WEDNESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mining—Minerals Stocktake in Conservation Areas

1. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What does he hope to achieve by his stocktake of minerals in New Zealand’s highest-value conservation areas, as announced in his August 26 speech?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): The purpose of the stocktake is to identify areas of land in schedule 4 where the conservation values are relatively low but mineral potential high. The Government will consider removing those areas of land from schedule 4 so that environmentally responsible mining can take place on very small sections within that land. New Zealand is a mineral-rich country, and responsible mining of low-value conservation areas can contribute significantly to job and economic growth in this country.

Metiria Turei: When he said in his speech that “A report circulated by the World Bank some years ago rated New Zealand second in the world in terms of natural wealth per capita.” was he aware that minerals, in that report, accounted for just 3 percent of New Zealand’s natural wealth?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The important point that the member misses is that per capita New Zealand ranks behind only Canada as a mineral-rich country.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister used the World Bank report to justify his desire to pillage our most valuable conservation land, was he aware that these magnificent places make up 20 percent of our natural wealth, compared with minerals making up just 3 percent?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have no desire, nor has the Government, to “pillage our most valuable conservation land”.

Jonathan Young: Has he seen any reports that support the Government’s objective of balancing economic objectives with environmental responsibility; if so, what do the reports say?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen a report in the form of a press release in support of that goal from a very surprising source. In 2006 the person concerned issued a press release about the requirement for Solid Energy to move 250 Augustus snails to make way for the expansion of Solid Energy’s Stockton mine. That person said “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy,”. It may surprise the House to learn that the person I have just quoted is none other than Metiria Turei.

Hon David Parker: Why will the Minister not admit his error and stop taking steps to allow mining in national parks, given that the head of the Minerals Industry Association is on record, just a week ago, as saying that even the industry does not want to mine in national parks?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has not said that we are going to mine in national parks. We have said that we are going to take stock of some of the land that is currently in schedule 4 that has low conservation value. The last Government, just 1 month before the last

election, put an extra 1.2 million hectares in schedule 4. We want to know how much of that land has some mineral value. There is nothing wrong with looking at the conservation estate to see what the value might be.

Metiria Turei: Has the Minister not been advised that the definition of “stocktake” is preparation for retail, and does he really expect New Zealanders to believe that he is spending all that money and effort to prepare the stock, with no intention of selling it off?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am fascinated to receive an English lesson from the Green Party. All I will say is I would have thought that after all the Greens’ years of electoral failure, they themselves might take stock of where they are at in this matter.

Jonathan Young: What are the benefits of environmentally responsible mining?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are large economic benefits from responsible mining. Mining in New Zealand uses just 40 square kilometres of land, which is less than 0.015 percent of New Zealand’s total land area, and the export value of mining that land is $175,000 per hectare. Dairy farming, by comparison, uses 20,000 square kilometres of our land mass, with an export value of only $3,500 per hectare. In 2008 coal, metal, industrial minerals, and their production were worth over $2 billion in value, and supported thousands of jobs throughout New Zealand. If Labour and the Greens want to put those people out of work, they should campaign on it.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister shot himself in the foot by using the World Bank report, was he also aware that the remaining 77 percent of our immense natural wealth lies in our farms and forests, which themselves are utterly dependent on the services that our conservation land provides, like clean water, fertile soils, pollination, biodiversity, and even our “100% Pure New Zealand” brand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Quite clearly and quite evidently, the member and I have different interpretations of the report concerned.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister said in his speech that “… New Zealanders need to know that this country is also well endowed with natural resources.”, is it not the case that Kiwis already know how blessed we are, already know that our magnificent conservation places are like gold to the New Zealand economy, and are aghast at his attempts to plunder those areas for fool’s gold and dirty coal?

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has to at least attempt to answer a question properly put to him by another member of Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: Unless the Minister considers it not to be in the public interest, he should answer the question. I call the Hon Gerry Brownlee. The Minister clearly has nothing to say in response to the question.

Metiria Turei: That is fine. If the Minister is simply—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Metiria Turei: —speechless—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat immediately.

Metiria Turei: Are you going to make him answer the question?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will not interject while I am on my feet. The Minister has indicated that he has no answer to give to that question, and that is the end of that matter.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ministers are required to answer questions when it is consistent with the public good to do so, but questions must also be within a band of what I think are reasonably answerable questions. I have made it very clear that this Government has no intention to plunder the conservation—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. We will not now handle the question by way of points of order. The Minister chose not to give any answer to the question. That is the end of that matter.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are in unusual territory now. I think this is the first time in this term of Parliament that a Minister has refused to even get up and make any response to a question put to him or her. Mr Speaker, you accepted the question as being in order, so there was nothing wrong procedurally with the question put by Metiria Turei. I think it is important for you to indicate to the House now that if a Minister believes that answering a question is not in the public interest—which is the only reason they cannot answer it—the Minister should get up and say that, not just sit there and do nothing. Mr Speaker, I think you have to give a steer to Ministers here, because we regard that as an unacceptable performance when you yourself had accepted the question from the member.

