THURSDAY, 17 SEPTEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Ministers—Confidence

1. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) on behalf of Hon ANNETTE KING

(Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because they are talented people working hard for New Zealand.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he believe that in all matters his Minister of Finance has followed that part of the Cabinet Manual that reads: “… Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and I understand that the Minister of Finance gets the same accommodation allowance as about a hundred other members of Parliament.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he believe that it is ethical for the Minister of Finance to undertake legal manoeuvres that happen to increase his family trust’s receipts from the taxpayer, at the same time as the Minister of Finance requires restraint in every other aspect of Government expenditure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand that the Minister of Finance has explained many times publicly that he accepts that there was a perception problem, and that is why he paid the money back and now receives the same allowance as about a hundred other members of Parliament.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he believe that it is now time for the Minister of Finance to release his family trust deed, with appropriate deletions to protect the privacy of others?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The Minister of Finance receives the same housing allowance as about a hundred other members of Parliament, and that member could ask the same question of those hundred other members of Parliament, should he so wish.

Hon Pete Hodgson: What is the precise pecuniary interest that must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence—is it a personal pecuniary interest test or a familial pecuniary interest test?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the Minister of Finance has said many times, he accepts that there was a perception problem with the arrangements. He kept to all the rules, but he paid the money back. What else can he do?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very precise. It had no extra material in it. It asked which of two tests should be used. That question was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon Bill English whether he could focus on the test that is applied, because the question was specifically about that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has no ministerial responsibility for that in his capacity as Prime Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a long-established tradition in the Westminster system that, in fact, Prime Ministers have responsibility for everything that each of their Ministers has responsibility for, including the things that they are responsible for themselves. Prime Ministers can transfer primary questions, but you know as well as I do, Mr Speaker, that in the House of Commons and in this Parliament Prime Ministers can be asked questions that relate to conservation, to economics, and to social welfare. They are the Prime Minister and therefore they have to answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma I face is—I take it that the honourable Minister is still arguing that there is no ministerial responsibility for that issue.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is happy to answer the question? I thank the Minister.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is asking for a legal opinion. The Prime Minister has been advised that the Minister of Finance took legal advice—legal advice that was available to every member of Parliament about the declaration of pecuniary interests.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Mr Speaker, I am very happy to reword the question, if you would like, in order that it falls within the Standing Orders.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the member was seeking to ask a further supplementary question. Was he on a point of order then?

Hon Pete Hodgson: No, I am offering to rephrase the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe that the Minister answered the question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: If he has answered it, that is fine. What, then, does the Prime Minister make of this document called Travel, Accommodation, Attendance, and Communications Services Available to the Members of the Executive? It is dated 26 May this year, which is proof that it was signed by Mr John Key. It states on page 3, under paragraph (c), concerning the principle that expenditure must be properly documented and supported with tax invoices and receipts: “Members of the Executive must be open in the use of public resources and disclose any conflict of interest in utilising entitlements, whether that conflict is pecuniary, personal, familial, or as the result of any associations.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It can only re-state what the Minister of Finance has said many times. He agreed that there was a perception of an interest in the arrangements, and that is why he paid the money back. What else can he do?

Hon Pete Hodgson: Was the test by which Mr English was judged the test that I have just read out or some other test?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Finance kept to all the rules. He accepted there was perception of conflict, and paid the money back. The Minister of Finance receives the same accommodation allowance as a hundred other members of Parliament.

Te Ururoa Flavell: *Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. *Kia ora tātou. Does the Prime Minister have confidence that the Minister for Land Information will accept the recommendation of the New Zealand Geographic Board* that Whanganui City should be spelt with an “h”, which is consistent with the history, the heritage, the culture, the language, and the people of Whanganui, and what will be the process to enact this decision?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is my understanding that the *Minister for Land Information, who is a considered Minister, will look at the board’s findings and make any *inquiries he sees fit before making his decision.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I seek leave to table two documents. One is the **Executive Travel, Accommodation, Attendance, and Communications Services Determination 2009, and the second is the details thereof.

Mr SPEAKER: We should put leave for one document at a time. Are they two associated documents?

Hon Pete Hodgson: They are.

