(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 16 MARCH 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Question No. 1 to Minister

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I acknowledge the Speaker’s success at the Helensville Show on the weekend.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: What, the gold medal?

Hon PHIL GOFF: The member Gerry Brownlee would have done well there, speaking of bull.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Always happy to take a blue ribbon, Phil.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is about equal; it is 50-50.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Prime Minister’s Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his comments with regard to mining in the conservation estate?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; and I too, congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your win, but that is because the stock are Belgian blues, and most blue things win, actually.

Hon Phil Goff: Which of the Prime Minister’s own contradictory statements does he stand by: the one where he said last October, “it’s not these big opencast wounds on the landscape that results; it’s a surgical incision in the land.”, or his comments on breakfast television yesterday, where he refused to rule out opencast mining in sensitive protected areas?

Hon JOHN KEY: What I stand by is environmentally sensitive mining.

Hon Phil Goff: Ha, ha!

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it is interesting enough that the Leader of the Opposition would laugh, because I want to quote something back to him. “I think most New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conservation estate available to environmentally sensitive—”

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think my point was probably made by the length of time it took the Prime Minister to sit down after you called him to order. The habit he has of turning his back to you instead of addressing the Chair, as is a requirement under the Standing Orders, is getting worse; some of us are finding it quite offensive.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to members that was a point of order; whether or not they like it, it will be heard in silence. I must say that when the Prime Minister does turn away from the Chair it is very difficult to hear, and the Speaker must be able to hear what the Prime Minister is saying. I could not hear, so I accept the perfectly valid point of order. I ask the Prime Minister not to make quite so much interjection, and to speak to the Chair a little more often.

Hon JOHN KEY: Just to clarify that point, then, I support environmentally sensitive mining. If the member would take note, as I am sure others in the House will, I have a quote: “I think most

New Zealanders want to see a balance. They want to see some areas that are less sensitive in the conservation estate available to environmentally sensitive mining.” That came from Phil Goff.

Hon Phil Goff: Which of the other contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister does he now stand by? Does he stand by the statement that the Government is seeking a so-called step change in the economy by massively increasing the amount of mining in conservation areas, which is what he says to some audiences. Or does he stand by what he says to other audiences, which is that the Government is doing little more than allowing mining in areas where it can legally already occur. Which of those contradictory statements does he stand by?

Hon JOHN KEY: If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do is come down to the House and make up statements that are not—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a straightforward question, and the Prime Minister cannot answer it by saying: “If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do …”. That is not answering the question, as you well know, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think, again, it is a fair point of order. Although with that kind of question any precise answer cannot be expected, to launch straight into something about the Leader of the Opposition is not really to attempt to answer, at all.

Hon JOHN KEY: My point was that if the best that the Leader of the Opposition—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this speaking to the point of order?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, this is in answer to the question. If the best that the Leader of the Opposition can do is make up quotes—[Interruption] There was no quote. He did not have a quote.

Mr SPEAKER: We are getting ourselves into some difficulty. I must say that if Ministers feel they are misquoted, there is certainly nothing wrong with them saying that in their answers. I think there has now been a reasonable answer given to that question. I accept that, all round.

Chris Tremain: How many mines currently exist on conservation land?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can answer that question. There are currently 82 mines operating on conservation land. Over 9 years the previous Labour Government approved 74 new mining permits on conservation land. That included the Pike River mine, which is on conservation land adjacent to and under the Paparoa National Park, by the record. When the mine was approved, the then Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter, said—and this is an actual quote, not one that we made up. He actually said these words: “This mine does represent an intrusion into an area of high conservation values ...”.

Hon Phil Goff: If it is already possible to mine in non-sensitive Department of Conservation areas, why is he proposing to change the law, other than to allow for mining in very sensitive highquality pristine environmental areas?

Hon JOHN KEY: That does not require a law change; what it does require is a willingness to explore the opportunities available to New Zealand.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Government considered a proposal to mine 7,000 hectares on the Coromandel Peninsula, on Great Barrier Island, and in Paparoa National Park, and does it intend to change the law to allow such mining to occur?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Government actually has not seen the final discussion document yet, so that is not the case.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister attack the media and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society as being hysterical instead of simply coming out, coming clean, and telling the country what his Government intends to do in an open and transparent way with regard to those protected areas?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society was being hysterical.

Hon Phil Goff: Why does he not simply rule out mining in national parks and highly sensitive, pristine areas of the conservation estate, like the Coromandel, in line with current law and longstanding practice?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have made it quite clear that it is the Government’s intention to balance both its economic needs and advantages with its environmental responsibilities. I am sure that when the discussion document turns up in Cabinet and then is ultimately released into the public domain, that it will reflect just that.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the real reason that after 4 months he has still not released the discussion paper on mining in sensitive conservation areas that polling has shown him that what National is proposing to do is unacceptable, and that he has panicked and withdrawn the discussion paper?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, every poll that I have seen on proposals to increase New Zealand’s mining activities have shown over 50 percent support. Secondly, 4 months ago was December, and it was not proposed in December.