Mr SPEAKER: It is an interesting issue that has arisen. I refer members to Speaker’s ruling 162/5, which states: “It is not obligatory on a Minister to answer a question. It is certainly customary but there is no sufficient reason for saying it is binding.” It is the public, having heard the question and seen the Minister’s refusal to answer it, that makes the final judgment on the situation.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not want to spend too much of the House’s time on this issue, but a very serious concern is raised for those of us in the Opposition that a Minister can simply refuse to answer a question without giving a clear indication of the reasons for doing that, particularly as the Standing Orders are clear that a Minister can refuse to answer if answering would not be in the public interest. I expect that some serious points will be raised on this issue. Perhaps, Mr Speaker, you would give your commitment to take an opportunity outside the Chamber to consider the nature of that ruling and the implication of it. What it means is that Opposition members can go to great lengths to prepare relevant and procedurally correct questions to Ministers, yet Ministers can simply refuse to answer, without giving a justification. I am not sure whether that is the kind of process that you or the House would consider acceptable. Perhaps a commitment from you that you will give some consideration to your ruling in those circumstances would be helpful at this time.

Hon David Parker: Speaker’s ruling 162/5 states that a Minister does not have to answer a question—I agree with that. But a Minister does have to address the question, and that is a different matter. The Minister has failed to address the question, and unless he does so on the grounds of his addressing it not being in the public interest, I suggest that, with respect, he is in breach of the Standing Orders. If that were allowed, the effect would be that question time could be rendered completely ineffective, because all of the questions from the Opposition members could be completely ignored by the Government.

Hon Peter Dunne: Mr Speaker, in addition to Speaker’s ruling 162/5, which you have already quoted, I draw your attention to Speakers’ ruling 163/1: “A Minister is not obliged to seek the call in answer to a question if the Minister does not intend to answer it.”, and then it goes on. It would seem to me that that is pretty clear. Although the practice might be unusual, and even undesirable, there is certainly a clear precedent in terms of Speakers’ rulings that a Minister can refuse to answer a question if he does not wish to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members, and I do not think I need to hear more on this. If members reflect on the situation they will quickly see that where very clear, straight questions are asked, Ministers would be very unwise to refuse to answer them, because in the court of public opinion a Minister would be condemned for refusing to do so. I think Metiria Turei might be well advised to reflect on the nature of the question she put to the Minister, and why the Minister, therefore, chose not to answer it. It is very simple: where questions are clear-cut and require an answer, no Minister is going to refuse to answer, unless it is not in the public interest to do so. But where a question is of the nature of the question that the member asked, it is in the member’s own hands to ask a more penetrating question if she wants to avoid this situation occurring again. The Hon Peter Dunne is quite correct: there are a number of Speakers’ rulings on this issue, and I am not going to turn all of those on their head.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If it is in the discretion of the Minister not to answer a question on the grounds that answering it is not in the public interest, would he perhaps give this House the courtesy of explaining why, in his opinion, answering the question is not in the public interest.

Mr SPEAKER: There is absolutely no need for that. The Minister is not required to take the call to answer the question. Had the question been a clear-cut, clear question, the Minister of course would have answered it, because the public would condemn the Minister for not doing so. I invite the honourable member Dr Kennedy Graham to look at the Hansard of his colleague’s question. It would be very informative.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister now willing to admit that the World Bank report upon which he relied to justify his agenda of mining in our most valuable conservation lands does not actually support his mining agenda; to the contrary, it provides clear evidence as to why that would be a bad idea for New Zealand’s economy, in that it is our treasured heritage, our natural forests, and our rich and fertile soils that make us a wealthy nation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: In answering questions this afternoon I have made it clear that the Government has no intention of mining high-value conservation land. From the member’s question, she does not seem to want to accept the answers given. It is no wonder that she gets no answers to her questions.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost of Changes

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When he said in the House yesterday that the Government was interested in “making sure that our scheme is affordable”, what specific cost estimates, if any, has he received from officials on the extra costs to the New Zealand taxpayer of the changes to the emissions trading scheme over the full phase-in period?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I have received specific cost estimates from officials in the Ministry for the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, and Treasury relating to a variety of options considered by the Government for amending New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme. The official cost estimate of the changes to the emissions trading scheme during the phasein period was $415 million. Of that figure, $162 million is for the 6-month delay in the entry of the stationary energy and industrial processes sector, a change which Labour had agreed to. The bulk of the remaining cost is for the 50 percent obligation during the phase-in period, to halve the cost to electricity and fuel users. There is also a cost of several million dollars for the additional allocations to the fishing industry.

Hon Phil Goff: In arriving at those costs did officials rely on the lowest possible likely market price for carbon, and did they do so in order to hide the true cost of what the Kiwi taxpayer will be spending to subsidise heavy polluters?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, they relied on their best estimate.