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

Financial Position—Government Measures

2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What are the measures this Government is taking to improve New Zealand’s financial position?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government has moved to get on top of spiralling public debt, to maintain New Zealand’s credit rating, to continue investment to support jobs through programmes such as the home insulation programme and infrastructure investment, and to focus on better, smarter public services for less money.

David Bennett: What benefits has New Zealand already seen from this strategy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have made good progress to date. New Zealand has maintained its credit rating. We have maintained entitlements and protected the most vulnerable in society. We have been able to assist in rebuilding business and consumer confidence. It is my hope that unemployment will not reach the peaks that have been forecast, but if it does, that we will get unemployment levels down quickly, because whether people have a job is actually the most important measure of a recession.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given the Minister’s statement that he is going to “tilt the playing field in favour of investment, saving, working, and exporting,” does he agree with *Pipfruit Growers New Zealand and the *Manufacturers and Exporters Association that the rapidly rising dollar is driving exporters out of business; if so, what is he going to do about it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am concerned about the level of the dollar, particularly given that the economy has been in recession for about 18 months. It is going to take time for us to undo the damage done by that member’s party over the last 10 years, when it allowed debt-funded consumption to get out of hand.

David Bennett: How could progress towards a stronger economy that sustains more jobs be derailed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It would be difficult to create a sustainable, better-balanced economy if, for instance, the dollar kept rising and stayed very high. It would also be difficult to get any kind of balance in the economy if we followed the advice of the Labour Opposition, which is to go out and borrow another $6 billion when we are already up to our ears in debt.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, I raised, and you upheld, a point of order on exactly the same matter, from that same member. That point was that he has no responsibility for Labour Party policy, and the Labour Party has released no such policies, nor made any such commitments.

Mr SPEAKER: The member must be careful not to try to debate issues by way of a point of order. I do not think what the Minister of Finance, Bill English, said was excessive at all. He did not get into Labour’s policies, at all.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order. I seek your guidance. Yesterday, you upheld an almost identical point of order of mine from the same member. You declared that he did not have responsibility for Labour Party policy and asked him to desist from those comments. It would appear that the member has trifled with your ruling of yesterday, because he has done exactly the same stunt today. I seek your clarification on what steps you would propose to take.

Mr SPEAKER: I can assure the member that the Minister was not trifling with my ruling from yesterday. If the member reflects back on what transpired yesterday, the Minister started to make much more comment about the quality of certain Labour policies. Today he was simply making an allegation about what he understands to be a certain amount of money that would need to be

borrowed. He did not go further into particular policies. I will not take the matter further. I did not consider that excessive, at all.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a fresh point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: It had better be fresh point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: Without reference to the point of order that you upheld yesterday, I ask your guidance now on what appears to be a new or extended ruling that you just introduced. If it is now permissible for Ministers to refer, to some extent, to the policies of other parties, what is the guideline—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member to resume his seat and not trifle with the *Chair. A little bit of common sense should be applied. The member has been in this House long enough to know the banter that goes back and forth in answering questions, and I will intervene if Ministers excessively focus on the policies of another political party, which are not their responsibility. But the extent to which the Minister referred to the Opposition’s policy was not excessive at all, to me. I think this is wasting the time of the House.

Mining—Protected Areas and Forests

3. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: When he said that “A report circulated by the World Bank some years ago ranked New Zealand second in the world in terms of natural wealth per capita”, was he aware that protected areas and forests make up 29 percent of that wealth, whereas subsoil assets make up just 3 percent?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes. The general point I was trying to make was that everyone knows that New Zealand has magnificent, pristine, and very beautiful natural resources in the form of our conservation estates above ground. There is no question about that. But without wanting to make a personal statement, I suggest that the member has taken me somewhat out of context. I do agree with her statement that it is clear that environmental goals can be met alongside responsible mining.

Metiria Turei: Does the Minister, then, agree that 29 percent is bigger than 3 percent?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Can I come back to the member on that later?

Jacqui Dean: How could responsible mining contribute to lifting New Zealand’s economic performance?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Mining uses just 40 square kilometres of the New Zealand land mass, which is less than 0.015 percent of New Zealand’s total land area. The export value of that mining activity is $175,000 per hectare. Dairy farming by comparison uses 20,000 square kilometres, with an export value of only $3,500. I note that it is Green Party policy to get rid of dairy farming, as well.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister confused by the word “national” in national parks into thinking his party can ride *roughshod over the long tradition in New Zealand that national parks should be conserved as they are and not mined?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Not at all.

