(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 26 NOVEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Emissions Trading Scheme—Emissions Compared with 2008 Scheme

1. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will the passing yesterday of the Climate Change Response (Moderated Emissions Trading) Amendment Bill result in New Zealand’s greenhouse emissions going up or down between now and 2050 compared to the original emissions trading scheme passed in 2008?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The longer we go out, the less certainty there is with the figures. However, I want to go quite specifically through the advice. In the period from 2008 to 2012 the recessionary measures taken to halve the price effect of the scheme on power and petrol increases will reduce the incentive to reduce emissions, so that results in slightly higher projected emissions for New Zealand in 2012. In the period 2012 to 2018 the changes will do more to reduce emissions. This is because there is a significantly lesser allocation to industry and a stronger price signal to reduce emissions. So, for the first decade the overall changes in our moderated emissions trading scheme will actually result in lower New Zealand emissions than the existing scheme. Beyond 2018 the key difference between the schemes is in the phase-out rate and the production-based allocations. There is no doubt that beyond that period the amended scheme would result in higher emissions for New Zealand, because it would export emissions from those intensive industries offshore. So, although emissions in New Zealand might be less, all we would simply do is to produce those products elsewhere on the globe, and actually making the global problem worse.

Dr Russel Norman: Will he advise the Prime Minister to go to Copenhagen and explain to Barack Obama and all the other world leaders why New Zealand has just passed a law that, as the Minister has just told the House, will result in New Zealand increasing its emissions, or will he be too ashamed to front up to that meeting?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This scheme will, in the first 10 years, reduce emissions more than the existing scheme. But I would make three further points, in light of the comparison with the United States. Firstly, the target that we are taking to the Copenhagen negotiations is significantly stronger than that offered by the United States. [Interruption] It is a matter of fact. Secondly, I would also note that we now have a settled emissions trading scheme, which will be the first outside of Europe, to be put in place on 1 July next year. Thirdly, the one area of concern in going to Copenhagen is explaining why our emissions have gone up by 24 percent since 1990.

Craig Foss: What official advice has the Minister received on the comparison between the free allocations to industry in the first decade of the scheme supported by the Greens, and in the amended scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that under the scheme supported by the Green Party, the free allocation to industry in the first decade was 135 million units. Under the new scheme industry

will receive just 69 million units for the same period. This is because there is a lesser allocation to industry, with some companies getting only 60 percent or none, and because of the phase-out beginning in 2013, 5 years earlier. The Greens should be honest and openly acknowledge that in the first decade of the scheme it is actually more efficient.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly, in stating that the Greens should be honest, the Minister was assuming that we were being dishonest—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Dr Russel Norman: That is unacceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. I do not think the Minister needs to go down that track, and I do not believe he was in any way impugning the honesty of the Greens.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister think that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment had it wrong when she said that Parliament should vote against his emissions trading scheme because “In its current form, the bill virtually guarantees that the ETS will not achieve its stated goal of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I also note that the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment advised Parliament not to vote for the previous emissions trading scheme, and I note that the Green Party ignored that advice.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware that his own ministry could not tell a select committee today when it expects New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions to decrease; and is it not the reality that following the passage of his moderated emissions trading scheme, the only way that New Zealand will be able to meet its 2020 pollution reduction targets is through what we might call a modified Jacqui Dean solution: to buy them from offshore?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is very difficult to project all of the moving parts that affect New Zealand’s future emissions profile. We do not know for sure the price of carbon into the future. We do not know for sure what the international rules are going to be beyond 2013, and I note that despite repeated questioning when Mr David Parker was the Minister, he could not give exact numbers on when New Zealand’s emissions would decline. What I will say is that the advice is that with the emissions trading scheme that the Government has passed, in 2020 New Zealand can expect its emissions to be 10 million tonnes fewer as a consequence of that scheme.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Minister confirm that even with the advice he has provided today, after 2018, because the phase-out rate is lower, we will see a significant increase in New Zealand’s greenhouse emissions over the emissions we would have seen under the old emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I make two points in response. The first is that it is this Government’s policy that we do not simply want to reduce emissions by closing down New Zealand Steel or our smelter, sending that industry offshore, and clapping our hands with joy that our emissions have gone down, only for them to occur somewhere else on the globe. That makes no sense. The second point is in respect of the 1.3 percent phase-out rate. This Government has been quite open that that will be regularly reviewed, so that it is in line with the rate of our major trading partners. We would like to phase out more quickly; that will depend on ensuring that other countries also do so, consistent with this Government’s policy of New Zealand doing its fair share.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question specifically addressed the 2018 to 2050 period. It specifically asked whether New Zealand’s greenhouse emissions would increase during that period, as a result of this change in the legislation. The Minister did not answer, or attempt to answer, that part of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: In fairness to the honourable member Nick Smith, as I listened to the Minister’s answer it was perfectly clear to me what he was saying. It is possible that that might be the case, but he was arguing that there was not much sense in saying that is bad if doing the opposite caused more emissions elsewhere. He just gave a different kind of answer from the one the member may

have wanted, but it was perfectly clear to me what the Minister’s answer was to the member’s question.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it not the case that after 2018 we will have a much higher level of free allocation given to industry and agriculture in all sectors, and, as a result of that higher level of free allocation, we will have higher debt on the Government books and increased greenhouse emissions in New Zealand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, that is not correct and I will explain why. Under the existing Labour scheme, in 2018 a business like the Bluff smelter would receive a 90 percent allocation and would have to pay for 10 percent. Under the changed scheme, in that year the smelter will be required to pay 18 percent; that is, it will get an allocation of 82 percent. Then, in each year after that, there was the notion of that reducing out at a rate of 8 percent per year. None of the commentators believe that is realistic, and even in the discussions I had with Labour during our talks to try to get a consensus, nobody assumed that that 8 percent phase-out rate in the existing scheme would be able to be sustained 10 years hence. I remind the member that it is hard enough to work out the rules in climate change policy for the next 10 years, let alone to make predictions beyond that.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it not the case that by taking the three different periods the Minister identified in his very long answer—that is, 2008 to 2012, 2012 to 2018, and 2018 to 2050—and putting them all together, rather than splitting them up, overall New Zealand will have higher greenhouse emissions under his emissions trading scheme than under the old emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member seems to ignore the fact that this is a global problem. The atmosphere does not know whether the emissions come from New Zealand or some other country.

