(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 1 JULY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

Question No. 5 to Minister, 30 June

CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green): I seek leave to table two tables from Statistics New Zealand’s March 2010 quarterly employment survey, which together show that the gender pay gap, at 12 percent, is unchanged since the Government took office.

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

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Budget 2010—Pacific Economic Development Agency

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: How much money, if any, was appropriated to the Pacific Economic Development Agency in Budget 2010?

Hon SIMON POWER (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: As announced on Budget day, the Budget provides $4.8 million over 4 years for Pacific youth training and job opportunities. The intention is for this money to be used by the Pacific Economic Development Agency for those initiatives, subject to the negotiation of a purchase agreement and the usual rules around that. There is no specific appropriation to the Pacific Economic Development Agency in the Budget.

Hon Annette King: What due diligence was undertaken on the one and only shareholder of the private company Pacific Economic Development Agency Ltd before Cabinet approved $4.8 million worth of taxpayers’ money to that company in Budget 2010?

Hon SIMON POWER: Although I do not have immediate details of the specific issue raised, I am sure it was appropriate.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you think it is an appropriate answer for the Minister to say he was sure it was sufficient, when I asked “What due diligence was undertaken … . I did not ask whether it was sufficient or insufficient, but about what was actually undertaken.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member. I think, in fairness, though, the Minister is answering on behalf of the Minister of Finance. He indicated that he did not have the particular details needed to give a more precise answer to the member.

Hon Annette King: Will the private company Pacific Economic Development Agency, allocated $4.8 million of taxpayers’ funding as set out on page 186 of the Budget supporting documents, be required to report to Parliament under section 32A of the Public Finance Act, as an organisation like Plunket, for example, is required to account for its expenditure of taxpayers’ funding; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER: I do not have advice in respect of the section of the Public Finance Act that the member refers to. I know that a contract that is currently in the process of being negotiated will require all of the normal capacity to deliver—ability to collaborate, accountability, and measured outcomes—that any purchase agreement for Crown funding would.

Hon Annette King: Was he aware that the author of the original Pacific Economic Development Agency proposal has stated as recently as 29 June this year that others would have to be engaged to deliver some of the proposals, because “PEDA won’t be able to.”; and why would he risk allocating funding to an organisation that will have to hand funding to a third party, where it will not be accountable to the taxpayer?

Hon SIMON POWER: No.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have quite a number of questions to ask the Minister. I seek leave to hold them over, because the Minister obviously has not come prepared to answer any of my questions.

Hon SIMON POWER: First of all, perhaps the leave should have been put before the question was asked. Secondly, the first part of that question asked whether I was aware of such-and-such. The answer to that question was “No.”

Mr SPEAKER: We do not—[Interruption]—I am on my feet, and members will be silent. The Minister has pointed out that he did answer the question that was asked. But leave has been sought to have the questions deferred. The member is perfectly entitled to seek that leave. Would the member like me to put that leave?

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know how good your memory is. You will recall that his answer was “No.” He is answering on behalf of the Minister, not on his own behalf. So if he has information that the Minister is not aware of that statement, then he must have other information that he has not been able to provide today.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly fair point in pointing out that the Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister, so therefore the answer means that the Minister of Finance is not aware. Unless the Minister wishes to correct the answer, that is how the House will take it.

Hon SIMON POWER: As far as I am aware, no.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Even then, he did not get there.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled that he has answered, and the honourable member may wish to ask further a supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Did he discuss any proposals from the Pacific Economic Development Agency Ltd with the Prime Minister or Georgina te Heuheu after the Prime Minister met with Mr Pereira, Michael Jones, Inga Tuigamala, and National MP Sam Lotu-Iiga in June 2009; if so, what was the outcome of those discussions?

Hon SIMON POWER: I am sorry. I do not have that information with me this afternoon.

Roading, Auckland—Western Ring Route Progress

Dr JACKIE BLUE (National): My question is to the Minister of Transport and asks: “What recent progress has been made on the western ring route in Auckland?”.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to Dr Jackie Blue, but I could not hear her question, because of the interjections on my left. I ask her to repeat the question, please.

2. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Transport: What recent progress has been made on the western ring route in Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): This morning I was pleased to have the opportunity to be in Auckland for the announcement of the start of the tender process for the construction of the Waterview Connection. The New Zealand Transport Agency process will run in parallel with the consenting process, using the provisions of the Environmental Protection Authority to save time and money and to ensure that the views of the local community are heard. This is a

significant milestone towards unlocking the benefits that the completed western ring route will bring by providing relief for Auckland motorists.

Dr Jackie Blue: What progress has been made on the rest of this road of national significance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The New Zealand Transport Agency also announced today that the board of the agency has approved up to $2 billion to complete the remainder of the western ring route, including the construction of the Waterview Connection. Once finished, the western ring route will create 48 kilometres of continuous motorway as an alternative to State Highway 1 through central Auckland. It will also contribute to better links for businesses and freight between key industrial hubs in the cities of Manukau, Auckland, Waitakere, and the North Shore—or, as they will soon be, different parts of Greater Auckland.

