Because of confidence in the Government’s economic policies, our rate of unemployment is amongst the lowest rates in the developed world, despite the fact that we have had a long recession. That means we are doing a good job of keeping people off “Struggle Street”.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of an employment Minister dealing with rising unemployment during a recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, he has seen a report that states: “It takes more than hot air, more than rhetoric, and more than using the backs of unemployed people to make political points. … I despair at the gamesmanship of politicians trying to get votes from the problem of unemployment”. That was said by Annette King in this House.

Carmel Sepuloni: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment when it is clear that New Zealanders are losing confidence in her—New Zealanders like Trudy, who said in response to the Minister’s performance in question time yesterday: “I feel Paula Bennett’s answer showed her running for cover and I was very disappointed in the answer she gave. It seems to me that she was painting a very rosy financial picture for beneficiaries. I defy her to show me any cases of beneficiaries who receive anywhere near that amount of”—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. Questions are not meant to be speeches. I invite the member to reflect on that. I think we have heard enough of the question. I invite the Hon Bill English to answer it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is great to get a question from someone who was not a Minister 20 years ago and who did not say things like “I despair at the gamesmanship of politicians trying to get votes from the problem of unemployment.” Paula Bennett is doing a great job as the Minister for Social Development and Employment. What is it about female Ministers that irritates Labour so much?

Moana Mackey: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister who is responsible for cutting the training incentive allowance, and does he agree with Christine of Gisborne, a solo mother of four who now cannot do the nursing qualification that would enable her to move off the domestic purposes benefit and into paid work, when she says: “The Government has been sitting there”—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise for interrupting the member. Members may not like questions, but provided they are within the Standing Orders—and I saw nothing wrong with that question so far—members are entitled to ask them. Because of the noise coming from the Government benches I invite Moana Mackey to start her supplementary question again.

Moana Mackey: How can the Prime Minister have confidence in a Minister responsible for cutting the training incentive allowance, and does he agree with Christine of Gisborne, a solo mother of four who now cannot do the nursing qualification that would enable her to move off the domestic purposes benefit and into paid work, when she says: “The Government has been sitting there telling us to upskill, get into jobs, not run up debt, to ride out the recession, and then they go and take away the assistance that some people need to enable this to happen.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What we have learnt from the activities of the Labour Party over the last month is that we have to be pretty careful about believing whether Christine of Gisborne even exists, and also whether she is on the domestic purposes benefit, whether she owns three investment houses, and whether all the information she has given to the Labour Party about her situation has been truthfully represented here.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not sure whether you heard the end of the Minister’s answer, but he challenged whether a member had truthfully represented something to the House. I think that is outside the Standing Orders. He can give an answer that defends the Government’s record without having to resort to that.

Hon Rodney Hide: Of course the answer is within the Standing Orders. The Minister was not saying the member was lying or not telling the truth; he was querying whether all the facts had been presented—whether the matter had been truthfully represented. That is what that means, and we have had plenty of instances where the examples used by the Labour Party—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Rodney Hide: No, no—I want to make the point—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. I do not want to see points of order being used to criticise another party. The member has made his point perfectly well, and I feel that on this occasion the interpretation I took was the one that the Hon Rodney Hide has just outlined. That is why I did not object to the answer. I accept that there was a robust exchange, but where questions quote someone partially identified, like that one did, one can expect that answers will be pretty varied. If members want to use that practice in asking questions, they will get answers that may not be what they want to hear.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did Cabinet decide to cut the Enterprising Communities scheme, given the fact, as the Prime Minister has told us today, that there will be 3,000 job losses?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the course of the Budget, Cabinet looked at a whole range of schemes, including many misguided and ineffective schemes put in place by the previous Government. Given the fiscal constraints, we have made decisions about priorities, and we stand by those decisions.

2. Tax System and Benefit System—Alternative Approaches

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

2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any reports on alternative approaches to the tax and benefit system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes, I have received reports of a policy from Phil Goff and Annette King to pay the unemployment benefit to people who have been made redundant but whose partners are still earning a good income.