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Government in fact use an estimated carbon cost of $30 a tonne to calculate the cost of the subsidy; if so, why, when Nick Smith, in his recent announcements, has been using costs as high as $100 to $200 a tonne? How does the Prime Minister explain that discrepancy?

Hon JOHN KEY: All I can say is that I would be very surprised if the cost of carbon was $100 a tonne at any time in the foreseeable future.

Hon Phil Goff: To what degree are the Treasury estimates inconsistent with the estimates worked out by the Sustainability Council and used on radio this morning, indicating that the impact of what he is changing will be to double the taxpayer’s subsidy to Rio Tinto from $1 billion to $2 billion by 2030?

Hon JOHN KEY: I will say a few things. Firstly, I did not hear the comments from Peter Neilson this morning. I was busy speaking to a large audience of New Zealand businesses, which, I

have to say, were overwhelmingly positive and grateful that their industries would remain in New Zealand. What confuses me is that when the Leader of the Opposition was roaring into his conference last Friday, he got up and said he cared about low-income New Zealanders and the price impacts of electricity—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will recall, the question was quite straightforward. It asked to what extent the Treasury estimates were consistent with the estimates of the Sustainability Council. The Prime Minister has, as yet, not attempted to answer or even address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Prime Minister indicated that he was unaware of the Sustainability Council’s statements on the matter, but I think he has gone on long enough.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Has the Prime Minister seen today’s reports from Charles Chauvel saying he wants Phil Goff to write to Mr Key to reopen talks with the Government; if so, what would his response be?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have. I welcome those reports. In reaching an agreement with the Māori Party, the Government has no reason to cease discussions with other political parties. I have long held the view that it would be a good thing to build a broad consensus around this difficult and long-term policy area, and if the Labour Party wishes to re-enter negotiations with the National Government, we will be more than happy to do so.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister, or his officials, estimated what the extra subsidy from Kiwi taxpayers will be for major multinational companies like Rio Tinto, Holcim Cement, the oil companies, and the farming sector, if so, how many billions of dollars does that represent by the end of this process, and is that fiscally sustainable?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen any analysis specific to those companies. I will make one thing clear. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Do members want to hear an answer or not?

Hon JOHN KEY: We campaigned on an emissions trading scheme that would be fiscally neutral, not one that would rip $23 billion off the taxpayers of New Zealand. That is precisely what we have delivered. We are also in the process of delivering an emissions trading scheme that will keep Kiwi jobs, will keep New Zealanders employed, and will make sure that New Zealander can afford their electricity bills and can fill up their cars. I call that a success; the Labour Party does not.

David Garrett: Is it correct that the deal the Prime Minister announced with the Māori Party on Monday is only an agreement to get the bill to a select committee, not into law; if so, what does he think it will cost to consummate the deal?

Hon JOHN KEY: That is absolutely correct. I am actually extremely confident that over time we will reach a long-term agreement, with the Māori Party’s support and the support of United Future, to see the legislation passed into law. The reason for that—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Are you sure they want to consummate with you?

Hon JOHN KEY: There is one thing I do not want to do, and that is consummate anything with you, Trevor; that is for sure. I cannot imagine what the holidays would be like: not a hell of a lot of fun, I would have thought.

Mr SPEAKER: I think we have had enough of that exchange.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the results of this deal that he has reached will impose, over time, billions of dollars of subsidies, which will go to wealthy multinational companies like Rio Tinto; if so, how will he pay for that; will it be by extra taxes, or by cutting further areas of valuable social expenditure?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I will not acknowledge that, because it is absolutely incorrect. The Government has made changes to the long-term reduction of assistance to industries big and small.

Hon Member: How do you know?

Hon JOHN KEY: I say to that member he should listen to the answer for just 2 seconds and see whether it satisfies him. You never know, you might learn something.

Mr SPEAKER: I can assure the Prime Minister that the Speaker is listening.

Hon JOHN KEY: The point is that we have reached an agreement to reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 50 percent by 2050. The situation beyond 2012 is quite uncertain, but if agreements are reached in line with the Government’s 2020 policy announcement, there will be no taxpayer subsidies to industry, because support will be reduced in line with New Zealand’s reduced emissions target. That is the whole point of having a “50 by 50” target, not a scheme that reduces those credits by 100 percent.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What proposals does the Prime Minister have for the implementation of a modified emissions trading scheme to mitigate the cost impact on families, and how will he ensure that low-income households are also able to benefit from energy efficiency assistance?

Hon JOHN KEY: We are looking at two things. Firstly, there will obviously be an impact on inflation from the emissions trading scheme, and over time that will flow through the CPI and into benefits. We are taking a closer look at the timing of that.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Hon JOHN KEY: That is actually the law. Secondly, we have received strong submissions and advocacy from the Māori Party to ensure that there will be a 100 percent subsidy for low-income families when it comes to home insulation. That is a recommendation that we are looking very favourably on.