The Government side of the House makes no apologies for not wanting a policy that would simply export industry offshore, do nothing for the environment, and cost hard-working New Zealanders their jobs.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, the question was quite specific about New Zealand’s emissions. The Minister may have a point about global emissions. That is fine, but I asked specifically about New Zealand’s emissions. The Minister did not answer that question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The questioner started his question by saying “Is it not…”, and then he put a proposition. What he got from the Minister was a response to the proposition, and that is perfectly reasonable.

Dr Russel Norman: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need to hear further on this. I hear the point the member is making. It is fair enough; the Minister did not specifically answer that question. Yet in his answer was an implication that yes, that is possible, and I would imagine that any intelligent person who was listening to the answer would have picked that up from the answer. The Minister went on to explain why he and his Government see that as not being the crucial issue. I do not think there is much point in my trying to force him to give a more precise answer along the lines the member wants to hear. The member certainly got an acknowledgement of the point he was making.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister know that the independent expert advice received by the Finance and Expenditure Committee, when it considered his moderated emissions trading scheme, was that there is simply no evidence or analysis available to support his contention that the massive subsidies now available to industry under that scheme are actually targeted at industry likely to move offshore; if so, when will he stop repeating the falsehood that his moderated emissions trading scheme will save any Kiwi jobs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member should read the very comprehensive economic analysis by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics. That report said that New Zealand suffers very great competitive risk around emissions-intensive industry. The second point I

make to the member is that if he wants to call allocations subsidies, it is interesting to note that when Mr Parker was asked a question by Jeanette Fitzsimons about whether allocations were subsidies, he said that they were not subsidies. It seems an odd contradiction that when Labour makes allocations they are not subsidies, but when National makes allocations they are. I would love Labour to explain that.

Hon Rodney Hide: To the Minister—

Hon George Hawkins: Hawaii Five-O.

Hon Rodney Hide: Sorry, what was that?

Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the member to please ask his question. [Interruption] That is not acceptable. The member should not worry about those kinds of interjections. I ask him to just ask his question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Is he willing to assist New Zealanders’ understanding of this Government’s emissions trading scheme by asking the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to explain the adjustments that it has made to the raw data to produce a warming trend for New Zealand for 156 years of our history, when its own raw data in order show New Zealand’s temperature to be stable; if he is not prepared to ask for that explanation, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Only as recently as last Friday, I think, I and Kevin Hague attended a Cawthron Institute lecture by David Wratt about climate change science. What Dr Wratt has consistently said is that because New Zealand is surrounded by oceans, all the modelling indicates that the temperature impacts of climate change are most likely to be less for New Zealand than for other parts of the globe. I would welcome the opportunity, not just for the sake of Mr Hide but for that of all members of the House, to invite the chief climate change scientist from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to address members, so that we can all be better informed on climate change science.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is very kind, and I will take the member up on that offer.

Mr SPEAKER: Points of order should be terse and to the point.

Hon Rodney Hide: My question was whether the Minister for Climate Change Issues will assist our understanding by asking the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to explain why its data have been adjusted to show a different result from what the raw data show—yes or no.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister may not have specific responsibility for a scientific organisation in New Zealand. It may be the responsibility of the Minister, and it is up to the Minister to tell us that if it is the case. I ask him, if it is within his responsibility, to answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would be happy to have the chief scientist from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research come to the House and answer that technical question directly as a consequence of having a forum with members, and I think the member will find that to be very useful.

Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave to table a document by the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition about the adjustments that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has made to the raw data to show a warming trend, when, in fact, none is shown. It is dated 25 November 2009.

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 Development and Employment, Minister—Statements

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

Development and Employment: Does she stand by all her statements?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, although when you love your job as much as I do, you can occasionally get a little overexcited.

Hon Annette King: Why does she consider the efforts of the Every Child Counts organisation to establish an all-party parliamentary group for children to build awareness of and a commitment to policies for children as “a whole bunch of chit-chat that gets nowhere”, as she claimed in Parliament yesterday, and has she told that organisation it is wasting its time even trying to get National to work with other political parties here in Parliament on policies that tackle issues like child poverty in New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I actually admire the organisation and think that it does a good job in what it is doing. There have been many discussions around this place for quite some time about a cross-party discussion on child abuse and neglect. I notice that the previous Government did not actually get one up and running. As I stated yesterday, and I will state it again, I think it is about the results and the things that are put in place. That is what will make a true difference.

Hon Annette King: Will she dismiss the plan of action developed by the Every Child Counts summit on children held in September, which brought together community leaders, Barnados, Plunket, Save the Children, Unicef, etc., representing about 6,500 supporters and organisations as “chit-chat”—a lot of talk and no action—or will she do what they have requested and work with all parties in this Parliament, who do care about kids, on something that Labour, when in Government, did not walk away from?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it would be helpful to clarify that the words “chit-chat”—all talk and no action—were actually directed at the Opposition, and not at Every Child Counts.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the Hansard of the Minister’s answer to my question yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that that is outside the ruling I have made. That is readily available to the House anyway.