Metiria Turei: Can the Prime Minister confirm that his Government is planning a $4 million subsidy for the mining industry to survey Kahurangi National Park, Mount Aspiring National Park, and Rakiura National Park on Stewart Island?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to confirm that at this time. What I can say is that when the discussion document is released into the public domain, New Zealanders will have an opportunity to assess its merits.

Metiria Turei: Does he believe that the New Zealand public would accept his Government giving away $4 million in subsidies to mining companies to explore mining in the public’s national parks?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think when the discussion document is released, New Zealanders will have an opportunity to see how balanced the approach that the Government is taking is—that is, the balance between our economic opportunities and our environmental responsibilities. That balance of course is always possible. It reminds me of a quote I saw recently, in relation to Solid Energy and the Stockton mine, which 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,”. That quote, of course, came from Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei.

Metiria Turei: Has he polled the New Zealand public on whether they would accept his Government giving away a $4 million subsidy to mining companies to explore mining in the public’s national parks?

Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Metiria Turei: When will he just swallow the dead rat that his schedule 4 mining proposal is, and reaffirm that schedule 4 land is iconic land that is simply too precious to mine?

Hon JOHN KEY: We will go through the process of releasing the discussion document when Cabinet has had an opportunity to consider it, and New Zealanders will have an opportunity to have their input.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document, which is a question-and-answer document from the time the Paparoa decision was made that shows that the only mining activity in the national park is four 1.5-metre diameter emergency exits, and tracks to them, and that the mine and the roads to it are under or outside of the park—

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member indicate to the House the source of this document. He said it is a question-and-answer document.

Hon David Parker: It is the question-and-answer document that was released by the then Minister of Conservation, Chris Carter. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Economy—Reports

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any recent reports about the state of the New Zealand economy; if so, what do they reveal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes; last Thursday the Reserve Bank delivered its Monetary Policy Statement. The statement highlights the longstanding structural imbalances in the economy. It highlights the need to move away from an economy based on big increases in Government spending and high levels of household borrowing, to an economy based on savings, exports, business investment, and new jobs.

Craig Foss: What does the Monetary Policy Statement project for future growth, and how does this compare with the recent past?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Reserve Bank expects solid growth through the next few years. It projects over 10 percent cumulative real growth for the 3 years to March 2013. This compares with anaemic growth in recent years. In the 3 years to September 2008, before the global crisis began, growth in New Zealand’s real GDP per capita was actually negative. That is, average incomes for New Zealanders were falling at a time when the rest of the world was growing strongly.

Craig Foss: How have reports about the New Zealand economy been received?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is a great deal of interest in these reports about the New Zealand economy, particularly when they come from the Government. Just by way of contrast, I note that the Prime Minister and I addressed a packed audience of over 200 people at the Invercargill Working Men’s Club. The other day I saw a photo on page 15 of the Southland Times showing the Hon David Cunliffe addressing about six people at the same venue.

Job Summit—Jobs Created

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: How many jobs have resulted from his Job Summit held in February 2009?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): That is impossible to tell. In some cases we can estimate the number of jobs created by a Government initiative. For example, over 2,000 jobs were created by the home insulation fund. However, we have no way of knowing about the jobs that were created or saved in the private sector as a result of the summit. All we know is that it was a success, and was welcomed by the parties.

Hon Annette King: Does he recall telling New Zealanders that around 30,000 jobs would be created or saved from the big ideas generated from his Job Summit, when in reality fewer than 3,000 have eventuated, so can he now tell the House on what basis he made that exaggerated claim; was it to look as though he was doing something about the plight of the unemployed, or was it just another kite to be flown?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I would need to see the source document, because we know Labour members come into the House and make things up, as they did in the first question.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take exception to that comment from the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a fair objection and the Prime Minister should refrain from saying that in an answer.

Hon JOHN KEY: We know that from time to time things are not necessarily the way that they are presented in the House by Labour members, who make things up. What I can say—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think maybe because of the angle of the Prime Minister you did not hear him, but I did hear him repeat the comment that you asked him not make.

Mr SPEAKER: I heard the Prime Minister’s comment. He was subject to some interjection and provocation at the time, and I think that under such circumstances members invite reactions from other members.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you now saying your rulings about what you are—

Mr SPEAKER: Let me clarify my point. In answering the member’s question, to me it was unacceptable to make that statement. When provoked by interjection, it is a different matter, and I

saw that as two totally different situations. I maintain that it is unacceptable in answering a question, unless the question is highly provocative, to launch an attack on the questioner or the questioner’s party, and that it why I ruled in favour of the member’s first point of order. The second issue is that the Prime Minister was then faced with a barrage of interjections. I believe that is a different circumstance.

Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a statement of fact. In question No. 1 the Leader of the Opposition came to the House and he did not have a quote from me. He then paraphrased and said that that was what I had said to people. If he comes to the House and says he will contrast quotes from me, he needs to have the quotes; otherwise I can just make up whatever I like that I think the Leader of the Opposition might have said.