David Shearer: Given that he announced in May last year a cost of $1.4 billion for the project using a cut-and-cover option, then in December last year $1.4 billion covering the cost of two tunnels, then in January this year $1.65 billion for the project, and now today’s $2 billion figure, at what point will this project be finalised and the costs cease to go ever up?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The numbers the member quotes are incorrect. The $1.4 billion price tag was in relation to the Waterview Connection as scoped by the previous Government for its cost of $2.8 billion. It was also done in 2009 dollars. The $1.65 billion relates to the full length of not only the Waterview Connection but also the remainder of the western ring route, as I mentioned in the answer to the substantive question, in 2009 dollars. The estimated up to $2 billion is full outturn costs, which was recorded in the statement that was released in January 2010.

Dr Jackie Blue: How are these projects delivering value for money for road users?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This is the largest and most complex roading project ever embarked upon in this country, and there has never been a better time to let the contracts, given industrial capacity both domestically and internationally. I also note that as large as it is, it is not quite as large in one aspect as first proposed by the previous Government. The previous Government’s $2.77 billion price tag in 2009 dollars for the Waterview Connection has been replaced with a cost of $1.4 billion in 2009 dollars for the same scope project, and a total of $1.65 billion in 2009 dollars—or $2 billion out-turn costs, I point out for the member opposite—for not only the Waterview project but also the widening of almost the entire length of the north-western motorway from St Lukes Road interchange to Westgate.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I seek leave to defer this question until the Minister of Finance is back in the House.

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

Budget 2010—Effect on Families Accessing Early Childhood Education

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): To the acting Minister of Finance, how much would someone earning the average wage of $50,00 per annum—

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that this question has been put down to the Minister of Finance, not the acting Minister of Finance.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is quite correct. The member should direct his question to the Minister of Finance.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: After the previous performance, it—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member wants to get to ask his question, he will desist from that carry-on and just ask the question of the Minister of Finance.

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How much would someone earning the average wage of $50,000 per annum with two children in an early childhood education centre with 80 to 100 percent qualified staff be better or worse off by

December 2011, after Budget 2010 tax changes, inflation, and if the full cost of early childhood education subsidy changes is passed through?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The question has actually two parts. Taking the first one, in terms of the tax impact the taxpayer would receive reductions in income tax and increases in Working for Families payments of $32.38 per week. The taxpayer will also face extra GST on spending. The question does not tell us about the household’s spending patterns, but, assuming they are typical, the additional GST would be $20.74 per week, leaving the family $11.64 per week, or $605 per year, better off. In terms of childcare costs, it is impossible to answer, as the question does not specify either the age of the children or their hours of attendance. The Minister notes, however, that the Government has continued to support the 20 hours’ early childhood education scheme for 3 to 5-year-olds, and the restriction on charging compulsory top-up fees.

Hon David Cunliffe: When he claimed yesterday that it was not logical to include all price increases when determining whether Kiwis would benefit from the tax cuts, did he mean that it was not, in fact, convenient for him to show that most New Zealanders would be worse off?

Hon PETER DUNNE: What the Minister of Finance meant was what he said. The figures show that the family in the case put forward by the member will be significantly better off as a result of these tax changes.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can the Minister claim that the vast bulk of New Zealanders will be better off under his tax switch, when he has given them only half the story, with New Zealanders being left out of pocket from trying to cover increases in early childhood education, power, petrol, and car registration costs?

Hon PETER DUNNE: The tax package that comes into effect on 1 October represents the most significant tax changes in this country in over 20 years, and, in fact, sees 73 percent of people having a top marginal tax rate of just 17.5c in the dollar. That is a huge improvement on the situation currently, and will leave significant numbers of New Zealanders substantially better off than they are at present.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is superannuation pre-funding due to recommence when the Government’s Budget returns to surplus, as he had previously promised; if not, why not?

Mr SPEAKER: The question is well away from the primary question, which talks about a particular family. If the Minister wishes to answer, I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity, but that question is well away from the primary question. [Interruption] No, it is too far away from the primary question.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister understand that the $2 billion accident compensation surplus now projected for this year is close to $500 for every New Zealander, and shows that the steep increases in accident compensation levies, pushing up car and motorbike registration fees by between $30 and $200 per vehicle, are plainly excessive and cancel out any tax cuts?

Hon PETER DUNNE: That question is also well outside the original question, and, frankly, it is not one that I am briefed to answer.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Affordability of Public Transport

4. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Will the Government be making buses and trains more affordable so that New Zealanders have options to avoid higher petrol costs introduced by the emissions trading scheme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I am pleased to report to the member that the Government, taxpayers, and ratepayers are already doing what the member requests, providing public transport fare subsidies around the country to the tune of $1.2 billion over 3 years. This equates to an average 54 percent subsidy of public transport fares around the country. The longterm target that the New Zealand Transport Agency is seeking to achieve is an average fare subsidy

of 50 percent, to strike a balance between subsidies per service and further expansion of the range of services available.