Hon Annette King: Was it last century?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, this was yesterday. Their justification is that these people—

Hon Annette King: I hope the Minister’s quoting correctly.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: —hang on; no, listen, the member might learn—have paid income tax while they have been working, so they should get something back for it. The policy of Phil Goff and Annette King represents a fundamental change in Labour’s thinking about welfare. Assistance will now be targeted to those who have paid the most tax, rather than to those who have the most need.

David Bennett: Do the reports the Minister has received imply that the welfare system should be considered more like an insurance scheme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The policy proposals of Phil Goff and Annette King essentially turn the welfare system into a form of insurance against redundancy, to replace lost income and to help people who have made poor investments. I am surprised that the rest of the Labour caucus has gone along with this policy, which turns the welfare system on its head.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask Ministers to be careful in answering questions; they are not responsible for the Labour Party’s policies. They can certainly refer to them if they have reports on them, but they are meant to answer about their own policies. Certainly some comparison could be drawn, but an entire answer should not be focused on attacking the Opposition’s policies. I ask Ministers to respect that convention.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is it now Government policy to bring back asset testing of beneficiaries and superannuitants—something the previous National Government, including Bill English, introduced, and which caused hardships to thousands of older New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer to that is no. The National-led Government is, however, firmly committed to the welfare system as a safety net for those most in need, and we will continue to keep that policy in place. We understand that Labour wants to move unemployment to an insurance system, where those who are paid the most get the most benefit from going on the unemployment benefit.

David Bennett: Do the reports he has received indicate that a good policy process has been followed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reports of the policy proposal I have seen from the Labour Party demonstrate that the policy was—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr English has amused himself by talking about matters long past and in previous Governments, and that has been accepted by you, Mr Speaker. He is now straying to venture his own personal opinions about whatever he considers to be the internal processes of the Labour Party. That is quite clearly out of order, and I ask you to help him curtail himself.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Quite apart from the fact that the issues raised by David Cunliffe are in fact debating points, I think that it would be fair to say that the honourable Bill English, in referring to so many of the current Labour members who were Ministers or at least active in that party in the 1980s, serves simply to demonstrate just how fresh the face of Labour is today.

Mr SPEAKER: I blame myself for allowing that, because points of order should not be used to make disparaging comments about other parties or members of this House. The Standing Orders are very simple on this matter. Ministers are not responsible for any other party’s policy. They can certainly comment on reports or can report the information they have from reports on other parties’ policies. That is perfectly proper. But they should not comment on other parties’ policies, be hypothetical about them, or offer their own analysis on them, because that is not within the Standing Orders. The Minister may tell the House what is contained in reports about which he was asked.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports on the front page of the newspaper of a man who was in a vulnerable situation and was used for its political purposes by the Labour Party, which has now left him high and dry. Apparently, he is to blame for the fact that he is not eligible, rather than Phil Goff and Annette King, who dragged this person and his misfortune into the centre of political debate, and did so misrepresenting his situation.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Government’s new asset-testing policy include shares in companies like Tranz Rail, whether the holding is 30,000, 50,000, or 100,000 shares?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is those kinds of questions and implications that mean that no one takes that spokesperson seriously.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Hon David Cunliffe put a question to the Minister of Finance. It was a factual question, and he got a completely dismissive response.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the member is making. The slight dilemma I have on this matter is that the supplementary question was so far wide of the primary question. The primary question was actually about reports on alternative approaches to the tax and benefits system. I believe that the supplementary question asked about shareholdings in State-owned enterprises. That is why I had some difficulty in pulling the Minister up on it.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I have called the point of order and there will be silence. I will not have that kind of barracking, or a Government member will be taking an early shower.

Hon David Cunliffe: There are two points to be made in relation to that matter. The first case is that the primary question was extremely broad. It referred to any reports on alternative approaches to the tax and benefits system. The second point is that in my first supplementary question I asked whether it was Government policy to bring back asset testing. My second supplementary question directly followed from the first in asking for a specific aspect of that policy.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the attempt by the member to link asset testing for welfare benefits to shareholding in State-owned companies. I believe that that is a pretty long bow to draw, which is why I wondered whether I should allow the supplementary question. I allowed it because I do not want to interfere too much. When the Minister did not answer the question precisely I felt that I could not intervene there either because the supplementary question was so far wide of the primary question.

