Questions for Oral Answer
23 June 2009

Questions to Ministers

1. Jobs—Statements

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements he has made as Prime Minister in relation to jobs?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: What have the three main ideas that emerged from the Job Summit, and that he promised would save or create thousands of jobs, delivered in actual job numbers?

Hon JOHN KEY: I would say that the Job Summit has and will create thousands of jobs.

Hon Phil Goff: Is it not true that the first idea, the $2 billion credit fund, has produced nothing and has fallen over; the second idea has created 345 jobs, which is approximately the same number of job losses that occur in 1½ days under his Government; and the third, the nationwide cycleway, has become a pathetic remnant of the original idea and has created no jobs so far?

Hon JOHN KEY: Is it not weird that the Opposition does not like success? You see, this is a Government that goes out and engages with people in real debate, and gets businesses, unions, and the Government all on the same page, working hard for the country. I think the Leader of the Opposition should take a look at this chart. It is the Roy Morgan Research survey. I know that Opposition members do not like talking about it, but the business confidence survey shows what New Zealanders think. When Labour was in Government the line on the graph was down; now it is up. This Government is working for the country.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called and there will be silence.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, just because the Prime Minister turns his back on you does not mean that you cannot bring him to order when he does not even attempt to address the question, which he failed to do in that instance—as you well know.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member makes a fair point of order. I think the Prime Minister should seek to address the question asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Hon JOHN KEY: National said at the Job Summit that some ideas would be progressed and some would not. In the case of the fund that the banks were looking at, that idea was floated at the Job Summit, and, yes, by the banks themselves. They agreed not to progress it, because it would affect their capital ratios. But I point out to the Leader of the Opposition that, as he well knows, even before the Job Summit started—but as a result of the Job Summit—ASB had put up $1 billion for investment in job creation areas.

Hon Phil Goff: Nothing to do with the Government! Absolutely nothing to do with the Government!

Hon JOHN KEY: The member does not like ASB. Maybe he should go down and have a chat to them. They are out there working hard for the economy.

Hon Phil Goff: We will try again. What has the Job Summit actually done for the more than 1,000 Kiwis each week who are losing their jobs and joining the dole queue?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start off, let me take the Leader of the Opposition back to the Job Summit. We were under no illusions when we went into the Job Summit. We actually said—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that Phil Goff raised before. There is a requirement in the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings to address the Chair. The Prime Minister has again turned his back on you.

Mr SPEAKER: I am more interested in the content of the Prime Minister’s answer. I am not too hung up about his speaking to the wider House. I think he was actually going to answer the question asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Hon JOHN KEY: It is amazing how members on the other side of the House have amnesia; I saw Helen Clark looking that way for 9 years! Putting that to one side, at the Job Summit I said quite clearly that unemployment would rise over the next year. Why? In part, because the Labour Government had let productivity levels in this country get so low; that is part of what is affecting jobs. Second, out of that Job Summit came a quite long list of initiatives. They are being worked on. For instance, the insulation fund, costing $343 million, was set against the Government’s Budget, which was well received by New Zealanders. It is out there creating jobs in the worst economic conditions since 1930. That is what Phil Goff was saying in January—that these are the worst economic conditions since 1930.

Hon Phil Goff: Does Mr Key stand by his statement at the Job Summit: “As I have stated many times, I am interested in what works …”; how does it fit with his comments yesterday when, asked about the number of firms taking up the 9-day working fortnight, he replied: “It doesn’t really matter. I think the fact that it’s there is the important thing.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are two things. Firstly, the success of the 9-day fortnight is not judged by the number of people going on it; it is the fact that it is there to support businesses if they need it. Secondly, I suggest that the Leader of the Opposition have a talk with the head of the Council of Trade Unions, Helen Kelly, who said to me that one of the greatest things to come out of the Job Summit was the fact that businesses, unions, and the Government were all on the same page, working hard for New Zealand. The last time there was a summit in this country, it was held by Labour. It was called the Knowledge Wave, and Labour could not get anything achieved at that one.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he stand by his statement: “I believe it is important to save as many jobs as we can, while we can.”; if so, why was there nothing new in the 2009 Budget to save and create jobs, given the fact that 4,000 Kiwis have joined the dole queue since the Budget, and 16,000 since his Job Summit?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, that statement made by the Leader of the Opposition is ridiculous. The $343 million insulation fund is acknowledged by, I think, pretty much every party in the House—obviously, with the exception of Labour—as creating thousands of jobs. I tell the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants to make sure there is wholesale job loss in this country, this is the way to do it: spend lots of money and get the country’s credit rating downgraded, and businesses cannot borrow. That is exactly what would have happened if Labour was in charge. New Zealanders are grateful for a Government that knows what it is doing economically. That is why the graph I am holding up looks like it does, and not like it did when Labour was in office.

Hon Phil Goff: Speaking of spending a lot of money, does the Prime Minister agree that had he given tax cuts to people earning $40,000 or less, who are struggling to make ends meet and to raise their families, he would have created far more stimulus for jobs than was created by his giving a third of the $800 million to his mates in the top 3 percent of income earners, who just saved it or paid off their mortgages?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not agree, but I do agree with the policies that the Government has rolled out: a credit upgrade for this country, half a billion dollars for infrastructure brought forward, half a billion dollars for small to medium sized enterprises, tens of millions of dollars for the Export Credit Office, a 9-day working fortnight, a cycleway, a home insulation package—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon JOHN KEY: I could go on.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the Prime Minister has given us sufficient information. I warn the Hon Trevor Mallard he cannot interject in that manner across the House. In fact, I will ask him to withdraw that statement.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What remedy do we have when a Prime Minister makes a comment about an upgrade that he knows is untrue.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that he can use supplementary questions to attack the Prime Minister’s answers to questions. They have been available since the first question. There are many more supplementary questions available to the honourable member.