Gareth Hughes: Why has the Government introduced a policy that will force regional councils to raise public transport fares, when, according to a New Zealand Transport Agency paper, this will result in fewer people taking public transport?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I will repeat part of my answer to the first question, which is that the challenge with all of these subsidies is to strike a balance between the amount of subsidy per service and the number of services available. The current subsidy is about 54 percent of public transport fares. The subsidy has increased in the last 7 or 8 years. The long-term target out to 2018 for the Transport Agency is to achieve a balance of a 50 percent subsidy, which I think is fair and strikes a balance between the subsidies per service and further expansion of the range of services available.

Gareth Hughes: If fewer people take trains and buses and instead drive their cars, will this increase or decrease our greenhouse gas emissions from transport?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Obviously it would decrease them, but I think the member is arguing against the emissions trading scheme with that question. Presumably as a member of the Green Party he seeks to see the emissions trading scheme introduced to raise the cost of fuel to encourage people to use more public transport. To suggest that that will somehow reverse the situation is, I think, unfortunate logic.

Gareth Hughes: Did I hear the Minister correctly just then? Does he believe that if fewer people take trains and buses and instead drive their cars, it will decrease our greenhouse gas emissions from transport?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It all depends on the fuel efficiency of their cars, I would have thought. The emissions trading scheme is designed to encourage fuel efficiency. We have continuing improvement in fuel efficiency in this country. If the member believes that he will solve the world’s problems by shifting people away from their private forms of transport permanently on to public forms of transport, I say that I genuinely think he would be better to focus on improving fuel technologies and improving the fuel efficiency of private vehicles, as this Government is doing.

Gareth Hughes: How can New Zealanders ever have other realistic choices to get around when his transport policy is skewed towards more motorways, more cars, and more carbon?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I simply do not agree with that assertion, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, as I said, the Government is investing huge amounts of money not just in public transport subsidies but also in the development of public transport services in Auckland and Wellington, with the current projects in improved passenger rail services in those two cities carrying a price tag of around $2 billion. The reality remains that, according to the last census, roughly 83 percent of New Zealanders travel by personal vehicle to and from work, and another 1 percent by motorcycle, with much smaller numbers travelling by train and bus. Given that that is the reality of our transport choices, we want to invest to improve public transport but also we must invest in improved roads for the country.

Gareth Hughes: How can his transport policy be balanced and equitable when only 1 percent of the transport budget is spent on walking and cycling, even though 10 percent of New Zealanders walk or cycle to work?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It does not necessarily follow that just because a certain number of people walk or cycle, they then need special infrastructural improvements. Currently, to my knowledge, there is not a capacity constraint on footpaths and cycleways, whereas there is a capacity constraint in a lot of areas used by personal vehicles.

Gareth Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that he could have spent several million dollars making walking and cycling safer and more enjoyable in every town and city across the country for far less than the $2 billion he is about to spend on only 4 kilometres of motorway, which will ruin an established community in Waterview?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I point out to the member that the Government is investing approximately 50 percent more in walking and cycling facilities in the current 3-year period than was invested by the previous Government in its last term. I refer the member again to the realities of transport in New Zealand. Frankly, the Government has elected to represent the interests of all transport users, and approximately 83 percent of them in this country are road users through private passenger vehicles and motorbikes. They are entitled to a level of investment in the roading system, which, I have to add, they pay for.

Hon Darren Hughes: When the Government decided to change the farebox policy for public transport and thereby increase the proportion that the travelling public pay for public transport fares, did he consult the National Party manifesto on transport policy at the last election, which made no reference to changing the farebox policy? The change is adding another increase to the cost of living for ordinary New Zealanders.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think that if the member researches, he will find that that part of the manifesto did not make mention of many aspects of our transport policy. Regardless of that, it is important to point out to the member that there must be an equitable contribution between ratepayers and taxpayers—that is, road users—and fare-paying passengers for public transport. After consultation, the Transport Agency has determined that that contribution would be about 50 percent in 8 years’ time, which is down slightly from the current 54 percent.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table three documents. The first is a document from a New Zealand Transport Agency board report that shows that requiring higher fares will result in a $64 million congestion reduction benefit to the Auckland region and only—

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

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table another page from the same New Zealand Transport Agency board report, which states that a fare increase—

Mr SPEAKER: Before we go any further, I ask the member whether these documents are all from the same report.

Gareth Hughes: Only two of them are, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: This habit of extending the tabling of documents by tabling one page and then another page from the same report—if the member wants to table a report, that is fine; he should seek leave to do it. But let us not have endless pages.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your concern, Mr Speaker, about misusing the tabling process, but my colleague has said that of the three documents he intends to table only two from the same document. It might be wise advice for the House as a whole, but my colleague has sought leave, Mr Speaker. I suggest that it is wise or at least right to put that leave at this stage.