David Bennett: What advice does the Minister have for people who are experiencing financial difficulty because of redundancy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I strongly advise people in that situation to make an appointment with their local Work and Income office to have a full assessment made of their circumstances and eligibility for assistance. Work and Income can provide a wide range of assistance for people who have been made redundant. However, I strongly advise them not to make an appointment with the Labour Party, because they will never quite know when they will be dragged into political debate and have their personal circumstances misrepresented for political purposes.

Hon Annette King: “Mr Angry”!

Mr SPEAKER: We always get into trouble when on the front benches members start interjecting on questions that have already been covered when I have called another member. I ask members to show some simple courtesy to their colleagues.

3. Overseas Investment Rules Review—Ownership of Key Assets

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

3. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Will he guarantee that any changes flowing out of the review of overseas investment rules ensure that key strategic assets can remain in New Zealand ownership?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes. The new rules will ensure that key strategic assets can remain in New Zealand ownership. The overseas investment changes the Government is proposing strike the right balance, making overseas investment simpler and therefore more attractive while still protecting New Zealand’s most sensitive land and assets. The Government will address any public concerns in this area by requiring overseas investors to meet additional requirements to those for domestic investors. In addition, we will consider a new national-interest test similar to that used in other countries as a final reserve power.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister guarantee that his changes will not allow Auckland Airport and other strategic assets to be taken out of New Zealand control?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can guarantee, in the same way as occurred under the previous Labour Government, that anyone proposing to invest in Auckland Airport will have to go through the overseas investment screening regime. That regime will include passing a good-investor test and a national-interest test.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister support the commitment given by John Key that a National Government would not allow overseas buyers to invest in strategic New Zealand assets if that investment tipped foreign ownership over 50 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said today, the Government is looking at using a national-interest test instead of a strategic asset test, because we believe it is too confusing and difficult to define exactly what a list of strategic assets might be. Our own stocktake has indicated that there are already existing protections, such as the ownership restrictions on Telecom or New Zealand supervision of Australian banks. Most other assets that really matter, such as the Cook Strait cable, are in public ownership and will remain in public ownership.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Why has the Government reviewed overseas investment rules?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have reviewed overseas investment rules because in this recession and coming out of it New Zealand will need to attract overseas investment. New Zealanders do not save enough to be able to source all investment in New Zealand. Without new investment there will be no new jobs. We are reviewing rules that have become unnecessarily complex, so that the processes are quicker and more decisive but the protections New Zealanders are looking for remain in place.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What progress can the Minister report on the Government’s review of overseas investment rules?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: First, we have picked up some policy work that began under the previous Government to delegate more minor decisions to the Overseas Investment Office. Second—again, in line with previous proposed policy changes from the Labour Government—certain types of transactions will be exempt from requiring consent under the Overseas Investment Act. Finally, officials are now completing work on how the Overseas Investment Act itself can be improved. We believe it can be improved because over the last 10 years 98 percent of overseas investment applications have been approved, and only 2 percent have ever been turned down. We want to make sure that the rules target genuinely sensitive assets and do not put a whole lot of investors through an unnecessary process.

Hon David Parker: Under the New Zealand interest test that the Minister referred to in a prior answer will he decline the sale of infrastructure assets where monopoly profits arise, as the Commerce Commission recently found exist in the electricity sector? How can he deny that those billions of dollars of monopoly profits, which are bad enough in themselves, will otherwise be lost to the New Zealand economy, with New Zealanders becoming poorer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Monopoly profits are no more acceptable if the monopoly is owned by the Government than if it is owned by anybody else. The first solution is to make the electricity market more competitive, and my colleague the Minister of Energy and Resources has lodged a major review of the electricity market. He is interested in protecting consumers from unnecessary price increases.

