Questions and Answers - 10 Sept 2009

THURSDAY, 10 SEPTEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Recession—Rebuilding Economy

1. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement: “It’s essential that we build our road to recovery on investment and exports,”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon David Parker: How can New Zealanders take seriously his talk of an export-led recovery, when the Reserve Bank projections forecast that the return to economic growth will see the current account deficit increase to 7 percent per annum as a result of the very consumption pressures he has so often decried?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think, along with that member, we would share the Reserve Bank’s concerns. There are signs that the economy will recover. In order for that recovery to be sustainable we need improved competitiveness among our exporters and continued recovery in household savings, and there is some doubt about whether either of those things will happen quickly.

Hon David Parker: How can he defend New Zealand getting poorer to the tune of more than $15 billion per annum over the medium to longer term, and why does he not accept that it is his responsibility to reverse that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is taking seriously its responsibility to reverse 10 years of misdirected economic policy, which has left this country with two large imbalances: an export sector that has been in recession for 5 years, and Government books that show that it will be 10 years until we have a surplus.

Aaron Gilmore: What reports has he seen that the Government’s economic programme is helping businesses emerge from the recession and create jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The National Bank’s business outlook survey for August showed that 34 percent of firms expect general business conditions to improve—up from 18 percent the previous month. Any increase in business confidence is welcome, but, of course, those businesses need a policy environment where the Government is encouraging investment and not dragging resources from businesses to put them into ineffective Government spending.

Hon David Parker: Given the Reserve Bank governor’s statement today that rather than the current account deficit getting better, it will get worse, going to 7 percent per annum, at an annual cost to the country of more than $15 billion, does the Minister accept that his economic prescription for the country is not working?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I agree with the concern the Reserve Bank governor demonstrates about that kind of track for the current account deficit. We have to work on turning round a decade-long build up of imbalances. The current account deficit reached a peak of about 9 percent under the previous Government. It has come back some way. That member might like to explain why it got so big, when over the last 5 or 6 years there were record high commodity prices.

Parental Correction—Policy

2. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Is it Government policy for parents giving their children a light smack for the purpose of correction to be breaking the law; if not, what is the Government’s policy?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice): No; the Government’s policy is that responsible parents should not be criminalised for a light smack. If there is compelling evidence that the current legislation is not working as intended, the Government will work to correct it. I am advised that to date such evidence has not been forthcoming. Last year there were 33 complaints about smacking and one prosecution, which was later withdrawn. To put it into perspective, over the same period there were 83,000 complaints about domestic violence. To further reassure parents that they will not be criminalised for a light smack, the Prime Minister has announced three measures to ensure that the law is working as intended: a review of police and Child, Youth and Family policies and procedures in cases where smacking is involved; bringing forward a report from the Ministry of Social Development on the effect of the law change; and inviting police to continue to report on the operation of the law for the next 3 years.

John Boscawen: Given that the Minister says it is not the Government’s policy for smacking for the purposes of correction to be against the law, does he agree with the Prime Minister, who said: “The law broadly says you can’t smack your kids.”?

Hon SIMON POWER: I always agree with the Prime Minister.

John Boscawen: Does the Minister accept that parents are not concerned so much about whether they are being prosecuted but more concerned about the fact that they are breaking the law by smacking their children for the purpose of correction?

Hon SIMON POWER: That is why the three-pronged programme I have just outlined has been indicated to the New Zealand public as a process that the Government will follow. My understanding is that the review I mentioned is the first of those three prongs and will be completed around December. At that point we will have information to hand.

