TUESDAY, 15 SEPTEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economy—Reports

1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I have received reports indicating that the economy is showing some early signs of recovery, which are welcome, but sustainable growth and higher incomes will be possible only if our businesses and exporters are supporting jobs. New Zealand’s terms of trade in the June quarter actually fell by 9 percent, the largest quarterly fall since 1975. In terms of trade, it is the lowest since September 2006, so we have some work to do to turn this economy round to an export-led recovery.

Amy Adams: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative policy approaches?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports at the weekend that the Labour Opposition would borrow billions of dollars a year extra to support a range of policies, including widening the benefit system to the spouses of people who have lost their jobs, reversing KiwiSaver changes, and increasing the size of the Wellington-based bureaucracy. This wish list adds up to $6 billion a year.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon David Cunliffe. [Interruption] I have called the Hon David Cunliffe.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why can his Government afford $1.6 billion of taxpayer subsidies to the heaviest polluters, or one-third of its tax cuts going to the top 3 percent of earners, or $35 million of subsidies to private schools while we are saving nickel and dime out of adult and community education; and who is he to talk in this House about priorities?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Who is that party to lecture the Government when the heart of its last coalition agreement was a large donation to its coalition partner? In respect of the emissions trading scheme, the Government has struck the right balance between its economic responsibilities and its environmental responsibilities.

Amy Adams: What would be the effects of extra borrowing on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is already facing cash deficits of $10 billion to $12 billion over the next 4 years, as we endeavour to maintain entitlements and public services through a recession. Further borrowing of $6 billion, as advocated by the Labour Party, would represent a borrowing binge and raise the prospect of a credit downgrade and a sharp increase in interest rates for homeowners and businesses.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that at the time of the last general election New Zealand’s net Government debt was approximately zero, and can he further confirm that in the last few months of the outgoing Government gross sovereign debt was below 20 percent; if so, when is he going to stop blaming the recession for every piece of indecision and bad policy from his Government and grow up and govern?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The evidence for 10 years of economic mismanagement under Labour is pretty compelling. What I will say is that the further $6 billion of promises that the Opposition has made will be difficult for it to defend at the next election, because the public knows that endless debt is bad for the economy and bad for them.

Amy Adams: What other views has the Minister seen about Governments saddling taxpayers with extra debt—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Did the Hon Bill English hear the question? I apologise for—

Hon Trevor Mallard: He’s got it written down.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I did not, Mr Speaker.

Amy Adams: I am happy to repeat it.

Mr SPEAKER: I have allowed a fair bit of noise, because this is obviously an issue that excites some interest, but I think when a member at the back of the House is asking a supplementary question we should have a reasonable level of interjection, or, at least, we should desist from too much interjection. I invite Amy Adams to repeat her question.

Amy Adams: What other views has the Minister seen about Governments saddling taxpayers with extra debt by reckless borrowing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen one such view, which described the idea of any extra Government borrowing as hilarious and crazy, and I will quote from it: “I just think it’s mind boggling stupid. You go out and borrow at a time when the international markets are in crisis?”. Those comments came from Helen Clark, the former leader of the party that has now promised $6 billion of extra borrowing.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Gross Domestic Emissions Forecast

2. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: When are New Zealand’s gross domestic emissions forecast to peak and permanently decline under the Government’s proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): New Zealand’s emissions have grown from 61 million tonnes in 1990 to 76 million tonnes last year, and are projected to go up to 86 million tonnes in 2020 on a business-as-usual basis. Determining the future profile of emissions is difficult because under both the current and the revised emissions trading schemes such analysis depends on the long-term carbon price. That price is, in turn, very dependent on the success of future international negotiations. If we make reasonable assumptions about the carbon price and prospective forestry investment, I am advised that our emissions relative to Kyoto Protocol rules would peak late next decade and be 20 percent down on business as usual, or down by 16 million tonnes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked about gross emissions and the Minister answered about net emissions. Perhaps that can be taken into account as I ask my supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member says.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Or perhaps the Minister would like to reply in terms of gross emissions.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister gave a pretty comprehensive answer. I think there was no attempt to evade the question, but I appreciate that in terms of the member asking her supplementary question.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: In the light of the Minister’s reply about net—

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In respect of the comprehensiveness of the Minister’s answer, I agree that it was. The point I would like to make to you is that this question was on notice. The words “gross” and “net” mean very different things in terms of climate change matters, and the word “gross” was in the question on notice. The Minister, at the end of his answer, gave the pivotal distinction of net emissions, and in that respect he did not address the question that he had several hours to look at.

Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister has the data on gross emissions, I welcome him to provide that information.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In my answer I referred to the fact that the analysis is very sensitive to the carbon price. The gross emissions are particularly sensitive to the carbon price, and that is why I gave the advice I have received in respect of the net emissions as per the rules of the current Kyoto Protocol.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister not confirming that his Government intends that New Zealand’s gross domestic climate change emissions will continue to rise indefinitely because an intensity or output-based allocation means that the more one’s pollution grows, the bigger the subsidy one gets?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think we all accept that the problem of global warming is indeed a global problem. This Government takes the view that to send an industry like steel, or aluminium, or cement offshore so that the emissions occur somewhere else on the planet provides absolutely no benefit other than exporting jobs. That is why our emissions trading scheme is focused on providing an incentive for energy efficiency, and not for exporting jobs and emissions.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. How do the variations to the emissions trading scheme agreed with the Māori Party compare with those agreed in Labour’s minority report and in discussions with the Minister?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The answer is not much, and that is why I find Labour’s trenchant criticism of the Māori Party and of the revised scheme a bit unfair. Labour agreed to the entry date of 1 July for stationary energy, transport, and electricity. Labour agreed to—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked the Minister to make comment on matters for which he bears no responsibility whatsoever: first, the minority report of a political party of which he is not a member; and, second, negotiations that he is now proceeding to misrepresent.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure I need the Minister’s comment. I am happy to rule on the matter. The Minister was asked to compare a couple of sets of information, which the Minister is perfectly at liberty to do. There is absolutely nothing out of order about that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the revised emissions trading scheme takes an intensity approach, which was agreed by members opposite. It also provides for a transitional fixed price, and a transitional fixed price was agreed to by Labour. It is most remarkable for Labour to describe our scheme as fiscally irresponsible. That is pretty strange, because Labour’s proposed changes were going to cost about the same.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Was the Minister’s earlier answer a confirmation that this Government has no intention at all of moving New Zealand to a low-carbon economy, but instead simply wishes to pass the cost onto the next generation of Parliament’s Ministers and New Zealanders?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Not at all. I point out that the revised emissions trading scheme that has been agreed to by the Government and the Māori Party takes in more sectors on 1 July next year than are covered by the European emissions trading scheme. I note that we will be the only country outside of Europe to have an emissions trading scheme operating on 1 July next year, and that our scheme is broadly in line with that proposed by Australia. That, therefore, shows we have appropriately balanced New Zealand’s economic interests as well as the importance of the environment.