Dr Russel Norman: Why did the Minister state in a release dated 17 March 2009 that “A Technical Reference Group will be established to advise officials on the practicality of any amendments to the Act” when the previous Minister for Land Information, Richard Worth, had already chosen this group, who were all corporate lawyers, and had sent thank you letters to the members of this group a week earlier?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot give the member a detailed explanation of the sequence. However, that group provided valuable advice on the actual process that applications go through. The advice may lead to the Government putting up policy proposals to simplify the process while maintaining the protections that New Zealanders want to see.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree that it is a privilege, not a right, for an overseas person to buy New Zealand land; if so, why is he diluting the current controls on the sale of rural land, given the different attitudes of some overseas owners to allowing access across their land to rivers, lakes, and mountains?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I believe it is a privilege for anyone to own land. If people own land, they should take the role of stewardship seriously so they can hand that land on to others in better condition than in which they received it. In respect of public access, the Government’s proposals will explicitly require a higher standard from overseas investors than from domestic investors. However, if we are worried about public access, then I say there are the tools of domestic policies, such as district plans, whereby people can and should influence the availability of public access. It is not an issue only when an overseas investor owns the land.

Dr Russel Norman: What was the reasoning behind there being no public announcement regarding New Zealand’s overseas investment rules being rewritten by five corporate lawyers whose firms work for overseas investors? Why did Richard Worth’s office instead advise placing the names of this group on the Treasury website in “a non-highlighted manner”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The rules are being reviewed by the duly elected Government of New Zealand, not some group of advisers. The group has given some advice to the Government and we have taken some parts of that advice and rejected other parts. The proposals are out in the public arena today.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a few documents in relation to this matter. The first is the press release from Mr English of 17 March, in which he says that a technical reference group will established.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a press release from the Hon Bill English. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr Richard Worth, former Minister for Land Information, to Don Holborow from Simpson Grierson, thanking him 5 days prior to the press release from Dr English for agreeing to join the panel.

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.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr Richard Worth to Garth Sinclair from the corporate lawyers Russell McVeagh, thanking Mr Sinclair for agreeing to join the reference group. The letter is dated 5 days prior to Mr English’s press release.

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.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr Richard Worth, former Minister for Land Information, to Tim Williams from Chapman Tripp corporate law firm thanking him for agreeing to join the reference group. The letter is dated 5 days prior to the Minister’s press release.

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.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a letter from Richard Worth to Andrew Petersen of the corporate law firm Bell Gully thanking him for agreeing to join the technical reference group on overseas investment dated 12 March, which is 5 days prior to the press release.

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.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table the fifth letter, which is to Andrew Monteith from Minter Ellison Rudd Watts corporate law firm from Richard Worth, thanking him for agreeing to join the panel. It also is dated 5 days prior to the Minister’s press release announcing that a panel was going to be set up.

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.

Dr Russel Norman: Finally, I seek leave to table an internal email from Richard Worth’s office in which his office says that there is to be no announcement of the technical reference group and that the material is to be placed in a non-highlighted manner on the website.

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.

4. Accident Compensation Corporation—Front-line Services

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

4. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for ACC: What steps has ACC taken to implement the Government’s policy of shifting resources to front-line services?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is implementing the new Government’s policy of moving resources to the front line. This has involved reducing the corporate office by 70, and putting an additional 100 front-line staff to work in assisting claimants to get back to work with quicker and more effective rehabilitation.

Michael Woodhouse: By how much have staff numbers at ACC’s corporate office grown in recent years, and how does this compare with changes in front-line staff numbers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Corporate office staff numbers grew from 377 in 2003 to 490 in 2008, a 30 percent increase. This change was 27 percent faster than growth in front-line ACC staff. This balance was wrong and needs correcting. That is why the new Government is making changes.

Michael Woodhouse: How will accident compensation claimants benefit from this shift in resourcing to the front line—particularly, the increase in service delivery staff?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is requiring of ACC a strong focus on rehabilitation, because of the consistent deterioration in this area over the last 5 years. This has been having a very detrimental effect on accident compensation finances, as well as adversely impacting on people’s lives. The additional 100 front-line staff are to be focused on improving the timeliness of the service that ACC provides for claimants, particularly those on income compensation, so that they can return to work as quickly as possible.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that his triumphal announcement today was first made on 27 May, and that there has actually been a net loss of 70 jobs as a result of the restructuring of ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, in May we did announce a reduction in staff at head office of 70. Labour wants to talk about only one side of the equation. On this side of the House we are interested in providing real services for the public. That is what we think public services are about, and that is why putting 100 additional front-line staff in ACC, so that it can more quickly rehabilitate people, is exactly what the people of New Zealand voted for and want.