Hon Annette King: Has she had any chit-chat with the Prime Minister about his claim that the number of New Zealanders now on the sickness benefit is only slightly higher than it was a year ago; did she point out to him that the number went up by almost 10,000 since he became the Prime Minister, and that the Government’s policies are only shifting people from one benefit to another?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have had many discussions with the Prime Minister on welfare reform, where we are going with it, and how we close some of those tunnels between benefits. We are not hiding the numbers like the previous Government, under which it really was a succession from the unemployment benefit, to the sickness benefit, to the invalid’s benefit, which we will simply not put up with.

Lynne Pillay: Has she had any conversation with the Prime Minister about the failure of her Restart package, given that it is now helping fewer than 1,000 New Zealanders, even though unemployment numbers are still increasing; if so, is the reason she has failed to make effective changes to the scheme a result of those conversations just being chit-chat that have clearly got her nowhere?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yet again, I want to clarify that it is the Opposition that is prone to chit-chat and no real action. The member does not understand that the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit has gone down for 7 weeks in a row. It has gone down. Those who were eligible for Restart needed to be eligible through the welfare system. That is how it was set up. It was successful. I am certainly not undermining the more than 5,500 people who received access to it.

Carmel Sepuloni: What justification can she give for her decision to make cuts to the training incentive allowance, barring domestic purposes beneficiaries from receiving the allowance to help with tertiary study, and her decision to prevent domestic purposes beneficiaries from being eligible for the Community Max; and how can these decisions be reconciled with her statement regarding solo mothers that she “will back those women into work and meaningful employment every time.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Just to clarify, there are women who are on the domestic purposes benefit who are on the Community Max programme. Any women on the domestic purposes benefit can move on to the unemployment benefit and be eligible to go on the Community Max project. It is as simple as that. They would get the same amount of money, and they can make that decision.

Schools—Professional Development in Information and Communication Technology

3. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has she made about information and communication technologies professional development in schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): More good news. Today the Government announced that we are investing $10.8 million in a 3-year programme to support teachers to use digital technology. From next year 257 schools—members opposite do not like this—will join this major information and communication technology initiative. It will support teachers with the skills, the knowledge, and the confidence they need to get the benefits from information and communication technology and support student learning.

Jo Goodhew: How does the announcement complement other work being done by the Government in the education sector to help schools with digital technology?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This investment supports the Government’s $150 million commitment to make our schools broadband-ready, to ensure that our children are at the centre of the digital world. Earlier in the year, I announced a round of school network upgrades, and I will very shortly announce a further larger round to ensure that our schools’ infrastructure is ready for ultra-fast broadband. The announcement today will ensure that more teachers are ready and able to take advantage of it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does her announcement today indicate that she is now ranking information and communication technology skills as being more important than science, social studies, music, and art in primary schools, because she has totally cut the funding for professional development next year in primary schools for all of those subjects?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have not cut any funding for professional development in primary schools. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member who asked the question has indicated that he could not hear the end of the answer. I invite the Minister to repeat the answer, and I ask members to be a little more reasonable in their interjection; it has been fairly noisy.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have not cut professional development in primary schools.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does cutting the money that goes to universities that pay the advisers who go to primary schools not count as a cut to primary schools, in that Minister’s opinion?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Let me explain in words of one syllable so that the member can understand. We have taken the same amount of money that the Ministry of Education contracts for professional advice and we have refocused it on literary and numeracy in order to support the national standards. The sector asked for support for the introduction of the national standards, and that is what this Government has provided. There are no cuts to what is provided; it is the same amount of money but refocused on literacy and numeracy.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I now have a real problem. I know that you do not like people using a point of order to debate, but this Minister has tabled in the House—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately.

Hon Chris Carter: 25 percent cut.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet! I am not sure what is wrong with that member’s eyes. The member may not have liked the answer but he cannot litigate it by way of a point of order. He can ask further questions. I heard the question he asked and the answer the Minister gave. It was very obvious to me where the difference was arising between the question and the answer. It should not

take him much thought to work out which supplementary questions to ask, if he wants to uncover more about it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister announce or include in her Budget documentation a 25 percent cut in professional development going into contracts for professional development, which go to primary schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Some changes were made to professional development around early childhood education.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member’s answer was to do with early childhood education. It was a very specific question about primary education and the 25 percent cut she announced.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the member makes and I ask the Minister to answer in respect of primary schools.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: C’mon, it’s in two Budgets.

Mr SPEAKER: The point raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard is a reasonable one. He asked a question about professional development in primary schools, which is what the primary question was about. The Minister answered in respect of early childhood education, which is not what the primary question was about. I therefore think it is reasonable—and I warn the Leader of the House that I am ruling on this matter—for the Minister to answer that. If she does not have that specific information, that is fair enough, but she avoided the question by commenting in respect of early childhood education. I think the member has a legitimate grievance and I ask the Minister to reply.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may have been that you did not pick up that the member asked the Minister whether there had been cuts to the tertiary education budget, and then he specified what it was and asserted that it had some relationship with the primary education sector. The Minister gave an answer about what was changed in that Budget, and I think it should stand as perfectly reasonable. The member cannot confuse a whole lot of things together, then somehow expect a Minister to unpick them in a very short answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need any assistance. I have indulged the Leader of the House. The Minister is perfectly capable of answering the question asked. It is directly related to the primary question. From what the Leader of the House has just implied by way of his point of order, he has assumed an answer from what the Minister said. There is no problem, therefore, in the Minister giving the House the answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have the figures in front of me but I am happy to provide them to the member.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How can she rely on the advice she has received on professional development in schools, in light of her statement yesterday that enrolment schemes in schools neighbouring Aorangi School would have to be redone, something that cannot occur before term 1 next year—or did she just make that up?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question actually related to information and communication technologies professional development in schools.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister is making a fair point. I ask the member to bring her question within the scope of the primary question.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: How can she rely on advice that she has received on professional development in schools, in light of statements she made yesterday that have proven to be incorrect?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I did not make incorrect statements yesterday.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 4.