Hekia Parata: Is it true that this scheme will cost the Government billions of dollars in paying for industry emissions as a consequence of the slow phase-out of industry support?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, and I am surprised that claim has been made. The previous Government’s scheme had the Government budgeting to make $23 billion from the sale of emissions units—$23 billion. The phase-out that is being proposed in our revised scheme, which is broadly in line with Australia, effectively has it so that it is fiscally neutral—that is, the Government does not make a whole lot of money from the emissions trading scheme but nor does it cost the Government. I know that with the proposed changes to the scheme, our phase-out is in line with our medium and long-term emissions reduction targets.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why is the Minister so hell-bent on aligning with a non-existent Australian scheme that may never pass through the Australian Parliament when that alignment makes it impossible to align with the existing European Union scheme, or the proposed Unites States or Japanese schemes, none of which will accept intensity-based allocations?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think the member is misinformed. It is interesting that officials from both Australia and New Zealand have been invited to Washington as they work on the Waxman- Markey Bill before the United States Congress specifically on this issue of an intensity-based approach. I also note that in communications from European Governments that is the approach they are intending to take in the next phase of their emissions trading scheme for the very reason that an intensity-based approach is an intelligent way of dealing with the problem of leakage.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What is the point of persevering with a scheme that has such a low price of carbon that it will not change anyone’s behaviour, where half of New Zealand’s emissions are left outside for 6 years, and where the big polluters get bigger incentives to pollute with more free credits; how will that scheme have any environmental benefits whatsoever?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that the scheme we are planning to introduce involves a very substantive cost. We are talking about 50 million units of obligations at a cost of $25 each. There are a number of technologies that become economic for reducing emissions. I also point out that climate change is a long-term issue. These are transitional measures. Frankly, this Parliament has been debating a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme for the whole time I have been here, and I think it is an important first step to make that start on 1 July next year.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Prime Minister’s Statement

3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “if you can get to the point where it’s settled between the two major parties, then that can give a sense of security and predictability for the business community and consumers?”.

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: If certainty and predictability are important, can the Prime Minister tell the House what the Treasury estimates are of the extra billions of dollars in costs that will be imposed on New Zealanders and their families, as taxpayers, by subsidies being extended in the period of time that heavy emitters are subsidised by the taxpayer?

Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have the Treasury costings to hand, but I can say that the National Government’s scheme, which is supported by United Future and the Māori Party, will impose half the cost on New Zealand consumers and will keep New Zealanders in work—something we on this side of the House care about.

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I am saying that I do not have the costs to hand. I really do not understand why the member is getting so agitated. I have been reliably informed that the cost of our—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JOHN KEY: —emissions trading scheme—

Mr SPEAKER: It was not the Hon Prime Minister I was calling to order. Now that I have interrupted, though, I will ask the Hon Trevor Mallard to stand, withdraw, and apologise for the allegation he made across the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise.

Hon Phil Goff: Why has the Prime Minister estimated that the emissions trading scheme will impose an extra cost of $400 million on the taxpayer in the first 3 years, basing that figure on a carbon cost of $25 per tonne, when he knows that as a result of the Copenhagen discussions the cost will probably be twice that level, and could well be four times that level, adding up to a cost for the New Zealand taxpayer potentially as high as $1.6 billion in the first 3 years?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because I believe the figure to be correct. Let us assume for a moment that the Leader of the Opposition is correct. What he is saying, therefore, is that he wants consumers in New Zealand to face an increase in the price of petrol of 14c a litre, and that he wants New Zealanders to have a 40 percent increase in their electricity costs. Funnily enough, at the weekend he was saying he cared about the Kiwi battler. That is a funny way of showing his love for them.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Prime Minister pretending that the average New Zealander will be better off, when he has brought forward the increased price in petrol, and when average New Zealand taxpayers will literally be paying thousands of dollars more in their taxes to subsidise heavy emitters?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, because they will not. Secondly, because, unlike the Labour Party, we actually care whether New Zealand businesses stay here, we care whether New Zealanders are employed, and we care whether New Zealanders get a fair deal. Frankly, I cannot see why the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about our emissions trading scheme. I am reliably informed that running a Triumph 850 will cost half what it would have cost under the Labour scheme. That is something the member should be happy about.

Hon Phil Goff: Why has the Prime Minister made changes that take the costs off the heavy emitters, thereby reducing the incentive for them to cut their pollution, and place the costs on ordinary New Zealand families through their taxes? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: As I call the Hon Prime Minister, I ask members at the back of the Chamber to cut the ridiculous noise being made.

Hon Members: Hear, hear!

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no comment on my request, thank you.

