(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 29 JULY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economic Growth—Government Measures

1. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to achieve faster economic growth and to help hardworking New Zealanders get ahead?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): A comprehensive range of measures. The Government has taken a long-term and vigorous view about fixing this economy after the damage done by the previous Government, and those measures include across-the-board income tax cuts, company tax cuts, investment in roads, broadband, and electricity transmission, cutting red tape, science investment, providing more money for tourism, getting aquaculture going again, trade negotiations, primary sector growth partnerships, controlling debts and deficits, and fixing the Resource Management Act, among others.

Chris Auchinvole: What reports has he seen about the economy’s current performance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has maintained for some time that in an economy that is trying to reduce debt, the recovery will be a bit bumpy and patchy across sectors and regions. This morning the Governor of the Reserve Bank noted that he expected “respectable” GDP growth. The most pressure in the economy currently seems to be on the small and medium sized enterprise sector, which has been expecting New Zealanders to start spending again, but that spending has been slower. The sector is having some trouble, therefore, in raising more debt from the banking sector.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is he concerned about today’s warnings from economists that the economy is not rebounding as expected, with three consecutive drops in business confidence and very low business investment; and can he confirm that for many New Zealanders the recovery has failed to make its way into jobs and wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said before, the Government has said for some time that in an economy that is trying to reduce debt, the road to recovery will be bumpy and the recovery will be somewhat patchy. I would, however, refer to the fact that although the Governor of the Reserve Bank has noted that the outlook has softened to some extent, he still expects “respectable” growth of over 3 percent, which is significantly higher than the growth rates in the last 2 or 3 years of the previous Labour Government.

Chris Auchinvole: What challenges does the economy face as the Government continues to build the recovery and tilt the economy towards savings, investment, and exports?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think there are several significant headwinds for the economy as it recovers. The first is that New Zealanders are being very careful with their spending and are not rushing back to the housing market, which means that the recovery will be a bit slower than is often the case after a recession. Secondly, the exchange rate has not dropped when usually it does, which

means that our export sector will take a bit longer to get going. Thirdly, the world economy in which we borrow our money and sell our produce is undergoing a somewhat fragile recovery, with risks that it could slow down.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree that for most New Zealanders this recovery is so bumpy that it has fallen into a hole the size of Gerry Brownlee’s mine—mine with an “e”, not a “d”—and that based on his own forecasts, New Zealanders will face 3 years of price increases outstripping wage increases, leaving New Zealanders further behind their Australian counterparts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I wish that the recovery was as big as that member’s ego, but unfortunately it is not.

Mr SPEAKER: We have had our fun; the Speaker is on his feet. We have had our fun, and I call Chris Auchinvole.

Chris Auchinvole: What reports has he seen summarising some of the challenges facing the economy, and what are the recent trends in these areas?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen one report that said the economy is unbalanced because we borrowed too much from overseas lenders, building a huge national debt. That is correct. Our total debt to the world has risen from $100 billion in 2000 to $170 billion in 2008. I would like to thank the Opposition spokesperson on finance for pointing out in his blog these major shortcomings in Labour’s economic management, because the imbalances in our economy and the resulting unemployment and slow income growth are partly due to the mismanagement of the previous Government.

Vulnerable Citizens—Prime Minister’s Statements

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “this Government is not prepared to turn its back on our most vulnerable citizens when they most need our help”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

Hon Annette King: Does he receive information from his Ministers on the impact his Government’s policies are having on the most vulnerable New Zealanders? For example, has the Minister for ACC told him that the changes to the travel policy for accident compensation carers is denying a 91-year-old woman 1 hour a day of home support that is desperately needed, because the person providing the care would end up receiving $7 an hour as payment and cannot afford to take the job?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, the Prime Minister does regularly receive advice from Ministers about the impact of Government policies, and there has been consistent advice that the Government’s decisions to retain all transfer payments, such as Working for Families and national superannuation, and, in fact, to increase both of them in the Budget, are having a positive impact on the most vulnerable citizens. In terms of individual cases, the Prime Minister expects Ministers to look into those in detail, sometimes with the help of the Opposition, to make sure that New Zealanders are getting a fair go.

Hon Annette King: Has he been told about the growing concern being expressed by the Disabled Persons Assembly at his Government’s policies as they impact on disabled people, leading the organisation to say this week that the overall picture for disabled people’s welfare looks disturbing, and that the Government’s changes in the health area are likely to have negative implications for disabled people?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, the Prime Minister has the benefit of Ministers who keep him informed and are very much attuned to front-line services. The member will be aware that the Government has committed to reducing the large, sprawling back-office bureaucracy built up under Labour and to moving those resources to front-line services.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister of Finance discuss with him the decision to freeze funding set aside to establish safe drinking-water in small, vulnerable New Zealand communities; if so, was

this unfortunate decision made by his Minister the reason New Zealand did not support the nonbinding UN resolution seeking that clean drinking-water be a basic human right?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The New Zealand Government makes decisions about water quality in New Zealand—not the United Nations. In fact, that fund would have been frozen along with just about all other items of Government expenditure except for the vital services of health and education. As a representative of probably more of those small rural communities than anyone else in the House, I have to say that many of them have found the Government’s regulation onerous and expensive.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. He aha tāna whakautu ki te wero o te ripoata What Works Counts nō te rōpū Child Poverty Action Group e kōrero ana, nā te tirohanga whāiti o te Kāwanatanga ki te pūmahi o ngā mātua, kua mahue atu ngā tamariki ki te taha; ā, ka aha ia ki te whakaruruhau i ngā tamariki o ngā whānau e kainga ana e te pūtea mimiti? [What is his response to the challenge from a publication by the Child Poverty Action Group, What Works Counts, which suggests that the Government’s single-minded focus on parents’ work status sidelines the needs of children; and what mechanisms are being put in place to protect the needs of the children in families who are vulnerable to falling income?]