Metiria Turei: If the Minister thinks the Stockton mine—a photo of which I have here—is a good example of good environmental mining, is he happy to see our national parks looking like the Stockton mine?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I make it very clear that no one is talking about mining our national parks. We are saying that there is a huge amount of land in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act, and we simply want to have a look at it to see what is there. I do not see what the Green Party is so particularly wound up about, especially given the member’s own statement that it is clear that it “is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy.”

Hon Tim Groser: Is the Minister aware that according to advice provided by the Department of Conservation to the Minister of Conservation, no fewers than 82 separate mines were operating on

Department of Conservation land on the Labour Government’s watch, mining everything from gold through to limestone; and is he able to explain to a totally confused New Zealand public why Labour members would describe that mining on its watch as a *win-win environment-economic result, but when the issue of mining on Department of Conservation land is raised under National it is called rape and pillage?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I am aware of that extraordinary contradiction in views. I assume that it was that situation that led Metiria Turei to make the statement that “it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy.” For 9 years the Green Party supported Labour in its efforts. Now, because National wants to take a responsible approach to this matter, everything is all wrong.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that he has ruled out from the stocktake that he intends to undertake all of the land contained within all of New Zealand’s national parks?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member knows which bits of the national parks are in schedule 4—all of them, in fact. But we have said that we are doing a stocktake of the lands in schedule 4—end of story. I also say that the process will be very, very public, and any decisions that result from it will be able to be judged by the public. What do the Greens have against the jobs of the many thousands of New Zealanders who work in these industries each and every year?

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific: will the stocktake cover national parks, or not? The Minister has not addressed that part of the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe that the Minister did. He said the stocktake covers the land in schedule 4, and that does include parks. I believe he answered the question.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Balance

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that *“the Government has struck the right balance between its economic responsibilities and its environmental responsibilities.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Should the *emissions trading scheme therefore introduce an incentive for emitters to reduce emissions and adopt clean technology alternatives; if so, why does the Government’s proposed *“cap and trade” scheme have no cap?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will be aware, there have been many years of discussion about the emissions trading scheme. The feedback I have had from the wider community and the business community is that regardless of whether they like the rules—and many of them do not— they think it is better to have some certainty so that they can get on with investment and creating jobs. That is what this Government is all about.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will that certainty include the giving of up to $1 billion in additional taxpayer subsidies to companies like *Rio Tinto to encourage them to reduce emissions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with the member’s characterisation of the decision. He needs to keep in mind that a country that is, to quote the media today, “running chronic trade … deficits and which is up to its nostrils in debt to the rest of the world cannot afford to be cavalier about risks” of exporting our export industries, losing jobs, and losing export-earning capacity.

Hon David Cunliffe: If we cannot afford to be cavalier about debt, why does the Minister’s Government use a carbon price of $200 a tonne to reject calls for a 40 percent reduction target, and then give a price of $25 a tonne when estimating the cost to the taxpayer of the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme? Who is being cavalier now?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, the member’s representation is, I understand, incorrect. If the member is really concerned about getting in touch with middle New Zealand, I invite him to go to the *Rio Tinto smelter at *Tīwai, address a crowd of 700 *middle New Zealanders, and tell them he would rather see them working in a smelter in China.

Schools—Support for Māori Students

5. LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupō) to the Minister of Education: What is the Government doing to support schools to raise achievement for Māori students?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yesterday the Hon Dr Pita Sharples and I announced that 17 more schools will benefit from the Te Kōtahitanga* secondary schools programme next year. Funding of almost $20 million over 4 years will allow the number of schools taking part in Te Kōtahitanga to expand from 33 to 50. I am delighted that we have been able to extend the programme, which will now benefit an extra 7,000 Māori students.

Louise Upston: What reports has the Minister seen about commitments to raise Māori student achievement?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a report from the Hon Phil Goff. He said last weekend to Māori students: “under Labour you are going to do much better. You are going to achieve more.” Because we have not heard anything other than this puffy promise one can only assume that this means more than the *“Wassup!” badges that the previous Labour Minister of Education personally signed off and proudly defended in this House. Do members remember those badges? I am proud that this Government is investing in something that actually makes a difference for our Māori students—Te Kōtahitanga.