Hon JOHN KEY: Because as the Minister for Climate Change Issues pointed out just a few moments ago, climate change is a global problem. The Leader of the Opposition might think it makes sense to close down Comalco, New Zealand Steel, and a number of other major New Zealand companies, and to have them be established in some other part of the world, but on this side of the House we do not.

Hon Phil Goff: How is the Prime Minister’s proposed emissions trading scheme consistent with his objective of balancing environmental and economic needs, when it will increase pollution by reducing incentives to cut emissions, and will place on Kiwi taxpayers billions of dollars in extra costs by subsidising heavy emitters over a much longer period of time—40 years?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition might think it is a good idea for New Zealand to be put at such a tremendous economic disadvantage to Australia—and that is why we are in the economic mess we are in—but on this side of the House we do not. On this side of the House we are interested in developing jobs, making sure that Kiwis are employed, and making sure that our scheme is affordable. With our scheme, by 2015 it will have “all markets, all gases” at a price that is affordable to New Zealanders. That is why the scheme has been so well received by Kiwis right up and down the country.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Major Changes

4. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What are the major changes the Government is making to the emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Firstly, we want to lessen the impacts on households and businesses, so we have introduced a phased introduction of the emissions trading scheme that will halve the impact on power and fuel prices. Secondly, we are amending the transitional industry support to encourage efficiency without exporting investment and jobs. The revised scheme’s approach to industry is very close to that proposed in Australia. Thirdly, we have adjusted to a more realistic timetable, with stationary energy, industrial processes, and transport entering on 1 July next year, and agriculture entering on 1 January 2015.

Craig Foss: Did the Minister put a specific proposal to the Labour Party on a bipartisan approach; if so, what was that proposal and how did it deal with agriculture?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. Last Tuesday at my eighth meeting with members of the Labour Party I offered a compromised deal on agriculture, noting that Labour preferred 2013 and we preferred 2015, that we cut the difference at 2014. I also offered, following agreement, a joint leaders’ press conference this Tuesday following caucuses. I stress that because I needed legislation during this parliamentary session, I needed a response last week to be able to take proposals to Cabinet on Monday. I further stated that I would clear my diary any day and any hour to try to advance an agreement; I received no response.

Craig Foss: What communications did the Minister have with the Labour Party following the meeting last Tuesday where he proposed a specific compromise?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I said to Labour members that I would clear any hour and any time that week to try to reach an agreement. I was a little taken aback the next day when Mr Chauvel gave a speech in New Plymouth revealing the contents of the draft memorandum of understanding and outlining Labour’s bottom lines. I did not consider that to be negotiating in good faith, although it was not atypical. Staff in my office had bets on how long after each meeting Labour would leak the issue to the media; the best result was 8 minutes after the meeting had ended.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to make a personal explanation arising out of the matters that have just been advised to the House by the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is none.

Charles Chauvel: I want to deal with two matters quite emphatically here and now in the House. First, the Minister said that on Tuesday at a meeting in his office he advised the Labour negotiating team—consisting of me, Moana Mackey, and David Parker—that responses to the matters raised were required by Friday. I have spoken extensively to Ms Mackey and Mr Parker, as well as having consulted my own recollection of the meeting, and I can assure the House that no such statement was made by Dr Nick Smith. The second matter I want—

Mr SPEAKER: I alert the member that making an allegation about what another member may have said is not the subject of a personal explanation. I urge the member to be careful, because the House has accorded him a special privilege. In continuing, please be mindful of that.

Charles Chauvel: The second matter I wish to draw the House’s attention to is the Minister’s claim that—

Mr SPEAKER: Please word the explanation in a manner that makes it very clear that it is a personal explanation.

Charles Chauvel: Yes, I understand. I gave a speech in New Plymouth last week, as the Minister said. In that speech I simply elaborated on the contents of the minority report of the Labour Party to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee. Nothing in that speech betrayed any confidences. It is important for me to place that on the record.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the draft memorandum of understanding that Labour was in discussion on and to table the speech that was given by Charles Chauvel, so that the House may note the words in common in both those documents.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two documents. We had better deal with the first one, which is the memorandum of understanding. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: Is there any objection to the second document, which is the speech, being tabled? Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to relitigate Mr Chauvel’s personal explanation, but I want to note this point. I think it is important, for the purposes of orderly conduct in the House, that members be very clear that it is a very special privilege to seek leave to make a personal explanation. Leave is granted usually without controversy, particularly so that members can clear their names against any allegations that have been made against them personally. That is why it is called a personal explanation. It is not a mechanism by which one can introduce debatable points or contest what a particular Minister may have said about a particular issue. If it was, the mechanism of seeking leave to make a personal explanation would become a matter of pointless debate.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a very good point, and I ask all members to be mindful of that point. The point has been well made.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table the contents of Labour’s minority report to the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee, in order that members—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the Labour minority report to the select committee. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

David Garrett: Will the Treaty of Waitangi clause—to be included in the climate change response bill and the emissions trading scheme itself—refer to the principles of the Treaty or to the Treaty as a partnership; if not, what will the clause refer to?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That has been a particularly important point for the Māori Party, which wants to ensure that Māori are not disadvantaged or carry a disproportionate share of the changes that are required by climate change policy and the emissions trading scheme. We will work with the Māori Party, Crown Law, and officials on the drafting of the amendment. The intent is to require ongoing consultation with Māori about climate change policy.

David Garrett: Does the Minister have an estimate of the fiscal cost of renegotiating specific Treaty settlements where iwi have “unknowingly been disadvantaged” by deforestation provisions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This issue does not relate to the major settlements like the central North Island, where the emissions trading scheme was well known; it relates to issues in respect of some of the early settlements, where there is a concern from iwi that the Crown knew that an emissions trading scheme would disadvantage their assets but did not inform iwi during those negotiations. I have had significant discussion on this issue, particularly with Ngāi Tahu, on an ongoing basis. I have made a commitment with the Māori Party to include its members in ongoing discussions to resolve those issues.