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We do not agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that the Government is single-mindedly focused on parents in work—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it is unusual to challenge the translation, but some of us try to follow both languages, and in some cases it does become clear when a clause of the member’s question was not interpreted.

Mr SPEAKER: The member used both words there; it is an interpretation that members are receiving. Obviously, the interpreter felt that he had interpreted the question that was being asked.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be that you could rule that a whole clause of what the member said was irrelevant, but I do not think it is right for the interpreter to do that. He finished before Mr Flavell did.

Mr SPEAKER: Certainly, his voice finished before Te Ururoa Flavell’s did, but I cannot determine whether he had completed his interpretation of the question being asked, and it is very difficult for me to rule on that. I can only assure members that our interpreters do their very best to deliver the question. I think the Minister heard sufficient of the question to be able to answer it, and I invite the Minister to continue to answer it.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government does not agree with the Child Poverty Action Group that it has a single-minded focus on parents in work. I think the coalition is referring to an evaluation of Working for Families that attempts to assess whether the Working for Families system has some benefit for families. The Government has set up the Welfare Working Group precisely to address the issues of longer-term dependency—that is, those people who have been shut out of the workforce for many years now. I am advised that, as background to that work, over 80,000 New Zealanders are now classified as being long-term beneficiaries. We cannot afford to waste that much capacity in this economy, or to condemn those people to the less than full lives that they can live on a benefit for years, year after year.

Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, is it the Government’s intention to increase payments for the children of beneficiaries, many of whom are living below the poverty line?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, in the first place the Government has done that; the last Budget increased those payments by indexing them. Secondly, that question is a bit rich coming from a member of a Government that was in office for 9 years and had the biggest surpluses that New Zealand Governments have ever had. Why did it not do it?

David Garrett: Does he agree that prison is no place for a 69-year-old man suffering from Parkinson’s disease and probable dementia, and what steps is he taking to ensure that such people can be remanded to a more suitable place?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand that the Minister of Health has been briefed on this case. Information related to it cannot be released because of privacy considerations, but the public can be reassured that the Ministry of Health is acting appropriately and has ample resources to respond to this case.

Brendon Burns: Did the Government refuse today to support the UN resolution on safe water because at present about one in six vulnerable New Zealanders does not drink water that is known to be safe, or because a Government bill proposes to privatise ratepayer-owned water supplies for up to 35 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has to focus on the significant deterioration in water quality that occurred under the previous Government. Many of our rivers can no longer be swum in and the water is not potable, after 9 years of a Government that was meant to be focused on sustainability and the environment. We take that responsibility very seriously. It needs more direct action than some UN resolution.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Hei tā te United Nations special rapporteur a Professor Anaya, i kōrero nei, kei te pā atu ngā raru ōhanga, raru hapori hoki ki te iwi Māori, ka aha te Kāwanatanga ki te whakatika i tēnei āhuatanga? [The United Nations special rapporteur, Professor Anaya, identified that the Māori people suffered extreme disadvantage in social and economic conditions; how will the Government rectify this situation?]

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is working closely with the members of the Māori Party and a number of other leaders in the Māori community to make progress in this respect. The measures that the Government is focusing on currently are, firstly, getting on with Treaty settlements, and that has become a very positive and progressive process; and, secondly, the introduction of Whānau Ora, which gives us the opportunity to get much closer to the people and the problems that are holding so many Māori families back. I must say again that that has generated significant positive momentum in the Māori community, who are finding out that they now have a Government that respects their desire to take some control over their own destiny.

Roading, Tauranga—Eastern Link Road Progress

3. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Tauranga Eastern Link road of national significance?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I was in Tauranga this morning to announce Cabinet’s decision to approve tolling on the Tauranga Eastern Link—a 23-kilometre 4-lane highway from Te Maunga to Paengaroa. It bypasses Te Puke and is one of our seven roads of national significance. This approval, which is based on very strong local support, will allow construction to begin early next year—7 years earlier than originally planned. This project will bring huge economic and safety benefits to one of New Zealand’s fastest-growing regions.

Simon Bridges: What public support was there for tolling this new road?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The New Zealand Transport Agency undertook comprehensive community consultation last year with regard to tolling. I am pleased to report that over 90 percent of respondents either conditionally or unconditionally supported tolling to advance the project, and Cabinet took this high level of local support into account. Tolls are proposed to be $2 a trip for cars and motorcycles, and $5 for heavy vehicles. Once the borrowing has been repaid after 35 years, tolls will be removed. The existing State Highway 2 route through Te Puke will remain as a free alternative for drivers.

Simon Bridges: What benefits will this project bring to residents and the economy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Let me count the ways. It is estimated that the new road, by avoiding Te Puke, will shave up to 24 minutes off travel time for a return journey on this very busy stretch of highway. This will substantially boost productivity and improve access for exporters to the Port of Tauranga. In addition, its new alignment will bring significant safety gains over the current road,

which is ranked second-worst in New Zealand per kilometre for fatal and serious injury crashes by the KiwiRAP programme.