Rahui Katene: Mr Speaker, a supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: I beg your pardon. If members were a little more reasonable with interjections I would hear when members call. I do apologise to Rahui Katene.

Rahui Katene: Thank you, Mr Speaker. What initiatives are being advanced to develop digital literacy for Māori, to ensure that the flow-on benefits of adopting new technologies are also extended to Māori and whānau?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: If the member looks through the list of schools involved, she will see that a number of Māori schools are involved in this initiative. But we are very conscious of the importance of broadband to, particularly, small, rural Māori immersion schools, and we are working with the Māori Party to ensure that they are included in the rural broadband roll-out.

Climate Change—Prime Minister’s Attendance at Copenhagen Conference

4. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Prime Minister: Why is he not going to the Copenhagen conference like most other world leaders are?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The member’s assertion is incorrect. It is not true that most of the world’s leaders are going to the Copenhagen conference. The Prime Minister has previously stated that there is a 95 percent chance that he will not go to Copenhagen for that conference. That is because he is satisfied that the Minister for Climate Change Issues, the Hon Nick Smith, and the Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations), the Hon Tim Groser, are more than capable of representing New Zealand’s position at the conference.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations that President Obama’s attendance at Copenhagen announced today will help ensure an agreement; if so, is he not attending because, as he has recently said, he is “quite relaxed” about the threat of climate change?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The United States’ position on climate change and whatever commitments it may be prepared to offer at Copenhagen are, of course, very, very important. I point out to the member, though, that President Obama will be in Copenhagen about 1 week before the conference starts.

Chris Tremain: This is the diary secretary for Mr Obama about to speak.

Charles Chauvel: I thank Mr Tremain for that useful contribution.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. I will not tolerate interjections with microphones open like that; it is simply not acceptable. I ask the member not to do that and I invite him to ask his supplementary question.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling immediately—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Charles Chauvel: Yes it is, sir.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure what issue of order the member is raising.

Charles Chauvel: I wanted to record that I was responding to an interjection myself when I was referred to as the—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will now resume his seat. The member will not argue with the Speaker if he wishes to remain in the Chamber for this sitting day, which may go on for a while. I recommend to the member that if someone interjects while his microphone is open and he is asking a question, he should just ignore it because no one else can hear it. It is an unfair advantage to the member to use an open microphone in that way. I invite him to ask his supplementary question.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I presume the same rule will apply to members of the Government when they are answering a question and responding to an interjection.

Mr SPEAKER: Members will notice that when Ministers are not provoked by the question being asked, I am pretty tough when they start to climb into the Opposition. Anyone who thinks that I, as Speaker, am favouring the Government is not, I believe, seeing the situation properly, at all. I am sure that plenty of members in the Government are not terribly happy with the way the Speaker insists on some of them answering questions and stops them in mid-flight. So I suggest to the Hon David Parker that a little more discretion and courtesy would be appropriate.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I am still on my feet, and it had better be a new point of order.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is, and it is an important one. I would like you to reflect on what you have just told the House. What you have said is that my colleague cannot respond to an interjection through his open microphone but Ministers can if they are provoked. I think that that is unfair and unbalanced.

Mr SPEAKER: What I was actually referring to was when Ministers are provoked in a question. If he refers back to a supplementary question asked by his own colleague, just a short while ago in this sitting, he will recall that his colleague Charles Chauvel implied that the Minister had not been telling the truth. I let it go—I did not interrupt. But it was a very provocative question.

Ministers receiving a provocative question like that are perfectly at liberty to give as good as they get. That has always been the ebb and flow of this House. We will not waste further time on this. I invite Charles Chauvel to ask his supplementary question.

Charles Chauvel: Why is his Minister of Foreign Affairs planning to use the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting merely as an opportunity to “compare notes” on climate change negotiations when the Secretary-General of the United Nations, the Danish Prime Minister, and the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth are attending the meeting to seek a “strong political statement” on climate change ahead of the Copenhagen summit?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: As the member knows, everything that might be concluded by way of agreement starts with a comparison of one country’s position with another’s. That is an appropriate role for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Charles Chauvel: How can the Minister for Climate Change Issues and the Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations) go to Copenhagen with their heads held high, when his Government voted yesterday against legislating for binding emissions targets and is teaming up, in international climate change negotiations, with major polluters against the small Island States, with whom we generally pretend friendship?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister would not accept the assertion that the member implies in his question. He asks how the trade Minister and the climate change negotiations Minister, who is one and the same person, can hold his head up at the conference. What the Minister can say is that New Zealand has set targets. We do have an “all gases, all sectors” emissions trading scheme, and we are doing our bit to solve a worldwide problem.

Legal Aid—Graeme Burton

5. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: How much, if anything, did the taxpayer pay in legal aid for Graeme Burton to defend the recent charge of attempted murder, for which he was found guilty?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Acting Minister of Justice): I am advised by the Legal Services Agency that the amount paid to date in relation to Mr Burton’s legal aid file is $12,342.50.

That amount includes lawyers’ fees and other relevant disbursements that have been approved to date. Although the trial has concluded, Mr Burton has yet to be sentenced. The final cost of services is not yet known.

David Garrett: Does the Minister agree that regardless of the outcome of the trial and, indeed, the sentencing, Mr Burton will be in prison for at least the next 25 years in any case?