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question specifically asked whether the Minister had an estimate of the cost of renegotiating. It had nothing to do with the process, whom was affected, what was going to be done next, or what discussions he was going to have. I asked whether he had an estimate of the cost of renegotiating those settlements.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. It may be that the Minister does not have that information, since it is a supplementary question. If the question had been on notice I would have absolutely insisted on an answer. If the Minister has that information or any estimate of it, it would be helpful to the House. The Minister is indicating that he simply does not have that information. Given that it is a supplementary question, we cannot force the matter.

Hon Jim Anderton: Is the Minister seriously telling the House and the country that on an issue of the Treaty of Waitangi, which was a treaty of two partners, and the issue of climate change, which affects all New Zealanders and all businesses in New Zealand, Māori forestry owners or Māori owners of any other business will be treated unequally in terms of their advantage over any other owner of forest or business?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Neither has the Māori Party asked for any provision that would be special to Māori in respect of—

Hon Shane Jones: Secret deal!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The truth is that Māori have a particularly large share of New Zealand’s fishing and forest industries, so the Māori Party has shown a particular interest in policy in that regard. The specific changes that the Government has made to the emissions trading scheme will treat Māori forestry owners, Māori quota holders, and Māori players in agriculture no different from any other New Zealander.

Benefits—Beneficiary Numbers

5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social

Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the latest increase in benefit numbers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): The latest monthly figures show that 59,151 people are currently receiving support through the unemployment benefit. I can report that the last time we were at this number was in February 2005, which was not in the middle of a global recession but was, in fact, in the middle of the term of a fairly poorly performing Labour Government.

Hon Annette King: As 323,160 people are now collecting a main benefit—an increase of 21 percent since she became Minister—why has her answer to the misery that many people are facing been a poorly targeted subsidy for employers for 6 months, which may help 4,000 people over 2 years; and how does that compare with the Australian Labor Government’s employment package, which saw Australia’s unemployment remain static this month while ours went up?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is true that New Zealand was in recession well before other countries were, and that we had a Labour Government that did nothing for three quarters while unemployment numbers went up, so on coming into Government last November we had a lot of catching up to do, a lot of work to do, and that is what the Government has been focused on. A thousand Job Ops positions have been created in the last 6 weeks. The scheme is proving to be successful, and employers and young people are benefiting from it.

Hon Annette King: Does the Minister stand by her claim that she has done “heaps” for unemployed people with programmes like ReStart and the 9-day working fortnight—flagship policies of the Job Summit? Given that a mere 4,493 people have accessed ReStart in almost a year, not the 35,000 people a year promised, and given that only 38 companies have actually made inquiries about the 9-day working fortnight, will she now acknowledge that she has done very little for struggling families?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let us be quite clear that with ReStart there was not a target. What actually happened was officials made an estimation of how much money they thought the Government needed to put aside for the scheme, and what we did was work out a worst-case scenario. I am sorry if the member is disappointed that that number of people have not been made redundant. Let me add that because our unrelenting focus on jobs and work, in terms of Work and Income 44,000 fewer people have needed benefits in the last year than otherwise would have.

Katrina Shanks: What other reports has the Minister seen on the impact of the current global economic climate on jobs?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: New Zealand is still holding up fairly well internationally. Our household labour force survey unemployment rate places us ninth out of the 30 OECD countries. Yes, unemployment is going up. The Labour Opposition is just waking up to the fact that in a recession, unfortunately, people have to go on to benefits. This month 7,594 more people qualified for an accommodation supplement. A total of 53,000 more people are receiving it now than were receiving it before the election.

Hon Annette King: Is the Minister aware that an additional 9,000 people went on to the domestic purposes benefit in the last year, which would equate to an annual additional cost of up to $200 million per year; and is it not false economy and punitive to cut $11 million from the training incentive allowance, which could have helped half that number of beneficiaries to get back to work through training—people who actually want to get off the benefit?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member obviously does not recall that people who were receiving the training incentive allowance before the Budget still can receive it, so those people have not had their training incentive allowance cut; they are still on the training incentive allowance, and will be on it right through until they finish their study. Yes, 9,000 more people are on the domestic purposes benefit, most of them because, unfortunately, they have lost their jobs. I understand from what I heard in the weekend that members on that side of the House would like to have a social inclusion commissioner. I am not sure what they expect that social inclusion commissioner to actually do to help reduce unemployment.

Darien Fenton: Does the Minister have confidence in Work and Income, given its latest botchup over the advertising of the Telecom technician position in Auckland, with Work and Income telling hundreds of Telecom technicians doing the same job as that advertised who are being made redundant that the only jobs on offer are minimum wage jobs; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, jobs from Telecom have been going on Work and Income’s books, and we have been placing people in some of them. I believe that the job that the member is referring to is an owner-operator role. I do not believe that anyone has been placed in that role right now, but we will take job vacancies and we will place unemployed people in them every chance we get.

Darien Fenton: I seek leave to table two advertisements from the Work and Income Find a Job website, the first advertising a Telecom technician job as a full-time wage job, and the second advertising the same job as an owner-operator position.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not clear what the member is seeking to table.

Darien Fenton: Two advertisements from the Work and Income Find a Job website.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table two advertisements from the Work and Income website. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Auckland, Local Government Reform—Decision-making Precedent

6. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Local

Government: What precedent does the Prime Minister’s decision to listen to the people in respect of the Rodney boundary set for other decisions on the Auckland super-city?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): Yesterday the Government announced that it would stick to the boundary decision it first made on 6 April—that is, that all of the Rodney District will be part of the new Auckland Council. This is not about setting any precedents; it is about getting the very best governance structure for Auckland.