Recession—Position of New Zealand Economy

3. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received about how New Zealand is emerging from the recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Reserve Bank this morning issued its Monetary Policy Statement for September. The governor noted evidence that the decline in economic activity is coming to an end and a patchy recovery is under way. He attributed this to a recovery in our trading-partner economies, and he noted that domestic retail spending appears to have stopped falling, following a rise in net immigration and a pick-up in the housing market over recent months.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What medium-term economic challenges did the Reserve Bank identify?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank identified the same economic challenges as the Government does, but unlike the Government it is too polite to blame them on the previous Government, which really caused those problems.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What steps is the Government taking to address these medium-term economic challenges?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has set out a programme, firstly, to protect people from the sharp edges of recession. That process is not yet over, because unemployment is likely to continue rising through until next year. Secondly, we have set up a range of programmes to undo the damage caused by the previous Government, particularly in the area of business regulation, lack of public sector productivity, and lack of enthusiasm and energy in respect of infrastructure investment.

Hon David Parker: Given the recent World Bank assessment that concluded New Zealand is already the second-best country in the world for doing business, why does the Minister consider it desirable to further deregulate foreign investment protections so as to facilitate the sale of New Zealand assets overseas to fund our increasing current account deficit, rather than introducing effective policies to reduce our current account deficit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are in the process of introducing effective policies, and the intent of the Overseas Investment Act review is not to facilitate investment; it is to reduce the time and the cost of making decisions about that foreign investment.

Health Care—Policy

4. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Despite the facts that this Government inherited $160 million of unfunded services to fill, and that the previous Government quietly stripped $150 million out of Vote Health just before the election, yes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the Minister stand by that slogan, when he has gutted the funding for Healthy Eating - Healthy Action to the point that the flourishing trend of children planting and tending vegetable gardens at school is now going to end?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has not gutted the funding for Healthy Eating - Healthy Action. What we are doing is bringing a greater balance to addressing those issues.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the Minister stand by that slogan, when the funding for health and physical education learning for primary school teachers will end from this year?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think that matter is beyond the responsibility of the Minister of Health. What I can tell members is that this Government is putting $20 million into the KiwiSport programme, which is all about getting more and more kids involved in physical activity. Our kids are becoming less physically active than they were 15 or 20 years ago.

Dr Jackie Blue: What progress is being made in relation to delivering better health services?

Hon TONY RYALL: Quite a lot of progress is being made to deliver better services for New Zealand. This week we have announced another step that we will take to improve district health board collaboration. Over the next 15 months we will make more cross-appointments over district health boards. This will support clinical cooperation across district health board boundaries, improve financial expertise on boards that are grappling to fill the $160 million of unfunded services that the Government inherited, and help to inform boards of the challenges and opportunities of their close neighbours.

Su'a William Sio: How can the Minister stand by that slogan, when Pacific communities in the Counties Manukau District Health Board area experience a life expectancy five times worse than that of non - Pacific people where chronic conditions such as diabetes and obesity are prevalent, yet he did not once consult his colleague the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs before slashing Pacific health services in Budget 2009?

Hon TONY RYALL: First of all, that member would be very hard-pressed to justify the claim that services were slashed in this year’s Budget, because we put an extra $536 million into district health boards, including an astonishing $65 million of extra funding into the Counties Manukau District Health Board. That is a 7 percent increase.

Su’a William Sio: I seek leave to table a letter from the Hon Georgina te Heuheu dated 10 August, showing that there was no consultation at all with the Minister of Health about budget cuts to Pacific health services.

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.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table an article from the New Zealand Herald reporting the Public Health Association’s concern that the vegetable gardens in schools programme is ending soon.

Mr SPEAKER: Could we know the date of this press article?

Hon Ruth Dyson: It is dated 4 September of this year.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an article from the New Zealand Herald of 4 September. Is there any objection? There is.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table an article from the Otago Daily Times expressing concern—

Mr SPEAKER: Dated when?

Hon Ruth Dyson: —dated 9 September this year—expressing concern from the Otago Primary Principals’ Association president—

Mr SPEAKER: I think we know what it is. Is there any objection to that article being tabled? There is objection.

Resource Management Act Reforms—Implementation

5. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for the

Environment: What steps is the Government taking to ensure a smooth transition in the implementation of the first phase of the resource management reforms?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The passage of the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act delivers on John Key’s and National’s pre-election commitments and is the biggest change to the Resource Management Act since its inception in 1991. We have an important and urgent job to communicate to councils and resource management practitioners the changes in order to ensure a smooth transition. The Ministry for the Environment has scheduled 22 public meetings—from Whangarei to Invercargill—which will assist in implementing the changes. Over 1,500 people have already registered for those consultations.