Hon Phil Goff: In denying that the changes to the scheme will cost billions of dollars over time, which he said in his last answer, why will he not tell New Zealanders what it will actually cost; is it because he does not know that, or is it because he will not tell ordinary New Zealand taxpayers that this will cost them literally billions of dollars, when at the same time he is cutting superannuation and adult education and is doing very little to help those who are out of work?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, we have not cut superannuation, so let us get a few things right. In fact, we have raised superannuation and left the floor at 66 percent. Secondly, as I said, subject to the negotiations at Copenhagen and the adoption of the “50 by 50” target, I am reasonably confident that those costs will be neutral. The third point I would make is that if Phil Goff wants to have as his badge of honour forcing out industries from New Zealand, putting Kiwis on the dole, and making sure that New Zealanders pay very over-inflated electricity and fuel bills, he can go ahead. But he should stop going to his conferences on his motorbike or his high horse and telling New Zealanders that somehow he will cut costs for them, when he is trying to double them.

David Garrett: Is it correct that still to be agreed with the Māori Party are the exact wording of the Treaty clause in the legislation, the number of Treaty settlements involving trees that must be renegotiated and extent to which they must be renegotiated, and the number of carbon credits to be allocated to iwi fishing quota holders; if not, what is still to be decided?

Hon JOHN KEY: What is true is that we have not agreed on the final wording, but I can confirm that Crown Law has had an initial look at it and is comfortable with it.

Hon Phil Goff: What, specifically, did the National Government offer to the Māori Party to get its agreement, and for the Māori Party to utterly contradict the claimed principled position that it held in its minority report and as recently as last week?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I refute that it utterly contradicted the Māori Party’s minority report; secondly; there are a number of things. One of the things was the Treaty of Waitangi. [Interruption] Well, actually if one looks at the instance of a fixed-rate—[Interruption] There are a number of things. They have been well documented, including a Treaty clause in there. Certainly, we are looking at a 100 percent subsidy for some low-income New Zealanders for their insulation. We are looking at a number of issues around forestry.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table two documents. The first is a transcript from a Q+A interview with Nick Smith on 26 July, where he answers with figures based on a carbon price of $200 per tonne, not $30 per tonne.

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

Hon Phil Goff: The second document I wish to table is a document from the Ministry for the Environment, in which the Minister makes estimates based on a carbon price of $100 per tonne, not the $30 per tonne—

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

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek the leave of the House to table the last fiscal estimates under the Labour Government, which included exactly the same carbon price that is being used by this Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this the published fiscal estimates?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Correct.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. [Interruption] The House is not clear on it. Would the Hon Dr Smith make clear exactly what the document is.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Last year the last Budget that was presented by the Labour Government had a price for carbon that is exactly the same as the price methodology used for the carbon price today.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made it clear now. The member is seeking leave to table a document from last year’s Budget. [Interruption] Just as I have to do for others, I have to put the leave request. Members can refuse it if they wish to. [Interruption] Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is.

Question No. 1 to Minister

METIRIA TUREI (Green): I seek leave to table seven documents related to question No. 1. The first document is a World Bank report entitled Estimating National Wealth, which the Minister of Energy and Resources had referred to in his speech. The report is dated January 1998, and shows that New Zealand’s conservation lands are essential to our national wealth.

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.

METIRIA TUREI: I seek leave of the House to table an appendix from a similar but more recent World Bank report, called Where is the Wealth of Nations, dated 2006, which again shows that New Zealand’s conservation lands are essential to our natural wealth.

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.

METIRIA TUREI: I seek leave to table a photograph of the Stockton coalmine, which the Minister used as an example of responsible mining. The photograph is dated January 2009, and shows the destruction of native bush and mountains—

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

METIRIA TUREI: I seek leave to table copies of the Green Party petition Save Our Treasured Places, with 150 signatures having already been gained in just a few days.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Just to clarify it for the House, I understand that the petition has not yet been presented?

METIRIA TUREI: It has not been presented. This copy is for the information of members of the House.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a petition for which signatures are being collected. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. Petition, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

METIRIA TUREI: I seek leave to table an official list of the high-value conservation places contained in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act compiled by the Minister of Conservation, dated 16 September 2009—today—and listing nearly 400 conservation places at risk of mining.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] This is a bit unusual. Could the member make clear for me exactly what the document is.

METIRIA TUREI: The document is a list compiled by the office of the Minister of Conservation of 400 conservation places that are at risk of mining, and are in the categories contained in schedule 4—

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

METIRIA TUREI: With your permission, Mr Speaker, because it did take the Parliamentary Library some time to locate this document, I seek leave to table debate in the House on 19 November 1997, when the then National Government created schedule 4 to protect some areas of the conservation estate from mining—places that the Government is now investigating for the purposes of mining.

Mr SPEAKER: This is Hansard from 1997?

METIRIA TUREI: It is. It was very difficult to locate.

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

METIRIA TUREI: I seek leave to table an Internet notice of the Government’s 2009 Conservation Week, which began on 13 September and ends at the end of this week, with the theme of “Get involved and who knows?”.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this currently on the Internet?