Hone Harawira: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister received any advice that the Prime Minister might be willing to adopt the same principle of listening to the people in respect of the Māori seats on the Auckland super-city, particularly given the overwhelming support for them from the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance, all of the mana whenua groups in Auckland, the two major iwi groups in Auckland, 100 percent of the Māori submissions to the Auckland select committee, 80 percent of the non-Māori submissions to the Auckland select committee, the majority of Auckland’s councils, most of Auckland’s mayors, three of the five major parties in Parliament, and every intelligent political commentator in the country?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I would note that we have a Prime Minister who listens to the nth degree to the people of New Zealand. I have to say that in his decision making he is remarkably in touch with the people of New Zealand, and I think that is reflected in the polls. There are two different issues, though. One is where the northern boundary of the Auckland region should lie. The other is whether the Government should overturn the principle of one person, one vote, and every position of political power being open to every citizen in a free and open contest. The Government has opted for the principle of one law for all. I observe that this does not preclude Māori from campaigning for and winning a position on the Auckland Council or local boards. In fact, five Māori are now serving in local government in the Auckland region, two of whom are deputy mayors. I also note that if the people of Auckland choose to have reserved Māori seats, they can do so under the Local Electoral Act, and indeed the council itself can choose this. Indeed, mayoral candidate Len Brown has made providing separate Māori seats a key policy plank of his campaign to be the first mayor of a united Auckland.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister heard any reports about why the Prime Minister was so quick to listen to the people of Rodney District in respect of their boundary issues, but so very, very reluctant to listen to the overwhelming opinion in support of Māori seats on the Auckland super-city council, and has instead chosen to throw his lot in with a party that struggled to make the margin of error?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I repeat that the Prime Minister has bent over backwards to listen to all the issues and, in particular, to Māori concerns and Māori groups in Auckland. I particularly recall the Prime Minister travelling to the Hon Pita Sharples’ electorate office for a very good, open, and frank discussion. In the event the Government has had to make a decision. I repeat that this is not about precluding Māori from the seats of the council. In fact, it is about opening up Auckland to a proper, free political contest for the governance of Auckland.

Hon Shane Jones: How is it mana-enhancing for Rodney District residents to get what they want but for Māori electors in the city of Auckland to be told to take a hike?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I would say the Hon Shane Jones is used to playing politics in a way— [Interruption] Let me answer the question. He is used to playing politics in such a way that there is a winner and a loser. I say this Government is always about getting the best result, for Auckland in this case, and, indeed, for New Zealand. It has not been easy. I make the point that Len Brown, who I understand is Labour’s candidate for the Auckland mayoralty, has made it his plank to have Māori seats in Auckland. It will be up to the people of Auckland to decide on that.

Phil Twyford: What does the Minister say to National’s Hunua MP, Dr Paul Hutchison, who is reported to have described the proposed Franklin boundaries as the “worst possible scenario”, and why did the Minister not follow Dr Hutchison’s advice and amend the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill to reflect the royal commission’s recommendation on the Auckland boundaries?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I say to Dr Paul Hutchison to keep on being an excellent MP and to keep defeating Labour, which cannot have a bolt-hole of ever winning that seat against such a good member, who, I must say, pushed hard for his constituents. This was a very tough one, where the Government had to weigh up the interests of getting the boundary right for catchment purposes versus territorial authority purposes. On balance, and after discussions with the Waikato Regional Council, the Mayor of Waikato District, Peter Harris, the Auckland Regional Council, and, indeed, the Mayor of Franklin District, the Government considered it would be much easier to establish shared services for territorial authority purposes rather than catchment purposes. I commend Paul Hutchison for the assiduous way in which he looks after his constituents.

Mr SPEAKER: Order.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Shane Jones and Phil Twyford—

Mr SPEAKER: Order! When I am on my feet, I say to the Hon Rodney Hide, he will resume his seat. His answers were far too long, and I tolerated them for far too long.

Hon Rodney Hide: I apologise. I did not realise that.

Adult Learners’ Week—Minister’s Attendance at Events

7. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What events, if any, did she attend to celebrate Adult Learners’ Week last week?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education): I received three invitations to attend events but unfortunately, because of other commitments, I was unable to attend them. Messages of support were sent to those groups that requested them.

Hon Maryan Street: Is the Minister aware that there will be no night classes offered through high schools or the community group courses that they support in the whole of the Hutt Valley in 2010 as a result of the cuts to adult and community education; if she is, does she think that situation needs correcting?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to that member that no decisions have yet been made about the provision of adult and community education next year; if fact, expressions of interest have only just been received. However, this Government has indicated that it is committed to adult and community education, and that is why we are investing $124 million in it over the next 4 years.

Colin King: What funding does the Government provide for adult learners?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There is significant funding for adult learners. As I said, first of all, the Government is providing $124 million over the next 4 years for adult and community education. Second, in Budget 2009 the Government put an additional $11 million of funding into the Workplace Literacy Fund. That means that in the 2009/10 financial year this Government will fund 4,500 Workplace Literacy Fund places, 5,600 intensive literacy and numeracy places, 2,000 employee-targeted one-on-one places, 6,800 literacy and numeracy places embedded in mainstream Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics of New Zealand provisions, and 7,000 literacy places in industry training. I think that is a fantastic commitment to adult education.

Hon Maryan Street: Is the Minister intending to revisit the decision to cut adult and community education to high schools or will she just “feel guilty” about it, as her colleague Nick Smith said when he was confronted by protestors on Saturday?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. This Government has decided that it needs to focus money in the tertiary education budget on education outcomes for young New Zealanders, who are likely to be disproportionately affected by the economic downturn.

Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister intend to meet with any of the 700 protestors in Auckland on Saturday to discuss alternative solutions to the adult and community education funding cuts?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No. I am continuing to talk to principals and representatives in the sector around the country, as I have done over the last few months. The purpose of many of those meetings has been to ask me to change my mind, but there is no change of mind; these changes and the refocusing of adult and community education will continue.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is speech notes for a speech to the Upper Hutt meeting I attended last week on 10 September as part of Adult Learners’ Week.