Chris Auchinvole: What reports has the Minister received on those who are already advocating reversal of the changes in the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have noted reports of a commitment made by Labour to repeal the changes relating to trees. Those comments show that Labour has ignored the electorate’s rejection of the previous Labour Government’s nanny State, and that Labour remains the party of unnecessary bureaucracy. I look forward to campaigning in Auckland in 2011 on National freeing up its citizens so that they do not have to get a resource consent to be able to trim a tree.

Chris Auchinvole: Is it correct that Aucklanders will be able to remove trees from 1 October, but for councils to protect trees they will have to individually go through a scheduling process for each tree, and that developers will now have a free-for-all on Auckland trees?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, those are all myths. Firstly, from 1 October Aucklanders will not need resource consents for trimming their trees, but they will still require a consent if they seek to remove their trees. Secondly, councils do not have to go through an individual process for each tree. Most councils round New Zealand have protected trees by having a single plan change that identifies significant trees or significant groups of trees in their community, and I expect the Auckland councils to do the same. Thirdly, developers do not have a free-for-all. Resource consents are required for developments, and it is often a condition of consents and at councils’ discretion to protect trees. Thousands of trees have been protected by other councils all round New Zealand with that method.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand was rated by the World Bank as the second easiest country in the OECD in which to do business and the easiest country in which to get a building consent, while our threatened species and our water quality continue to decline, and has he not got the balance wrong, making it easier for developers and harder for those protecting the environment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to table for the member the IMD analysis that shows that, in the area of environmental law, New Zealand is ranked as one of the most bureaucratic of all countries in the way we deal with it. The Government has a strong commitment to issues like water quality and protecting biodiversity, but we differ from the Green Party in that we believe that bureaucracy does not automatically equate to good environmental law.

Hon Shane Jones: In respect of the unfinished business of phase one, otherwise known as phase two, is the Minister likely to replace regional government with his new national Environmental Protection Authority?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is in the early stages of working through phase two of the Resource Management Act reforms. They include the establishment of the Environmental Protection Authority. The Government and Cabinet have not yet made decisions on the details of the functions of the authority. The Government has no ambitions to radically change the structure of regional councils as part of phase two of the Resource Management Act reforms.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Which of the Minister’s statements should the public believe: his statement to the select committee that he did not expect the bill to result in fewer applications being notified but rather wanted to reduce paperwork for councils having to justify their notification decisions, or his statement in the Chamber and to the media yesterday that he does expect fewer consent applications to be publicly notified?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, I expect from this important reform fewer resource consents to be required. That is a key objective. Secondly, it is the expectation of the Government that there will be an increase in the number of limited notified consents. For smaller consents involving immediate neighbours, it is our expectation from these law changes that there will be a greater use of the limited notification procedure. In respect of those consents that are non-notified, the most important objective is to remove the huge amount of work that council officials had to do previously to justify their decision for non-notification.

New Zealand Police Review—Statements

6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with all of the recent statements made by herself, the Prime Minister, and the New Zealand Police in regard to reviews currently being undertaken by the New Zealand Police; if not, which statements does she disagree with?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): No, because police have advised me that some recent comments attributed to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Rob Pope, had been taken out of context. Those comments were in relation to ideas that the police executive have been contemplating and discussing for some time, and Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope is very disappointed.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which statement is correct: the Prime Minister’s statement of 2 September 2009 that the Government has no intention of closing police stations in any area, or the statement from a police spokesperson on the same day that the review covers “any property”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Obviously, the Prime Minister is always right. That is why about 70 percent of New Zealanders think it is great having him as the Prime Minister. That is one of the reasons why that member’s leader has about a 6 percent rating in the polls.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Which statement is correct: her statement last Thursday, 3 September 2009, that “We are certainly not planning on closing any stations, and we’ve made that perfectly plain to police.”, or the report in the Wairarapa Times-Age the next day, 4 September 2009, that the Wellington Police District communications manager, Elizabeth Young, “did not rule out the possibility that stations could be closed and said any rural Wairarapa stations were being included in the same review process that was taking place around the country”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Quite clearly, I am right. If the member doubts that, he should ask the Commissioner of Police.