Hon Phil Goff: Does Mr Key stand by the commitment he made in his opening speech at the Job Summit: “We can take steps to ensure that young people who cannot enter the workforce are able to up-skill in the meantime.”; if so, what does he say to the 2,800 apprentices in the building and construction trades who have lost their jobs before completing their training; and why did he allow the Budget to cut funding for job skills training, cut the scholarship schemes that enabled low-income kids to get to university, and cut the Enterprising Communities scheme, which provided good programmes like the Ōtorohanga youth apprenticeship programme?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think those apprentices will be grateful that this Government has brought forward infrastructure spending on roading and housing. I think those apprentices will say good on this Government for making sure we have a home insulation package. I think those apprentices will say good on this Government for having the Youth Guarantee scheme. I think they will say good on this Government for having an adherence to literacy and numeracy skills. No one is arguing that there are not tough economic conditions out there, but let us get this right: unemployment in this country is 5 percent; in the United States of America it is 9.4 percent. This is a Government that is working hard. day after day, to take the pressure off businesses, and on not one occasion does the Opposition vote for anything that will take the pressure off businesses—never.

2. Infrastructure—Improvements

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to boost New Zealand’s productive infrastructure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Budget 2009 outlined the Government’s plan to spend $7.5 billion extra over the next 5 years in improving roads, rolling out broadband, and modernising schools and our housing stock. This included $500 million of accelerated projects, announced in February and now under way, which are supporting New Zealanders in jobs. Another $3 billion will be spent in the next 4 years upgrading the national grid, and this includes $1 billion extra to be spent on State highway construction over the next 3 years. This increased investment shows that the Government is channelling resources to two priorities: the first is supporting jobs through the recession, and the second is a long-term increase in our productivity.

Craig Foss: How will the increased infrastructure investment support jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been a range of estimates about how many jobs are supported by this spending. In the short term, $500 million worth of accelerated projects announced in February are providing an immediate boost for tradesmen and suppliers across the housing, transport, and education sectors. For instance in housing, the Housing New Zealand Corporation estimates that its expenditure is supporting 1,341 jobs. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research published an estimate some months ago that said that the Government’s stimulus spending would support around 10,000 jobs. I do not think that there is any doubt that the Government’s decision to keep spending through the bottom of the recession is supporting thousands of jobs, and one of the measures of that is the fact that our unemployment increase is one of the lowest in the developed world.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister agree with Thomas Sowell that spending on infrastructure to get out of a recession is like someone mailing a letter to the fire brigade and telling it that his or her house is on fire; if not, why not, given that tax cuts provide an immediate stimulus, whereas infrastructure investment can take years to work its way through the system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot agree with Thomas Sowell—not because he is not very knowledgable; he is, but I do not understand the analogy he is using. The fact is that the Government’s commitment fulfils both objectives. For instance, roading and the electricity grid are two of the main bottlenecks in our economy; there has to be investment to free up those bottlenecks if we are to have growth. And that will support jobs as we spend the money. It would be great if we could spend it all now, but these projects do take time.

Craig Foss: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative approaches to infrastructure investment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the jobs the new Government has had to do has been to clean up the mess left by the last Government in respect of infrastructure spending. Just one example is the fact that the previous Government bought KiwiRail for almost $700 million. The current valuation is about $350 million, and a cash-flow valuation would give it a negative value—that is, the Government could in theory pay someone to take it away, and we would be better off.

3. Families Commission—Appointment of Christine Rankin

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

3. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his reported statement as Prime Minister, in relation to the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission, that she was appointed for her expertise when it comes to abused children; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes, because I believe that she has something positive to offer the Families Commission and will work hard on behalf of Kiwi families.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the Prime Minister believe that Christine Rankin was demonstrating her expertise and knowledge of child abuse issues when she said that people are told when they ring the Child, Youth and Family that the service is too busy and cannot be there for 6 weeks, but if a child is smacked then the service is there the next day?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think she was offering her perspective on the matter.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the Prime Minister reconcile his defence of Christine Rankin’s appointment, on the basis that she had been “a very vocal advocate for abused children”, with his decision to ban her from campaigning on section 59 of the Crimes Act, which was to remove the defence against assaulting children?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Families Commission has a stated position in relation to the referendum, and as a Families Commissioner it makes sense for Christine Rankin to make sure that she does not contravene that line and speak out by campaigning in a way that would be inappropriate. Having said that, I would expect more from the Opposition. When National was in Opposition, we still cared about abused children and we did not spend our time playing political games. All those members care about is politics; they do not care about the abused kids of New Zealand.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What is the Prime Minister’s definition of campaigning on the section 59 referendum?

Hon JOHN KEY: I define that as if Christine Rankin had turned up to the press conference yesterday, but she did not. In fact, most sectors of the media are arguing that she has been muzzled. I go back to the point I just made: members on this side of the House care about abused kids. We look in the hospitals of New Zealand and see thousands of abused kids, and Christine Rankin has spoken out about the damage that is happening to those kids. We are going to do something about abused kids, because not enough happened under the previous Labour Government.

Sue Bradford: Is it true that Christine Rankin was originally offered the post of Children’s Commissioner and that it was her choice to turn the job down because she did not want to move to Wellington, rather than the Government’s choice because she posed too big a political risk?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not aware of that. If that was the case, it was never brought to my attention.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How many times will the Prime Minister tolerate Christine Rankin’s defiance before he takes action?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I am more focused on the kids than on political point-scoring—but that is OK. Secondly, I do not believe Christine Rankin has been defiant; most sections of the media believe that she has been muzzled. Members on this side of the House care about abused kids, but members on that side do not.