Mr SPEAKER: I have not denied putting leave to the member; I am just pointing out for the future—and for that member’s attention, too—that I am not happy about the process of taking more time of the House to try to score more political points through tabling individual pages. Leave to table documents relates to providing information to the House. If the document is vast then it is reasonable to seek to table pages, and I apologise if this is a vast document. Could the member please describe the second item he would like to table.

Gareth Hughes: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table another page from the same New Zealand Transport Agency document that states that a fare increase means that patronage will decrease.

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.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table a report from the Greater Wellington Regional Council that states that farebox recovery has nothing to do with efficiency, and the New Zealand Transport Authority provides no evidence to support its fairness objective.

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.

Question No. 5 to Minister

SU'A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere): I seek leave to hold my question over until such time as the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs is ready and available to answer it.

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

Pacific Economic Development Agency—Minister’s Involvement in Process

5. SU'A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Minister of Pacific Island Affairs: Is she satisfied with her level of involvement in the processes prior to her announcement on 20 May 2010 that “The Budget provides $4.8 million in operating funding over the next four years for the Pacific Economic Development Agency”?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) on behalf of the Minister of Pacific Island

Affairs: Yes.

Su'a William Sio: Is the purchase agreement between the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and the private company the Pacific Economic Development Agency ready and finalised by today, 1 July, as she said it would be in her written answer 09338, dated 28 June; if not, will that funding be open to other, more established organisations with a much longer and more successful track record of delivering outcomes for Pacific peoples in Auckland?

Hon SIMON POWER: The advice I have is that this money was provided for in the Budget. The Pacific Economic Development Agency has submitted a proposal, which is now the subject of negotiations towards a formal purchase agreement, which has yet to be signed. Until that happens, no money will be transferred to the Pacific Economic Development Agency.

New Zealand Film Commission—Review

6. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and

Heritage: What progress is the Government making in conjunction with Sir Peter Jackson with the review of the New Zealand Film Commission?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage): Oscarwinning director and producer Sir Peter Jackson has completed his review report, which was publicly released earlier today. The New Zealand Film Commission Act was passed 30 years ago. Since then the face of the local film industry has changed dramatically. The Government instigated the review to ensure that the New Zealand Film Commission is best able to serve the needs of the local industry and community today, and to move forward into the future. On behalf of the Government I express my thanks to Sir Peter for his work. We will now carefully consider his report and recommendations.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What are some of the major recommendations in Sir Peter Jackson’s report?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Sir Peter was emphatic that the industry needs the New Zealand Film Commission, saying that making movies showcasing New Zealand culture and character would be virtually impossible without it. Other recommendations include a more strategic longer-term vision, a larger development team within the commission, and some work on preserving the New Zealand Film Archive. Some of this work is already under way, and I now want to talk to the commission before making further recommendations.

Hon Steve Chadwick: When can we expect a response from the Minister to this review?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I said in my earlier answer, as soon as I have spoken to the chief executive and chair of the commission, I hope to be in a position to make some public announcements on where we go. Having said that, I tell the member that one of the original grounds of the review was the question of whether there needed to be statutory change. On the face of it, I do not think there will need to be any amendment to the current Act.

Attorney-General—Confidence

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Attorney-General: Is he satisfied that he has shown the attention to detail in his role as Attorney-General necessary to maintain public confidence in the office?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): That is not a question for me to answer. I serve at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, and I am humbled and grateful every day that I am able to enjoy his confidence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of that answer, does the Prime Minister’s comment that “he wasn’t attempting to rort the taxpayer but they are stupid mistakes, silly mistakes, and I wouldn’t expect my Ministers to make them.” apply to him?

Mr SPEAKER: The Attorney-General is hardly responsible for anything the Prime Minister might have said. I invite the honourable member to try again.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does he believe that the Prime Minister’s comment that “he wasn’t attempting to rort the taxpayer but they are stupid mistakes, silly mistakes, and I wouldn’t expect my Ministers to make them.” applies to him; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: As I said earlier, I am grateful and humble to serve in the administration of such a great Prime Minister. It goes without saying that everything he says is correct.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he made any misleading declarations as Attorney-General?

Mr SPEAKER: I note the question states “as Attorney-General”; it does not apply to a member of Parliament. So the Minister may answer it in respect of any declarations the Attorney-General has made.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, the member has to distinguish between a declaration made by me as Attorney-General, and any declarations made by me as a member of Parliament. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, I do not think I have ever taken any declaration as Attorney-General.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How does he, therefore, explain his changing description of his relationship with Justice Wilson from “close friend” in November 2009, to “a professional relationship” in December 2009, and to someone he “worked with” in March 2010?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The documents the member refers to are documents he obtained under the Official Information Act, and they are memoranda written by me to the Prime Minister’s chief of staff. I did not think that life hung on an adjective. The reality of the position is that the judge and I were partners in a large law firm 14 years ago, and I have very friendly relationships with all my former partners, with the exception of a few—which, I can assure the member, is probably more than can be said about him and his caucus.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he shown more attention to detail in his official duties than he has in his personal affairs?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think, regardless of whether people think I am a good Minister, people would say I have done my very best as a Minister, and the implication behind that question is pathetic.