Sandra Goudie: What recent statements made by the New Zealand Police regarding reviews does the Minister agree with?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I agree with many statements made by the police, such as the 24 June 2009 statement from the Commissioner of Police in relation to police cars. He said: “We would expect the operational mileage to be maintained at the levels it is now. What we’re actually asking our district staff to do is actually coordinate the use of their vehicles in a more efficient way than they do now. You go to a police station during the night or during the day and you will find police cars—marked cars, unmarked cars—sitting in the car park.” I also agree with the statement from the police general manager of finance and planning, Bruce Simpson, on 2 September: “there is no list of police stations, or other property, scheduled for closure.”, and his statement on 8 September: “There is no Government savings target of $20 million.” Finally, in relation to the review of police firearms training, I agree with Assistant Commissioner Operations Viv Rickard, who told Radio New Zealand yesterday that it was not a cost-cutting measure, it never had been, and the police had started work on it a couple of years ago.

Keith Locke: Does the Minister agree with the latest police proposal to give officers the power to impose instant fines on people they deem guilty of disorderly behaviour, such as people on political protests; and why should the police have the right to be judge, jury, and penaliser on such matters?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is one of the issues that Deputy Police Commissioner Rob Pope was very concerned had been taken out of context. As to any proposals, I have not seen them, because they are at an early stage. I suggest that the member wait until they come through, because I certainly would not agree with a lot of the things he has just said.

Sandra Goudie: What other police statements regarding reviews does the Minister agree with?

Mr SPEAKER: A slightly shorter list this time, please.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, it is. I agree with the 2 September statement from the police general manager of finance and planning, Bruce Simpson, that the police are “looking at our property portfolio to ensure we are making the best use of our investment in them.” The police property portfolio is worth $665 million, and it would be reckless not to regularly review it. Presumably, that was why it was reviewed five times under Labour’s watch, with 37 properties sold.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that it is alleged that the Prime Minister is always right, which statement is correct: the Prime Minister’s statement reported in the Dominion Post on 3 September 2009 that the rationalisation of the police property portfolio might include holiday homes as police have “quite a bit of stuff in that area”; or the statement made by the police spokesperson reported in the same article that the police did not own any holiday homes, and the houses referred to were those attached to small rural stations—given that the Prime Minister is always right!

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Prime Minister is always right, except occasionally when someone has given him the wrong information. Otherwise, he always is right.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: When the Minister stated on 2 September, 2009 “This Government has already opened five new police stations this year, with a sixth, in Christchurch South, due to be opened on September 11.”, was she aware that all of those new police stations had been planned, started, and funded under the previous Labour Government; and will she acknowledge that as she cuts the ribbon this week?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There are two issues there to deal with. The first is this: I was wrong; we have not opened five. [Interruption] Wait—we have opened six. I am sorry about that! We are opening the seventh tomorrow. Having said that, with regard to funding, which the member talked about, that is one of the reasons why he is in the Opposition and we are in the Government. Funding is paid for by the taxpayers of New Zealand, and he forgot that.

Broadband, Rural—Announcements

7. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for Communications and

Information Technology: What announcements have been made in relation to rural broadband?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Today I announced coverage targets to deliver fast broadband to rural communities around the country. Within the next 6 years 93 percent of rural schools will receive fibre enabling speeds of at least 100 megabits per second, with the remaining 7 percent to achieve speeds of at least 10 megabits per second. Over 80 percent of rural households will have access to broadband with speeds of at least 5 to 10 megabits per second, with the remainder to achieve speeds of at least 1 megabit per second. Delivering fast broadband to rural New Zealanders is an important priority for the Government, alongside our $1.5 billion urban broadband initiative. It is crucial to ensure we capture the economic growth and productivity opportunities available in the rural sector.