Mr SPEAKER: I urge caution in this area, because, as I understand the situation, Graeme Burton has not yet been sentenced, and I do not think it is appropriate for this House to be raising issues in respect of that matter. I do not want to take a supplementary question off the member; if he likes he can ask a different supplementary question. I ask him to be very careful about the fact that this particular convicted person has not yet been sentenced.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is true, and that was why the question was so carefully framed. It was making a point about the sentence that Mr Burton is

already serving. He is already in prison for 25 years. That was the point that my colleague Mr David Garrett was making. Mr Burton is serving 25 years in prison regardless.

Mr SPEAKER: This is quite important. I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I, unusually, have to agree with Rodney Hide. It was a carefully worded question, which did have “regardless of” the sentence that is about to be imposed as part of it. I think the question was actually about the old sentence and the likelihood of parole. The Minister of Justice could probably say that he has no responsibility and does not want to comment, but I think the question should not be ruled out.

Mr SPEAKER: I acknowledge the advice offered by colleagues, but what troubles me is that we normally have to be very careful in referring to the past records of people who are before the courts.

This case, at least, is beyond the basic conviction. We are at the point of sentencing, though. The dilemma I have is that, obviously, details of the convicted person’s past are relevant to sentencing in respect of the conviction currently before the court. That is the dilemma I face on the matter. I ask the member to ask a supplementary question, being very careful of the fact that if there is undue reference to the past record, convictions, and sentencing of a person currently before the court, there is risk of argument that it may influence the court. I ask him to be very conscious of that.

David Garrett: I will simply ask a different question, to save any potential conflict. Does the Minister agree that every single dollar paid out in criminal legal aid is $1 less available for civil legal aid for such persons as those who are suffering from a leaky home that they cannot afford to fix?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, and I can understand that member’s point of view.

But I would say two things in response to it. First, it is the hallmark of a just society that everyone is entitled to a fair trial, regardless of conduct. The legal aid system provides for a fair trial regardless of what sort of person the court is dealing with. The second point is that—and I am sure that the member, as an experienced barrister, would understand this—legal aid quite often prevents defendants from acting for themselves. I am sure the member is aware of appalling cases where defendants have sought to cross-examine their victims, not withstanding the restrictions contained in section 95 of the Evidence Act. So there is a very good reason why we have a legal aid system for criminals.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the Minister of Finance and the Associate Minister of Finance are away, I seek leave to hold over my question until the next day the Minister of Finance is available.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Recession—Rebuilding Economy

6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “In order for that recovery to be sustainable we need improved competitiveness among our exporters and continued recovery in household savings”?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes.

Hon David Parker: How can the Minister of Finance insist that New Zealand has the best monetary policy in the world when currency volatility makes exporting tougher for businesses than it should be?

Hon TONY RYALL: There is no doubt that currency volatility is a challenge for many exporters. Export volumes have been stagnating for some time, but the real issue in respect of monetary policy and the effect on the currency is very much a reflection of the legacy that this Government inherited from a Government that made such waste of the taxpayers’ money during its

years on the Treasury benches. Its spending in a 5-year period increased by over 45 percent, and New Zealanders wondered what they got for it.

Hon David Parker: How can the Minister of Finance pretend that he is leading an export-led recovery when he is happy to sit on his hands as our exporters struggle against a volatile dollar, and interest rates driven by debt-fuelled consumption in the non-tradable sector?

Hon TONY RYALL: This Government is not sitting on its hands; this Government is dealing with the issues that really matter to the New Zealand economy. Primary amongst those issues is dealing with the 10 years of economic mismanagement by the previous Government, when it wasted some of the best years of New Zealand’s economic performance.

Hon David Parker: How can the Minister of Finance maintain that New Zealand has the best monetary policy in the world when, despite our economy being small, we are one of the top 10 or 11 most traded currencies in the world?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think the Minister of Finance would be quite clear that many challenges face the New Zealand economy, but those challenges are made more difficult by the fact that during the 10 years of good economic times—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has been devoting a fair part of his answers to attacking the previous Government, when the member’s questions have not been particularly provocative. He has been asking about the issue of a volatile currency, which is not attacking the Government; it is raising an issue of relevance. My concern about that last answer was that it did not really answer the member’s question, at all. I invite the Hon David Parker to ask his question again, just in case there was confusion.

Hon David Parker: How can the Minister of Finance maintain that New Zealand has the best monetary policy in the world when, despite our being a small economy, we are one of the top 10 or 11 most traded currencies in the world?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think the Minister can maintain that position extremely well. He can maintain that position because this Government recognises that it has an important role to play in providing balanced economic policy, and ensuring that the Government’s contribution to maintaining stability is a priority.

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): I seek leave to table a formal statement from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research and its scientist Dr David Wratt in response to the question from Mr Rodney Hide earlier that I did not have the answer to.

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.

Oil and Gas Exploration—Initiatives

7. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: What action is the Government taking to increase oil and gas exploration in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): In Budget 2009, $20 million was appropriated for seismic data acquisition over the next 3 years. This summer, the motor vessel Bergen Resolution will acquire seismic data in the Pegasus Basin, the Great South Basin, and either the Challenger Plateau and Bellona Trough area, or the outer Taranaki Basin and Northland East Slope Basin area. Petroleum exploration and investment companies will then have free access to the data to assess the considerable oil and gas potential of our frontier basins.

Jonathan Young: What is the level of exploration in New Zealand waters this summer?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This summer will be the largest exploration activity ever seen in New Zealand waters.

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s just the Minister on the beach.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Seven offshore wells are being drilled, and thousands of kilometres of seismic data are being shot. In fact, New Zealand is ranked in the top 10 countries for offshore exploration wells. This year we have put in place a seismic data acquisition programme to continue the success. It is a good programme. I know that you do not like us responding to interjections, Mr Speaker, but I just want to say that in order that no one rushes to the beach to save the whales, I will be publishing the dates that I am on holiday.