Inflation—Treasury Forecast Year to March 2011

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How much does Treasury forecast inflation will rise to in the year to March 2011, and what policy changes will contribute to this rise?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): In Budget 2010 Treasury forecast inflation at 5.9 percent for the year to March 2011. However, the inflation of just 0.3 percent in the June quarter was well below Treasury’s quarterly forecast of 0.7 percent. As a result of that, Treasury now expects inflation to peak at close to the Reserve Bank’s forecast of 5.4 percent. The member will be familiar with the one-off factors: the 2.5 percent increase in GST, which will be more than compensated for by tax cuts; a rise in tobacco excise, which the Opposition supported; and an amended emissions trading system, which adds only half the price increase of the version that the previous Labour Government supported.

Hon David Cunliffe: On the back of an inflation rate that is to be greater than 5 percent next year, is he concerned that today’s increase in the official cash rate will add further pressure to the stretched budgets of families, who are struggling to stay on top of price increases in food, petrol, and power—which have been affected by his emissions trading scheme—and, of course, struggling to stay on top of more GST on everything?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a bit rich to hear Labour going on about the price impact of the emissions trading scheme, when its scheme was to have had precisely double the impact of the Government’s scheme.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for Labour Party policy. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Paula Bennett that when the Speaker is on his feet, or first when a point of order has been called, she must not continue to interject. The dilemma I have about pulling the Minister up is that the member, in asking his question, talked about the Government’s emissions trading scheme. Once the member introduced that into his question, I could not stop the Minister reflecting on the changes from the emissions trading scheme introduced by the previous Government. I cannot realistically stop the Minister from doing that. The remedy is in the member’s own hands when he asks his question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Firstly, the fact is that after 1 October a family will be $25 a week better off after the GST increase is taken into account. Secondly, somehow that member’s party increased inflation to 5.1 percent in 2008, with no compensation for anything.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister explain to New Zealanders who will face increasing mortgage payments why the economy is strong enough to raise interest rates but not to lift their wages and salaries as fast as Australia’s, when that was his Government’s No. 1 promise to New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a question that the member should direct to the Governor of the Reserve Bank. I am surprised that he did not know that that is who sets the overnight cash rate.

Aaron Gilmore: Has he seen any reports on how current inflation compares with that in recent years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the years up to 2008 inflation was regularly above 3 percent, and it peaked at 5.1 percent in the year to September 2008. No one got compensation for that. I will also point out that although the official cash rate today has gone to 3 percent, it peaked in 2008 at 8.25 percent, and first mortgage and floating mortgage rates were almost 11 percent. That was on the back of electricity price increases of 72 percent in the 9 years to 2008. So if anyone knows about inflation, it is the Labour members, and they know how to push it up.

Hon David Cunliffe: It is a shame that the Minister did not major in economics, rather that history. Given today’s increase in the official cash rate, together with a fall in business and consumer confidence and concern from the Reserve Bank governor and economists, which is true: that the recovery is aggressive, as John Key has said, or bumpy, as the Minister has just told the House?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the consensus view is pretty much as I said earlier on. In an economy that is trying to de-leverage and reduce debt, and in a world that is trying to reduce debt, New Zealand is going through a fairly orderly transition to a world where we live within our means. We have been able to do that with relatively respectable growth, as the Governor of the Reserve Bank has said, of 3 percent, and with unemployment now down to around 7.5 percent. We hope, of course, to make faster progress than that if possible.

Building Sector—Reduction of Bureaucracy

5. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Building and

Construction: What progress has been made on cutting red tape in the building sector?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): More good news! In fact, it is yet another stitch in the rich tapestry of success that this Government is having in building a brighter future. Earlier this month I announced the first of two MultiProof approvals, which are consents that volume builders can apply for. Once they have that consent, they can build their building as many times as they wish. I want the House to know how good it was to issue the first of those approvals, in Palmerston North. The company reported that it saved 45 percent of the cost of getting the consent for the building, and it got the consent in 3 days rather than the statutory 20 days that it normally takes.

Jonathan Young: What other measures is the Government planning to streamline consenting and to reduce costs in the building sector?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: My personal modesty would stop me from going through the entire list of the gains, but several measures are under way to get cheaper buildings in New Zealand while maintaining quality. The main one is the review of the Building Act, which is moving towards simpler, clearer, and more flexible building standards.

Health Services—Cuts

6. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Is he comfortable with the numerous announcements of health cuts in the last 20 months?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Contrary to the member’s assertion, the health budget in the last 20 months has increased by over $1.3 billion. There always have been, and always will be, changes to services, reflecting changing needs, but this Government is moving resources from the back office to improve front-line services, and engaging doctors and nurses in that leadership.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Can he confirm the reported comments of Lindsay Smith, clinical business manager at Dunedin’s Ashburn Clinic, that the clinic will drop 9.7 full-time equivalent staff due to a shortfall in funding; if so, is this work currently being done by those staff back room or front line?

Hon TONY RYALL: No, I am not able to confirm that quote.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Can he confirm the reported comments of resident doctor Julia Taylor, who says that weekend and night shifts at Christchurch Hospital are often understaffed, that it is stressful and unsafe for both doctors and patients, and that it is only a matter of time before a major incident occurs; if so, what, if anything, will he do about it?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have spoken to Alister James, chairman of the Canterbury District Health Board, as a result of these claims. Mr James assures me that no patient was at any risk of any harm as a result of staffing arrangements last week. Mr Alister James, who is known to the member opposite, advises me the Canterbury District Health Board is well staffed with senior doctors for the

first time in quite some time, and that they are playing an active role in helping to manage staffing issues.