David Bennett: How will fast broadband for rural communities be achieved?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Fibre backhaul is currently the primary limiting factor in the delivery of rural broadband. Providing fibre connections to the vast majority of rural schools will also deliver the capacity to provide faster broadband to the communities those schools serve. The Government’s focus will be on those areas that will not benefit from Telecom’s current fibre-to-thenode upgrade programme. My expectation is that the total cost of this policy will be around $300 million, and it will be delivered through a mix of public and private funding.

Clare Curran: If the $300 million estimated cost of the rural broadband package is on top of the $1.5 billion already promised, what proportion of it will be Government funded and where will that money come from?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government will be making announcements on the funding of the $300 million and the mix of public and private funding in the next 1 or 2 weeks.

Clare Curran: Which potential private investors have been approached about the rural broadband scheme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No private investors have been approached in regards to the rural broadband scheme.

David Bennett: What benefits will fast broadband have for rural communities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Around half of all rural households are currently coping with dial-up speeds, which frankly is not good enough in the 21st century. Our rural initiative will ensure that rural households have access to modern, fast broadband speeds. Also, most rural schools will join urban schools in having ultra-fast fibre broadband connections delivering speeds of 100 megabits per second or more. Altogether, 97 percent of New Zealand schools and 99.7 percent of New Zealand students will have fibre-based connections, while the remaining schools will have connections of at least 10 megabits per second. This will ensure that New Zealand schoolchildren are full participants in the digital age.

Ministerial Accommodation—Homes Leased from Family Trusts

8. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister responsible for

Ministerial Services: What conditions must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister responsible for

Ministerial Services: Mr Speaker—

Hon Members: Oh!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: My adoring crowd! The Minister must have no pecuniary interest in the property and the rent must be based upon market value.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister responsible for Ministerial Services is, of course, the Hon John Key, the Prime Minister. It is the practice that when he is absent the Deputy Prime Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that is not a point of order, at all. It is the Government’s absolute right to choose who will answer a question when the Minister is not present in the Chamber.

Hon Darren Hughes: But the No. 2 is here.

Mr SPEAKER: It is irrelevant. [Interruption] The Hon Trevor Mallard will stand, withdraw, and apologise for that statement, right now!

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I have called the Hon Pete Hodgson. We will hear his question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why was the Minister reported in the Independent Financial Review of 6 August as stating that it was “a simple coincidence” that the Hon Bill English had removed himself from his family trust, and that it was unrelated to Mr English’s claiming almost $1,000 a week for accommodation expenses?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am not in a position to make a comment on a newspaper report.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did the Minister say that Mr English’s actions in removing himself as a trustee from his family trust were unrelated to his claiming almost $1,000 a week for accommodation expenses, when it transpires that they not only were related but were, in fact, a prerequisite?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the questioner is leaping to a number of conclusions that are quite unreasonable, and for that reason I say to him do not believe everything you read in the newspaper.

Mr SPEAKER: I hope the member was not referring to the Speaker.

Hon Pete Hodgson: What is the Minister’s view of the Hon Bill English’s comment to TV3 on 4 August that it was “certainly not the intent” that he change his affairs in order to claim almost $1,000 a week, and can the Minister now confirm that it was precisely the intent?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister has absolutely no responsibility for any comments made to TV3 by anybody else. What I will say, though, is that I believe the Hon Bill English to be doing an excellent job for New Zealand in difficult times, and he is an honest man.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Pete Hodgson. [Interruption] Do those members want to hear their colleague’s question, or not?