METIRIA TUREI: It is a copy of an Internet notice—

Mr SPEAKER: And the member is taking the time of the House to seek leave to table it. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order relates to an earlier episode when the Minister of Energy and Resources refused to address a question. I draw to your attention that the Standing Orders are very clear that the Minister must address the question, unless it is in the public interest not to address it. Standing Order 377 is quite clear. You referred to quite an old Speaker’s ruling from 1968, Speaker’s ruling 162(5), which states there is no obligation to answer a question, and then you referred to a later one from 1980 and 1991, Speakers’ ruling 163/1, which states that a Minister is not obliged to seek the call to answer a question. I would draw your attention to a much more recent ruling, Speaker’s ruling 162/4 from Speaker Wilson in 2008, where she refers to Standing Order 377. The ruling begins: “A Minister must give an answer ‘if it can be given consistently with the public interest’ ”. It seems to me that our Speakers’ Rulings are a kind of case law, if you like, and the more recent case law is the more relevant case law. The most relevant case law says that a Minister must give an answer if it can be given in the public interest. The Standing Orders totally back that up; they are, if you like, our statute law, and the statute is very clear that a Minister must address the question unless there is a

public interest reason not to. It is totally up to Ministers’ judgment; they judge whether answering is in the public interest. It is not your call, Mr Speaker. But that is the only basis on which a Minister can decide not to address a question. I ask you to reconsider your earlier view that a Minister can simply sit there and not even say that it is not in the public interest to address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s concern about the matter, but if the member would only please, before he takes any more of my time, read the question his colleague asked, and think a little further about it. If members want to get answers to questions in this House, they should ask questions, not make political statements. Half of the questions contain more political statement than question. I will be much more supportive of trying to ensure that an answer is given where a question is asked. I invite the member to read his colleague’s supposed question.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member that I have ruled on the matter, and I do not intend to take more time on it.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: All I would say, then, is if a question is asked and it is not ruled out of order—because you did not rule it out of order; if you had ruled it out of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to waste any more time of the House on this matter. Yesterday I ruled out a question that breached the Standing Orders. I think I was unfair in doing that, and I apologise to the member to whom I did it, because it has been my practice in the House that I do not rule out questions that do not comply with the Standing Orders; I let Ministers handle them. I could have ruled out the member’s question, because it contained all sorts of political statements that, in fact, the Standing Orders do not allow to be included in questions. All I ask is if members want to have a better question time, they should ask better questions, instead of making a range of political statements. Question time is not about political statements; it is about questioning Ministers and holding them to account. I promise the member I will give him all the support I can when I hear straight questions that are seeking straight answers. I do not want to waste further time of the House on it.

Recession—Job Support

3. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What measures is the Government taking to support jobs as New Zealand comes out of recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is considering how all policy decisions affect jobs. That is why we are making pragmatic and realistic choices on issues like the emissions trading system. The Government’s changes to the emissions trading system will protect thousands of jobs by ensuring that our businesses are encouraged to stay in New Zealand rather than move to other countries.

Craig Foss: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative policy approaches?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have heard reports that the Labour Party says that it cares about jobs but, in fact, its policy includes a much tougher emissions trading scheme, with unaffordable borrow-and-hope spending promises. This would say goodbye to large companies, to growing exports, and to jobs.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister is measuring all of his Government’s policies by their impact on jobs, why has there been an increase in unemployment of 24,000, while at the same time Australia has managed to hold unemployment flat for the last 3 months—

Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable Prime Minister.

Hon David Cunliffe: —and does he not now regret not being more active to protect Kiwi jobs?

Mr SPEAKER: I had called the honourable Prime Minister—I am sorry, I mean the Hon Bill English—because I thought the Minister had finished his question.

Hon David Cunliffe: He’s not Prime Minister yet, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The member might have listened to what I just said about questions that contain statements, and about going on indefinitely. The member had asked a perfectly good question and I was calling the Hon Bill English to answer it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may not have realised it but there has been a global recession and, in fact, our policies cannot influence that directly.

Craig Foss: What would be some of the other effects of large companies moving offshore?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Clearly, if large companies moved offshore it would cost thousands of jobs. I am surprised that the party that says it stands up for workers advocates an emissions trading system that would cost thousands of jobs.

Craig Foss: Has the Minister seen any reports about Governments saddling taxpayers with extra debt by reckless borrowing?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have added up the promises of Labour so far this year, which amount to $6 billion of extra borrowing. Alongside its policy—

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it has been traversed before in this House that, firstly, the Minister has no responsibility for Labour Party policy, and, secondly, frankly he is making up policies that Labour has not announced.

Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the member’s point of order was well made. The Minister has no responsibility for Labour policy and I think he had gone on long enough there.

Benefits—Adequacy of Current Levels

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

Development and Employment: What reports, if any, has she received on the adequacy of current benefit levels?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I receive regular reports on how vulnerable New Zealand families are doing. Although I closely monitor benefit levels, I am equally concerned at the tough times facing working families in this recession. I do not want to see benefit numbers increase.