Mr SPEAKER: We will not take this matter any further; I have taken it as far as I intend and there is no point in taking it any further. I think both sides have had the opportunity to make points, and there is no point in taking this any further. I have made my ruling that Ministers should not attack questioners in answers unless the question is highly provocative. I think the Prime Minister takes that on board. Likewise, I think it is in members’ interest, when asking questions that are not validated—and supplementary questions are not validated—to be careful not to make claims that are not valid. I think we can all learn from that.

Hon Annette King: Does he recall telling New Zealanders that around 4,000 jobs would be created from the national cycleway, a big idea from his summit, when in reality around 56 have been generated so far, with most of them being jobs that last between 3 weeks and 14 weeks, and does he agree that the whole project is increasingly looking like a bureaucrat’s dream—lots of meetings, lots of schedules being drawn up, lots of writing of reports, but little action?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are 18 cycle trails planned. They are being built in conjunction with local government, and they will cover over 2,000 kilometres of New Zealand’s landscape. They have been welcomed from Kaitāia to Bluff, and if Labour members want to campaign on ripping up the cycle trail, they can go ahead.

Hon Annette King: I raise a—

Mr SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate the member’s point of order. The member asked about jobs—

Hon Annette King: I asked whether he can recall telling New Zealanders that around 4,000 jobs would be created, and then went on to tell him how many have been created so far. He told us about the plans for the cycleway.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member, and I think it would be helpful if the Prime Minister could answer with something about jobs.

Hon JOHN KEY: Over time—well, that is very appropriate—when those 18 cycle trails are completed, my estimate is that there will be a lot more than that.

Hon Annette King: Does he recall telling New Zealanders that the 9-day working fortnight scheme—a big idea from his summit—would be picked up by between 20,000 and 25,000 people, when in reality only around 600 people have been assisted in this way; if so, was saying there is no need to extend this scheme, which he did this week, an admission of the failure of another big idea from his Job Summit?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are a number of things in response to that question. Firstly, it is impossible to know how many jobs were saved because of the 9-day fortnight, because many companies used it as a backstop. Secondly, if fewer people did use the 9-day fortnight, then that is to be celebrated, because it means fewer people were losing their jobs. Thirdly, I remember Opposition members getting up to say the unemployment rate would be 10 or 11 percent. The Government has done a lot better than that and the rate is on the way down, which shows the success of the Job Summit.

Jo Goodhew: What was the reason for holding the Job Summit?

Hon JOHN KEY: As I remember, at this time last year there were very real possibilities of large-scale redundancies and mass lay-offs around the country. The Job Summit played an important part in galvanizing all the different groups who attended behind the issue of preserving jobs. As it turned out none of the worst-case scenarios came to pass, and New Zealanders should be very pleased with that. One of the strongest proponents of the Job Summit was no less than the Council of Trade Unions.

Hon Annette King: In light of the Prime Minister’s answer regarding unemployment, with the Māori unemployment rate having risen from 9.8 percent to 15.4 percent since he became the Prime Minister, what impact does he believe his summit and the $4.5 million spent on a Māori Economic Taskforce are having on these appalling statistics, every one of which is a real person?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are two things to note. Firstly, when a recession occurs, unquestionably it often hits the least skilled workers the hardest, and a lot of Māori fit within the least skilled category. They have been affected; there is no question about that, although the Māori unemployment rate, like all unemployment rates, is falling at the moment. Secondly, one of the strongest things we can do as a country for Māori in order to make sure that they are protected from future recessions is to ensure they have appropriate literacy and numeracy standards. On the back of that, I hope Annette King will lead the charge from the Opposition for there to be national standards to improve the literacy and numeracy skills of young Māori New Zealanders.

Jo Goodhew: What are the prospects for employment over the coming year?

Hon JOHN KEY: We are now facing a different sort of employment challenge than we did a year ago, especially regarding young people and new entrants to the labour market. That is why the Government’s focus remains squarely on jobs. It is my estimate that the unemployment rate will drop this year. Businesses have reported being positive about hiring new staff over the coming year, and we have already seen the number on the unemployment benefit drop by over 4,000 in the last month. This week’s results were a significant improvement on what everyone was expecting.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Annual Temperature Data

4. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: Is NIWA’s principal climate scientist, Dr Brett Mullan, correct when he says in relation to NIWA’s seven-station temperature series that NIWA “had the original data, knew the method of calculations, and we have the answers”, and will he require NIWA to release the method of calculations and the actual calculations, commonly known as a schedule of adjustments, which would allow independent scientists to replicate NIWA’s results?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): on behalf of the Minister of Research, Science and

Technology: Yes, we believe that Dr Mullan is correct. The original data is all available on the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research website, with the exception of data between the years 1907 and 1920 from the Nelson site. But such is our dedication in providing the level of data required by the member that we are digitising that and it will shortly be available. That is the first point. The second point is that the method of calculations is, of course, freely available from the application of any science to Dr Salinger’s thesis in 1981, which established the methodology used. Finally, the answers are given by Dr Mullan in Excel-style of annual mean temperatures in each of the seven locations and in the schedule of adjustments on the institute’s website page entitled “ ‘Seven-station’ series temperature data”, which I will shortly table.