John Boscawen: Is the Prime Minister saying that a New Zealander appointed to the Families Commission loses his or her right to free speech and the right to express his or her public and very well-known view that a light smack given to a child by a loving parent should not be illegal, and was not this silencing of dissent roundly rejected at the last election?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I am not saying that. As I said at my press conference yesterday afternoon, I was quite relaxed about the comments that Christine Rankin made. I do not think they were terribly provocative; nor do I believe that they were anywhere out of line; nor did I expect Christine Rankin to express a view she does not hold. But if a Families Commissioner has an agreed position, although he or she can express a broad view in the context of the overall responsibilities, he or she cannot get out there and campaign for the “No” vote.

4. Jobs—Jobs Saved, Created, and Lost Since Job Summit

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

4. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: How many jobs were saved or created by the Job Summit, and how many jobs have been lost since the Job Summit was held on 27 February?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : The member will know that jobs are created and lost in the economy all the time. I am aware of a study showing that between 2002 and 2007, each year about 250,000 jobs were created in New Zealand and about 200,000 jobs were lost. The Government does not routinely collect this information, however, so it is not possible to say how many jobs have been lost since 27 February. Even if we had that information, it would be near to impossible to identify separately the number of jobs saved by the Job Summit. For one thing, many Job Summit proposals related to the fundamentals of the economy, like infrastructure spending, improving regulations, and the like. These are good proposals, but it is hard to put a specific number of jobs against each of them.

Metiria Turei: What plans does the Prime Minister have to create 28,000 full-time real jobs across the economy by utilising out-of-work, qualified builders to tackle the waiting list for State houses and provide warm, dry homes for the 10,000 families in need?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is building albeit a very modest number of new State houses. But the member will be aware, because her party worked on this, that the Government is spending $343 million over the next 4 years on creating jobs to also insulate and warm those homes. The member’s former co-leader was on a platform with me in Christchurch to celebrate that fact last Thursday, and I welcome Jeanette Fitzsimons’ expertise in that area.

Metiria Turei: What plans does the Prime Minister have to create 40 percent more jobs for the same money that is to be spent, by diverting funds from new motorways into bus and train services, walking and cycling infrastructure, and road maintenance, as laid out in the Green Party’s Green New Deal stimulus package?

Hon JOHN KEY: We do not have plans to do that. We have plans to spend a billion dollars a year on new State highways. We are spending more money, I might add, in some of those other areas: public transport, and cycling. But we are spending a billion dollars on State highways. The previous Government was spending $650 million—or, to put it another way, the equivalent of 5 years of spending on the entire road infrastructure in this country would have been spent on the tunnel in Mount Albert if Labour had built it. The reason we are doing this is that it will create jobs, because it will make New Zealand more productive. By the way, I tell the member that roads are a form of public transport. Buses drive on them all the time.

Metiria Turei: What plans does the Prime Minister have to create 4,500 jobs by fencing and planting waterways, restoring water quality, and protecting New Zealand’s clean, green reputation, as laid out in the Green Party’s Green New Deal stimulus package?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Government is always spending money on trying to make sure we improve the quality of our environment, because that is very important. We have seen, and will continue to see, expenditure in that area. We support the member’s view that New Zealand’s reputation as a clean, green environment is one of the foundation stones on which our tourism industry is built.

Metiria Turei: If the Prime Minister has no such plans, as it appears and as is widely understood, for dealing with rising unemployment—1,000 people a week are going on to the dole—and with both the current crises of climate change and the recession, by creating jobs and a sustainable economy, will he then borrow some more solutions from the Green Party and our Green New Deal stimulus package, solutions that will be just as successful as our home insulation package, which he has already adopted?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I utterly reject the proposition that there is no plan. For a start, let us understand why the chart looks like this. It shows consumer confidence as being at pretty much an all-time high, and business confidence as being at an all-time high, despite the fact that we have a 1930s-style recession. Why? Because this Government avoided a downgrade; it had an upgrade. The Opposition members, when Labour was in Government, wanted to send us into debt and deficit for a lifetime. This Government is out there reforming things like the Resource Management Act, so that our country can get going; Labour had 9 years in Government and did nothing about that. This Government has spent hundreds of millions of dollars more than was being spent on a small to medium sized enterprise package; Labour, while in Government, landed costs endlessly on that sector. This Government has come up with 20 initiatives. They are on our website, and I am happy to table them. They go on and on. This Government has produced one of the lowest unemployment rates in some of the worst conditions that we have had. I am proud of my record in these difficult economic times, and it looks as though we have the support of almost everybody other than the Labour Opposition.

5. Adult and Community Education—Upskilling and Retraining

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

5. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What role does she see for adult and community education in the upskilling and retraining of people seeking to make themselves more employable during the recession?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) : This Government is committed to funding adult and community education that directly supports further study or leads to employment outcomes. Our commitment to adult and community education is demonstrated by the fact that over the next 4 years we will spend $124 million on the sector.

Hon Maryan Street: Why will parents who proactively seek to take parenting courses be denied access to them because the Government has cut funding to not only parenting courses but also all other adult and community education courses?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That member is not correct. I am advised that parenting courses currently receive funding from a whole range of different social service agencies, including district health boards. Schools that have received adult and community education funding for parenting courses will be able to engage with the Tertiary Education Commission through the funding process over the next couple of months. I suggest that the member, instead of scaremongering out there in the sector, advises those services to contact the Tertiary Education Commission immediately.