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that, at a 6 percent interest rate, the rental paid in respect of Mr English’s ministerial residence would be sufficient to service a mortgage of more than $600,000?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Labour Opposition has long celebrated my dim-wittedness. I could not do anything quite as clever as that quite so quickly.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that his deputy, the Hon Bill English, provided a signed document to Ministerial Services on 1 February this year declaring that he no longer had a pecuniary interest in his family trust, the Endeavour Trust?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister responsible for Ministerial Services does not have a deputy. However, I can confirm that, yes, that is the case. The member will know that, because it was in an Official Information Act release that he received last Monday.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Would a Minister who claims no pecuniary interest in a trust but is still a settlor, or has a right to appoint trustees, or still decides the vesting date, and is therefore still one of only two people controlling the trust, be entitled to Ministerial Services’ funding for a residence owned by the trust?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That would depend entirely on the structure of the trust.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Would the Minister therefore advise his colleague the Hon Bill English to publicly release the trust deed so that these questions might be cleared up?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: What I am advising my colleague the Hon Bill English to do is to hold his head up high, because he is an honest man. He does not have to bend to the jealous and pathetic attacks coming from the Labour Opposition. There has never been such a pathetic effort in the whole time that I have been in Parliament. But I would ask this: will the Labour Opposition—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will sit down. [Interruption] Members might have noticed that the Speaker is on his feet; there will be silence. The Hon Gerry Brownlee should recognise that Ministers do not ask questions; they answer them. There is no need for that kind of carry-on in answering a question, either.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague Mr Hodgson asked whether the Minister answering the question would advise his colleague to publicly release the trust deed. It was a supplementary question in direct response to the Minister’s previous answer. The Minister went nowhere near addressing that question. Instead we got political invective, which you have responded to, but we are still without an answer to the very clear, precise question that Mr Hodgson asked about whether the Minister would advise his colleague to publicly release the trust deed so that there could be some openness about what the arrangements are.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has to recognise that when that kind of question is asked— will a Minister advise someone of something—the questioner is likely to get a response that does not necessarily cover the advice that the questioner wanted to hear. Plenty of Speakers’ rulings state that members cannot expect a yes or no answer, and when a member asks that kind of question, no precise answer can be expected. I was concerned, though, about the abuse that came at the end of that answer, after I had called for order; it was not acceptable, and I do not want to hear anything further of that kind. As far as the first part of the answer was concerned, I believe that it was in order, but the final part was not.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Has he sought an explanation from Ministerial Services or from the Hon Bill English as to why changes to the trust deed were purportedly made prior to the election last year, but the title was not changed until 12 March this year?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The salient word in that question is “purported”. We do not take actions in this case on the basis of what are, effectively, baseless allegations from the Opposition.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Will the Minister seek an explanation from Ministerial Services, or from the Hon Bill English, as to why changes to the trust deed were purportedly made before the election last year—that is what the Hon Bill English says—but the title was not changed until 12 March this year; if he will not, why will he not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The answer to that question has been given publicly before. Quite often these things take time to effect, although the intention is made very clear at the time. It is quite a simple matter.

Children, Vulnerable—Protection

9. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) on behalf of KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has she made to better protect New Zealand’s vulnerable children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Sadly, there are no easy solutions to New Zealand’s child abuse problem. Last week I announced that the Government will be focusing its efforts on our most vulnerable under-2-year-olds. As part of an evolving body of work, we want to ensure the protection of our most vulnerable infants. We announced a nationwide campaign that has a pretty simple message: never ever shake a baby. More than 23 babies a year are hospitalised because of shaken baby syndrome. We will do everything that we can to bring that number down.

Todd McClay: What further detail can the Minister give about the Government’s commitment to vulnerable children?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are beginning to put in place a number of initiatives. As I said, this is the start of an evolving body of work. One initiative in particular is the first response pilot. This programme will follow up on some of the 40,000 domestic violence police notifications that are not currently investigated by Child, Youth and Family. No matter how low-level those cases are categorised as being, it is a priority for this Government that those are followed up. We have to ensure that these incidents are not precursors to further domestic violence or child abuse. A pilot will be launched in November through a non-governmental organisation called Shine, an Aucklandbased family violence prevention group. We anticipate that this will assist about 700 children in the three pilot areas.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister stand by her statement last week that increases in spending on Working for Families under a Labour Government were a reason for an improvement in child welfare statistics; if so, how can John Key’s view that Working for Families was “a massive expansion of the welfare state” and “communism by stealth” be true?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: When we looked at the OECD report that came out last week, we saw that some of the families that are struggling are getting a bit more money under Working for Families. That is simply what that statement from me was about.