Charles Chauvel: What steps, if any, is the Minister taking to ensure that oil extracted in New Zealand territorial waters can be refined in New Zealand, as opposed to the current situation when it has to be sent to Australia for refining, doing nothing to support New Zealand’s energy independence?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Far from not supporting New Zealand’s energy independence, I tell the member that as part of the International Energy Agency we have obligations to maintain a certain amount of oil stock. In the previous period of Government when that member’s party was in office, many millions of dollars would have been spent on oil tickets to ensure that we were in a good position. That was a proper spend; it needed to be done. But as New Zealand recovers more oil and as we export more oil, the need for those tickets to be in place is a great deal less. The New Zealand Government does not have an interest in the refinery. It would be up to the private sector to look at the resource and decide whether this was the appropriate place to make investments for further oil refining in this country.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister familiar with the observations today of Andrew Falloon, the director of his coalition partner ACT’s research unit, that he is “booked for 8 nights in the Abel Tasman National Park before Minister Brownlee rips it up”; and does this accurately reflect his Government’s policy on mineral exploration in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No and no. What is more, I do not even know the guy.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. I ask the Government backbenchers please to respect that.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table the comments by Andrew Falloon, director of the ACT Party research unit, saying that he is booked for 8 nights in the Abel Tasman—

Mr SPEAKER: Before the member carries on, where are these comments from?

Charles Chauvel: It is from Mr Falloon’s Facebook page. [Interruption] I do seek leave; it is a serious matter.

Mr SPEAKER: No. I think I have ruled out these blog sites, and what have you.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Seeing that Mr Charles Chauvel is Mr Falloon’s Facebook friend—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not see how that is a point of order. The member will resume his seat.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Financial Benefits for Māori Families After 2013

8. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What are the financial benefits from the changes to the emissions trading scheme for Māori families after 2013?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): There are many benefits to Māori families. Post-2012 there will be thousands of Māori families in well-insulated and heated homes. This will have huge health benefits and will reduce their power bills, as well as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Secondly, a large number of Māori families are beneficial owners of fishing quota, forestry, and agricultural assets, all of which will benefit financially from changes to the emissions trading scheme. Thirdly, Māori are disproportionately represented in the workforce of

companies such as New Zealand Steel that are in the energy-intensive area, and without these changes those jobs would be at risk.

Hon Shane Jones: Why, given that the Minister has singled out forestry, has he confined the concession to an elite number of tribes, and denied the rest of Māoridom—in fact, the entirety of the pre-1990 forestry sector? Why is he driving a wedge between people?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The legislation that was passed by the previous Labour Government, including that member, put liabilities on all pre-1990 forest owners. Iwi came to me and strongly asked that those deforestation liabilities be removed for all of those forests. Our Government maintained the position that we would not do that. However, separate to that, there was the issue of quite specific Treaty settlements and information disclosure requirements. To avoid court proceedings, we came to a pragmatic and common-sense arrangement to allow those five iwi—just the ones that were affected by that issue—to plant trees on conservation land.

Hon Shane Jones: Why does the Minister refer to potential liability, when his own letter to Mark Solomon said that the Crown does not recognise or accept that there is a liability of any nature?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Anybody who has been involved in legal settlements would know that one says in the base of them that settling the issue is not an acceptance of fault by the Crown. That is well-practised, and any member in this House with legal experience would know that it is a standard provision that is put in such settlements.

Hon Shane Jones: Did he advise the Māori Party before it agreed to support his emissions trading scheme that the Government would face higher fiscal costs as a result of having to cover increased emissions; what social services did he tell the Māori Party would be cut by the Government in order to meet those increased costs, and is that the reason why Hone Harawira sent a letter saying that he could not possibly vote for this measure?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The premise that the member has based his question on is quite false.

There is no extra cost; there is lesser income. There is lesser income from the emissions trading scheme, and the key element is that of the $50 billion that his colleague talks of, $40 billion is increased emissions trading scheme charges on farmers, and I am not sure how that helps Māori farming interests.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. What reports has the Minister received criticising the agreement with the Māori Party, and are they consistent?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In the mainstream media the Opposition are saying: “Taxpayers are being diddled for billions in a racially”—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question very specifically asked what reports the Minister had received. You have ruled previously that the reports have to be actual reports, not newspaper clippings, which is what the Minister went straight to in his response.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me, but I am not sure of the basis of the member’s point of order, at all.

As I understand it, this is not about the tabling of a document. The Minister was responding to a question asked. The question asked what reports the Minister had received, and, as I understand it, that has been in order for a lengthy period of time. I do not understand the problem there.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In reports I have received the Opposition has said that “Taxpayers are being diddled for billions in a racially preferenced deal in which the Government gave away everything and anything.” That was in the mainstream media. But in the Māori media I have heard reports that the Māori Party got diddled for a few blankets and beads. These contradictory statements from Labour will cause racial disharmony. This Government is focused on bringing New Zealand together and addressing the issues. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Hon Dr Nick Smith and the Hon Parekura Horomia to please show some respect for the fact that the Speaker has been on his feet for some time.

Rahui Katene: Does he agree with the Hon Shane Jones that the initiatives for Māori announced in the new emissions trading scheme will “protect a narrow, privileged southern elite”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that in respect of the agreement we reached on forestry, there are a total of 178,398 beneficial owners, of which less than one-third are in the South Island.

That statement is about as accurate as the claim by Labour that the agreement on forestry was worth $2 billion, when the officials’ advice is that it is worth one-hundredth of that amount.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a statement from the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, dated yesterday, in which she states the amendments will pass much of the costs from polluters to taxpayers.

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.