Mr SPEAKER: Speech notes from whom?

Hon Maryan Street: Me. They were my speech notes. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: It is a point of order—we may not have heard such leave sought before. Leave is sought to table a document containing speech notes of a speech that the member gave to a meeting somewhere. Is there any objection to that? There is objection.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a speech I made to an Auckland meeting of adult learners on 12 September.

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

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table a letter of support I sent on 10 September to the Taranaki meeting celebrating Adult Learners’ Week.

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

Darien Fenton: I seek leave to table the minutes of the “Stop Night Class Cuts” meeting attended by more than 150 people at Glenfield College in the North Shore on Monday, 20 July, at which I was the guest speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table to the minutes from a meeting at Glenfield College. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Paul Quinn: I seek leave to table speech notes for a speech given at a community meeting in Upper Hutt last Thursday evening.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who by?

Paul Quinn: By me.

Mr SPEAKER: I sincerely hope that members do not develop a sudden desire to table all their speech notes, or the House, which has already taken too long on question time today, will be endlessly delayed. Leave is sought by the honourable member to table his speech notes. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Members: Oh!

Mr SPEAKER: I heard clear objection from Dr Ashraf Choudhary.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Let us have some order in the House, colleagues.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My request of you is one of consistency. Earlier today Nick Smith sought leave—quite professionally—to table the speech notes of my Opposition colleague Charles Chauvel. You treated the request with respect, you did not roll your eyes, and you did not make any facial gestures. The issue was put and it was dealt with. When my colleague Maryan Street and other colleagues asked for the similar privilege of tabling speech notes—yes, their own—you exhibited rather animated expressions that I think were a bit off. I ask you for consistency. It is members’ right under Standing Orders, and there has been no ruling against this. Any member can seek leave to table anything. If you do not like it then that is a matter for you, but the Standing Orders are clear.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me make it very clear to the honourable member that the Speaker does rule on matters. If members do not like it, then the ultimate solution is in members’ hands. While I am Speaker, I will rule on matters. I make it very clear to the House that I do not think it would be a very smart idea for members to start seeking leave to table their speeches. The reason why the particular exchange between the Hon Dr Nick Smith and Charles Chauvel was relevant is that leave had been sought and granted for a member to make a personal explanation. There was some concern about the content of the first half of that personal explanation, so leave was sought to table documents to sort out an issue where there appeared to be disagreement between members. I saw that as being a rather different situation from one where members seek leave to table their speech notes. Members give speeches endlessly up and down this country, and I think tabling them would be a practice that would be unhelpful. Certainly, I accept that from time to time there may be good reason for it, but it is not a path I think this House should go down. If the member does not like my approach to the matter then I apologise to him, but I do not intend to allow this House to waste endless time with leave being sought for members to table the notes of their speeches.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Because I have a particular interest in the speech that Mr Quinn has offered to table, there has been consultation and if he asks again there will not be objection.

Mr SPEAKER: I have already ruled on that matter and that is the end of it. [Interruption] The House must come to order. A fair bit of steam has been let off today. We have these days where there is a fair bit of excitement back and forth, and that is fine, but we need to come to order and get on with question time.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the speech I gave at the adult learners’ awards at Aranui High School in Christchurch on 10 September 2009.

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

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a message given for me to the adult learners’ awards, attended by several hundred people in Waitakere, on Friday 11 September.

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

Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table a letter of congratulations to adult learners in Waitakere, urging them to continue their opposition to the National Government’s adult and community education cuts.

Mr SPEAKER: The House does not know where the letter came from.

Lynne Pillay: It came from me.

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

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a message from me to the Wellington Adult Learners’ Week event, held in Newlands on Saturday, and the response.

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

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a document, dated 7 September, entitled “Speaking notes” from my speech to the Adult Learners’ Week celebration in Hamilton.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those speech notes. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Job Ops Scheme—Reports

8. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received about the Government’s Job Ops scheme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I am pleased to announce that we have achieved well over 1,000 Jobs Ops: 1,158 to date. These job opportunities are making a real difference to the lives of many of our young people. Of these newly created job opportunities, we have already filled 497 with young people who would otherwise be out of work and on the unemployment benefit.

Hekia Parata: How is the scheme assisting young people to come off the unemployment benefit and into employment opportunities?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Job Ops is doing what it was set up to do: it is enabling employers to give these young people a go. Here is an example of what we are getting pretty much daily these days: a 19-year-old from Upper Hutt who, without any previous hospitality experience, is now working as a front of house assistant for an executive catering firm. As a result of getting in touch with Work and Income, the employer now has a young person to work for it.

Jacinda Ardern: Did the Minister talk to mayors or councils about the detail of her Youth Opportunities policy before she announced it, given that a quarter of the package relies on them—

Mr SPEAKER: If I am to apply the Standing Orders I must tell the member that she cannot make an allegation when she asks her question, as she was doing then—she was proceeding to make a certain allegation in her question. She may ask a supplementary question without the allegation.

Jacinda Ardern: Which allegation?

Mr SPEAKER: The allegation inserted information that may be challengeable. She may ask her supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ever since I have been a member of Parliament, members have, by way of supplementary questions, added information that, if it was in a primary question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: —would have had to have been authenticated.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If members wish to trifle with the time of the House in the way that they have today, then I can apply the Standing Orders. The member needs only to read the Standing Orders to see that supplementary questions must not contain injected information—or assertions of information—that is debatable.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter. I warn the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I just want an assurance that you will apply this ruling in the same way to the Government. Today you objected to my interjecting on Hekia Parata, but when Chris Finlayson did the same thing to Annette King you just let it go.

Mr SPEAKER: I choose to ignore the member. Jacinda Ardern may ask her supplementary question is she wishes. We will go on.