John Boscawen: How is it that Dr Brett Mullan is overseeing a review of the seven-station temperature series and taking 3 to 4 months to do it, when he is on record in the Waikato Times stating that the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research has the original data and the answers and knows the method of calculations, when it should take a competent scientist just a day?

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, we are looking into the matter in even greater detail than before. A study will be completed on all seven locations over the next 4 to 6 months that will involve a large

variety of data and a serious number of calculations. This will all be freely available and will allow independent scientists to replicate the experiment.

John Boscawen: How can the people of New Zealand, when faced with a $1 billion per annum emissions trading scheme tax, have any confidence in the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s claim of anthropogenic global warming when the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research cannot replicate or justify its alarming claims of New Zealand’s warming and the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research’s representatives never picked up the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s mistakes, such as the bizarre claims that the melting of the Himalayan glaciers will lead to half of humanity being starved of water within 25 years and that 40 percent of the Amazonian rainforest will be replaced by savannah?

Hon TIM GROSER: First of all, this Government welcomes further scientific research into all these questions and, any future questions that will no doubt arise. What the public of New Zealand can depend upon is that this Government will take a balanced approach both to its environmental responsibilities and to promoting the further economic growth of New Zealand.

GST Increase—Effect on Families

5. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What recent advice, if any, has he received outlining the effect of an increase in GST on families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): That effect, of course, depends on what other tax changes accompany a proposed increase in GST. During the third term of that member’s Government, GDP per capita dropped—that is, the average income per person fell—which is bad for families.

Hon David Cunliffe: How much will a mum and dad, both earning $48,000, have to pay in additional GST if GST is increased to 15 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot tell the member the answer to that question, because people do not pay GST on all their outgoings. Rents and interest payments do not carry GST, as other payments do. In any case, it makes no sense to make that calculation independent of other aspects of the tax package. I thought that the member would have known not to get excited about this issue, given the lack of excitement around his bus tour.

Hon David Cunliffe: To make it easy for the member, assuming—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will just ask his question.

Hon David Cunliffe: Assuming that both parents fully spend their income and thus are subject to GST on all of it, will this family, with both parents earning $48,000, benefit from a 5 percent cut to the top tax rate; if so, by how much?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, I cannot answer that question, but I say that the member puts the case for axing the tax better than some of his colleagues. For instance, in Invercargill he got a crowd of eight, whereas in Rotorua Phil Goff got only three.

Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to table the document covering that visit to Rotorua, where—

Mr SPEAKER: I have got no idea what that alleged point of order was about. [Interruption] I am on my feet. Just because the member may not have agreed with something that was said, that is no grounds for a point of order. The junior Opposition whip should know that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We had a little bit of back-and-forth previously about things that were verified and things that were not. I think it is appropriate, if the Deputy Prime Minister makes something up in that way, for my colleague to offer to provide evidence to show that he is not telling the truth.

Mr SPEAKER: We have heard enough on this matter. I accept the basis of the point of order from the Hon Trevor Mallard that gratuitous comments when answering questions are not helpful. I think anyone can see they are not helpful. At times, clever comments can add to the good humour of the House, but gratuitous and snide remarks do not help.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the previous two supplementary questions a simple, arithmetic, and very specific question was asked of the Minister of Finance. The first time he responded he alleged it was impossible to answer, for a technical reason. That reason was covered off in the second supplementary question. In both questions, as you previously remarked, he attempted to avoid answering by making comments on a completely separate matter. I seek leave to re-ask a previous—

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answers. He pointed out that no precise answer could be provided to the questions the member asked, because assumptions would have to be made about where the supposed family spent their money. Even the second question the member asked, if I remember correctly, was about two parents earning $48,000 each and spending all their income. Assumptions would have to be made about where that income was spent, because not all expenditure incurs GST. The Minister gave a perfectly fair answer: he pointed out that there was no precise answer to the question.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I concur with your judgment on the first of those supplementary questions, but in the second supplementary question the information was provided to the Minister that in the scenario all of the income was spent on GST taxable items and therefore would be subject to the whole rate. The point is that the Minister, armed with that assumption, made no attempt to even begin to answer the question, and then diverted to comments about meetings in Rotorua. You have previously ruled that Ministers given straight questions are obliged to give straight answers. We have made every attempt to get a straight answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member. Had he lodged that question as a primary question, I would have backed him. But I think it is unreasonable to expect the Minister to do a computation in response to a supplementary question over an example plucked out of the air.