Kauri Forests—Protection

9. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) on behalf of NIKKI KAYE

(National—Auckland Central) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What steps has the Government recently taken to protect New Zealand’s kauri forests?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity): There is more good news. The Government is delighted to announce that it is injecting an additional $4.7 million of funding into a programme to save kauri trees threatened by kauri dieback disease. This will bring total Government funding for a 5-year programme aimed at containing this soil-borne disease to almost $10 million. It is a true demonstration of this Government’s commitment to protect this treasured species from what is a very serious biosecurity threat.

Shane Ardern: Why has the Government committed funding to fighting the kauri dieback disease?

Hon DAVID CARTER: New Zealand’s ancient kauri forests are an important part of our heritage, they are of huge significance to Māori, and they are vital to our native ecosystem. The kauri dieback disease is relatively unknown, but it poses a major threat to kauri species, especially those in the upper North Island.

Hon Damien O’Connor: If the Minister is so committed to protecting Northland forests, then why does he support the closure of the Ōpua biosecurity office, an action that leaves Northland vulnerable to pests and diseases from the hundreds of foreign yachts and vessels that visit Northland every year?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Ōpua office will be manned from Whangarei. It will be manned throughout the season. It will not be manned throughout the winter, when not a lot of these vessels come into Ōpua port.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Minister guarantee that his cut-backs to Biosecurity New Zealand will not expose New Zealand to greater risk and an invasion of Australian fruit flies, which would destroy our horticultural industry, given that a live Australian cane toad has just hopped through his current system; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER: There have been no cuts to Biosecurity New Zealand under this Government, unlike those under the previous Labour Government, and—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. The House is so noisy that I cannot hear when members call. I take it that it is a point of order that the Hon Damien O’Connor is calling for.

Hon Damien O’Connor: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is misleading the House—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. He cannot use a point of order to contest an answer that is being provided by the Minister, especially not by arguing that the Minister is misleading the House. If he wants to ask further supplementary questions that may highlight what he considers to be inaccuracies in the answer, then that is fine, but he cannot do it by way of a point of order.

Hon DAVID CARTER: Continuing with my answer, the member might like to acknowledge to the House that when his Government was in charge, eight cane toads came into New Zealand in 2003, and four came in in 2004. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Some members will get a yellow card if they are not careful. I am on my feet.

[Interruption] I am getting serious. The House has let off a little steam; let us put that behind us.

ACC, Minister—Statements

10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his statements in the House on ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Yes.

Kevin Hague: Why did he claim on 5 March in this House that Treasury had not been involved in the review of the accident compensation scheme, when, in fact, he had received a stream of advice that highlighted Treasury’s involvement in the review?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Treasury had provided advice to me about the accident compensation scheme. I have to say that the advice has been very concerning. It is that the scheme’s financial position is unsustainable and that significant change is required, through having either large levy increases or a pull-back on entitlements. The Government has been working through those difficult issues very responsibly.

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question related to the fact that the Minister claimed to stand by all of his statements. One of his statements was that Treasury had not been involved, and clearly it had.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not clear on what that point of order was.

Kevin Hague: Sorry, Mr Speaker. What I am saying is that the Minister’s answer to my supplementary question is entirely unresponsive to it.

Mr SPEAKER: What I will do—[Interruption] I will ask the House to please be a little more respectful of question time. Because it has been a very noisy day, it has been very difficult for me to hear. I invite the member to repeat his question, and I would like the House to please be reasonably quiet so that I can hear the question and the answer.

Kevin Hague: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Perhaps I should stress the critical words. Why, then, did he claim on 5 March in this House that Treasury had not been involved in the review of the accident compensation scheme, when, in fact, he had received a stream of advice that highlighted Treasury’s involvement in the review?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member set down a written question that is very, very general. There are a number of reviews of ACC. If the member had specific information about a particular review or the like, in order for me to be able to specifically reply on which review and on which statements, the member should have set that information down in his primary question.

Kevin Hague: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need further assistance on this matter. If the Minister answered along those lines, then it would be a perfectly fair answer, because the point he makes is absolutely correct. Where a very general primary question is laid down, members cannot necessarily expect a Minister to have the information required to answer a specific supplementary question. I invite the Hon Dr Nick Smith to answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The situation with the accident compensation scheme has been quite serious, such that there have been a number of reviews. Some of those have involved Treasury; some have not. The member will need to be more specific in order for me to be able to provide an answer.

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My supplementary question highlights the Minister’s answer to my primary question—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot litigate an answer in that way, by using a point of order.

The member asked a question. I gave him the chance to repeat it. I listened very carefully, and the Minister gave a perfectly reasonable answer, given that very, very imprecise and bland primary question. I think that the member has had a perfectly good answer from the Minister.

Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table some documents. The first of these is a Department of Labour accident compensation briefing to the Minister of 23 December, which states: “Treasury are still considering the scope of the review.”

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.

Kevin Hague: The second document is a briefing on accident compensation of 20 February from the Department of Labour, developed in consultation with Treasury, in which the Minister has noted the involvement of Treasury.

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.

Kevin Hague: Perhaps I should seek your advice on the third document to be tabled. It is the Hansard of Dr Smith’s—

Mr SPEAKER: I will not be seeking leave for the tabling of a recent Hansard. I take it it is a reasonably recent Hansard?

Kevin Hague: It is his answer from 5 March, so it is not very recent. It is the answer in which he states that—

Mr SPEAKER: I take it that it is from Hansard this year, and the House already has that readily available to it.