Grant Robertson: Is the Minister comfortable that 70 hard-working New Zealanders have lost their jobs in an agency he is responsible for?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of course, there would not have been a need for the staff losses at corporate office, if not for the policy of the previous Government to have a bloated Wellington Public Service. If members opposite want to shed crocodile tears about it, they should talk to the former Ministers who allowed a 30 percent increase in the size of ACC’s corporate office at a time when that was unaffordable.

5. SAS—Deployment in Afghanistan

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

5. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Prime Minister: Will he make public any decision for or against the deployment of the New Zealand Special Air Service to Afghanistan as soon as a decision is reached; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: If such a decision was made, the Government would follow the precedent set by the announcements of previous deployments of the SAS.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think the question was really addressed. I was not asking for specific details of any possible SAS deployment, which often is kept secret; I was asking whether a Cabinet decision for or against would be made public—as is normal in respect of most decisions—so that we can discuss it.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister in answering the question spoke of following the standard procedure in that situation. The member does have a further supplementary question with which to dig deeper into that, but I believe that the Minister answered the question; maybe he did not answer it quite in the way that the member wanted, but he does have a further supplementary question with which to dig further into that answer.

Keith Locke: Will the Prime Minister consider giving more civil aid to Afghanistan, instead of sending special forces to be engaged in United States - led operations, which seem only to drive more Afghans into the arms of the extremist Taliban?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government, as the Prime Minister has said, is doing a review of its involvement in Afghanistan. The Government may be interested in propositions about civil aid, but it will also review its military involvement in Afghanistan.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is there any statutory authority that requires the Government to keep confidential from the New Zealand public the details of overseas deployments of the SAS; if so, what is it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As far as I am aware, there is no statutorily defined process. We understand the public interest in such a decision. If a decision is made to deploy the SAS, the Government will be as open as it can be, while maintaining the safety and security of any deployment.

Keith Locke: Does the Prime Minister agree that it would not reflect well on New Zealand if our SAS was involved in American-led combat operations, which often cause significant civilian casualties?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those are matters that the Government will take into account in its review of its involvement in Afghanistan.

Keith Locke: To what extent will the Prime Minister take into account the growing unpopularity of the war, when polls in Australia, Britain, and Canada show that a majority of the voters in those countries want their troops withdrawn from Afghanistan?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member can be assured that the Government is aware of the full military and political complexity of involvement in Afghanistan, and will take those factors into account.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a description of a Populus ITV News poll from Great Britain, dated 14 July 2009, showing that 59 percent of British people want their soldiers to be brought home.

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.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an Angus Reid Strategies national public opinion poll from Canada showing that 51 percent of Canadians want Canadian troops withdrawn from Afghanistan.

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.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an EKOS poll, dated 16 July 2009, showing that 54 percent of Canadians oppose their troops being in Afghanistan.

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.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table an Essential Research poll from Australia showing that 50 percent of Australians want Australian troops withdrawn from Afghanistan.

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.

6. Adult and Community Education—Programme Closures

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

6. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received of schools closing down their adult and community education programmes?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : The decision whether to provide adult and community education is one for individual schools to make. The Tertiary Education Commission is currently running an application process for Government funding for schools for 2010. I have encouraged schools that wish to offer adult and community education to engage with sthis process.

Hon Maryan Street: Is she aware that Newlands College has been running a community education programme since 1976—that is, for 33 years—and that it now has to close that programme because of her funding cuts?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat that that decision is entirely one for the school to make. It could continue to run courses, both Government-funded and on a user-pays basis, but that decision is entirely the school’s decision to make.

Colin King: What reports has she received on the Government’s commitment to adult and community education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government is committed to adult and community education, and that is why we are investing $124 million in it over the next 4 years. But I have received reports of Labour Party members spreading misinformation about the Government’s plan. Lynne Pillay, for instance, said that we would not be funding sign language classes. Well, she is wrong. Maryan Street said that we are cutting $152 million. Well, she is wrong. With that level of distance from the facts, both those members seem to be a perfect fit for the Labour Party leadership.