Kelvin Davis: If Te Kōtahitanga is about teacher-pupil relationships, which is identified in research as the 11th most effective strategy for raising achievement, what plans does the Minister have to support the 10 other strategies that researchers identified as being even more effective at raising achievement?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As that member well knows, formative assessment, which he blogged about recently, is one of those strategies, and national standards that this Government is introducing will address that.

Kelvin Davis: If research identifies that parents who understand the language of education are better able to engage with their children’s teachers in schools, which assists their children’s learning, what plans, if any, does the Minister have to assist Māori parents to understand the language of education so that they may engage with their children’s teachers in schools and assist their children’s learning?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am delighted that that member has asked me that question. We have just come through a consultation around national standards. Over 2,000 parents came along to consultation meetings, including many Māori and Pasifika *whānau. We had 3,000 written submissions to that consultation, and they were very clear about what they want from education. First of all, they want to know in clear language how their children are doing at school. They want to know what they can do to be of assistance to those children, and how they can know their children’s strengths and weaknesses. That is exactly what our *national standards policy will deliver to Māori, Pasifika, and European families.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is it true that the rationale behind **He Kākano, the new professional learning and school-based development programme, is to develop culturally responsive leadership? How will that lead to improved Māori outcomes in education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, that member is absolutely correct. He Kākano will develop culturally responsible leadership in up to 100 principals from next year. All the evidence shows us that Māori students succeed when schools recognise, value, and respect Māori culture and language.

Women’s Causes—Minister’s Support

6. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Women’s Affairs: What actions has she taken to advance the causes of women in New Zealand?

Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs): The answer to that question would take up the balance of question time, so I will confine myself to the three priorities of the *Ministry of Women’s Affairs. They are increasing the number of women in leadership through initiative such as

through the **Women on Boards initiative, addressing the gender pay gap, and reducing violence against women, especially sexual violence. These priorities have received overwhelming support from the 52 public meetings that have been held by the ministry throughout the country in recent months.

Sue Moroney: Given that two out of every three of the newly jobless in New Zealand are women, what action has she taken to get her Government to create jobs in the parts of the economy where women work; or will she continue to sit on her hands because she believes that it is inevitable that women will bear the brunt of the recession, as she said in her press statement dated 25 February 2009?

Hon PANSY WONG: The National Government has done much to stimulate the economy, especially our Prime Minister, who is also the *Minister of Tourism. In one of the workshops with women, I was impressed when they talked about the hospitality and tourism industry being an important industry for women. I am glad that the Minister of Tourism is putting in more money and a cycleway to promote tourism in order to create jobs, especially for women.

Amy Adams: What support did the Ministry of Women’s Affairs receive in Budget 2009 to advance the causes of women in New Zealand?

Hon PANSY WONG: I thank my National colleagues, who support the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. It received $2 million for the next 4 years to tackle the 12 percent pay gap that has existed since 2001 under Labour’s watch. Now the Ministry of Women’s Affairs can embark on four projects to tackle the pay gap. The first one is to tackle the differences in pay between male and female professionals after they have completed tertiary study. The second one is to promote the business case for flexible work arrangements. The third is to develop career paths for women in low-paid jobs, and the fourth is to highlight the barriers that prevent young women from choosing trade occupations. I thank my National colleagues for their support.

Sue Moroney: Apart from endless research, will she take action to support the call of the 15,808 New Zealanders who signed my petition urging the Government to reinstate pay equity investigations for the female—

Catherine Delahunty: Point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: There is a point of order, and I think I know what the member’s point of order will be. Members could not hear that question. I ask whether that was the point of order.

Catherine Delahunty: Yes, we cannot hear.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to be reasonable. I ask the member to start her question again.

Sue Moroney: Will the Minister take action to support the call of the 15,808 New Zealanders who signed my petition urging the Government to reinstate pay equity investigations for the femaledominated occupations of school support staff and social workers at the front line of Child, Youth, and Family?