Dr Jackie Blue: Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā te Minita o Health. What reports has he received recently on improved front-line services?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have seen numerous reports of improved front-line services from around the nation. There is a record rise of nearly 13,000 extra patients receiving elective surgery in the 2009 year, much shorter waiting-times for cancer treatment, and for the first time in many years we are closing the gap for 2-year-old immunisations.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he acknowledge that the cuts in after-hours general practitioner services in Rangiora, affecting 22,000 people, were done without consultation with the community?

Hon TONY RYALL: The changes to the after-hours services in Rangiora have been made by the general practitioners in Rangiora. Following representations from the Hon Kate Wilkinson, I am advised that discussions are under way between Pegasus Health, St John, and the acute demand programme about improving services in that area, and that we hope there will be some announcements following that shortly.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why have his cuts forced the Canterbury District Health Board to do more with fewer resources, which has resulted in the removal of services from 1 July of after-hours general practitioner care for the people of Rangiora, a service they have enjoyed for 22 years?

Hon TONY RYALL: I can advise the member that the decision in respect of after-hours services in Rangiora was a decision of the local general practitioners. The scaling back of afterhours services started quite some time ago. But I can tell that member that this year the Canterbury District Health Board received a massive funding boost of $50 million, which is a 4.2 percent funding increase. This has allowed it to provide more cancer radiation treatments, more elective surgeries, and an improved emergency department.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove. I am not sure what was in the water at lunchtime today but I do not think that members need to carry on with that shouting in unison. It is not very becoming in the House.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that answer, does he agree with his colleague Kate Wilkinson, who said on Canterbury Television on 9 July 2010: “The service is definitely diminishing.”; and “The DHB is being forced to do more with less.”?

Hon TONY RYALL: I tell that member that Kate Wilkinson is absolutely right when she says that the district health board in Canterbury has an extra $50 million and that as a result the latest data shows that we have had improvement in the number of nursing fulltime-equivalent staff by 170 extra and that the number of medical fulltime-equivalent staff has increased by 30 during that time. That is good news for the people of Canterbury.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very specific question as to whether the Minister agreed with the statements from his colleague that the service is diminishing and the district health board is being asked to do more with less in respect of resources. I gave the date; it was a singular question. He failed to go anywhere near that.

Mr SPEAKER: Asking Ministers whether they agree with a particular statement that someone has made—if I remember rightly the Minister answered that he did agree with a further statement attributed to Kate Wilkinson—where members ask Ministers that kind of thing it is very difficult to be pedantic about exactly how Ministers answer such a question. I am not going to put the heat on Ministers to really give a particular answer to that kind of question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your summary you said that the Minister said that he agreed with another statement from Kate Wilkinson, and you were prepared to accept that. All I am asking is whether he is prepared to say he agrees with another statement from his colleague; I am simply asking him whether he is prepared to say whether he agrees or disagrees with the statement I put to him. How can both sets of answers be correct?

Mr SPEAKER: I just put it to the member that when members seek opinions in questions as to whether Ministers agree with something, then unless it is absolutely at the heart of their portfolios in terms of something they have done or they have said themselves, it is hard for me to be too pedantic about answers to such a question. Where I insist on Ministers answering a question from an Opposition member I want to be satisfied there is a genuine public interest in this and it is not political point-scoring about whether a Minister agrees with it. The Minister is not strictly responsible for what Kate Wilkinson says; that is another difficulty I have. The Prime Minister is responsible for what his Ministers say but the Minister of Health is not at all responsible for what the Hon Kate Wilkinson might say. That is why it is difficult for me to insist on any particular answer. I am allowing time for this, to explain why I am ruling the way I have, and I do not intend to take a lot more time on it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will not take much time but ask you to consider whether Ministers, in fact, can take their hat off and not be speaking as Ministers. The Minister, Kate Wilkinson, was quoted. She had been talking on an area for which Mr Ryall was responsible but the way that we were taught constitutional law, and again when we first became Ministers, was that Ministers are always Ministers and when they speak, wherever they speak, they speak on behalf of the Government.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee, because I have heard the honourable member.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You will recall the various disruptions that occurred under the Helen Clark - led Government in the early part of 2002 where the House turned itself inside out on this issue of what hat someone was wearing. At the time, there was considerable disagreement between the Hon Jim Anderton and the Hon Laila Harré when the Opposition attempted to find out which public positions each of those Ministers was taking represented a Government position. It was made abundantly clear by then Speaker Jonathan Hunt that when Ministers were speaking in a capacity as a member of Parliament, they were not bound by that convention. For Mr Mallard to want to unturn something—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will not criticise another member during a point of order; he had done well until that point. It is interesting. I accept that the points of order are well-grounded, and it is an interesting point that has been raised, but I stick with my ruling that were the Hon Kate Wilkinson an Associate Minister of Health—and I do not believe she is—then the member’s point of order would have been absolutely right because the Minister would have some responsibility for what an Associate Minister has said. If the member was speaking within her portfolio area, then that would be a different matter. But I do not believe that the Minister is responsible. That is why it is difficult for me to pin down a Minister with that kind of question, because the Minister is not responsible for what another member says, particularly when that other member is not an Associate Minister or in any particular role like that. We must move on.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I then ask you to have a look at the general rules for authentication of substantive questions? It has long been ruled that Ministers can be asked whether they agree with particular statements, not only said by members of Parliament but also said by people outside of Parliament. For as long as this Parliament has been here, Speakers have ruled that Ministers can be asked whether they agree with things relating to their portfolios. No matter who made those statements, they are responsible for whether they agree, even if they are not responsible for the statement being made.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member; indeed, he is correct. But, likewise, with that kind of question, the answer that is given can cover a wide range. I did not rule out the member’s question. He is perfectly entitled to ask it, but the specificity of the answer will always be constrained by the fact that the Minister has not responsibility for what someone else might think. The questions are indeed allowed; the member is absolutely right. However, in terms of the Speaker then insisting on