Jacinda Ardern: Did she consult mayors or councils on the detail of her Youth Opportunities policy before she announced it, based on the large proportion of that package that relies on them for its implementation; if not, is this one of the reasons why the take-up for the Community Max scheme sits at less than 3 percent?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I spoke with the mayors task force before announcing the policy. We have had a tremendous response from mayors throughout New Zealand. They are very keen to get on board. They have been liaising with their employers. They have been designing Community Max programmes themselves. We are 6 weeks in, so we are seeing those Community Max programmes coming through and being highly successful. They are very exiting and they are moving ahead at great rates.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a press release from a well-known right-wing social commentator, Lindsay Mitchell, who said this programme is distorting the value of labour with subsidies that are probably not the answer and—

Mr SPEAKER: Before the member reads what is in the article, can we establish which publication it is from.

Hon Annette King: It is a press release—I told you that. Mr Speaker, I told you it is a press release from a well-known right-wing social commentator, Lindsay Mitchell.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise. Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Obesity Rates—Reduction

9. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does New Zealand have any targets for how much it aims to reduce obesity rates in the next 5 to 10 years?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): No, but the health sector aims to reduce the growth of unhealthy weight through efforts that target a balance between increased physical activity and better nutrition.

Sue Kedgley: When poor diet is the leading cause of ill health in New Zealand, when obesity rates are skyrocketing, and when our children are amongst the fattest in the world, why did the Government scrap the school food guidelines, which aimed to reduce obesity rates by encouraging children to eat healthy food in schools?

Hon TONY RYALL: I need to be clear with the member that the Government believes that school boards of trustees, not some heavy-handed central bureaucracy, should decide what they sell in their school tuck shops. The Government will not be reinstating tuck shop controls.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Minister confirm that now that the Government has scrapped the school food guidelines, schools are free to sell as much junk food as they like—things like soft drinks, chips, sausage rolls, and doughnuts, all of which may be bought, I might say, at a school canteen 5 minutes away from here? Does he think it makes sense from a public health perspective for schools to sell unhealthy food in their canteens every single day when we know it contributes to obesity, type 2 diabetes, and dental decay; if so, why?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is quite clear that it trusts boards of trustees and parents to make decisions about what they sell in their school tuck shops. I tell the member that a quite considerable number of reports indicate that schools are maintaining and improving healthy options in their school canteens.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What contribution is the health sector making towards increasing the level of physical activity of our young people, given the reports that our children are much less physically active than children were 20 years ago?

Hon TONY RYALL: The health sector has contributed about one-third of the $20 million a year that is going into the new Kiwisport initiative, which aims to encourage more and more children to take up more and more physical activity. It is correct that children are increasingly less physically active than children were 15 or 20 years ago. The Kiwisport initiative is part of this Government’s balanced approach to dealing with unhealthy weight.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table two things. One is a Green Party school food survey that found that out of 50 schools, the majority are selling chippies, fizzy drinks, sausage rolls—

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.

Sue Kedgley: Secondly, I seek leave to table these three items of food, which were purchased in a school canteen yesterday, 5 minutes from Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seriously asking the House to grant leave to table some food items?

Sue Kedgley: Yes, absolutely seriously, because this gives evidence that the Minister was quite wrong when he said that this is not the staple food in the school canteens. We bought this food 5 minutes away from here.

Mr SPEAKER: I gather—[Interruption] Members are being particularly unruly today. I gather leave has previously been sought to table food items. Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Analysis of Economic and Environmental Effects

10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is there detailed Treasury and Ministry for the Environment analysis of the effects on the New Zealand economy and the environment of the changes to the emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes. Analysis has been done by Treasury and by the Ministry for the Environment on a wide range of options to changes to the emissions trading scheme, and advice was also sought from Infometrics and New Zealand Institute of Economic Research. I will quote their recommendation: “It is to introduce an ETS with free allocation to competitiveness-at-risk sectors, with agriculture excluded … allocation should be output-linked and phased out as our competitors adopt carbon pricing.” That is exactly what the Government’s modified emissions trading scheme does.

Charles Chauvel: Why is the Minister now promoting an emissions trading scheme that renders a price signal substantially ineffective as far as emitting greenhouse gases in the agriculture sector is concerned?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not consider it to be ineffective, because when agriculture comes into the sector in 2015—and we will be the very first country in the world to come into an emissions trading scheme in 2015—there will be a very real incentive for those involved in the agricultural sector to adopt technologies that will reduce emissions. I think that everybody in the House realises that currently those technologies are quite limited. That is why the work being done by this Government, through the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, around pursuing technologies in that area, is so important for New Zealand.

Charles Chauvel: Why is the Minister now promoting an emissions trading scheme that he says will lead to a boom in forest plantings, when the absence of any effective price signal to the agriculture sector means that there will be no incentives for the conversion of marginal land to forestry, and every incentive to continue to convert to New Zealand’s biggest polluting activity— dairying?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The last party that I will take a lecture on about forestry is the party opposite, because the worst deforestation that has occurred—[Interruption]

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very simple question of the Minister. He got up and started to claim that he had been given a lecture. He was not given a lecture. He was asked a question, and I require him to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: Even the Leader of the Opposition will not interject when I am on my feet. The difficulty the member has got himself in is that he built an assertion into his question, and that is what the Minister is responding to. The member asked a question, and then made an argument about what that would lead on to. The Minister took that to be a lecture, and is responding to it as such. That is perfectly proper. If the member wants to get a straight answer, the questions must be direct. The Standing Orders make it very clear that they are not meant to have statements made in them, because the statements are often contestable. The Minister responded to the contestable statement contained in the question. I cannot ask the Minister to ignore part of the member’s question. So it is just a classic example of the need to remember that if members want answers to questions they should not make contestable statements as part of a question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: One of the most important issues that we need to advance around climate change is for there to be a financial incentive for the planting of trees. That is not been possible, because although foresters are eligible for credits there is nowhere effectively for them to sell them. That is why getting an emissions trading scheme started on 1 July next year—

Moana Mackey: Whose fault is that?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, actually it was Helen Clark who delayed the entry of the liquid fuel sector by 2 years. Right now, there would be a market if she had not made that decision. With the decisions that have been made by National, with the support of the Māori Party, there will be a market for 50 million units of carbon that will provide an income stream. That is why the Forest Owners Association has welcomed the Government’s announcements.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What advice has the Minister received on the accuracy of claims by the Hon Phil Goff that taxpayers will be lumped with a $1.6 billion share of polluter costs as a consequence of the amendments to the emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My advice is that these claims are both false and misleading. The costs of National’s changes are $400 million over 4 years relative to the existing scheme. Nearly all of this is to reduce the costs of electricity and fuel.