Hon PANSY WONG: The National Government listens and responds. I say to those signatories that my diligent and hard-working colleague the Minister of Labour makes sure that resources are developed by the Department of Labour’s employment and equity divisions, and ensures that the chief executive continues to have response plans that take seriously pay equity between male and female workers. I say “Good on you!” to the Minister of Labour.

Sue Moroney: Can the Minister confirm that she will not be renewing the *Action Plan for New Zealand Women, or will she finally do something constructive and announce its renewal as the country celebrates *women’s suffrage day this Saturday?

Hon PANSY WONG: I understand that only one person raised the subject of the Action Plan for New Zealand Women during the 52 public meetings held in New Zealand. That person was the Labour spokesperson on women’s affairs. In the same 52 meetings, there was overwhelming support for the three priorities set by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. They are about women in leadership, addressing the gender pay gap, and reducing violence against women. I say that National is on the right track with women.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table what is left of a document to update the Minister of Education on the pay and employment equity review in the compulsory schooling sector. Most of it has been blanked out, but I would like to table it.

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.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a copy of the press release from Pansy Wong dated 25 February that I referred to, where she said it was inevitable that women would bear the brunt of the recession.

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

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a copy of a speech given today at an event celebrating the signatures gathered on the pay equity petition. The speech was given by **Angela McLeod from the **Pay Equity Challenge.

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.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a copy of a speech by **Putiputi Tēmara, a school support worker who gathered around 400 signatures on the pay equity petition.

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.

Hon PANSY WONG: I seek leave to table the publication On Board, which celebrates women in leadership.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sough to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Broadband Roll-out—Rural and Urban Initiatives

7. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister for

Communications and Information Technology: How does the $1.5 billion urban broadband initiative announced yesterday relate to the rural broadband plan announced last week?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Both policies aim to significantly improve the internet connection speeds of New Zealanders in both rural and urban areas through significant *roll-outs of fibre infrastructure. The rural programme is designed to improve rural broadband speeds over a shorter time frame to match the speeds currently being experienced in many urban areas. The urban initiative is a longer-term plan to introduce the next generation of ultra-fast broadband with fibre to the home for three-quarters of New Zealanders over the next 10 years.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What has been the response to the urban broadband initiative announced yesterday?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government’s announcement has been welcomed by the telecommunications sector. Leading Australian commentator **Paul Budde commented that the emphasis on dark fibre “is a great way of addressing this development as you clearly create the right environment to move away from a telco-centric infrastructure approach.” Internet New Zealand said: “This is a world-leading programme that can be expected to deliver the infrastructure New Zealand needs.” The *Telecommunications Users Association of New Zealand’s chief executive

officer, the inimitable *Mr Ernie Newman, has stated: “The paper builds very constructively on the work done previously … It takes into account most of the key issues raised in submissions, … It is an excellent blueprint on which to build.”

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What role could Telecom play in the urban broadband initiative?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is supportive of involvement from any potential partners that are willing to meet the tender criteria. We have specifically stated that bids covering a combination of regions, including national bids, will be entertained. All bids received will be assessed against the same criteria. The challenge for any prospective partner is whether it is willing to meet the open access requirements for passive fibre and the ownership requirements, where the partner would be a shareholder in the company that rolls out the fibre but would not control it.

Clare Curran: What proportion of the $300 million announced in the rural broadband scheme last week is public money, and where is the new money coming from?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As the member is aware, those details have not been announced. But they will be announced very shortly.

Clare Curran: Will the Minister guarantee that the people of north Hokianga—where Telecom will not give good service, where the lines often malfunction in damp weather, where dialup is almost impossible to get, and where satellite is not universally available—will get fast broadband under either of the plans?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not aware of the specific example the member mentions, but the Government’s rural broadband initiative will go a great deal of the way to improving broadband speeds throughout rural areas by ensuring that the fibre backhaul, or the link from the trunk network to the local loops, will be a huge amount better than it is currently in the existing environment.

Palm Kernel Imports—Profitability for Palm Oil Industry

8. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his comment that palm kernel extract was a waste product and not leading to deforestation; if so, does he believe that the $317 million that New Zealand paid for palm kernel in 2008 made no contribution to profitability of the oil palm industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; I am advised that what drives the expansion of the industry and deforestation in places in *South-east Asia is the demand for palm oil, which is used in a whole range of consumer products. The supplementary feed being imported into this country is a very low-value by-product of the industry that is otherwise burnt or left to rot on the ground.