any particular answer, I cannot insist on a particular answer with that kind of question. It limits the value of that kind of question, and I think some members should reflect on that a little.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have one last point. I think you have made considerable progress away from addressing questions to answering questions in your time as Speaker. This ruling that you have just made effectively means that you have gone back a long way and that Ministers do not even have to address the question that was asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member for his lecture. I assure him that I shall not be letting Ministers escape from sharp questions.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I want to take up with you two points you made, and perhaps you may want to give them a considered ruling. The whole thrust— [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to please respect the point of order process.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: The whole thrust of the question centred around cuts to health. It then gained further specificity as the supplementary questions went on to an argument, if you will, between both sides, with the Minister saying there were not cuts at the district health board and our side claiming that there were. The point I made through you in the question was that a colleague, who I agree does not have responsibility for health but is a Minister in the Government, of the Minister made an absolute claim—and I can table the quote, but you will not allow me to, because it is a matter of public record; I accept that—that the service was diminishing and that the district health board was being required to do more—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now debating the issue—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: No, I am not, sir.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Sit down for a change.

Mr SPEAKER:—and there will be no interjection on the matter, I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith. I apologise to him if I am pinning the interjection on the wrong member. The member Clayton Cosgrove is now getting into debate. I have made it very clear that the Minister is not responsible for comments that someone else might make. With this kind of question, as the members acknowledge, there is a difference of view as to whether cuts have been made. Members have asserted “cuts” in their questions; the Minister has refuted that. But when the member then wants the Minister to comment on whether a Minister agrees with a comment of another Minister that the Minister is not responsible for, I cannot require any specific answer from the Minister with that kind of question. If he had asked the Prime Minister it would have been a little different, because the Prime Minister is responsible for what all Ministers say. But a portfolio Minister does not have responsibility for what other Ministers say, unless he or she is an Associate Minister.

Pig Farming—Accuracy of Condition Reports

7. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Agriculture: Is he taking any action in response to reports that the Pork Industry Board sought to avoid the public embarrassment of reporting conditions in New Zealand piggeries by deliberately evading the Official Information Act; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture): No, and for a very simple reason: I have no responsibility for the Pork Industry Board being compliant with the Official Information Act.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that it is a serious offence for a statutory board to seek to evade the provisions of the Official Information Act, and will he exercise his powers under the Pork Industry Board Act 1997 to remove directors who have conspired to circumvent the Official Information Act; if not, why not?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Because I have just explained to the member that under the Pork Industry Board Act 1997 I have no statutory role in respect of that particular board’s adherence to

the Official Information Act. If the member has a concern about that, she should know to raise it with the Ombudsman.

Sue Kedgley: Is it not the case that it could take many months, possibly a year, for a complaint to be investigated by the Ombudsman, and is he really claiming that he has no power or no influence over the Pork Industry Board as Minister of Agriculture to force it to release these audits that it is seeking to suppress?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Yes, that is exactly what I am telling the member.

Sue Kedgley: Does he support the Pork Industry Board’s latest ploy, which is to introduce a new label to assure consumers that pork is “welfare approved” while at the very same time seeking to suppress critical parts of the Pork Industry Board’s audit on which the “welfare approved” label is based?

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is not for me to judge the effectiveness of the Pork Industry Board’s public relations exercise; that is for the consumers of New Zealand pork.

Sue Kedgley: Has he had the opportunity to view the footage of sows on an intensive pig farm that screened on television last night that showed sows with bleeding sores, abscesses, and flesh wounds; if so, does he agree with the piggery owner, Colin Kaye, that there are no welfare concerns at this piggery?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I did not have the opportunity to view any footage last night. I did see some footage—I think it was last Friday night—and to me some of the photographs of pigs were not satisfactory.

Sue Kedgley: When can we expect the new pig code to be released, given that he publicly promised that it would be released last year and submissions closed in April of this year?

Hon DAVID CARTER: It is certainly of some frustration to me that it has not been released, but, as the member knows, a legal challenge was threatened by the Pork Industry Board. At this stage, I understand that the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is close to finalising its submission process and delivering a draft code, which will then be subject to international peer review. So I hope to receive it sometime around October-November. It is certainly my intention to action it as quickly as possible.

Sue Kedgley: Does he agree that the public are getting fed up with the efforts of the Pork Industry Board to delay the release of the new pig code by legal obfuscation, to continue using sow crates, to hide information from the public, and to keep conditions on pig farms secret? Does he not think that the public will be incredulous that he as Minister of Agriculture is effectively sitting on his hands and doing nothing in the face of this prolonged procrastination?

Hon DAVID CARTER: We certainly want the process to be done properly so that it is thorough and long-lasting. It is worthwhile noting that there have been over 20,000 submissions on the draft code, and that is one reason why it has taken some time. The member knows that she was part of the process to wind up many of those 20,000 submissions.

Question No. 6 to Minister

Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri): I seek leave to table a letter from me to the Minister of Health dated 9 July—some 3 weeks ago—regarding the cut in after-hours general practitioner services in Rangiora. To date he has not replied to me personally.

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.