Tourism Economy—“Clean, Green” Brand

10. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Tourism: What is the value of New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand to our tourism economy?

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Jonathan Hunt.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Jonathan Coleman. I apologise to all members.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Tourism) on behalf of the Minister

of Tourism: That was a long lunch, Mr Speaker! That is a pretty broad question, and I have to answer it from the tourism point of view. I tell the member that people come to New Zealand for all sorts of reasons, and last year overseas visitation earned $8.8 billion for the New Zealand economy.

Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister agree with the Tourism Industry Association that opening up the conservation estate to mining interests could put New Zealand’s $20 billion tourism industry at risk?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is not actually what the Minister of Energy and Resources is proposing.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that the head of the New Zealand Minerals Industry Association, Douglas Gordon, just yesterday on the current affairs TV programme Back Benches— in response to a question from the interviewer asking whether he would say right now that he would absolutely write off the idea of mining in national parks, even if it was offered to him—said: “That is a yes.”; if so, will he now advise the Minister of Energy and Resources to desist in his efforts to open up national parks to mining?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Minister of Energy and Resources has not said anything about opening up national parks to mining.

Catherine Delahunty: Has the Minister raised concerns with his colleagues that even underground mining of conservation land will carve roads through forests; create processing plants, blasting effects, and noise; and risk subsidence of land, all of which will deter visitors?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The main thing we should be concerned about is that if the Green Party members keep on talking up matters in that scaremongering way, they really will end up putting off visitors to New Zealand.

Catherine Delahunty: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot hear what the member is calling. Is this a supplementary question? I call Catherine Delahunty.

Catherine Delahunty: Does the Minister not realise that to tourists around the world who are thinking about visiting New Zealand, mining in our national parks sounds about as clean and green as George Bush drilling for oil in Alaska?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That member is the only person talking about mining in national parks.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Back Benches interview where Mr Gordon said that the mining industry does not want to mine in national parks.

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.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table a statement made by the Tourism Industry Association that mining national parks could put our $20 billion tourism industry at risk.

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.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave to table a speech by the Hon Gerry Brownlee that talks about taking land out of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, which is where national parks are listed, in order to open them for mining.

Mr SPEAKER: I take it that this is a recent speech?

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Yes—last week.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that speech. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

State Sector—Pay and Employment Conditions

11. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of State Services: Is he satisfied with the application of the Government’s Expectations for Pay and Employment Conditions in the State Sector released in February this year?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services): Generally yes, because the expectations provide a comprehensive and sensible framework for State chief executives to negotiate and set terms and conditions of employment. The expectations remind chief executives and unions of the difficult financial environment currently, of the need to ensure that productivity is improved, and of the need to ensure that changes to employment conditions are affordable as well as being fair to both employees and taxpayers. Having said that, I say that there is always room for improvement.

Grant Robertson: Why, given that answer, did he and Mrs Tolley summon three polytechnic chief executive and council chairs to Wellington to give them a dressing down about their pay negotiations—totally outside the process in the State Sector Act—when the State Services Commission had already been consulted?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member’s question would not stand up to scrutiny. The fact is that Ministers invited the polytechs to explain how they were applying the Government’s expectations in their organisations, including their plans for productivity and service delivery improvement.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that he told the polytechnic representatives that he was looking for a zero percent pay increase and that he was, in fact, calling for a pay freeze in the State sector?

Hon TONY RYALL: I cannot confirm any such thing; it would be inappropriate for a Minister to issue a directive. But I can tell the member that, like every group of people whom I meet, it is very important for those representatives to be reminded of the quite difficult financial position that New Zealand finds itself in after 9 years of neglect by the previous Government.