Dr Russel Norman: Why will he not admit the obvious, which is that because palm kernel extract contributes up to 15 percent of the income stream of the palm oil industry, it significantly adds to the profitability of that industry and helps fuel its expansion into virgin rainforest across South-east Asia?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There seems to be some dispute about the proportion of value that is added. The member may have different information, but the information the Prime Minister has been given is that it is about 1.5 percent rather than 15 percent. We can no doubt resolve that matter. Palm oil - based products include margarine, processed foods, soap, and washing powder. I am keen to see whether Greenpeace intends to picket our supermarkets, if it really wants to stop deforestation in South-east Asia.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Prime Minister aware of comments made by *Daniel Cheow, the managing director of a Malaysian palm kernel exporter called **Palmbase, who said that palm kernel prices “have shot up as demand is coming in much faster than expected”, which in part is a result of the dramatic increase in demand coming from New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not familiar with those comments but I will repeat for the member that the primary driver of value in the palm oil industry is consumer products that are bought every

day by New Zealanders in our supermarkets. I look forward to the Greens and Greenpeace picketing those supermarkets, if they really want to stop deforestation.

Dr Russel Norman: We certainly will be campaigning. Given that diesel could be considered a by-product of the petrol industry, a by-product that generates only a proportion of the profits of oil companies, will he now argue that greenhouse emissions coming from the burning of diesel should not be taken into account, because it is only a by-product of the petrol industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There may be a range of by-products from the palm oil industry. I simply repeat that the palm kernel part of the industry is small. Of course, it has some impact; the Government does not deny that. But the real driver of the environmental impacts, which concern, I think, every New Zealander, is actually the consumer products that we buy *every day.

Insulation, Home—Criteria for Free Installation

9. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What criteria will be used to determine which households could receive free home insulation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): As I reported to the House yesterday, in just 2 months of the scheme 60 percent of the households receiving assistance have been occupied by *community services cardholders, and in most cases they will have paid nothing for that insulation, due to the third-party* funding that has been attracted by the scheme.

Chris Hipkins: Was Dr Sharples correct when he said that as part of the deal with the Māori Party to support the changes to the *emissions trading scheme, the Government would provide free home insulation to 2,000 Māori households?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think that is a very, very loose and somewhat *interpretive recycle of what Dr Sharples—

Chris Hipkins: It was in the papers.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: We all know that one does not believe everything one reads in the papers. I tell the member that Dr Sharples has raised an issue, and we are discussing that matter with him. In any event, well over 2,000 Māori households will be advantaged by this scheme over its *lifetime—well over.

Dr Cam Calder: Has the Minister received any reports on the success of the *Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme; if so, what do those reports say?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. As I advised the House yesterday, in just 8 weeks more than 8,000 houses have received *retrofits under the scheme. This figure compares with 9,000 that were done under the previous Labour Government in the entire 2007 year, and the 11,000 done by the previous Labour Government in the 2008 year. At the moment we are on track to beat those numbers some time during the next month.

Chris Hipkins: If Dr Sharples is incorrect, was Tariana Turia correct when she said that the Māori Party had secured free insulation for all low-income* households as part of the Māori Party’s deal to support the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am struggling a little to work out why the Labour Party finds it so difficult to accept that the National Government, with the Māori Party coalition arrangements and the ACT Party* coalition arrangements, is providing an opportunity for community services cardholders—low-income New Zealanders—to access free insulation.

Chris Hipkins: Does the Minister think it is fair to prioritise free home insulation for households in Northland and the East Coast—some of the warmest places in New Zealand—while low-income households in places like Wellington, Invercargill, Dunedin, and Christchurch will miss out on free home insulation?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The member leaps to a conclusion that, on the *statistics that I have in front of me, is quite unreasonable. Firstly, Canterbury had the largest uptake of the scheme during the last 2 months—the only 2 months the scheme has operated—at 22 percent. Other areas in

the South Island have been similarly quick to accept the scheme. I want to know why the member thinks it is OK for poor people to be cold in those parts of New Zealand.