Hon Maryan Street: Why, after a meeting of educational professionals in March that recommended increasing the number of parenting courses available, did the Minister decide to overrule that recommendation by reducing, not increasing, the number of courses, as a result of the cuts to funding for adult and community education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I repeat the answer that I gave to the member previously. Parenting courses are funded through a whole range of different social service agencies. The best thing those organisations can do is talk to the Tertiary Education Commission about funding for next year.

Colin King: What reports has the Minister seen on how adult and community education should be funded?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a report from the member who asked the primary question calling for the funding changes to be reversed. That is typical of the Labour Party, because there is no mention of how it would be paid for. [Interruption] Members opposite do not like it when we tell the truth about them. They have not come up with any way of paying for it. All they have come up with is debt. In fact, we can only assume that they want us to borrow more in order to—[Interruption]—put it on the bill—exactly. The previous Government left debts in education. It left unfunded promises. This Government is not prepared to continue borrowing to fund.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēna koe. Tēnā koutou katoa. What would the Minister say to the former adult education students whom I met in Canterbury on Friday, who told me that participating in so-called “hobby” adult and community education courses led directly from a total lack of confidence to running a business and employing staff? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear the answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What I would say to those people is that they may well still have those opportunities. They should talk to the people who run the courses, because, in fact, those courses could still be available. Correspondence has come into my office—form letters, I think we call them—from people around the country who are taking courses such as How to Look 10 Years Younger, and Continental Cakes. These people say that they are taking these classes to increase their skills, improve the quality of their lives, and learn something new—and that is to be applauded. But they also say that they would be able to attend those classes even if the course fees were to increase substantially. So I would tell the people whom the member mentioned to talk to the people running those courses, because they may well still be prepared to run them, and those people can pay a little bit more and attend them.

Hon Maryan Street: What does it say about this Government’s education priorities when it can find $35 million for private schools at the expense of accessible adult and community education courses for more than 400,000 New Zealanders?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am pleased that the member asked that question, because what it says about the Labour Party is that its spokespeople cannot get their stories straight. The member asks that sort of question, when Labour’s education spokesperson says “that the government’s decision to increase private school subsidies has opened a can of possible savings or at the very least opportunities for reallocation based on fairness and equity.” On the one hand, the Opposition’s education spokesperson is in favour of supporting private schools, and, on the other hand, its tertiary education spokesperson is looking to take the funding.

6. Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Role of Trading Banks

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

6. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What role will major trading banks play in the delivery of the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart insulation programme announced by the Government in Budget 2009?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : All of the major trading banks have agreed to waive their fees for customers who wish to top up their mortgage by adding on some of the cost of the insulation and clean heating they install in their homes. Additionally, I have been advised that TSB Bank Ltd has agreed to lower by 0.25 percent the interest charged on any money borrowed for installation and clean heating. We welcome the support of the banking industry in delivering this important initiative. It will create warmer, drier, and healthier homes for many thousands of New Zealanders.

Jacqui Dean: What has been the response from the public to the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The programme is proving to be very popular with the public. It is early days. The programme does not start formally until 1 July, but I am advised that there have been over 100,000 unique visitors to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority site since the Budget announcement. That shows a great intensity of public interest. We are confident that when the 0800 numbers from the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority and EnergyWise transfer to the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart programme from 1 July, the number of visitors will increase even further. More important, though, New Zealanders will be getting warmer, drier, healthier homes because this Government has committed to the programme in conjunction with the Green Party.

Jacqui Dean: Has the Minister seen any incorrect reports about the scheme; if so, what do those reports state?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I have seen incorrect reports about the scheme. It will come as no surprise to the member to learn that they came from the Labour energy spokesman, Charles Chauvel. He has put it about that low-income households will be worse off under the scheme than under the small and miserable scheme the then Labour Government was running prior to the election. The reality is quite the opposite. Under the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme, people with community services cards will get 60 percent of their insulation paid for, and in most cases the balance will be covered by participating funders who are partners in the scheme. Crucially, the Government will also give that sector of the community $1,200 for a clean heating device. The Labour scheme did not have that component in it. Mind you, there was no Labour scheme, because it did not commit any money to it.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister confirm that the major bank fee waiver will be worth around $200 to the average household and that, in return, each such household will have to add around 10 times that amount to its existing home loan in order to finance a retrofit?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I cannot confirm the value of the fee waiver, but I can assure the member that tens of thousands of households will pick up on the scheme and will be delighted that the bank will allow them that extra lending at no additional fee. I cannot see why the member is so opposed to this programme. It may upset Labour members that we have got the programme off the ground when they could not, but essentially they should be supporting New Zealanders getting access to warmer, drier homes as a result of participating in this programme.

7. Vote Education—Gifted and Talented Education

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What changes did she make within Vote Education Budget 2009 relating to gifted and talented education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : The Government ceased funding for gifted and talented education professional development services through the school support service contracts. That yielded savings of $5.4 million over 4 years. The advice I received was that the funding had a limited effect in small pockets of the country but overall was not delivering system-wide changes in the practices of schools and teachers. The Government is still committed to helping gifted and talented students by providing funding of $5.28 million over the next 4 years to support initiatives for gifted and talented students.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why were gifted and talented children such a low priority that the Minister singled out their programmes for budget cuts and did not put the savings into more effective programmes for those children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said to the member, the advice I received was that those professional development programmes had limited and isolated reach, with not many schools benefiting from them. But we are committed to ensuring that gifted and talented students—like all students at school—are supported through the large amount of funding we spend on professional development.