Hon Annette King: Is it still the Minister’s position that she does not want to “see benefits going up, at all”, as she stated in the New Zealand Herald today and on Television One last night; if not, what changed her mind?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let me be quite clear that although it did not bother the former Labour Ministers, I do not believe that more people on benefits is OK. I am not prepared to write off families by leaving them trapped in endless welfare dependency. If I made a faux pas in the statement yesterday, it was that I meant I do not want to see increasing benefit numbers. We are legislating for CPI increases. After years under Labour when increases did not happen, we will be legislating for those CPI increases—end of story.

Hon Annette King: What explanation has Nick Smith given for not telling the Minister that he was negotiating with the Māori Party to increase benefit levels at the same time as she has been publicly telling New Zealanders that she will not increase benefits because we are in a recession and tough decisions have to be made?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is simply not true. The Māori Party has continually raised with us its concern for low-income families, and we take that concern seriously. Members can see it in the policies that we make. Alongside the Māori Party, we understand that employment and job opportunities for Māori will make a difference for those families. We will fight for that every time.

Tim Macindoe: Supplementary question—

Hon Member: The one-armed man!

Tim Macindoe: Stop slinging off. Has the Minister seen reports of how low-income families would deal with the cost of an emissions trading scheme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. I have seen reports saying that they would fare much better under the National Government’s emissions trading scheme, which would only cost each family half as much as the scheme the previous Labour Government wanted.

Hon Annette King: Is it not true that although she is the Minister for Social Development and Employment, negotiations with the Māori Party on crucial decisions that impact on the expenditure of her portfolio were left to Nick Smith, and she only found out about it from the media at 2 p.m. yesterday when she was coming to the House? What does that say about who is running her portfolio?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As the member desperately clutches for relevance, she will see that there is no big story here. Negotiations have been going on over the emissions trading scheme, which her party could not engage in in a responsible, good-faith manner. So now there is desperate clutching to try to find a story somewhere else where there simply is not one.

Hon Annette King: Who got it right: the Māori Party, which said it is negotiating a benefit increase; or the Minister, who said there is not one on the table? Is this not a return to the Auckland governance legislation, where the Māori Party was left with a clear impression that the Government would back Māori seats and then at the last hour was left out in the cold?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think members will find that the CPI increases will be happening to benefits and that will be locked in under this Government via legislation, which was not done by the previous Government. It will mean an increase in benefits and puts us on the same table and in the same book that the Māori Party is in, and I am quite proud of that.

Broadband—Progress on Urban Initiative

5. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Communications and Information

Technology: What progress has the Government made on its urban broadband initiative?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): I am pleased to report that this morning I released the final investment model for the Government’s $1.5 billion ultra-fast broadband initiative. This will deliver ultra-fast broadband to 75 percent of New Zealanders within 10 years. Delivering fibre to the home is an essential part of the infrastructure for a strongly growing 21st century economy. It will play a key role in improving the productivity of our country as we move out of recession and into a period of growth.

Melissa Lee: How has the investment model changed from the one that was consulted on?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has confirmed that its investment will be directed to open access, passive fibre network infrastructure. This will be done in partnership with co-investors through local fibre companies, which will be responsible for the roll out of fibre in their area and will be permitted to participate in the wholesale market. Although consistent with the draft, changes have been made to provide greater flexibility for different-sized proposals, more regional coverage, and significantly more detail on commercial arrangements and technical issues. The next steps will be the establishment of Crown Fibre Holdings and the Ministry of Economic Development issuing invitations to participate to potential partners.

Clare Curran: Is the Minister satisfied, in light of the Telecom contractor dispute, that Telecom can fulfil all of its current obligations and also provide for a significant proportion of the additional broadband that New Zealand so urgently requires?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the member knows, it is inappropriate for me to comment on specific private arrangements between employees and their companies. I can assure the member that the demand for skilled telecommunications workers is only going to grow over the next 5 to 10 years as a result of the Government’s investments in both rural and urban broadband infrastructure, so I encourage all skilled technicians and say that there will be plenty of work for them in this environment.

Health Care—Policy

6. 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 fact that the previous Labour Government left this Government with $160 million of unfunded services to fill and also quietly stripped $150 million out of the health budget before the last election, yes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What is better, sooner, and more convenient for 72-year-old Gisborne man Mr Bruce Gardiner, who faces 9 months in Waikato Hospital away from his wife and his home because of a shortage of funding for dialysis?