Employment Relations—Prime Minister’s Statements

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Labour: Does she agree with all the Prime Minister’s statements on employment relations?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): Yes.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was it the policy intention of the Government when it introduced the 90- day trial legislation that the general good-faith provision would override the specific exclusion of the requirement to give reasons for dismissal in writing?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The trial period has always been designed to work in the context of good faith. One does not override another; they work in tandem. They both work together.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was it her intention that the Interpretation Act would be overruled by her 90-day trial legislation?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I think the member is asking me for a legal interpretation of how the Employment Relations Act interfaces with the Interpretation Act. Actually, as a matter of statutory interpretation, I would have thought that the Employment Relations Act was subject to the Interpretation Act.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Given her last answer, and given the fact that the Interpretation Act makes clear that the specific overrules the general, was it the policy intention of the Government when it introduced the 90-day trial legislation that the general good-faith provision would override the specific exclusion of the requirement to give reasons for dismissal in writing?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The intention of the policy and of the legislation is that good faith applies during the 90-day trial provision, with the exemption of section 4(1A)(c).

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was it the policy intention of the Government when it introduced the 90- day trial legislation that the general good-faith provision would be equal to, override, or be subject to the specific exclusion of the requirement to give reasons for dismissal in writing?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The intention of the legislation is that the good-faith provisions apply, and they require an employer to be responsive, communicative, and subject to good-faith provisions.

Question No. 7 to Minister

SUE KEDGLEY (Green): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table the Pork Industry Board Act 1997—in particular, schedule 2, which allows the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seeking the leave of the House to table an Act?

SUE KEDGLEY: Yes, pointing out a provision—

Mr SPEAKER: We are not going to do that. Members have the statutes available to them every day.

SUE KEDGLEY: It contradicts what the Minister said.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will not use that provision to try to score points. Members have that information available to them endlessly.

Probation Officers—Recruitment

9. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has been made to recruit sufficient probation officers to meet the growth in the number of offenders serving their sentences in the community?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): I am pleased to inform the House that the Department of Corrections has now reached its goal of employing 246 new probation officers, following an injection of $256 million in last year’s Budget. Over the last 5 years the number of community-based offenders has risen from 24,000 to 38,000, and they are completing 45,000 orders. However, the previous Government failed to fund the department adequately, and it could not employ the staff needed to supervise these offenders. I have met most of the new probation officers at graduations around the country, and I have been very impressed with the knowledge, enthusiasm, and professionalism shown by these new staff members.

Paul Quinn: What other notable progress has been made by the Department of Corrections over the past 18 months?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: There is too much to tell the member in one answer. I am pleased to report, though, that the department has just received its highest-ever result in the latest trust and confidence survey. Research New Zealand’s June 2010 quarterly survey showed that 61 percent of the respondents have confidence in the Department of Corrections. This is a significant improvement on the figure of 40 percent in June 2008, recorded by the previous administration under the previous Minister of Corrections, Phil Goff. The considerable progress made by the department over the last 18 months reflects the excellent work done by staff, and the importance that this Government places on its law and order responsibilities.

David Garrett: Does she agree that non-violent offenders whose offending primarily arises from drug and alcohol addiction are better and more cheaply treated in community-based facilities, rather than in prisons?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Generally, yes. But I am also aware that these same people have been known to kill others by drink or drug-driving, so the courts quite appropriately have the power to sentence such people to imprisonment.

Income Gap—Parity with Australia

10. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he agree with the Sydney Morning Herald headline “NZ wage gap with Australia widens”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): I do not have an opinion on an Australian newspaper’s headline.

Hon David Parker: Well, then, does he agree with Claire Trevett of the Dominion Post, who said of his performance yesterday: “the statistics proved him wrong no matter how they were presented.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. I can do no better than to quote the World Bank, which makes a comment about these things. It says, basically, that there are two ways in which those statistics can be calculated, but the method chosen by the member is, if I may quote, “likely to lead to unreliable” and misleading results.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member who asked the question has chosen no method in this question time today, so to rely on referring to “the method chosen by the member”, when I think the Dominion Post and the Sydney Morning Herald have been quoted, is, I think, misleading the House.

Mr SPEAKER: No, we will not go as far as that. But I accept that the Minister introduced unnecessary information in answering the question. Strictly, that should not be done.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister now announce measurable interim targets to close the wage gap with Australia, so that New Zealanders can hold National accountable for its election promise?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I fully accept that the nation will hold National accountable for its election promise, just as it did Labour, which promised to get New Zealand into the top half of the OECD but failed to do so during its 9-year term.

Hon David Parker: If the Government will not give New Zealanders those milestones, will the Minister at least give them a date by which the New Zealand - Australian wage gap will be reduced to what it was at the time of the last election?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I believe that the very extensive economic development programme that the Government has put in place will see those results become available to New Zealanders very, very soon.

Hon David Parker: Why can the Minister not see that his unwillingness to agree to any milestone for closing the gap before 2025, plus his refusal today even to give a target date for getting back to where we were at the time of the election, makes a mockery of National’s central election promise to close the wage gap?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The first point I make is that New Zealand has been on the track of a widening gap between New Zealand workers’ wages and Australian workers’ wages for over two decades. I think that to expect that we would put milestones in just 18 months into our programme is completely unreasonable. I know that New Zealanders understand that we are engaged in a comprehensive relook at the New Zealand economy, whereby we are expecting growth to occur that will deliver higher incomes.

Hon David Parker: If the Minister is not willing to give any target date to reach the interim target for closing the gap, will he at least come to the House and give us a date by which he expects that the gap will stop growing wider?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think it is very unwise for the Labour Party to mention anything to do with closing the gaps, which was one of Labour’s targets that was also a spectacular failure. The Government is engaged in an extensive programme to encourage growth in the New Zealand economy, and New Zealand workers will feel the effects of that in due course.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that was a tight supplementary question. I know that you will not insist on a yes or no answer, but I think that the question, in summary, was—

Mr SPEAKER: In the interests of saving time I invite the Hon David Parker to repeat his question, because I must confess that I did not hear a lot of answer to it.