Chris Hipkins: Will there be any new funding for home insulation as part of the deal with the Māori Party to support the *emissions trading scheme, or does the scheme just bring forward spending of the $323 million announced in the Budget, therefore not increasing the overall number of households receiving insulation under the Government’s scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Negotiations are continuing.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Deal with Māori Party

10. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Has he a written document of what has been agreed to with the Māori Party, to advance the Government’s amendments to the emissions trading scheme to a select committee; if so, will he table it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes. The agreement was by way of an exchange of letters between leaders. It is not appropriate to release those letters at this time, because we are working through the details of a number of proposals, and we wish to do that directly with the Māori Party, and not through public discourse, as we do with negotiations with other parties, including ACT. I would be happy to table the 13 bullet points that cover all the features of the agreement.

David Garrett: Does the Minister have an estimate of what the agreement with the Māori Party will cost taxpayers, and, given that the agreement is only to support the referral to a select committee, what does he think the cost of an agreement for a second and third reading of the bill will be?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The agreement we have in good faith with the Māori Party is to work through the details around some key initiatives for providing home insulation, as my colleague said, for low-income households. There are details about our working through a national policy statement on biodiversity under the Resource Management Act. There is a total of 13 initiatives, and I have every confidence that we can work cooperatively with the Māori Party to ensure its support for the second and third readings.

Craig Foss: Which of the 13 elements in the agreement with the Māori Party will be included in legislation to be introduced next week?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The details of the 50 percent obligation, the $25 fixed price option, and the additional allocation for fishing industry to quota holders will be included in the bill next week. Other details like the Treaty clause are subject to work by officials, including *Crown Law officials, in consultation with the Māori Party. Most of the other elements of the agreement do not require legislation. They are being worked on by officials in consultation with the Māori Party. We will announce those details when they are finalised.

Hon Shane Jones: Does he stand by his earlier public statement: “A separate Maori party will not help us find solutions to challenges, but will polarise the debate.”; if so, why is he encouraging the segregation of Māori climate change obligations from the rest of the New Zealand community?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am not. If the member looks in detail at the bill next week, he will see that although it is certainly true that Māori have a very large interest in industries like fishing, forestry, and agriculture, we have been very plain that there will not be—and the Māori Party has not asked for—any different rules for Māori in those industries than what there are for other New Zealanders.

David Garrett: Can the Minister confirm whether the deal involves benefit hikes, and whether the *energy-efficiency assistance for home insulation is, in fact, for all *low-income households, or just for Māori low-income households?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: On the first point, I say that the way our system of benefits works is that they are adjusted by *CPI each year, and when the increased cost of both fuel and power— which we have halved as part of the agreement—flows through, there will be an adjustment for

those benefits. In respect of the issues raised, the focus of the Māori Party has been a concern around low-income households, and it has not asked that the allocations be made specifically on the basis of any ethnicity.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister explain why the Māori concessions are good for *Papatūānuku, as reflected in the Māori Party commentary, or is this a case of the Government preaching indigenous declaration but acceding to indigenous desecration?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I find that interesting from a member of the Opposition. I remind him that during the time of the previous Labour administration emissions grew by 24 percent.

Hon Members: Answer the question!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite do not like it, but the reality is that their climate change record was an international embarrassment. Under this Government, with an effective agreement with the Māori Party we will have a very responsible approach to both climate change as well as the broader economic interests of Māori and other New Zealanders.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What measures has the Government agreed to in order to ensure that the obligations of the Crown to Māori, including the ones under the Treaty of Waitangi, are not compromised by the New Zealand *emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Māori Party has strongly advocated that position out of concern that Māori should not carry a disproportionate share of the costs of reducing emissions because of their concentration of economic interests in primary industry, and because of Māori being disproportionately represented in low-income households. Many of the 13 elements agreed on address this, including a specific Treaty clause in the law, additional allocations to fishing quota holders*, involvement for Māori in international negotiations over forestry offset, agreements to work through the issues for pre-emissions trading scheme forest settlements, measures to lower the cost increases for petrol and power, as well as the extension of the home insulation scheme for lowincome households.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister, Dr Smith, indicated he would table some documents in the House. He appears to have forgotten that.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek the leave of the House to table the key features negotiated between the Māori Party and the Government with respect to the emissions trading scheme.