Hon Maryan Street: Is it of any concern to the Minister that the introduction of a user-pays system, as she suggested in her answer to the primary question, to allow the continuation of the Newlands College community education programme would see fees double or probably treble, according to the principal of the college, and that such cost increases would put skills acquisition out of the reach of many of the people in the community that Newlands College serves?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat to that member that the decision is entirely the school’s to make. I encourage, and will continue to encourage, schools to engage with the Tertiary Education Commission. It has sought expressions of interest by the end of this month, and I encourage schools to be talking with the Tertiary Education Commission.

Hon Maryan Street: What has she to say to the 3,200 people who enrolled in the Newlands College community education programme in the last financial year and who will now not be able to advance their skills through that vehicle next year, or to the 81 tutors who ran the 321 classes and who will now be without a job?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would say to those members of the community that they should be talking with their school about the provision of some of those courses that they may well be prepared to pay for on a user-pays basis.

7. Children and Families—New Funding

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

7. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Has the Government announced any new funding to ensure the welfare of our most vulnerable children and families?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Yes, I am pleased to announce that this Government has secured the future of children’s health camps. [Interruption] This Government will be investing an extra $1.5 million into health camps each year. I heard Opposition members just then call out: “About time.” This is an issue that the Labour Government ignored for 9 long years, driving those health camps to the brink of closure, but within 9 months the National Government has sorted it out.

Todd McClay: Can the Minister give further detail on the Princess of Wales Children’s Health Camp in Rotorua?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly can. In Rotorua the Princess of Wales Children’s Health Camp takes kids from all over the central North Island, from the Coromandel to Taranaki. That camp will undergo a badly needed $2 million upgrade, securing a safe, healthy environment for the children, and at the same time saving about 40 jobs. When I became Minister, this was one of the first camps that I visited. It is down to that member’s determination and doggedness, quite frankly, in making sure we got there, saw them, and fixed the problem.

Dr Rajen Prasad: What evidence does the Minister have to suggest that social service agencies are cynically making applications and second-guessing Government priorities and adapting to suit, securing funding in the process, as she mentioned in her speech yesterday, and how does this reflect her understanding of the work that the many voluntary social service agencies do with our most vulnerable children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those social service agencies do amazing work with our most vulnerable children, with little resourcing—there is no doubt about that. We have seen evidence for the last 10 years that they have tried to second-guess the Labour Government because they knew they were being used as a ping-pong ball. They had to try and guess where the funding was going so they could follow it. We are being upfront about what they do well. We will back them, and we are being open about it.

Dr Rajen Prasad: I seek leave to table the Minister’s speech yesterday to the national hui for child advocates.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a speech made yesterday by a Minister. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

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

Hon Nathan Guy: Can the Minister explain if there have been any particular issues around the Ōtaki Children’s Health Camp?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Ōtaki has a large camp with some historically significant buildings in need of repairs that the previous Government would not pay for. A former staff member at the camp wrote me a letter of thanks because she is so pleased that the camp will remain open. I would like to thank the Hon Nathan Guy for all the hard work I know he and his local community have done to secure the future of that health camp. I know they had an uphill battle for many years, but we are pleased to be able to step in and help that happen. It is a great news story.

9. Benefits—Strategies for Families

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

9. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Finance: In light of his statement during the Budget speech that “Protecting the most vulnerable is a priority”, what strategies are in place to address situations for families on benefits who continue to experience very high poverty rates?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : In the Budget the Government made a decision to absorb much of the shock of the recession for those most vulnerable to the sharper edges of the recession by borrowing an extra $30 billion over the next 4 years to maintain entitlements to income support, increase front-line public services in health, education, and justice, and invest billions in infrastructure projects that will support employment. In the longer term, the only way to combat the poverty the member refers to is a healthy, growing economy that lifts incomes, creates jobs, and gives those outside the workforce an opportunity to get back into it. Budget 2009 was the first step in that direction, but we have also supplemented those measures with a range of more targeted policies, such as the Community Response Fund and the insulation fund.