Nikki Kaye: What initiatives is the Government proposing in order to deliver system-wide change to help gifted and talented students?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: One example would be that in December of this year the Government plans to publish resources to support gifted education in all New Zealand schools, including identification tools and quality teaching standards. Those resources are designed to promote system-wide change to help gifted and talented students, rather than the very limited and isolated change that the spending on professional development has produced so far.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why are children from a generally privileged background in private schools and elite integrated schools being given money taken from gifted children in State schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Again, as I have already stated in this Chamber, I am confused by that member’s stance on independent schools. On the one hand he is saying that they save the State money, but on the other hand he is saying we should not be giving them any funding.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You and I have corresponded on the issue of authentication and factual correctness in answers from Ministers. In this case the Minister is misquoting—as she did earlier—my blog on the site Red Alert. She has an obligation, if she is quoting me, to do it accurately.

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot dispute an answer by way of a point of order. On this occasion it was a point of order; last time this matter arose I was wrong and it was not a point of order. The member has raised a point of order, and he cannot dispute an answer that way. However, I ask the Minister to come more directly to the question the member asked. It has taken an awfully long time to hear an answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I said to the member that the professional development services that were being delivered—that $5 million that we have taken from the Budget—was not delivering system-wide change. We are looking for system-wide change for gifted and talented students across the country. They deserve to have support. That is what we are attempting to achieve through both professional development across the board and the specific initiatives we are putting into place.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she cut the money from gifted and talented education professional development because she was captured by politically correct officials who do not believe in nurturing tall poppies?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

8. Prisons—Capacity

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

8. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received on prison capacity?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : I have received several reports on the looming prison capacity crisis that this Government inherited. This crisis was first signalled in the briefing to the incoming Minister, which noted: “An immediate concern is the prospect that existing in-use capacity is exhausted by mid-2010.” Since then I have received other reports from the department on the crisis. The Government has been forced to take immediate action to ensure that the Department of Corrections does not run out of beds next year.

Shane Ardern: What options are being considered to address the looming capacity crisis?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Unlike the previous Government, this Government is working to ensure that we can house those prisoners. We need to deal with the fact that we will run out of baseline beds next year. Double-bunking and increasing capacity on existing prison sites using containers are viable short-term solutions. Justice sector forecasts point to an extra 5,000 prison beds being required by 2018. Clearly, we will also have to build a new prison, and collectively we also need to try to reduce the number of people going to prison in the first place.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister take pride or shame in the fact that New Zealand has the second-highest rate of imprisonment in the developed world after the USA, and how will keeping prisoners in containers reduce reoffending rates?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Actually, it is a national disgrace for this country to have the second highest rate of incarceration after the United States. I have to say that it is a bit rich for that member to ever try to say anything about it, because when his party took power there were 5,000 prisoners in our prisons and now there are 8,500. That is the legacy that Phil Goff left us with.

Shane Ardern: What reports has she received on the cost of using containers at existing prisons?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The latest costs I have from the department are for a landed per bed cost of $7,625 and a plugged-in cost per bed of $53,000 to $63,000. That includes hardening, concrete base, service connections, and unit-based infrastructure. Those costs could fall further, given the interest in providing these containers that is being shown around the country. Containers are a viable and cost-effective solution, and whatever option we choose, we would have to provide a secure, clean, and humane living environment for prisoners.

9. Māori—Open Access to Universities

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

9. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement “Māori students should be granted open access to universities at any age with no qualifications”; if not, why not?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, I do.

Kelvin Davis: How does allowing open access for Māori to university address the core issue of Māori underachievement at school?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The member is right; it does not. We have had 60 years of challenging secondary schools to increase their work rate. Fifty-one percent of Māori boys leave secondary school with no National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) qualifications. We have a trial programme that allows Māori into university at some institutions without any qualifications, then they do a bridging course to bring them up to standard, and then they enrol in first-year papers. The other part of my request was that kaupapa Māori be introduced into the teaching at universities.

Kelvin Davis: Why does the Minister want to give Māori free access to university at any age when the current policy allows open entry to university for all students from the age of 20 anyway?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Part of the reason is the way that some teachers allocate subjects in years 9, 10, and 11 to Māori students means that they are automatically taken away from the university entrance programme. A recent thesis produced by Margaret Taurere of Auckland University details subject choices and how they are made. Māori families do not know about that, and there needs to be an education programme. But, basically, secondary schools have to lift their work rate.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. How does the Minister account for the fact that Māori students have the lowest rates of progression from school to tertiary education of any ethnic group, and what is he doing about it?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Over the years I have tried just about everything and still there is that gap in achievement in secondary education. As I said, 51 percent of boys leave school leave with no NCEA qualifications. As the Associate Minister of Education I am running out the kotahitanga programme in more schools. I have an education programme for school principals to get them in the groove so they know what is required for Māori students. I will establish a trade academy and I have a literacy programme in South Auckland, which I will be announcing very shortly. I am working on kaupapa Māori programmes, kōhanga, kura, wharekura, and whare wānanga, and my task force on the economy has a transition programme to get secondary students into the tertiary sector.

Kelvin Davis: If the Minister is concerned about providing bridging courses to better prepare Māori students for tertiary education, why did he vote in favour of a Budget that cut funding to adult and community education for literacy and numeracy courses that prepare many Māori for higher education?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: As part of our arrangement with the National Government, we give them confidence and supply—

Hon George Hawkins: Sell-out!