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.

Ministerial Accommodation—Primary Place of Residence

11. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister responsible for

Ministerial Services: How is a Minister’s primary place of residence determined?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister responsible for

Ministerial Services: The primary place of residence for all members of Parliament, including Ministers, is determined by the Speaker.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why does *Ministerial Services not provide an official residence or pay any housing allowance to the Hon Peter Dunne, the Hon Chris Finlayson, or the Hon Heather Roy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Because it has been determined that their primary place of residence is Wellington.

Hon Jim Anderton: What information did Ministerial Services receive to persuade it that the Hon Bill English complied with the criteria of the Auditor-General relating to the primary place of residence of an MP, including the criterion regarding “the locations where the MP spends most of” his or her “non-parliamentary time;”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I assume that Ministerial Services used the same criteria that it used to determine where, for example, the Hon Pete Hodgson spent most of his time when he was an MP from Dunedin but was resident in Wellington.

Hon Jim Anderton: Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: I am afraid that I have already been quite generous to the honourable member because there was no provision for supplementary questions from the *Progressive party today and there certainly is not provision for a second question.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry if it was not communicated to you, but the Labour Party has given an extra supplementary question to the Progressive party today.

Mr SPEAKER: But that question has already been used.

Hon Darren Hughes: He has had only one. We have given him two supplementary questions.

Mr SPEAKER: He has been given two supplementary questions? I beg the honourable member’s pardon,

Hon Jim Anderton: What information did Ministerial Services receive to persuade it that the Hon Bill English complied with the criteria of the Auditor-General relating to the primary place of residence of an MP, including the criterion regarding “the locations where the MP’s current spouse or partner and family live, and where other dependent family members usually live (including where they spend most time, work, or attend school);”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I imagine Ministerial Services relied on the determination made by the Speaker, in the same way it would have relied on that determination when that member was living in *Vogel House but had a home in Addington, or when Mr Goff had a home in Wellington but was living in a ministerial house in Wellington while he had a home in Auckland, or in the case of any number of Labour Ministers who were in exactly the same position.

Hon Pete Hodgson: What precise pecuniary interest test must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence: a personal pecuniary interest test or a familial pecuniary interest test?

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Minister, I say that this primary question is about primary place of residence, not about matters to do with pecuniary interests.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is only if a primary place of residence decision has been taken in a certain way that this question becomes relevant. The two supplementary questions asked by my colleague the Hon Jim Anderton make it relevant.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma is that the primary question is so precise: *“How is a Minister’s primary place of residence determined?”. Trying to stretch that question to issues of pecuniary interest is stretching things a fair way. I will give the member another chance to try to bring his supplementary question a bit closer to the primary question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: In the event of a Minister’s primary place of residence being not in Wellington, what precise pecuniary interest test must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence: a personal pecuniary interest test or a familial pecuniary interest test?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can elucidate no more on that question than the Prime Minister has in the past 2 days.

Hon Jim Anderton: I seek leave to table part 2, “Issues of Eligibility for Allowances Based on Residence”, of the *Auditor-General’s **Parliamentary Salaries, Allowances and Other Entitlements: Final Report of July 2001.

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.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you would make it clear to the House as Speaker that it is the Speaker’s role to make such determinations, not the Auditor-General’s role.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not strictly a point of order, but the member is correct that the Speaker actually makes those determinations.

Paua—Changes to Harvesting Regulations

12. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Fisheries: What recent changes to regulations have been made to address the issue of illegally harvested pāua?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries): Changes to the amateur regulations will now make it illegal to hold more than two times the daily limit of pāua, or the equivalent in meat weight, and that includes in one’s freezer or in one’s international *carry-on. This is just another tool for the *Ministry of Fisheries to target those who traffick in illegally caught pāua.

Chris Tremain: What reports has the Minister seen regarding this policy?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: A lot of support for this regulation has come through the submission process. Fisheries officers will not go looking through anyone’s freezer for no good reason. I need to make that very clear. I want to reassure our recreational fishers that if Ministry of Fisheries officers are knocking on their door and asking to look in their freezer, it is highly likely that they are the target of a sting operation.

ENDS

© Scoop Media