Hon David Cunliffe: Would the Minister compensate the hypothetical family for both the increase in GST and the resulting increase in inflation, estimated by Westpac and the Governor of the Reserve Bank to be a further 2 percent?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will not be compensating hypothetical families; we will be compensating actual families. A range of tools is available, including adjustments to benefit levels, adjustments to national superannuation, adjustments to Working for Families payments, and reductions in income tax rates.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I regret to detain the House, but the question, again, was very specific. It was on the consequential effects of inflation, on which specific estimates have been given within the last week. The Minister did not refer to inflation in his response, which was continuously meaningless.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is asking too much of the answer to a supplementary question. If he thinks back to the supplementary question, he will find that only part of it related to inflation; I think there was a further element to the question. The Minister is not obliged to answer every part of the question. I think the Minister gave a reasonable answer to the question.

Amy Adams: How will the Government make the tax system fairer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Fairness is one of the Government’s principal objectives in making any tax changes. We have inherited—[Interruption] Members opposite should be careful in their criticism, because on their watch they changed tax rates in a way that encouraged people to avoid paying those rates to the extent that, for instance, the number of wealthy New Zealanders paying tax on $1 million did not change in 9 years under Labour, despite the fact that the economy grew. That simply makes the point that for very high-income earners the tax rate was essentially voluntary.

Hon David Cunliffe: Taking the Minister at his word, who would be better off after compensation—a family of two earners on $48,000 or a single earner on $1 million—and by roughly how much?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That will depend on the individual circumstances. For instance, the Government has made it clear it is going to extend the tax base by lifting the effective tax rates on

property. The ownership of property is generally related to people’s level of income. Higher-income New Zealanders will pay more GST if GST goes up, are likely to pay less income tax if income tax rates go down, and could end up paying more tax on property that they own or sell.

Broadband—Improvement of Rural Services

6. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister for

Communications and Information Technology: What improvements has the Government announced for rural broadband services?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Today the Government has confirmed its rural broadband plans, which will provide much faster broadband services to rural people across the country. As a result of the Rural Broadband Initiative, 97 percent of all households will have access to broadband services of at least 5 megabits per second within 6 years, with the remainder receiving at least 1 megabit per second. For many remote and not-soremote rural areas this will be light years ahead of where they are today.

Shane Ardern: What benefits will this bring for rural schools?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Most rural schools will be connected directly to fibre. The rural and urban broadband policies together will mean that 97 percent of schools across the country, reaching 99.7 percent of all students, will be using a fibre connection. The remaining, most remote schools will achieve speeds of at least 10 megabytes per second by other means.

Clare Curran: Why is the Government not investing more money in rural broadband than it is investing in urban broadband so that it ensures that rural consumers receive a comparable service, given his own comments that the different population densities and different economics of providing telecommunications in rural areas makes it more expensive?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The differences between the urban and rural initiatives that the member points out reflect, as I said, the differing population densities of those communities, which is why we are taking a different approach to improving each one. We cannot directly compare the amounts for the urban and rural policies, because the urban amount is for an investment that the Government expects a return on—ultimately, it expects to get its money back, on behalf of taxpayers—versus the Rural Broadband Initiative, which is about providing grants to assist companies in improving broadband coverage.

Shane Ardern: How is the Rural Broadband Initiative being funded?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Rural Broadband Initiative is expected to cost around $300 million over 6 years. It is being funded, firstly, by a $48 million direct Government grant, plus $252 million from a new telecommunications development levy, which will replace the telecommunications service obligation levy. The telecommunications service obligations will remain, including local free-calling. There will be no extra costs to consumers.

Clare Curran: Why should rural New Zealanders have to wait until next year at the earliest for even the first trench to be dug and the first millimetre of fibre to be laid for broadband, despite all the promises from him and the Prime Minister that the broadband roll-out would start last year?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I would have thought that the answer to that question was reasonably obvious: because the previous Government did not get off its collective back legs over its 9-year period and do anything about providing rural broadband.

Auckland, Local Government Reform—Council-controlled Organisations

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

Government: Kei te whakaae ia ki tā Local Government New Zealand i kōrero nei, ka raru te manapori o Aotearoa mēnā ka riro mā ngā council-controlled organisations e whakapau ngā piriona tāra neke atu mō ngā ratonga Kāwanatanga, ā, ka aha tana whakautu i aua whakapae me ērā hoki a mana whenua mō te whakatūranga o te kaunihera hou super-city i Tāmaki Makaurau?

[Does he agree with Local Government New Zealand that democracy will be threatened by handing over billions of dollars’ worth of services to Government-appointed council-controlled organisations; and how will he address that criticism, and criticism by mana whenua, in the establishment of the new super-city council in Auckland?]

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): No. Democracy is not threatened by the Government’s proposals. Council-controlled organisations are service delivery mechanisms. Council-controlled organisations already exist under the local government framework, and many councils use that method of service delivery. For example, the Wellington City Council has nine council-controlled organisations managing water supply, stormwater, the waterfront, and the stadium, as well as the city’s economic and tourism development. Council-controlled organisations are controlled by councils; that is what the name means, and that is what the Local Government Act 2002 provides for.