Jacqui Dean: Has the Government announced any other policies aimed at improving productivity and getting better value for money from the Public Service for taxpayers, alongside the pay and employment expectations?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes. In March this year I announced that the Government had a policy to cap the number of employees in core Government administration, and that the Government wanted to see people and funding move into areas that deliver the best service for money and improved services for New Zealanders. Under the previous Government the balance between back-office and front-office staff ballooned way out of proportion. The Public Service grew by an average of 5.5 percent per year, and we saw little or no productivity improvements. I can advise the House that under this Government, the Public Service has stayed within the cap on core Government administration. We have halted the growth in core Government administration.

Grant Robertson: How can the Minister claim that calling the polytechnic chief executive and council chair of Otago Polytechnic to Wellington is appropriate when they are still in employment negotiations and he is breaching his responsibility as Minister of State Services by doing so?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am interested in that member’s question, because when he issued his press release he said the other polytechs were being pressured on their pay negotiations, when, in fact, they had already been concluded.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very direct question and the Minister simply did not address it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member was seeking an opinion, if I recollect it correctly, by asking how the Minister justified an action. I think it would be appropriate if the Minister were to actually address that action rather than mention other polytechnics. The question related to Otago Polytechnic, and in his response the Minister mentioned a range of other polytechnics. I would ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is perfectly entitled to ask State sector agencies how they are giving effect to Government policy. That is appropriate and nothing new. The previous Labour Government also had a group of Ministers overseeing pay and conditions in the State sector. In fact, its expectations were far more prescriptive than this Government’s are. Whereas this new Government’s expectations are two pages in length, the previous Government’s expectations were a very detailed 28 pages in length.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave to table section 74C)(2) of the State Sector Act, which outlines that negotiations in polytechnics for pay agreements are the responsibility of chief executives.

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.

Hon TONY RYALL: I seek leave to table the new Government’s expectations for pay and employment conditions in the State sector—all two pages of them.

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.

Hon TONY RYALL: I seek leave to table the previous Government’s bargaining parameters dated September 2008 and the detail in the 28 pages of them.

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.

Land, Public Works—Land Taken and Value

12. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for Land

Information: Pēhea te rahi o ngā whenua kua tangohia ai i raro i te ture Public Works arā, e hia te wāriu o aua whenua?

[How much land has been taken under the Public Works Act and what would be the value of the land taken?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister for Land

Information: New Zealand does not have records of all land acquired by the Crown and by local authorities under the Public Works Act 1981 and its predecessor Acts, which date back to the 1880s. Since July 1998 the Crown has acquired 3,944 properties by agreement, and 45 properties through compulsory acquisition. Since July 2005 Land Information New Zealand has recorded the amount of compensation paid by the Crown for land acquired under the Act. The Minister is advised that the amount is approximately $450 million.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What sort of redress could be developed for the people of Rangiwaea and Matakana to address the situation of Panepane Point, which was acquired under the Public Works Act for the purposes of harbour works that never eventuated?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Crown and local authorities are already responsible under section 40 of the Act to deal appropriately with land when it is no longer required. I am advised that Land Information New Zealand has no record of the property in question being held by the Crown. In fact, the property is owned by the Western Bay of Plenty District Council. Because the property is not held by the Crown, the Minister is not able to provide specific advice about the land.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What responsibility does the Crown have to operate under principles of good faith in situations such as that being faced by the trustees of the Paehinahina Mourea 1 block, which is located in Rotorua, who have been offered back 1 hectare of land under the Public Works Act at the sum of $140,000, which they consider to be hugely exorbitant because the land was originally theirs?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Clear processes under the Act have to be followed before an acquisition can occur, in order to ensure that any acquisition is justified and that compensation is paid to landowners. The Act provides for the offer back to be at current market value. Land Information New Zealand has not been able to identify the specific property as being held by the Crown. When researching an offer back, the Crown investigates the circumstances of any acquisition, including whether compensation was paid in the first place, in order to determine where there are grounds to offer back land at less than the current market value. Under the gifted land policy—for example when the land was donated to the Crown for a public work and it is no longer required—land is offered back at nil value for the land and at current market value for improvements.

ENDS