Mr SPEAKER: Ministers may not necessarily like questions but they should not pass opinions on them.

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As I recall the question from the member, it had two parts to it. The first related to the Minister in his capacity as Attorney-General, for which he has ministerial responsibility, and he should be answering that part. The second part related to his personal affairs, as I recall the way it was put. He does not have any particular ministerial responsibility for those matters. Given the flick at the end of the question, the flick at the end of the answer was perfectly justified.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear any more on this. If Ministers are not careful, I might invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to repeat his question so that everyone can be quite sure of exactly what he said. I do not think it deserved the Minister saying it is pathetic. Ministers have plenty of opportunity to express a view when answering a question without doing that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he as Attorney-General sought advice on parliamentary law and procedure from a lawyer who specialises in trust and estate planning, as he did in his personal capacity?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have sought no advice from any trust lawyer as Attorney-General.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is not about any of the specific answers or questions asked, but about something I think we need to give some consideration to. It is the absence now of Ministers having to declare their pecuniary interests by way of the Cabinet Manual, and the reliance we now place on the Standing Orders for declarations of pecuniary interests. Previously, before members of Parliament were required to do the same thing, Ministers were bound by the Cabinet Manual to declare their personal financial affairs so that they could be questioned or probed if there was any conflict, perceived or otherwise, with their ministerial duties, and that was right and proper. The Prime Minister was responsible for it. When Parliament decided to have its own register of pecuniary interests for members of Parliament, a perfectly logical decision was made not to maintain two registers but to maintain just one, and that register is now governed by the Standing Orders. A couple of times this week there has been reference to Ministers not having to answer questions about things that they had declared to the registrar of pecuniary interests, because, as I said, they did that in their role as members of Parliament. But before members of Parliament had to do that, Ministers had always been required to do so. Mr Speaker, as a long-serving Minister you will be more familiar than I am with what happened under the Cabinet Manual in those times. It was precisely to make sure that any questions about the way that Ministers were managing their portfolios and their personal financial affairs could be open to transparency and questioned. What I am asking you to do, Mr Speaker, is to think about how that change to being governed by the Standing Orders has the potential to allow Ministers not to answer any questions that they would have had to answer previously under the Cabinet Manual procedures, simply because the matter is now governed by Appendix B of the Standing Orders. My point has nothing to do with the specific thing that we have been questioning the Minister about today; it is just a general point about Ministers and the declarations they make.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised a serious issue, and I fully accept that, and there may be an opportunity to look at it. I have already indicated, I think in response to a point of order from the Hon Gerry Brownlee, that I think the Standing Orders Committee needs to have another look at the way that we define what is required in the register of pecuniary interests. xxxfo But in respect of the particular issue around Ministers, questions can be asked about Ministers and any conflicts of interest that a Minister may have, and the change to the register of pecuniary interests does not change that; it is just that private interests of members are matters that relate to them as members of the House, and they are not responsible for those matters as a Minister. But conflicts in respect of their ministerial role do relate to their responsibilities as a Minister, and nothing has changed in that regard. They can still be questioned about those kinds of conflicts. I am not saying that there is nothing that should be looked at. When the Standing Orders

Committee has a chance to look at these matters, everything can be canvassed. I am not going to rule anything out; it is just that I do not want members in the meantime to feel they cannot question Ministers about conflicts of interest, because indeed they can. Nothing has changed there. It is just their register of pecuniary interests is always as an individual, as a member of Parliament, not as a Minister.

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In reference to the last comment you made concerning where questioning can or cannot occur in respect of the register of pecuniary interests, I took that what you meant was that that occurs in relation to their capacity and responsibility for those conflicts as a Minister. Is that correct?

Mr SPEAKER: Indeed. The actual return made to the registrar of pecuniary interests is made by members of Parliament. I know that it sounds a little odd, when a member is a Minister, to say that the Minister, as a responsible Minister in his or her portfolio area, is not responsible for that return and cannot be questioned directly on it. I am sure, however, that experienced members can find all sorts of ways round the directness of such a question, as was achieved today. But conflicts of interest in respect of Ministers’ portfolio roles are matters that are very much open to questioning.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Balance

8. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: How does the Government’s moderated ETS balance New Zealand’s environmental and economic interests?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The moderated scheme ensures New Zealand does its fair share on climate change, without imposing excessive costs on businesses, farmers, and households. The power and fuel price increases have been halved by the amendments that National passed last year, and we have ensured that trade-exposed sectors with significant emissions are not put at risk, by providing allocations that offset the cost of the scheme.