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES:—a lifetime of working for one’s people is not being a sell-out, so I tell that member to start learning—and that is the reason.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Can the Minister explain why lifting the number of Māori people with degree-level qualifications is important to him?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Māori people with degrees have a high participation rate in the workforce of 90 percent, they have a strong resilience to unemployment of 3 percent, and they earn 150 percent more than Māori people without degrees. At the macro level, increasing the returns of Māori labour is the single most important action for improving Māori prosperity and ensuring that more Māori students get degrees is paramount.

Kelvin Davis: Does the Minister still believe that he has no chance of getting the Government to agree to allow open entry of Māori students at university; if so, is that statement an admission that the National Government is not listening to his views as either the Associate Minister of Education or the Minister of Māori Affairs?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: There are two answers to that question. Firstly, Victoria University took my suggestion very seriously, as did the Auckland University of Technology, and will look at it. Secondly, it is vital that we attack the problem of secondary schools not performing in terms of Māori youth. That is why I am highlighting the point that if secondary schools will not step up and deal with that problem, then we go elsewhere, such as universities, to deal with it.

10. Public Defence Service—Changes

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

10. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: What recent changes has he announced to the Public Defence Service?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : The Public Defence Service, which is administered by the Legal Services Agency, is an in-house service providing criminal legal aid and duty solicitor services for up to one-third of all legally aided defendants in Auckland and Manukau courts. As part of the Budget, the Government is providing $5.3 million in the year to come to expand that pilot service from the courts in Auckland and Manukau, to include courts in Waitakere, North Shore, Pukekohe, and Papakura.

Chester Borrows: How has the Public Defence Service demonstrated its effectiveness?

Hon SIMON POWER: A recent value-for-money analysis found that the flow of Public Defence Service cases through the court system led to a two-thirds reduction in jury trials, resulting in material savings in court time and cost. That backed up an earlier evaluation. Those savings were achieved with no difference in outcome for the client, as measured by overall conviction rates.

Chester Borrows: Has he seen any other evidence regarding the working of the Public Defence Service?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes, I have. Earlier this month I sat in on a session at the Manukau District Court, where I was able to see the Public Defence Service in action. I was very impressed with the level of preparedness of the public defenders, and the speed with which cases were progressed through the court.

11. Dr Richard Worth—Confidence

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

11. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : I refer the member to the response to question No. 12 on Tuesday, 16 June.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth, was he in possession or not in possession of substantive information that is not yet available to the public?

Hon JOHN KEY: When I did that, that was the point at which I lost confidence in Dr Worth. I did not believe that his conduct befitted that of a Minister. I will not go into the specifics of the information, but I think members can rest assured that in losing confidence in Dr Worth I was satisfied that I could make that case.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very direct question. It asked the Prime Minister whether he was in possession of material not yet in the public arena. The Prime Minister did not address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister indicated that he did not intend, presumably in the public interest, to go into the matter in too much detail. The member obviously has a further supplementary question. I will listen very carefully to the Prime Minister’s answer.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Let me put the question again, then. When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth, was he in possession, or not in possession, of substantive information that is not yet public?

Hon JOHN KEY: I will not go into the specifics of the information I had when I lost confidence in Dr Worth, because I do not believe it is in the public interest to do so.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I pointedly did not ask the Prime Minister to tell us what the information was, and the reason for that is that the Prime Minister had already advised the House last week that it was not in the public interest for him to divulge it. The question is whether he had that information in the first place, and that question has not been addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I take the point that the member has made. He is not asking what the information is; I take it that he is asking whether the Prime Minister had any information at the time he lost confidence in the Minister that was not in the public arena. It is totally up to the Prime Minister whether he answers on that specific issue. I invite him to consider whether he can answer the question as to whether he was in possession of any information that was not in the public arena.

Hon JOHN KEY: I do not think it is in the public interest to go into those specifics.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In summary, I submit to you that it is not the Prime Minister’s choice whether he advises us—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

Hon Pete Hodgson: Yes, it is. It is a point of order under Standing Order 377(1). My submission is that the Prime Minister does not have the discretion to decide whether he wishes to address the question. Standing Order 377(1) is a two-part Standing Order. The second part talks about the public interest and how that point might be invoked to not address a question. Otherwise, the Minister must seek to address the question. Mr Speaker, I put it to you with humility that you are obliged—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: This is a point of order; it a serious one.

Hon Pete Hodgson: —to uphold the first part of Standing Order 377(1). To briefly recapitulate, I say that the question is determinedly—on purpose, obviously—a narrow question. The question does not seek to learn what information is being withheld; it seeks to learn whether information is being withheld. Mr Speaker, I believe that you are bound to have the Minister seek to address that.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the seriousness of the point of order that the honourable member has raised. He may note that when the point was raised by the Hon Trevor Mallard, I put the particular issue of his question to the Prime Minister, and I think I summarised it reasonably when I put that to him. It was the Prime Minister’s judgment that it was not in the public interest to answer that particular question, and as Speaker I cannot judge that, because I do not know what information may or may not have been received—I am not in a position to judge that. In this case, only the Prime Minister can be the judge of whether it is in the public interest to divulge that information. Standing Order 377(1) makes it very clear that it is the right of a Minister not to answer a question, and that constitutes addressing the question. If a Minister says that it is not in the public interest for him or her to answer a question, he or she has addressed the question as required by that Standing Order. Therefore, I believe that the House has to accept the Prime Minister’s judgment that it is not in the public interest to answer that question further.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Speaking to your ruling, if I may raise another point of order under Standing Order 377(1), I submit to you that because the question is only about whether the Minister has information, for him to not answer it is disorderly. If, let us say, the Prime Minister has no information, then he has already told the House that he is withholding information under the second part of Standing Order 377(1), and has, in fact, contradicted himself in the course of a week. If, on the other hand, he has information that he is not of a mind to impart—and no one can require that of him; it is his choice alone—then it would seem to me that he is obliged to tell the House that he has information so that we can put to one side the possibility that he does not.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Not only is Mr Hodgson challenging the ruling that you just made, but also he is seeking to undo the ruling by Speaker Hunt, Speaker’s Ruling 157/8, which says: “A member cannot demand a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer to a question.” As the question was put to you by Mr Hodgson just then, he is effectively asking for a yes or no answer. The fact that he did not put on the end of his question: “…yes or no?” is irrelevant. That is the nature of the question. The Prime Minister has answered as adequately as is possible under the circumstances. Parliament should allow that to be the case. Numerous Speakers’ Rulings in here, which I do not want to necessarily refer to, make it very clear that although members may not be satisfied with an answer to a question, that does not necessarily mean that the answer itself has in any way breached Standing Orders. I support the ruling that you have just given. It makes it clear that if the Prime Minister determines that carrying on with this exchange in the way that Mr Hodgson wants is against the public interest, then that determination should be accepted by the House.