Carol Beaumont: Does he stand by his promise of 24/7 cover for all New Zealanders, or will his new legislation leave out some New Zealanders who do not meet a 6 percent hearing loss threshold, which, according to hearing experts, was plucked from thin air?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, the assertion from the member is incorrect. The 6 percent hearing loss threshold is standard in Australia and in other parts of the world. There are a number of thresholds in other parts of the accident compensation Act, some of which were put in place by the previous Government. This Government does stand by having a 24/7 no-fault accident insurance scheme.

Carol Beaumont: Does he accept that “operational improvements” to the accident compensation scheme, like the voluntary accord with the hearing industry that has saved $10 million in the last 18 months, are threatened by the complete lack of consultation on proposed changes to the workrelated hearing loss provisions?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister to answer the question, did that supplementary question relate to a statement the Minister had made?

Carol Beaumont: Yes, it did.

Mr SPEAKER: Could I ask the member to repeat her question, so that she makes the statement very clear to me. The primary question is about statements the Minister has made in this House. It asks: “Does he stand by all his statements in the House on ACC?”, so the supplementary question must relate to any statements he has made in this House. I invite the member to repeat her question.

Carol Beaumont: Does he accept that “operational improvements” to the accident compensation scheme, like the voluntary accord with the hearing industry that has saved $10 million in the last 18 months, are threatened by the complete lack of consultation on proposed changes to the workrelated hearing loss provisions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can confirm to the member that the cost of the hearing loss compensation part of the scheme’s cover has grown very substantially each and every single year, such that it is one of the areas where, if we are to ensure accident compensation is sustainable into the long term, we cannot sustain the level of increase in expenses, which has been way over the rate of inflation. The corporation ran a deficit of $4.8 billion this year, and that means we need to make changes.

Darien Fenton: Will he listen to the select committee, as he promised in the House yesterday, and will he listen to the Rail and Maritime Transport Union, which appeared before the select committee today, and which says its injured workers, who may be forced to work in non-related jobs for 40 hours a week without adequate rehabilitation, will call for the right to sue employers who have caused their injuries?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the Government, and particularly Government members, who are very capable, are listening carefully to the submissions. But I do say that the status quo for accident compensation is not sustainable. Most of the changes are reversals of unfunded changes made by the previous Government. If that Government had actually budgeted for some of the extra entitlements that it offered and promised, we would not be in this situation.

Industrial Action—Advice to Minister

11. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: What advice, if any, has she received on the reason that thousands of workers all around New Zealand will be taking industrial action and attending rallies tomorrow?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): I have been advised of the rally and understand that the workers involved are seeking better pay.

Darien Fenton: Will she or any other member of the National Government be fronting up tomorrow to the 2,700 hospital and service workers, the many thousands of publicly funded disability support carers, school support staff, hospital administrative staff, and public service workers who will be attending rallies up and down the country to protest about this Government’s wage freeze, which is hurting low-paid workers like them; if not, why not?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I can tell the member that tomorrow I intend spending the day in Taranaki, with a day full of appointments. I could possibly catch a glimpse of the rally up there.

Darien Fenton: Does she think it is fair that low-paid workers, like the thousands who will protest tomorrow, have to accept a zero wage increase, at the same time that the cost of living is going up, the richest chief executive officers in the country are getting massive pay increases, and the Government is planning to make workers pay more for accident compensation and receive less; and is this what the Government calls “taking the sharpest edges off the recession.”?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I say to that member that if the previous Labour Government had not wasted 9 years of golden economic weather, we would not even be having this conversation.

But the harsh reality is that we are in difficult economic times, in which many people have lost their jobs. This Government is borrowing hundreds of millions of dollars a week to maintain service levels, and we want to invest in a smarter, more productive Public Service.

Grant Robertson: How will a wage freeze for low-paid workers in the State sector, such as the ones who protest tomorrow, help to close the wage gap with Australia?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: As that member well knows, this Government is intent on balancing the economy, on taking the sharp edges off the economy. We have opted, as we have said, for a balanced policy that does protect people in the short term from the sharp edges of the recession. The policy lays the foundation for increased economic growth and more jobs, on the road to recovery for our country.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have encouraged us to ask very specific questions, and I asked a very specific question about how a wage freeze such as the Minister is proposing will narrow the wage gap with Australia; she did not address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I absolutely accept the point the member makes that he asked a very commendably to-the-point question—very commendable. The only dilemma I have is the Minister’s actual responsibility for the wage round in the public sector. That is my dilemma in asking for a more specific answer, because the Minister of State Services is actually responsible for the wage round in the State sector. That is my difficulty in asking the Minister to be more precise in her answer. So I apologise to the member, because I do commend him for an absolutely succinct question, but, sadly, it is really outside the Minister’s responsibility.

Government Data Accessibility—Launch of Website

12. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What is the Government doing to make government data more easily accessible to New Zealanders?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs): Earlier this month the Government launched a new website administered by the Department of Internal Affairs called data.govt.nz. The website is a catalogue of publicly available Government data and is a great resource for the public.

This is part of a drive to make non-personal Government data more discoverable, usable, and relevant to all New Zealanders.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What feedback has the Minister had on his new initiative?

Hon NATHAN GUY: There has been a great deal of positive feedback about this new website, in particular from the National Business Review and from people in the UK, USA, and Australia. I understand that Opposition MP Chris Hipkins is also a big fan. He has publicly commented: “I think it would be hugely useful for researchers, journalists, analysts, businesses, in fact just about anyone! Keep up the good work DIA …”.

Mr SPEAKER: It is coming close to the end of a sitting period, so I guess a bit more noise is to be expected.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): During question No. 3 Ms Tolley indicated that she would provide information to me. I ask whether the rule that applies to the tabling of information, which is that it is to be done by the end of the sitting day, applies here, or is that not the case?

Mr SPEAKER: No, it is not—nice try. I am sure the member knows that it is not. It is up to the Minister to follow up on that matter.

ENDS

© Scoop Media