Hon TONY RYALL: If the member has a specific case that she wants me to comment on, she needs to give me some notice of that. I can tell the member that in Gisborne, the Tairāwhiti District Health Board has received additional funding from the Government of $8.1 million. I am advised that that is the biggest single increase in funding it has had for a decade.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Given the increase in people like Mr Gardiner needing dialysis because of diabetes, why has the Minister agreed to funding cuts of $4.8 million to the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme, which has been hugely successful in South Auckland and other places in detecting diabetes early?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member’s figures often need to be checked and confirmed, but I can say that if the member is referring to the line-by-line saving in respect of the diabetes “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme, that saving was not related to any reduction in services for patients.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What recent reports has the Minister seen related to delivering a better, more convenient health service?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government wants better, sooner, more convenient health services in rural areas, so it is making grants to six innovative projects in the rural care sector. They include a teleradiology project for Fiordland medical practice, Ōtaki primary health organisations’ general practitioner - led clinics targeting kōhanga and kindergartens, Tararua primary health organisations’ mobile service delivery project, Waikato rural pharmacies’ medication project for patients with mild to moderate depression, and Western Bay of Plenty primary health organisations’ flying doctor service.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the Minister agree with Dr Jeremy Krebs, the clinical leader of endocrinology and diabetes at Wellington Hospital, who said that the National Government’s decision to allow junk food in tuck shops was “a backward step in dealing with the growing obesity problem in New Zealand”, and a step that will mean more people with diabetes in our country?

Hon TONY RYALL: I will make two points to Dr Krebs. First, I want him to know that the previous Labour Government cut funding related to the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme in the months before the previous election. Second, I am sure he would like to know that this National Government believes that it should be left to boards of trustees and parents to decide what is sold in school tuck shops. We simply do not want the Education Review Office running round schools looking for a stray custard square.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table an article in this week’s Gisborne Herald outlining the situation that Mr Bruce Gardiner finds himself in, for the edification of Anne—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an article from the Gisborne Herald. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Schools—Ultra-fast Broadband

7. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made to prepare schools for ultra-fast broadband?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yesterday the Minister for Communications and Information Technology and I announced the names of 14 schools that will receive funding to

enable internal network upgrades. The upgrades will allow teachers and students at those schools to make greater use of digital learning technologies and will improve their access to online learning tools. The principal of Maniototo Area School in the member’s electorate has applauded the move by the Government, stating that it is exciting to be one of the 14 schools in this new upgrade round and that he hopes it will allow broadband to be expanded to the Ranfurly area.

Chris Tremain: How were the 14 schools in this round of school network upgrades chosen?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: A number of criteria were used to ensure that we had a mix of rural and urban, and primary and secondary, schools in this round. We have committed to upgrades in urban areas, such as Taradale High School in the member’s electorate, but we have also recognised the importance of upgrading rural schools. That has been appreciated by a rural principal who said: “We congratulate the Government on their willingness to ensure that students at remote schools and communities such as ours are not disadvantaged from participating fully in elearning opportunities …”.

Adult and Community Education—Administration of Redundancies

8. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What advice, if any, has she received about whose responsibility it is to pay redundancy to night class staff in the event of night class programmes being wound down?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education): I am advised that the responsibility to pay redundancy to night class staff with employment agreements lies with the employers. The decision on whether to employ staff or contract for services is one for schools to make. I am further advised that schools are encouraged to meet their investment plan obligations to deliver adult and community education, but that some schools may meet the cost of redundancy from the funding they have received for adult and community education delivery. If schools intend to do that then they are encouraged to discuss the matter with the Tertiary Education Commission.

Hon Maryan Street: What advice has the Minister received for schools that might be found to be in breach of contractual terms through using money appropriated for one purpose, namely the provision of adult and community education courses, for another purpose entirely, namely payment of redundancy?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I encourage those schools to liaise with the Tertiary Education Commission and to seek legal support and advice from the New Zealand School Trustees Association. Schools have been advised that they should seek support from the New Zealand School Trustees Association about these employment matters.

Hon Maryan Street: What authority does the Tertiary Education Commission have to tell schools they can use adult and community education funding, specifically allocated for the delivery of adult and community education programmes, for winding down those programmes before the end of 2009, given that the Tertiary Education Commission is not a contractual partner in the terms and conditions of the people made redundant?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Schools are encouraged to meet their investment plan commitment to deliver adult and community education. If they are considering decreasing provision in order to meet redundancies, they should be in contact with the Tertiary Education Commission.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table the fund schedule between the Tertiary Education Commission and recipient high schools for adult and community education, which stipulates the purpose and objectives of that fund.

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.

Social Services—Contracting Arrangements

9. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and

Employment: Has she made any announcements about contracting with the social sector?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes. Yesterday I announced that we are putting in place a new and simpler way of funding and contracting. We are beginning with a trial of the new high-trust model that will combine the multiple contracts we have with individual social providers into a single, simple contract. The model will also simplify social providers’ reporting requirements, so it is more effective and resultsbased.

Katrina Shanks: Why is the Government trialling the high-trust contract model?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This is all about using our existing resources more efficiently. We believe this will deliver more services for the same money, because these organisations have to comply with an absurd amount of red tape to deliver services. Some providers might have 10 or more contracts, and each has its own administrative and audit requirements. This is unique. We are talking about a 3-page contract that is not about filling out forms for these services; this is a small but significant step towards greater flexibility at the same time as delivering value for money for the taxpayer.