Hon Phil Goff: The Minister knows that that won’t be the case.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What I find so funny about Phil Goff is that he gives a lecture on a Sunday about how power prices are too high, and then on the Monday opposes measures from National that would halve the cost for electricity consumers of Labour’s emissions trading scheme.

Mr SPEAKER: I think we have had enough of an answer. The member has made his point.

Charles Chauvel: Why does the Minister now support an emissions trading scheme that shifts the obligation to pay for New Zealand’s emissions away from those who pollute and on to taxpayers, with the inevitable result that emissions will be higher and the country poorer?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member opposite is incorrect. I will make it very plain and very simple for him. Under the previous Labour Government’s scheme the Government was set to make $23 billion from the emissions trading scheme. The National Government says that an emissions trading scheme is not intended as a cash cow but rather as a sensible instrument to try to encourage more energy-efficient behaviour, which is exactly what we are doing.

Charles Chauvel: Will the Minister make publicly available all advice provided to the Government on the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme so as to ensure that all parties wanting to make a submission on the legislation that will implement the scheme are fully informed about the additional costs and environmental impacts of the proposed changes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am happy to make those documents available in good time. I have a further paper to take to Cabinet next Monday to finalise the legislation that I will be introducing to the House. That information will show that this Government has taken a very balanced approach to the environmental benefits of the scheme. I note, for instance, that Labour members object to the cost of $400 million when the specific proposals that have been put to me by Charles Chauvel around timing and a $15 price cap would have cost $243 million.

Resource Management Act Reforms—Consents Process

11. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for the Environment: How will the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act address the problem of drawn-out consent processes for major infrastructure projects where they commonly have local commissioner hearings and then a de novo Environment Court appeal?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): The major change is to have a single consent hearing via the new Environmental Protection Authority, with a board of inquiry incorporating commissioners from both a local and a national perspective. There is a tight time line and limited appeal rights. This change will overcome the all to common occurrence of it taking years, and more, for decisions to be made on major consents. Many of those projects would have benefited the environment.

Nicky Wagner: What examples can the Minister give of unsatisfactory processing of major consenting in the recent past that would have been helped by this more straightforward process?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are so many examples that they would take up the rest of the House’s time today, but I will give a few. Project West Wind took over 3 years to get consented. I note that the Northern Gateway Toll Road north of Auckland took 10 years. The Whangamata marina took over 10 years, albeit we scrapped the power for the Minister to be able to interfere in the process. Another example is the Wellington Inner City Bypass, which took 15 years.

Ministerial Accommodation—Homes Leased from Family Trusts

12. 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 JOHN KEY (Minister responsible for Ministerial Services): I refer the member to the answer given on my behalf last week.

Hon Pete Hodgson: As Gerry Brownlee, on behalf of the Minister, advised the House last Thursday that it “would depend entirely on the structure of the trust” whether a Minister who had no pecuniary interest in a trust, but who might otherwise control the trust, was entitled to Ministerial Services funding for a residence owned by the trust, what is the structure of the trust in the case of the Hon Bill English?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of the structure of the trust, but I am aware that Bill English has no pecuniary interest in it.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Hon Bill English have the right under the trust deed to appoint the trustees that control the trust, to control the date of distribution of trust assets, or to control which discretionary beneficiaries receive those assets?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of the answer to that question, but I am aware that the test is that there be no pecuniary interest. The Hon Bill English has no pecuniary interest in the trust.

Hon Jim Anderton: Is the Minister aware that the Auditor-General investigated two specific cases concerning ministerial housing in 2001, and as a consequence provided a general report and recommendations to Parliament on the rules and entitlements surrounding such housing; if so, will he now ask the Auditor-General to review how those recommendations have been implemented and to investigate this current case to ensure that an independent view is available to the House as to whether taxpayer funds are being appropriately spent?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and no.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Noting the Minister’s assurance that the Minister of Finance has no pecuniary interest in his trust, but noting also that the House was advised that the issue of control depended entirely on the structure of the trust as opposed to whether there is pecuniary interest, will the Minister ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the structure of the trust passes the test that was set in the House on Thursday?

Hon JOHN KEY: As is so often the case with that member, he makes assertions that are not necessarily correct. But I can assure the member that the test is quite clear: does the Minister have a pecuniary interest? In this case the member does not.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he know whether his Deputy Prime Minister altered the trust deed to obtain a green light legally regarding his pecuniary interests, even though he remains one of the two people who, effectively, control the trust?

Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know that, but I do know that the Minister had to satisfy a test about whether he had a pecuniary interest. I am quite satisfied that he has no pecuniary interest.

Hon Pete Hodgson: In the light of his certainty that all is well with the Hon Bill English’s residence, will he advise his colleague to release the trust deed in the interest of transparency, or must the public take the Hon Bill English at his word?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, because it is not his deed.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: There are no further supplementary questions. The full allocation has now been utilised.

Hon Pete Hodgson: We are one down on question No. 10.

Mr SPEAKER: No, all supplementary questions have been utilised.

ENDS

© Scoop Media