Dr Cam Calder: What are the thresholds for trade-exposed sectors to get an allocation to offset their emissions trading scheme costs, and how were these changed by the Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The original scheme in 2008 provided support for industry if emissions exceeded 50,000 tonnes. But this disadvantaged small exporters whose emissions were high as a proportion of their costs. National’s changes mean that if any trade-exposed business has costs from the emissions trading scheme that exceed 1 percent, it will be eligible for 60 percent support, and if those costs exceeds 2 percent of the business’s costs, it will be eligible for 90 percent support. These changes have not increased the total amount of industry allocations, because some large emitters face less than a 1 percent cost impact from the emissions trading scheme and are now ineligible for support. Our approach is fairer and will ensure the emissions trading scheme does not impact significantly on the competitiveness of New Zealand trade-exposed businesses.

Dr Cam Calder: Is the claim correct that New Zealand is imposing costs on its businesses and consumers that are not being faced by any of our trading partners?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, that claim is not correct. Of our 10 top trading partners, five have legally binding Kyoto commitments to reduce emissions: the UK, France, Germany, Australia and Japan. The three of these in Europe have had emissions trading schemes for 5 years ahead of us, and are imposing costs on energy that are more than double those of our moderated scheme. A further three countries already have emissions trading schemes in place at state level—New South Wales in Australia, the seven north-eastern states in the US, and the Japanese scheme that covers 455 businesses. There are also other policies, like the mandatory renewable energy targets in Australia that will increase power prices by 7 percent.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand’s climate change representative said, three weeks ago in Bonn, that his Government has no way of knowing what the effect of his emissions trading scheme will be on domestic emissions reductions; and is his latest claim that there will be a reduction in New Zealand’s emissions of 19 million tonnes by 2012 not just another case of him making up the numbers to suit his argument?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The officials who provided the advice on a reduction of 19 million tonnes provided exactly the same evidence to the select committee last year, where the member had the opportunity to question that advice. It is difficult to predict exactly how the market will behave to response to the improved incentives for planting trees and the improvements for investing in renewable energy, but after Labour’s appalling record in terms of deforestation and a trebling in the amount of electricity generated from coal, and in terms of almost a record increase in emissions, I will not be looking to Labour’s example to see how to solve this problem.

Charles Chauvel: Why should householders bear a disproportionate burden of the costs of his emissions trading scheme, as the Prime Minister admitted after Cabinet on Monday that they would, given that those costs will simply subsidise his Government’s plans to encourage more mining, the conversion of dirty lignite into fertiliser and diesel, and more dairying and more roads, all of which will inevitably lead to a major rise in New Zealand’s domestic greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first important issue is that the balance of the emissions trading scheme costs as they fall on business vis-à-vis households has not changed with National’s amendments and is identical to that under the Labour scheme for the Kyoto period. That is absolutely correct. The changes that we have made—

Hon David Parker: What about agriculture?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member who interjected did not listen to what I said. It was about the first Kyoto period, under which neither the Labour nor the National scheme would have included agriculture. The second point that I find extraordinary is that Labour members complain about the impacts on power and petrol prices, when they have advocated a scheme that would put prices up a whole lot more than they will be.

Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member opposite called another member in here dishonest during the previous speaker’s answer. That will bring disorder to the House. I am not sure whether you heard the comment. It was made by one of the members to your left, obviously.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me; I did not hear it. If a member did call someone dishonest, I would ask him or her to—

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not trying to repeat what I said, but I am trying to gauge whether it was an error, and if it was an error I will certainly withdraw. I said the selective use of dates was intellectually dishonest.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member, and I think we go too far if we rule out intellectual dishonesty. I think it is a widely used term and if members take offence—[Interruption] I ask members to be reasonable, but if members want to avoid being accused of that, then they should think a little more clearly about what they are saying.

John Boscawen: Does the Minister agree with Arandee Industries founder and executive director Ron Greer that his business, employing 13 staff, would not survive the emissions trading scheme if it stayed in New Zealand and is therefore moving to Singapore; and are research and development industries not just one example that proves ACT’s point that the emissions trading scheme is costing New Zealand jobs, for no environmental gain?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point in respect of the environmental gain is that the projections are that the emissions trading scheme will reduce New Zealand’s emissions by 19 million tonnes—I do not think anybody would say that was no environmental gain. The second point is that any businesses that have a significant portion of emissions—for example, costing them more than 1 percent—are eligible for support under the changes that National made in order to ensure that their competitiveness is not adversely affected. I would be interested to see the figures from that specific business.

John Boscawen: What does the Minister say to the 13 employees of Arandee Industries who will not be receiving this year’s tax cuts, because they have lost their jobs due to National’s emissions trading scheme?Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I have seen no evidence that would suggest that the specifics of that business would have been impacted on by costs to the point where

that would compromise its competitiveness. If the member would like to provide me with the data, I would be happy to look at it. If the emissions trading scheme has a significant impact, then that business might well be eligible for an allocation on which its competitiveness would not be affected.

Charles Chauvel: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: Is it a point of order?

Charles Chauvel: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to please use a big voice. I cannot hear a thing that he is saying.

Charles Chauvel: I am sorry. I think it was the microphone. It was not on, so—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member is now further down the back of the Chamber, and he will need to learn to use a bigger voice.

Charles Chauvel: Yes, it is difficult being further from “God”; that is certainly true.