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

Mr SPEAKER: This is the last one I will listen to.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think I might be going down a trail of irrelevance here, but in considering the matter raised by Mr Brownlee, I ask you to consider also Speaker’s Ruling 163/2—again, from Speaker Hunt—which says: “Ministers have a responsibility to the House, and through the House to the country, to account for the public offices they hold.” It goes on to say that Ministers should, wherever possible, answer questions. I have been contemplating the Prime Minister’s reply in this particular area, and unlike my colleague, I think I can contemplate one particular circumstance where it would not be in the public interest for the Prime Minister to answer the question. It is not a police matter. If it is a police matter then it would not hurt the Prime Minister to indicate that he held information; he would not have to say where it came from. I think the only area that it could possibly be is a security matter, and I think in leaving it like that, if it is not a security matter, he is leaving Dr Richard Worth’s name—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That was a very eloquently delivered piece of complete irrelevance from the Hon Trevor Mallard. It is interesting to note that on the same page of the Speakers’ Rulings, once again Speaker Hunt notes: “Question time is a political exchange. The adequacy of the performance of members, whether in Government or in Opposition, is judged on a political basis.” This nature of exchange is exactly that, and, as I have said, I do not think the point raised by Mr Mallard is relevant. Your ruling should stand.

Hon Peter Dunne: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: OK, I will hear the Hon Peter Dunne, but I do not want to take much further time on this.

Hon Peter Dunne: I just draw your attention to Speakers’ Rulings 162/3 and 162/4, particularly with reference to the public interest. In 162/3 Mr Speaker Steward in 1892 and Mr Speaker Gray in 1991 ruled that the determination of the public interest was “in the opinion of the Minister interrogated,”. In 162/4 your predecessor, Madam Speaker Wilson, ruled in 2008 that “ultimately, the judgment of whether a particular reply is consistent with the public interest is for the Minister to make.” My submission today is as it was last week: the determination whether the public interest criterion is satisfied rests not, with respect, with you as Speaker, but with the Minister who is being questioned at the time.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members; I think all have made valuable contributions to what I accept is a sensitive issue. But at the end of the day members will note that I have—in fact, today, a couple of times—asked members to not just address a question but answer some questions. But the quid pro quo, as the Standing Order intends, of Ministers being required to answer questions, is that if in their view it is not in the public interest to do so, they can say so and actually not give an answer. The Standing Order makes it very clear that it is possible to do that. The fact that a Minister chooses to do that tells a lot about the nature of the question, etc., and it actually says a lot in itself when the Minister, or on this occasion the Prime Minister, chooses to do that. So I think that, as the Hon Peter Dunne pointed out, the House has to accept that where a Minister invokes the public interest, the Speaker and the House have to accept that judgment on behalf of the Minister. I would far sooner have a Minister say it is not in the public interest than waffle on for half an hour about irrelevant stuff. I believe it is the proper implementation of the Standing Order.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Prime Minister believe that his trenchant refusal to seek to address questions on this matter is a good look?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, it is, because it shows that the Government is focused on the issues that really matter to New Zealanders, and that the Opposition is in the gutter.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Given that the Prime Minister said last week that he “acted fairly but firmly and swiftly.”, how might the public judge whether he acted fairly but swiftly and firmly when he has chosen not to tell them what he was acting on, or even whether he was acting on anything at all?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, because they can tell by the actions. I know the Opposition is not used to a Prime Minister who acts, but this side of the House is. That is the first point. The second point is that, in the end, the test of whether a Minister enjoys the confidence of the Prime Minister is a subjective test, in the same way that it is a subjective test whether someone is promoted to Cabinet.

12. Wine—Testing Requirements

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

12. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister for Food Safety: What changes have been made to the testing requirements for wine?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) : On my instruction, to reduce business compliance costs the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has removed the requirement that all wine destined for the European Union must be sent to Auckland for testing, and now wine will be able to be tested closer to a winery’s own operations. [Interruption]

Hon John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the member, but the member Mr Mallard has been accusing me of being a liar, and I think that is inappropriate in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: On a couple of occasions during question time today I have heard the Hon Trevor Mallard interjecting exactly that. Offence has been taken on this occasion, and I ask the member to withdraw and apologise for it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Before I do that, Mr Speaker, I make it clear—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: I did not make the comment!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will leave the Chamber for the rest of the day.