Hone Harawira: Does the Minister see a correlation between poverty and offending, and what advice has he received from the Minister of Justice to address issues relating to poverty?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will be familiar with the actions that the Minister of Justice has taken to bring together a range of people with an interest in justice to address the drivers of crime. The Māori Party played a constructive role in that process. We look forward to working more with the Māori Party on the kind of issues the member has raised.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What consideration did the Minister give to the most vulnerable in our society, those yet to be born, when he supported the decision to reverse the mandatory fortification of vitamin B in our bread, which could have saved between 20 to 30 babies each year, every year, who will now be aborted because of his decision?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Apart from taking deep personal offence at the implication of that question—full consideration.

Hone Harawira: What resources will be targeted to address the relationship between poverty and criminal offending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of opinions about the relationship between poverty and criminal offending, and I think most members of Parliament would be of the view that the kind of solutions that fix both are the solutions we are after.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā tātou. What other assistance is available for families in real hardship?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In addition to the extra $1 billion that the Government will be spending on the main benefits this year, we have put aside extra money to help families in trouble, whether or not they are on benefits: $79 million more for special needs grants; $153 million more for temporary additional support; special needs grant limits have been doubled; and we have raised the other emergency grant limit from $200 to $500. This is extensive support, and if Labour members think there should have been more, they should have provided it when they were in Government, just like, after 9 years, they should have put folic acid in bread, if they thought it really mattered.

10. Kōpū Bridge Replacement—Creation of Jobs

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

10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: How many jobs will be created by the replacement of the Kōpū Bridge, which was brought forward as part of the Government’s jobs and growth plan?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) on behalf of the Minister of Transport: The Minister is advised that when construction is in full swing, up to 50 people will be working full-time on the site. Construction is expected to take 3 years. There will be an additional 100 people involved in the downstream jobs, supplying material and providing support services. This project will greatly improve freight and passenger access into the Coromandel region, boosting economic development and tourism, and saving significant time for people who sit in traffic congestion.

Sandra Goudie: How long have the people of the Coromandel had to wait for this new bridge?

Hon NATHAN GUY: For far too long. The replacement of this 82-year-old bridge, which has been talked about for a long time and strongly advocated for by the local MP, Sandra Goudie, is occurring now only because the Government has brought it forward by providing extra money in the National Land Transport Fund via the February stimulus roading package of $142 million. The previous Labour administration signed off on a 9 percent decrease that would have seen projects like this one not get off the ground, or even be cancelled.

Darien Fenton: How many of those jobs will be going to local contractors and firms, and what percentage of the total expenditure will stay in the local communities?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member will be pleased to know that very soon there will be an announcement of the successful tender. I am led to believe by New Zealand Transport Agency officials that the successful tenderer will be a New Zealand - based company. The member needs to know that a significant number of jobs will be created as a result of this project. I have already alluded to that in my primary answer.

Darien Fenton: Is the Minister aware that only 3,000 tonnes of the 11,000 tonnes of steel required for the bridge will be sourced locally, and that the rest will come from overseas; and how does that support or create jobs for locals and New Zealanders?

Hon NATHAN GUY: The member should be aware that a good chunk of the steel that will be used in the bridge construction project will be sourced from New Zealand. However, small portions of specific types of steel that are not manufactured in New Zealand will need to come from overseas.

11. Housing New Zealand Corporation—Spending Priorities

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

11. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Housing: What are the spending priorities for the Housing New Zealand Corporation under the new Government?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : The three main priorities are insulating State houses, upgrading State houses that are in serious disrepair, and adding new houses in high-need areas. The funding of $25,000 sculptures in corporation developments, as encouraged by the previous Government, is not a priority for us.

Tim Macindoe: How have the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s priorities changed?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I will give members an example. An albatross sculpture was commissioned for Northcote under the previous Government. A contract was entered into, and a significant down payment was made. I found out about this sculpture when it was half finished. Modest sponsorship of local communities is fine, but officials are crystal-clear that house upgrades for needy families, not expensive sculptures, are the Government’s priorities from now on.

Moana Mackey: What priority does the Minister give to the persistent problem of housing affordability, given that he has just admitted that it is not a priority for the Housing New Zealand Corporation? What new initiatives were funded in Budget 20009, or does he still believe that tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders are the answer to helping low-income families into homes?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I remind the House that we have increased the Housing Innovation Fund, which is predominantly used for first-home buyer and home renter projects, from $12 million to $20 million. That is just one example.