Hone Harawira: He aha tō te Minita whakaaro e pā ana ki te rangatiratanga i roto i te manapori o te mana whenua, arā, ko rātou ngā kaitiaki o te whenua me te wai, nō mua noa atu? [What is the Minister’s view in respect of the democracy of mana whenua, who have been viewed as the traditional guardians of lands and water since the beginning?]

Hon RODNEY HIDE: They will be recognised in terms of local democracy by the Auckland Council, and, indeed, by the local boards that will be elected across Auckland by the people of Auckland. If the member had attended the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee on the third bill, he would understand how they would operate, and, indeed, would be encouraging Māori to stand for the local boards and for the Auckland Council.

Hone Harawira: He aha tana whakautu ki ngā mānukanuka o te Kaiwhakawhanaunga-ā-Iwi e pā ana ki te kore whakaae ki ngā tūru motuhake Māori, me te whakaaro ki te whakakore i ngā rōpū tautoko mō iwi kē hei te paunga o te toru tau; e ai ki a ia ko te hua e pēnei ana, “the Auckland council will be less diverse than its predecessors, community boards will have little or no decisionmaking power and this will lead to continued disaffection by rather than inclusion of Auckland’s growing diverse communities”? [What response does he have to the concerns from the Race Relations Conciliator that the rejection of designated seats for Māori and the proposed 3- year sunset clause for Pacific and other ethnic advisory boards will mean that “the Auckland council will be less diverse than its predecessors, community boards will have little or no decision-making power and this will lead to continued disaffection by rather than inclusion of Auckland’s growing diverse communities”?]

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I have already commented, as the leader of the ACT Party, on the surprising comments made by the Race Relations Conciliator. I said that I was surprised that a person advocating human rights would be advocating separate seats on a democratically elected council, because the idea that we would deny people an opportunity to stand for certain seats because of the tribe to which they belong or, indeed, because of the colour of their skin is anathema to the ACT Party.

Phil Twyford: Why did the Minster say that the Auckland Council could meet and sack one or all of the directors of the council-controlled organisations—people whom he will have appointed— when he knows that the council would be opened up to massive damages if it sacked directors without reasonable cause?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Because it is true. Council-controlled organisation directors will be appointed by, and be accountable to, the Auckland Council. They are not employees of the council. The directors can be removed by the council. The new council-controlled organisations are likely to be set up as companies and subject to section 156 of the Companies Act 1993, to which I refer the member. There is also provision in the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill for the council to remove directors from Auckland Transport. If any of the council-controlled organisations are trusts, then I would expect the trust deed to set out provisions for the removal of trustees, because they will be existing trusts.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with media commentator Russell Brown, who said this morning in relation to council-controlled organisations that the Minister is telling “flat-out lies about this stuff”?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No, but I do not believe that I have ever agreed with the so-called media commentator Russel Brown, so that should not be a surprise.

Phil Twyford: Does he still think that this is the change Aucklanders want, when his bill is opposed by Len Brown, John Banks, Andrew Williams, Mike Lee, Local Government New Zealand, Michael Barnett, the New Zealand Herald, The Aucklander, suburban newspapers, and a majority of the Aucklanders recently polled by the New Zealand Herald, who said they did not want to be part of his super-city?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes, indeed. I remind the member of what he said about Auckland and about the failure of the previous Government over 9 years to fix it up. I know that Aucklanders are appreciating a Government that takes Auckland seriously and that is addressing the issues of local government. I can tell the member that Aucklanders—[Interruption].

Mr SPEAKER: I think the answer is leading to more disorder. We have heard a reasonable answer from the Minister already, I think.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was just getting started.

Mr SPEAKER: Maybe I should explain myself. I accept that the question that was asked was a political question, and that the Minister was perfectly entitled to give a political answer, but political answers should not go on for ever. When I heard the Minister start to add that he could tell the member further stuff, I felt the House had heard enough.

Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. An interjection made several times from behind me was “Take your pills, Phil.” I think that sort of interjection is not something we should hear in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: When questions and answers become highly political, interjections become more political. If I were to rule out every little interjection like that, the place would become pretty sterile. Although I accept that the member makes a good point and that members should not be unnecessarily unkind to each other, the reality of life is that at times we are less than perfect.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

8. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements regarding health services?

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

of Health: Yes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When the Minister answered my written question No. 00219 by stating that Nelson Marlborough District Health Board was not cutting any services, was he aware that at the same time nurses at Nelson Hospital were publicly raising serious concerns about nursing positions remaining unfilled in order to save money, and that they were saying patient safety at Nelson Hospital was now being put at risk as a result of staff shortages?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I think that member should note that the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board has had a funding increase of $13.6 million under this Government over the last year. Frankly, we inherited a massive problem from the last Government, which means that, yes, there do have to be some changes made to services, because we have to make sure that the funding goes to the places where the public gets the best possible outcomes of health spending.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why are some district health boards looking at making changes to some of their services?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We inherited a situation where the last Government had made $155 million of unfunded health promises, so despite difficult economic times and despite this Government injecting $536 million of new money into district health boards this year, those

boards still face significant challenges. That is why some changes to services have to be made in order to ensure that health funding produces the best possible outcomes for New Zealanders.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he answered my written question No. 00215 by stating that the MidCentral District Health Board was not cutting any services, was he not aware of its plan to cut 24 patient beds from the Horowhenua Health Centre?