Hon Trevor Mallard: For not making a comment? For goodness’ sake!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will not dispute the Speaker. [Interruption] And if he is not careful he will be named. [Interruption]

* Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that we have to take this issue carefully. I think the issue was that Mr Mallard was trying to communicate to you that he had not used the phrase that the Prime Minister had accused him of making. Mr Mallard said he was happy to withdraw if he had breached parliamentary procedure by using an unparliamentary term, but Mr Mallard did not say the very word that the Prime Minister said he had used. I heard what Mr Mallard said; I am happy to repeat it for you, if that is of use to you. To eject a member and threaten him with being named, when you had directed him to withdraw and apologise for something that he had not said, and when you did not ask him to clarify what he had said, does seem like Mr Mallard has paid a very high penalty.

Mr SPEAKER: The matter is very simple. Today during question time I have listened to the Hon Trevor Mallard interjecting inappropriately on a number of occasions. I have pulled him up on a couple of occasions. The problem at the end was that when I asked him to withdraw and apologise for it because offence had been taken, he started to dispute with the Speaker. I will not tolerate that. The manner in which he did it was the problem; it was not that he had interjected. He could have withdrawn and apologised for that. It is not a difficult thing. The dignity of the House was totally destroyed by the way that the member behaved, and I will not tolerate that in the House. The honourable member will just have to learn to control his anger. It would have been perfectly within my right as the Speaker to have him called back into the House and have him named. I have not done that, because I do not want to do that, but the member will have to learn to behave with a little more decorum. He is a senior member. He has the authority from the Labour Party, it seems, to raise points of order on behalf of the party. The shadow Leader of the House appears to allow him to do that on a number of occasions. If he is going to do that, he has to respect the House and respect the dignity of the House, and not behave in the way that he did just now. He will be out for the rest of this day, and he will learn to behave in a manner befitting the dignity of this House. I did not make that decision lightly. Members will note that I resisted the temptation. In my time in the House, I have seen members named for that kind of behaviour as they left the Chamber. I did not want to do that, because I realised that the member had lost the plot for a moment and he was angry. That is the end of the matter. But I want all members, on all sides of the House, to realise that it does not matter about me as the Speaker; it is the treatment of this House. This House will be treated with its proper dignity.

Hon John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me make it quite clear. On numerous occasions Mr Mallard yelled out at me: “Your nose is growing. Your nose is growing.” I think everyone understands what Mr Mallard meant by that. I took offence at it. The reason I took offence is that Mr Hodgson may not like the fact that I have not answered questions in the way that he would want, but I have not done so because I am a liar or have misled New Zealand in any way; I have done so because I do not believe that it is in the public interest to answer those questions in the way that he would want. That is a vastly different proposition. I recognise Opposition members’ dissatisfaction with that, and they are entitled to be dissatisfied, but I am also entitled to answer questions in the way that I perceive to be in the public interest. There was no ambiguity about the implications of the statements that Mr Mallard made. Members will know that I have been in this House for 7 years and I have virtually never asked members to apologise, but I will not put up with Mr Mallard implying very clearly that I am a liar. I am not.

Hon Darren Hughes: I think what the Prime Minister has just offered the House goes directly to the point I have made to you. The Prime Minister took a point of order and accused Mr Mallard of calling him a particular word. Mr Speaker, it was that which made you get to your feet and reprimand Mr Mallard. As you rightly said, he had said that word earlier in question time and without hesitation withdrew it. But the Prime Minister, who brought the issue to your attention by way of a point of order, used a different word from what he has now admitted in his second point of order was actually said. The other point I would make is that you have given a long dissertation about your views on Mr Mallard, using your authority as Chair, in a way that I do not think we have ever seen; it was quite a detailed explanation given by somebody in the Chair. Mr Mallard has been penalised, in this case, for something that the Prime Minister himself, who was the person who complained, now admits was a false accusation about what Mr Mallard had said in the first—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Bill English: Sit down!

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. And there will be no interjections, even from the Deputy Prime Minister. I have let these points of order go on long enough, because I realise that the House is concerned about the actions I have taken. But I say to the Hon Darren Hughes that anyone who thinks that what the Hon Trevor Mallard said was not an insinuation of lying does not have half the intelligence that I attribute to the Hon Darren Hughes. To insinuate a member is lying is out of order. It has been well—please do not dispute me while I am in the Chair. I have not asked many members to leave this House. But I will not have the dignity of this House insulted by members behaving in the way that the Hon Trevor Mallard has behaved just now. I will not tolerate it. It is up to members to treat this House with dignity. That is the last thing I will say on this matter. We were on question No. 12. I think Colin King has a supplementary question.

Colin King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I seek your indulgence, if not the House’s indulgence, to put the original question to the Minister again?

Mr SPEAKER: I will let the member put his question, because I think the honourable Minister had not finished answering it.

Colin King: What changes have been made to the testing requirements for wine?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: On my instruction, to reduce business compliance costs the New Zealand Food Safety Authority has removed the requirement that all wine destined for the European Union must be sent to Auckland for testing, and now wine will be able to be tested closer to a winery’s own operations. It makes sense that wine should be allowed to be tested at any appropriate lab, rather than out forcing wineries to send everything to Auckland. I thank the National MPs who lobbied so effectively on behalf of their local winemakers who had expressed frustration over the current process.

Colin King: What reports has she seen in response to this announcement?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: South Island laboratories have already indicated that they want to offer testing services, so wineries should soon have a choice of providers and an opportunity to reduce their costs. Wine exporters have already expressed their support, with the New Zealand Winegrowers Deputy Chairman, Steve Green, saying that he is pleased to see that the Government is supporting New Zealand wineries.

ENDS

© Scoop Media