Jacinda Ardern: Will the Minister’s simple and open contracting arrangements announced yesterday save trusted and vital services, like Youthline’s volunteer training programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There is value for money that is going on all the time. We are constantly looking at contracts that are coming up, and this model will mean more flexibility and taking a positive step for those non-governmental organisations that contract with the Government.

State Housing—Reduction through Sales

10. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Will he guarantee that no region will see a reduction in its State housing stock as a result of his decision to put 40,000 State houses up for sale?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Housing: The Minister can guarantee that every house sold to a tenant under this scheme will be replaced with a new house. We will probably build the replacement houses in areas of high need. Uptake is likely to be in the hundreds, rather than the thousands. This is a good example of National fulfilling one of its election promises that proved to be pretty popular with the public at the last election.

Moana Mackey: So that the rest of country can know they are not eligible for the replacement of any State houses sold their areas, where are these high-need areas?

Hon SIMON POWER: I am sure that as the policy takes effect and we are able to balance the sale of some of these houses to the tenants who live in them, those questions will become fully and abundantly clear.

Moana Mackey: If, as the Minister has admitted, some regions will see a reduction in their State housing stock because the rebuilds will be in high-need areas like South Auckland, as the Minister has already indicated, why are 8,218 State houses—75 percent of the Housing New Zealand Corporation’s South Auckland stock—up for sale in South Auckland?

Hon SIMON POWER: Firstly, I am not sure what the member has against people being able to purchase State houses, or, for that matter, people in South Auckland being able to purchase State houses. Secondly, I have admitted simply that State houses will be replaced in areas of high need.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora anō tātou. Has the Minister received any responses from iwi Māori to the possibilities that have opened up from the homeownership of State houses?

Hon SIMON POWER: The Minister has been advised that this policy has been welcomed by Māori, as 35 percent of State house tenants identify as Māori. This policy will provide them with a further opportunity to move into homeownership, and we look forward to continuing to work with our support partners on this very important initiative.

Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Retrofitted Homes

11. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many houses were retrofitted in August though the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): What a very well-asked question! I am very pleased to advise the House that a total of 4,889 houses were retrofitted in August as part of the programme. This is a considerable step up on the 3,282 retrofits that were completed in July. In just over 8 weeks, 8,000 Kiwi homes have received assistance, meaning that they are warmer, healthier, dryer, and better as a result of this Government’s scheme.

Jo Goodhew: How many houses lived in by residents with community services cards have been retrofitted under the Warm Up New Zealand scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am very pleased to report to the House that of the 4,489 houses retrofitted in August, 2,775 were occupied by people on low incomes. That is close to 60 percent of all the houses retrofitted in that month, which means that those residents are likely to have paid little or nothing for the insulation. [Interruption] I am not surprised that the Labour Party wants to drown out such wonderful results.

Question No. 10 to Minister

MOANA MACKEY (Labour): I seek leave to table a document in relation to question No.10. It is a regional breakdown of the number of State houses up for sale in each area, broken down by Housing New Zealand’s administrative regions.

Mr SPEAKER: The source of the document?

MOANA MACKEY: It is an email from the Minister’s office.

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.

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 to the member to the answer given on my behalf last week.

Hon Pete Hodgson: If the Hon Bill English has no pecuniary interest in his ministerial residence, then how come the email I have here, dated 19 March, shows Mr English telling Ministerial Services which bank account to put the money into?

Hon JOHN KEY: It is a legal test as to whether someone has a pecuniary interest, and Mr English has no pecuniary interest.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I seek leave to table the email referred to in my previous supplementary question, containing the half-line that says: “the Minister has asked me to advise you of the correct account for the rent.”

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

Hon Pete Hodgson: Has the Minister been advised that a request for an additional $20 per week of cleaning allowance was made by or on behalf of Mr English on 5 December—the day Treasury told Mr English that Government expenditure had to be seriously cut—and that by 10 February Mr English had managed to claim cleaning costs even in excess of the new higher allowance?

Hon JOHN KEY: As is so often the case with Mr Hodgson, he is a week behind the story—it was in the paper last week. No, I was not advised of that because it is an operational matter that Ministerial Services would conduct on my behalf.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Has the Minister sought or received advice as to why the Hon Bill English claims publicly to have removed himself from the family trust while still in Opposition, but his house title was not changed until he had been the Minister of Finance for almost 4 months?

Hon JOHN KEY: It is really getting bad—that was in the paper 2 months ago. But anyway, I guess if you are desperate you ask those questions.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I have not sought advice in that area. The test is quite simple: it is whether the member has a pecuniary interest. He does not.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he think Mr English backdated changes to his trust deed so he could claim publicly that somehow he did not do it all for the money?

Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he now think it is wise that the English family trust deed be made public in the interests of transparency, or indeed the minutes of the trust meetings, or must the public continue to take the Hon Bill English at his word?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not think that is a good idea, and I certainly do take the member at his word. I caution the member that if he wants to have an open disclosure of every trust document and every superannuation document of every single member of Parliament, it would be a very interesting road to go down.

ENDS

© Scoop Media