Tim Macindoe: Why does the Housing New Zealand Corporation have to change its focus?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I agree with the Northcote tenants who in this week’s Campbell Live story said: “$25,000 would go a long way, if it was spent on improving security and the homes.” I tell colleagues that $25,000 would, in fact, insulate seven State homes. Our stimulus package of $125 million into housing upgrades and new builds—lifting needy families out of squalor, keeping 13,041 people employed in the month of May, and helping New Zealand through a tough recession—is a priority for us. A $25,000 albatross sculpture was a priority for the Labour Government.

12. Biosecurity New Zealand—Staff cuts

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

12. Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Has he received any reports on cuts to staff positions at MAF Biosecurity New Zealand; if so, how will these actions improve New Zealand’s biosecurity?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity) : Yes, I have received reports, and those reports made it clear that unless action was taken by Biosecurity New Zealand, it would be facing accumulated deficits of $10 million in its cost-recovery operations. This was due to a major fall in trade associated with the recession. The steps being taken will maintain existing levels of biosecurity, and will ensure that Biosecurity New Zealand does not have to divert funding from vital front-line operations to cover this deficit.

Hon Jim Anderton: Can the Minister give a guarantee that no new biosecurity incursion will result from cutting 60 front-line border biosecurity jobs; if he cannot give such a guarantee, what will the cost to New Zealand be of a single biosecurity incursion as a result of front-line border control staff being cut?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I can give an assurance that I am comfortable that any reductions in staff numbers associated with the decline of trade occurring at the borders will not endanger our borders and result in incursions. I point out to the previous Minister that I as Minister for Biosecurity have a substantially better record in regard to incursions than that Minister ever had.

Dr Cam Calder: What other reports has the Minister seen on the border operation review?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have seen claims from Mr Anderton and from Labour’s fresh face, Mr O’Connor, that the review is a result of funding—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you anticipate what I will say?

Mr SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate it. I should alert the Minister—[Interruption] I am on my feet, and a point of order has been raised. Ministers must not use that kind of language when referring to other members of this House.

Hon Damien O'Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have taken absolutely no offence at that.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have seen claims from both Mr Anderton and Mr O’Connor that the review is a result of the funding in this year’s Budget. That is totally untrue, and I can best direct the House to advice given by a former Minister for Biosecurity, when asked about a similar issue: “… the member clearly has no understanding of the difference between one-off incursion expenditure … and the baseline expenditure … Someone on the front bench who has been in a Cabinet of any description … should take the member aside … and teach him a lesson on Government accounting.” That very sound advice came from one Jim Anderton himself.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister seen the comment of National’s biosecurity spokesperson when in Opposition that the biggest threat to our economy is a biosecurity incursion, and Federated Farmers’ comment that “being disease-free is New Zealand’s real trump card when it comes to market access.”; what will he tell them when there is a biosecurity incursion as a result of a cut in front-line border staffing?

Hon DAVID CARTER: There has been absolutely no cut to baseline biosecurity funding. In fact, it has been increased. The $1.9 million reduction to which the member is referring has come about because Biosecurity New Zealand has successfully eradicated incursions like that of the saltmarsh mosquito, which occurred under the previous Minister’s watch.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Does the Minister consider that the number of biosecurity incursions that have occurred in the last few years to be too many; if so, how does he think his cut of 60 skilled and competent staff will reduce incursions in the future?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I totally agree that the number of incursions that have occurred in the last few years is totally unacceptable. I certainly hope we do not see that pattern continuing under this Government. I point out to that member that the cost of this particular activity is recovered at the border. That member knows full well—because he was told at the select committee—that trade volumes are down 13 percent and the number of imported cars is down by 70,000. Those costs have to be addressed. The member might advocate that they be passed on to current importers; I think that would be totally unfair.

Hon Jim Anderton: I seek leave to table—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called and a member loudly interjects. I ask members to pay a little more attention to what is going on.

Hon Jim Anderton: I seek leave to table an inch-thick, 98-page dossier of comments demanding that New Zealand’s front-line border biosecurity protections be strengthened, not cut—all from the National Party’s biosecurity spokesperson in Opposition, Shane Ardern.

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

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media