Hon Annette King: Is that a cut or a change?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is a change, actually, and the fact is that MidCentral District Health Board—and I can give you the figure here—has had another $26 million increase in funding over the last year. Once again, I say district health boards face a difficult situation, and they have to redirect funding to where it has the greatest effect for the public.

Hon Jim Anderton: Does the Minister support the statements of Ministers Wong and Coleman, respectively, that “The National-led Government is committed to ensuring that people with mental illness … have support services to help them.” and “Early intervention is vital when people are experiencing mental health problems.”; if so, how do those comments square with the imminent closure of the 198 Youth Health Centre, which provides those very services to 4,000 young Christchurch citizens at a very low cost to the health system?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Yes, of course the Minister supports those statements. I am advised that 198 Youth Health Centre is contracted to the Canterbury District Health Board, and that the Minister has personally been in touch with the chair of that board, who is taking an intense interest in the issue. Mr James, who is the chair, advises us that the district health board still has $410,000 earmarked to assist with this service, and discussions are ongoing. So there may be changes, but services are being provided, as that member well knows.

Hon Damien O’Connor: When the Minister answered written question No. 00220 by stating that the West Coast District Health Board was not cutting any services, was he aware of any proposed cuts in the plan being developed by the board and his office; if not, will he now release that plan to the people of the West Coast so they can see what he really is going to do?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I cannot answer the question specifically. I can tell you that the West Coast has had a $4.5 million increase in funding over the last year. It is very interesting that when you talk about what this Government is doing, you like to frame it as “cuts”, but when the previous Government was taking $30 million out of its health budget, those were “changes”. So it seems that when you guys are talking about it, it is fine, but it is different when we are.

Mr SPEAKER: I just remind the Minister that the Speaker was not involved in any of those actions. Right at the end, the Minister said “when you guys” were doing something, and said “you” several times in his answer. I remind Ministers that that is not within the Standing Orders.

Tasers—Issue to Police

9. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister of Police: Has she received any progress reports on the roll-out of Tasers to New Zealand police officers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes. I am very pleased to report excellent progress since the Government’s decision in the last Budget to fund this $10 million project. The police now have 733 Tasers, which have been distributed to police districts throughout the country. Training is under way, and by June 3,500 of our officers will know how to use Tasers. Trials carried out by the police over the past year are already proving the worth of Tasers. In most cases, just the prospect of receiving a 50,000 volt electric shock has been enough to bring volatile situations quickly under control, therefore saving lives.

Dr Cam Calder: What steps will be taken to ensure that Tasers are used appropriately?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Since the trial began last year, the police have introduced and maintained a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation programme. This involves the reporting of all use of force, regular audit processes, the conducting of a medical examination of any person who has been Tasered, and an independent review of those medical reports. I am very pleased that the

police have another non-lethal option in their tool kit. My Government is serious about making sure that the police have the right tools to do their job safely and effectively.

Conservation, Department—Strategic Approach

10. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Does she support the Department of Conservation’s first stated strategic approach “to promote the benefits and value of conservation in New Zealand”?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): Yes.

Hon David Parker: Did she recently tell the Christchurch Press that she was reviewing whether the Department of Conservation should even have an advocacy role, before resiling from that extraordinary position a week later; and does her first statement to the Christchurch Press not indicate her Government’s true intention?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The member is making mischief about the advocacy role. There is no suggestion, at all, that the department’s advocacy role will be eliminated. I am simply looking at whether to improve it. Some out there will say there is not enough advocacy on the part of the department; some say there is too much. I am looking at it.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister agree with the statements about the schedule 4 prohibition on mining that it “at long last puts some pegs in the sand in some very significant areas of New Zealand and says to the mining industries of New Zealand: ‘These are no-go areas.’ ” and that “national parks are not appropriate areas for mining”, as stated in a proclamation to this very House by her colleague, the current Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith.

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I say to that member, again, that that is a mischievous attempt. I quote from our Prime Minister and say that we do need to balance economic benefits we stand to gain from some increased mining activity and the obvious environmental responsibilities that we have.