Hon David Parker: If the Minister is not willing to give any interim targets as to the date by which the gap will close, is he at least willing to come to the House and give us a date by which the gap will stop getting wider?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The two questions are simply the reverse of each other. I have already answered the question in that regard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that saying a question has already been answered used to be allowed in this House, but I do not think it is now, unless it is obvious to all members. Without bringing you into the debate, Mr Speaker, I could see from the height of your eyebrows, which were nearly as high as mine, that you did not understand the answer, just as members on this side of the Chamber did not.

Mr SPEAKER: Today has been an interesting question time in relation to points of order around the adequacy of answers. I have ruled on a couple of occasions that Ministers do not have responsibility for certain things, but on this occasion this Minister has made statements about closing the gap with Australia, and the question did ask whether the Minister would be prepared to come back to the House to tell it when the gap would stop increasing. The Minister could say that he is not prepared to do so or that he would be prepared to, and that would be an answer, but to say nothing related to it is hardly an answer. This is an issue of public interest, and I would not mind hearing an answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I will give that some consideration.

Youth Parliament 2010—Reports

HEKIA PARATA (National): Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare e whakanui nei i te wiki o te reo Māori. [Greetings to you Mr Speaker, and to us throughout our House as we celebrate Māori Language Week.] [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Leader of the House should show some courtesy to his colleague, who in Māori Language Week will be asking her question in te reo Māori.

11. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: Tēnā anō koe e te Mana Whakawā, huri noa i tō tātou Whare e whakanui nei i te wiki o te reo Māori, tēnā koutou. Mō ngā kaupapa Rangatahi, he aha ngā pūrongo kua whiwhi i a ia mō te angitu o te Taiohi Pāremata rua mano tekau?

[Thank you kindly, Mr Speaker, and greetings once again to you and to us throughout our House as we celebrate Māori Language Week; greetings to you collectively. What reports has she received on the success of Youth Parliament 2010?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs): Ngā mihi ki te mema. I have received a number of reports on the success of Youth Parliament 2010 in bringing together 122 Youth MPs to debate issues facing New Zealand. I would like to table in the House the report on Youth Parliament 2010. It includes the Hansard of question time, the general debate, and the debate on the age of majority bill, and the select committee reports. This report will also be released on the Youth Parliament website.

Hekia Parata: He aha tāna ka taea te mea mai mō te pire i whakaaroarotia e te Taiohi Pāremata? [What can she tell us about the bill that Youth Parliament considered?]

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Youth MPs looked at a mock bill that, if enacted, would have taken the legal age of majority from 20 to 18. In the 32 speeches we heard a range of arguments that were well-researched and well-thought-out. Some argued that the age of majority should remain at 20 years, citing tradition and maturity, or that it ought to be considered case by case; others argued that the bill was required to abolish age discrimination. The bill was passed by the Youth Parliament with 64 Ayes, 49 Noes, two abstentions, and seven absent.

Trade, Minister—Perception of Conflict of Interest

12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Trade: What steps, if any, is he taking to manage his interests in the 40,000 shares he owns through a trust in New Zealand Farming Systems Uruguay Ltd to dispel any perception of a conflict of interest as Minister of Trade?

Hon TIM GROSER (Minister of Trade): I am going to do two things. First, I am going to carry through on the additional disclosure I made to the Cabinet Office about the shares I put my retirement funds into, additional to the requirements of the register of pecuniary interests, and I am going to take all necessary steps to avoid any conflict of interest in the unlikely event that one would occur. The second thing that I am going to do is ignore this beat-up and get on with the job that I am appointed to do.

Mr SPEAKER: That is enough interjection.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did he quit the India trade group so quickly last year when his coowner Dr Richard Worth started to get into a pickle, but has not quit this much more valuable asset that some might say leaves Uruguayans feeling like tenants in their own country?

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member but I could not hear the question. I invite the member to start again with his question, and I ask members to keep the level of interjection down so that at least the Speaker can hear the question being asked, otherwise I cannot determine whether it is in order.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did he quit the India trade group so quickly last year when his coowner Dr Richard Worth started to get into a pickle, but has not quit this much more valuable asset that some might say leaves Uruguayans feeling like tenants in their own country?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask where the ministerial responsibility is for anything in that question.

Mr SPEAKER: If I heard the question correctly, the member asked the Minister about certain actions he had taken some time last year. If I remember it, the question started with asking why he quit something. I presume that is asking the Minister something to do with his interests. Therefore, I believe that the Minister has responsibility for that.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think, with the greatest of respect, you need to think a bit more carefully about your ruling, because you are saying that if Ministers are asked anything whatsoever about property or their personal details, then they have a responsibility as a Minister in this Parliament to answer it. I do not see how a Minister could possibly be

answering a question in this House as a Minister about why he or she might or might not sell particular shares. It seems incongruous to me.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Further, Mr Groser answered the first question very, very appropriately, I think, and made it clear what the situation is. I think that for him to then be put through a bit of a test as to why he did that last year when he is doing this this year, steps far too far. He has been very open with regard to the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament—that is why the Opposition is able to ask the question. But I think that if you were to look at that particular question again, you would see that it steps well outside what might be reasonable for Ministers to answer in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the points raised by members, and this issue needs to be handled carefully by the Speaker; I fully accept that. I accept the point made by the Hon Rodney Hide that individual Ministers are not responsible for the register of pecuniary interests. That is a thing that members of Parliament are required to comply with. However, Ministers are responsible for their management of conflicts of interest, and it was my interpretation of the question whether or not— and I would not mind seeing whether the Clerk agrees with my view on this—but it is my view that where there is a potential conflict of interest with the Minister’s portfolio interests, then there is a legitimate ground for questioning. But I certainly confirm that the Minister is not responsible as Minister for the issues surrounding the declaration of pecuniary interests. I think on this occasion, rather than have me rule out the question, the Minister would be capable of handling it, but he is required to handle it only in so far as it involves conflicts of interest relating to his portfolio interests. On that basis, I invite the Hon Tim Groser to answer it.