Chris Hipkins: He hasn’t got a problem with that!

Mr SPEAKER: All I can say is that it is better than what I have heard another Speaker referred to as in recent weeks.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a 2009 Ministry of Economic Development report showing that the vast majority of new electricity project consents approved in New Zealand by the end of 2008 were from renewable resources.

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

Question No. 9 to Minister

Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato): I seek leave to hold this question over until the Minister of Energy and Resources is present and able to respond.

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

Power Prices—Measures to Address Excessive Increases

9. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: What action other than persuasion will he take if Contact Energy’s proposal to raise prices by 10 to 17 percent in Dunedin, as referred to by the Prime Minister on Monday, is followed by similar rises from other power companies?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Energy

and Resources: The Government is closely monitoring power price rises. We note that Meridian Energy, Genesis, and TrustPower have signalled no immediate price increase for consumers, and they collectively amount to over 50 percent of the market share. Contact Energy, which has a 25 percent market share, has announced an increase of 3.2 percent, and Mercury Energy, which has a 23 percent market share, has announced an increase of 3.3 percent. The Commerce Commission has put power companies on notice of the risk of prosecution if they misrepresent the price impact of the emissions trading scheme, and the Government welcomes the commission’s firm approach.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: How can consumers be confident that his persuasive powers will keep power prices down, given that Genesis, Contact Energy, and TrustPower all hiked prices by between 5 and 8.4 percent shortly after his warning to the electricity industry last year that it could not continue making large price increases?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The key work that the Government is doing to constrain power prices is to increase the competitive pressure on them. I think that the huge increase in the amount of switching between the companies—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, Max Bradford all over again.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: To hear Mr Mallard interjecting, given that power prices went up by 72 percent when he was a Minister, shows the intellectual hypocrisy on the Opposition benches.

Chris Auchinvole: What advice has the Minister received regarding power price rises since 2000? In particular, what impact would the emissions trading scheme have had on power prices had it not been moderated?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that power prices rose by 72 percent—

Hon Member: How much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —72 percent when Trevor Mallard was a Minister. Furthermore, they would have increased by 10 percent this year under the emissions trading scheme that Nanaia Mahuta voted for. Thankfully, there was a change of Government, and the impact of the emissions trading scheme on consumers has been more than halved.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister stand by his suggestion that Kiwis struggling to pay higher power bills should shop around; if so, where does he suggest that they shop to avoid the 2.5 percent increase in power prices due to the impending GST rise?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I draw consumers’ attention to the power companies that have announced no increase in their power prices.

Hon Annette King: Today.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Annette King interjects. I just remind her again that she was absolutely silent during the 9 years that she was a Minister, when power prices increased by 72 percent.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I let it pass in my first supplementary question, but this question was very specific and the Minister failed to answer it.

Mr SPEAKER: I think, in fairness, that when members interject, Ministers are at liberty to pick up on those interjections. Otherwise as Speaker I would be all the time getting to my feet to stop people interjecting. I do not want to do that; I want the House to be able to live. But that is the risk members run. If they interject, a Minister may pick up on it, and that is perfectly OK.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Please show some courtesy to the member asking the question.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm that residential power prices have increased since 2008, and that a disparity remains between residential and business price increases; if so, what steps will he be taking to control residential power prices?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the increases over the last 18 months are about 5 percent. That is significantly less than what they were in the preceding 8 years. But the Minister is determined to make further steps. That is why there is an important bill before this Parliament to make significant changes to the sector, maximise those competitive pressures, and, particularly, make it easier for consumers to change power companies. The advice I have, for instance, for the consumers in Dunedin who are with Contact Energy is that they should look at the options to switch to one of the companies that have not put up their prices.

Nurses, Enrolled—Expansion of Scope of Practice

10. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Health: What progress has been made on expanding the role of enrolled nursing in New Zealand?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Over the past few years the role and status of enrolled nursing have been marginalised in New Zealand, with many hospitals no longer willing to employ them. With enrolled nurse numbers dwindling to just over 3,000 practising today, one of the first actions taken by the new Government was to work with the Nursing Council and the New Zealand Nurses Organisation to restore and expand the scope of enrolled nurses in the public health service. The Nursing Council has now issued a wider scope of practice, and this has been welcomed by the health service.

Michael Woodhouse: What areas of the health service will enrolled nurses now be able to work in again?

Hon TONY RYALL: A new curriculum will be put in place next year as will a new 18-month diploma for enrolled nursing. By completing competence assessments over the next year, the new scope of practice will allow enrolled nurses to again work in surgical theatres, acute services, and mental health. This is an example of how the New Zealand public health service can be innovative and flexible in better meeting the needs of New Zealanders after the 9 years of failure under members opposite.

Hon Annette King: Does it surprise the Minister of Health to learn that it was a National Government that stopped funding and training enrolled nurses in the 1990s, and it was a Labour Government that brought back second-tier nurses and started training them again so that some are now available to take up a greater role?