Chris Auchinvole: What recent examples are there of mining companies making a positive contribution to conservation?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Just last week I accepted a gift, on behalf of the people of New Zealand, of 80 hectares of land on the West Coast from Rio Tinto. It has also entered into a partnership agreement with conservation volunteers, including a 5-year funding commitment to restore that land from the sea to the mountain to help protect the Westland petrel. As another example, Pike River Coal, which is mining in or under the Paparoa National Park, has sponsored a programme to support the recovery of the blue duck, in addition to paying for a fulltime Department of Conservation liaison officer. It also paid a couple to map the kiwi population, and it has a comprehensive pest and predator programme.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister release the changed terms of reference for possible mining in national parks and other conservation areas, which the Prime Minister said yesterday were widened 3 weeks ago; or are there no extended terms of reference, and was that just an excuse to save face?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: As the member is well aware, there is a discussion document pending. When that discussion document is finalised, it will be available for the member to read.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Agricultural Sector Research

11. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently made to progress domestic agriculture greenhouse gas research?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): Earlier this month the Prime Minister officially opened the Government’s Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre based in Palmerston North. The opening of the centre marks a new era for agricultural emissions research, and it will be a key part of New Zealand’s efforts to find practical ways to curb emissions from

agriculture. It is a clear demonstration of this Government’s commitment to responding sensibly to climate change.

Colin King: Why has the Government committed $50 million to funding the research centre?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Reducing agricultural emissions while improving the productivity and profitability of our farmers and growers is one of the biggest challenges New Zealand faces. The centre will support New Zealand in taking a significant step forward in meeting this challenge. Another major aspect of New Zealand’s efforts in this area is of course the Global Research Alliance on Agricultural Greenhouse Gases, which is going from strength to strength; 26 countries have now signed up. My colleague Tim Groser and I will host the first full meeting of the alliance, here in Wellington, next month. The alliance is something for which New Zealand is now receiving considerable praise internationally. The Global Research Alliance is an initiative that all New Zealanders should be proud of.

Hon Jim Anderton: Apart from the $5 million paid to the national centre for agricultural greenhouse gas research—which of course is a continuation of the previous Government’s policy— how much of the $25 million available to the Primary Growth Partnership for primary production research projects has been invested since the last election in November 2008, nearly 18 months ago?

Hon DAVID CARTER: A total of $50 million has been dedicated to the domestic centre. For the Primary Growth Partnership we now have some hundreds of millions of dollars’ worth of applications before us, and they are being processed as we speak.

Hon Jim Anderton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I kept that question very simple. The Minister was asked to say how much had been invested in the Primary Growth Partnership, which has had $25 million available in the 18 months since the last election. He did not answer that question.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me; I thought I heard the Minister give an answer in which he cited an amount of money. I invite the Minister to clarify the situation.

Hon DAVID CARTER: I cannot give the actual amount, here today—

Hon Members: Zero!

Hon DAVID CARTER: —no, it is not zero, at all—because as we speak the investment advisory panel is continually reviewing projects. So as to how much exactly has been spent as of this moment, I would have to come back with an accurate figure for the member.

Whaling—Peter Bethune, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society

12. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Will he call on the Japanese Government to release New Zealand citizen Peter Bethune of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): When Mr Bethune stepped aboard the Shonan Maru 2 he rendered himself liable to Japanese legal jurisdiction, as a consequence of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. That convention recognises that vessels on the high seas are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the flag State of the vessel. The New Zealand Government naturally hopes the Japanese authorities will release Mr Bethune. However, we accept that he has been charged with trespass, and this matter needs to be resolved by the Japanese judicial system. The New Zealand Embassy in Tokyo is giving Mr Bethune the consular assistance that any New Zealand citizen can expect in such circumstances. But just as New Zealand’s judicial system operates independently of all outside direction, we cannot seek to interfere in the judicial processes of another country.

Gareth Hughes: If diplomacy is this Government’s preferred tool of engagement on the whaling issue, why does he not use it to assist the release of New Zealander Peter Bethune?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I have made it very clear on behalf of the Government that the New Zealand Government will provide all consular assistance to Mr Bethune that is appropriate in

the circumstances. I tell the member that I have taken up the matter directly with the Japanese ambassador, and I am satisfied that as a consequence the Japanese authorities are providing every cooperation with our embassy staff in Tokyo.

Hon Chris Carter: Why has he not considered this issue important enough to contact personally the Japanese Minister for Foreign Affairs, Katsuya Okada, to try to resolve it?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I advise that member that I have, in fact, had a telephone discussion with Minister Okada, and I have arranged to have such further telephone conversations with Mister Okada as are required to try to resolve these matters.

Gareth Hughes: What political action would the Government support New Zealanders taking to uphold the ban on commercial whaling?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: That is a question for the judgment of individuals, but the New Zealand Government has made it very clear that it expects its citizens and New Zealand flagged vessels to uphold the laws of the sea and to ensure that they have proper regard for the safety of others in the vicinity.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a copy of the Maritime Crimes Act 1999, particularly section 8 of that Act, which imports the Rome Convention into New Zealand law, suggesting that Peter Bethune was acting lawfully in boarding the Japanese ship to arrest the captain—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought—

Metiria Turei: —because of the destruction of the—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat immediately. She cannot raise a point of order to seek leave to table a document and then use it to argue a case, which she was just doing. That is totally outside the Standing Orders. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

ENDS

© Scoop Media