Hon TIM GROSER: Well, there is a very straightforward answer, and it is that I resigned as a director of the company because I was told it was not appropriate to be a director of the company and a Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Pete Hodgson has a further supplementary question?

Hon Pete Hodgson: That answered the first part of the question, but that will do. Now that he has told the media that he did not tell anyone that he owned shares in Uruguayan land because no one had asked him, but “if anyone had asked me, I would have told them”, will he list what else his trust, Jolimont, owns—because I am asking him?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not appropriate to ask members of this House, whether they are Ministers or otherwise, whether they will do something that is not required by the Standing Orders, and if this question stands, then we are in very deep trouble. Therefore, we should be able to ask Mr Hodgson whether he is a KiwiSaver, where his KiwiSaver funds are going, what shares his KiwiSaver fund holds, and what interest he has to declare to the House when it comes to voting on matters that might affect those shares. It has been widely accepted for a long time that where members of Parliament have an interest that is no greater than any other member of the public or is no less available to any other member of the public, then that is not a conflict of interest. That question opens this thing up very, very widely, and I suggest that no one in the House could cast a vote on any matter if that type of question will call his or her integrity into public scrutiny.

Hon Rodney Hide: I think that this is an important issue, because it is impossible for Ministers to have any responsibility as Ministers for where their superannuation funds might be invested or where, maybe, trusts that they are involved in invest money. Ministers are required to declare their register of interests. That is not what is in play here; what Mr Hodgson is attempting to do is to ask a Minister about his personal investments, which, as a Minister, he surely is not responsible for. He is responsible for that as an individual member of Parliament but not as a Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think all of that would be right if the original question was not predicated on the conflict between the role of the Minister of Trade and his personal arrangements. I think that is where this issue goes to. The question could not have got there if there was not at least a perception of a conflict of interest; and the question, I think, is then properly asked as to whether

the Minister has other conflicts of interest with his role as Minister of Trade. He has already accepted, I think, in this House, that there is one. He has got rid of part of it and has retained some of it, but the point I am making is that we need to know that Ministers do not have that conflict of interest. For Rodney Hide to indicate that it is not possible for a Minister to have a conflict of interest—of course it is—

Mr SPEAKER: I think—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have indicated that I do not need to hear any more on this matter. What the Hon Trevor Mallard just said was correct if the Minister had been asked about conflicts of interest, but he was not. He was asked whether he would list in his pecuniary interests any further interests or shareholdings a certain trust might have, and that is not within the Standing Orders. Even though the member might say that the Minister said he is happy to make a declaration of pecuniary interests, in making that statement the Minister cannot actually be questioned on that statement, because it has nothing to do with his portfolio area. Members asking questions need to be very clear on that. Members cannot question Ministers on their declaration of pecuniary interests, as the Hon Rodney Hide pointed out. What members can question them on is their management of conflicts of interest, indeed, and normally Ministers can be questioned on any statements that they make. But where a statement relates to a declaration of pecuniary interests, the Minister is not answerable on that statement in this House. So I have to rule that question out.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he agree with the remarks made by the Prime Minister earlier this month about China and New Zealand working together in agriculture where “they put up capital, we develop farms in Latin America and export food to China,”; if he does agree, does he also agree that as soon as China does enter the market the value of his shares are likely to rise?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that question is accepted, then the Speaker is effectively accepting the speculation that the member includes in it. It is nasty, it is guttersnipe—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. There will be silence. This is a very serious issue and has to be treated with respect by this House. Members in this House have a right to hold Ministers to account. Where questions relate to conflicts of interest, those questions are perfectly proper. This question asked whether the Minister agreed with the statement relating to a trade matter—and the Minister did not need to answer the second part, because there were two parts to the question—and then went on to ask about whether that trade prospect could influence the value of shares. I do not see that question as being out of order, because it relates to a statement in the trade area, and it has an implication of a possible conflict of interest. I believe that Ministers do have to be mindful of the management of conflicts of interest. I invite the Hon Tim Groser to answer the question.

Hon TIM GROSER: The answer to the first part of the question is absolutely yes. On another occasion I would welcome the opportunity to expand on this theme, because I think this is absolutely central to taking New Zealand forward in terms of getting the intellectual property of our extraordinary agriculture system and exporting it not just through exports but through the services that New Zealand—almost uniquely, in some areas—has. So I think this will be a huge and interesting question before New Zealand agriculture in the next 20 years. In respect of the second part of the question, I could imagine an argument that would draw exactly the opposite conclusion in respect of investment in another country.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can he confirm that earlier this month another company, a Singaporean company rather than a Chinese one, did just that—entered the Uruguayan dairy market—and that his shares rose from 41c to 55c in 2 weeks, as a result?

Mr SPEAKER: That question is totally out of order. The Minister has no responsibility for what a Singaporean company might do—no responsibility whatsoever.

ENDS

© Scoop Media