Mr SPEAKER: We have debates about how responsible Ministers are for stuff that went on in the 1990s, but I guess the question was whether the Minister was surprised, so an opinion is being sought.

Hon TONY RYALL: It surprises me that that member opposite fails to realise that she was in a Government that told enrolled nurses that they are not entitled to be called that, that they are to be called nurse assistants, and that they cannot work in hospitals. This Government has changed that.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a document from the Nursing Council, which decided what enrolled nurses would be called. The decision was not made by the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will not debate the matter. Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. [Interruption] I beg your pardon; there is objection. I misheard. I guess on this occasion it is the Hon Tony Ryall who should use a bigger voice. This place was built to carry human voices without the use of microphones, and I should be able to hear a member if he uses a loud enough voice.

Question No. 11 to Minister

JACINDA ARDERN (Labour): I seek leave to hold my question over until such time as the Minister for Social Development and Employment, or anyone other than Simon Power, is available to answer.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.Youth—Education and Training

11. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and

Employment: Does she stand by her statement in the House last week that “some of our preliminary results show that around 7,000 of …16 and 17-year-olds are not touching any sort of programme or training”?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development

and Employment: Yes. That number includes about 3,300 young people who are receiving a benefit of some sort.

Jacinda Ardern: Why did she limit her answer to 16 and 17-year-olds? Is it because the figure for 15 to 19-year-olds not in employment, education, training, or any form of benefit is much larger, at 34,900?

Hon TONY RYALL: The reason she gave that number is that she has a priority concern for that group of people to ensure that they are able to be provided for by the system.

Jacinda Ardern: If this is an area of priority concern, can the Minister name the initiatives— excluding Job Ops and Community Max, which focus on young people who are on a benefit—she is implementing to assist the tens of thousands of young people who are not on a benefit, not in a job, and not in education or training?

Hon TONY RYALL: I can tell that member that many programmes and services are available for those young people. I can name the work that the Minister for Social Development and

Employment is doing to have a stronger economy in New Zealand through lower personal taxes, less regulation, and a commitment to a growing economy.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she have any preliminary results showing which of her policies has been the most effective in tackling Pacific youth unemployment?

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member, but I ask both Chris Tremain and the Hon Annette King to desist the interjecting across the front of the House. We cannot hear Carmel Sepuloni. I ask her to please repeat her question.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does she have any preliminary results showing which of her policies has been the most effective in tackling Pacific youth unemployment?

Hon TONY RYALL: I do not have that information with me.

Carmel Sepuloni: How does she reconcile any of the actions she has done with Bill English’s statement that the reason the $4.8 million for the Pacific Economic Development Agency was necessary was because nothing was happening in this area in relation to Pacific youth unemployment?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am sure those comments were made with reference to the neglect of the previous Labour Government.

Pest Managment—Proposed Plan of Action

12. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister for Biosecurity: What recent steps has the Government taken to improve pest management in New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister for Biosecurity): The Government has just released for public consultation the Pest Management Proposed National Plan of Action: 2010-2035. This document suggests key improvements needed for New Zealand to provide the best pest management system possible for the next 25 years. A key change will be the requirement for the Crown to be bound by regional pest management strategies, ensuring it meets its good neighbour obligation. This plan delivers on yet another election promise from National.

Jacqui Dean: What has been stakeholder reaction to the release of the plan?

Hon DAVID CARTER: It has been hugely positive. It has included Local Government New Zealand saying: “Landowners are the winners.”, the Greater Wellington Regional Council saying: “The active engagement of the Crown will make our efforts significantly more effective.”, Environment Waikato congratulating the Government on progress, and Federated Farmers saying: “When it comes to regional pest management strategies, it’s a very promising step …”.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Ka pēhea te whakatinana i te ngākaunui o te National Plan of Action “ki te whakauru i ngā mōhiotanga me ngā whakaritenga o te tangata whenua ki ngā mahi hopu kararehe pōrearea”? [How will the national plan of action's commitment to “incorporating tangata whenua knowledge and practices in pest management” be implemented?]

Hon DAVID CARTER: The plan of action proposes the establishment of a Māori advisory committee to support engagement with Māori on all pest management issues.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Ko wai ka uru atu ki te mahi whakatinana i te ngākaunui i roto i te mahere ki te whakarahi ake i te kahapupuri e rua nei ōna āhua, arā; te whakapakari i ngā pūkenga o te tangata whenua ki te hopu kararehe pōrearea; te whakapakari hoki i ngā pūkenga o ngā pokapū kāwanatanga e pā ana ki te tikanga, ā, tua atu hoki, me pēhea te whakatū māngai mō te tangata whenua e whakangāwari? [Who will be involved in actioning the commitment in the plan to two-way capability building— that is, skill development in pest management for tangata whenua, and skill development in tikanga for agencies—and how will the representation of tangata whenua be facilitated?]

Hon DAVID CARTER: All stakeholders will be involved, but there will be particular emphasis on the work of the Māori advisory committee.

ENDS

© Scoop Media