WEDNESDAY, 18 FEBRUARY 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
1. Budget Policy Statement—Fiscal Outlook
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
1. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to
address the fiscal outlook outlined in the most recent Budget Policy Statement?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : In the Budget Policy Statement we outlined steps to limit expenditure growth,
including dropping the unfunded priorities of the last Government, putting a cap on the growth of the Public Service,
and advising departments there will be no new Budget bids apart from the priorities of the incoming Government.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How is the Government’s tax cut programme funded?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s tax cut package, which was announced prior to the election, was funded by removing
the research and development tax credit and making changes to the KiwiSaver programme that enabled the Government to
pass through significant income tax cuts to many, many low and middle income New Zealanders without putting undue
pressure on the fiscal outlook.
Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that he told the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that he had
received no updated forecasts from Treasury since the Budget Policy Statement in December? And given that he said that
officials have better things to do than provide updated forecasts on the economy, can he explain to the House why he
does not place a greater value on accurate information?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The reason is that we place a great value on actually making decisions so that people will be
protected from the sharp edge of recession, in order to get this economy ready for recovery. This Government is not
making the mistake of the last Government, which believed that gathering information and making announcements amounted
to doing things.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What is this Government doing to address the rapid rise in public expenditure that occurred under
the last Government?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will need to have greater efficiency and value for money in order to provide better, smarter public
services for New Zealanders in a time of restraint. But as an indication of the momentum of Government spending built up
under the previous Government, from 2004 to 2012 core Crown expenses will increase by over $30 billion—that is, from $40
billion to $72 billion. We will be looking for evidence that all that extra expenditure has actually led to better
services for more people.
Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that following his appearance at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this
morning he submitted a correction on a $30 billion error that he made in testimony to the committee, and that his
correction statement itself contained further numerical errors; and when will that Minister lift his game on a matter of
great importance to this economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I did get one date wrong in my testimony—is it “testimony” these days—to the very powerful Finance and
Expenditure Committee, but I have to say that unlike that member, this Government is not preoccupied with all the
details; we are preoccupied with getting measures before the House, such as the extensive changes to the Resource
Management Act. The whole community has waited 15 years for a Government to grasp the nettle and make those changes.
Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a document named Budget Policy Statement 8, which is an inaccurate correction
by the Minister to the Finance and Expenditure Committee. This document has been released by the committee.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document.
Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: We are dealing with this point of order first. Is there any objection to that course being followed? There
appears to be no objection.
* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I see that leave has been given, but the correct document has been
presented today, not the one that may have been presented to the committee.
Mr SPEAKER: The document that will be tabled will indicate to the member whether the correct document has been tabled.
He is most welcome to look at it.
2. Unemployment Rate—Increase
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is he satisfied that the measures he has announced
are adequate to stop the projected surge in unemployment?
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : The measures we have announced so far, and further measures that we will announce as
economic events unfold, are designed to take the sharpest edges off this recession. Job losses would have been greater
had these measures not been introduced, and support packages like the ReStart scheme will help to soften the blow of
redundancy for many people, but they will not prevent an overall increase in unemployment over the course of this
recession, and the Government has been very upfront in saying that. This is a very serious global recession affecting
employment in every country in the world.
Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister intend to set out clear and consistent criteria on which the Government will base
its decisions on whether to bail out specific companies in trouble; if so, when will he publish these so that all
companies that are facing difficulties are clear on where they stand?
Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has already made it clear that there would be a very high benchmark indeed for the
Government to be involved in bailing out companies. Our preference is that companies look to the classical banking
solution to their problems. That is not to say that the Government could not or would not get involved; we reserve the
right to do that. I suggest that if the member does not think the Government should ever get involved, he should go back
to the shop floor and tell New Zealanders his message.
Hon Phil Goff: What conditions will the Prime Minister place around, for example, financial assistance to companies in
trouble, to ensure that New Zealand taxpayers’ money is being used to protect New Zealand jobs, not jobs that have been
or will be transferred overseas?
Hon JOHN KEY: The member is jumping to conclusions in assuming there will be any bail-outs from this Government at this
point. If there were any, then there would be conditions, of course, and we would expect New Zealand jobs to be
maintained, but the member should not jump to conclusions.
Nathan Guy: What measures has the Government introduced to take the sharpest edges off this recession?
Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has taken a number of measures, and will continue to take even more, but at this point we
have overseen the wholesale funding and retail deposit guarantee schemes, tax cuts will come in on 1 April 2009, and we
have introduced a small to medium sized enterprise package worth $480 million. Can I say there has been an overwhelming
response from the small to medium sized enterprise sector thanking us for that well-targeted package. We are bringing
forward expenditure on infrastructure of $483 million, and my good colleague Mr English just made reference to the
packages that will be delivered through the changes to be made to the Resource Management Act. There will, of course, be
the Job Summit, on 27 February, and more measures may well come from that.
Hon Phil Goff: Does Mr English—his good colleague, I think he said—support his assurance to Fisher and Paykel Appliances
that the firm would not be allowed to fail, or are Mr English’s comments, as reported in the Dominion Post this morning,
just further evidence of his view that while Mr Key floats from cloud to cloud, Mr English makes the real decisions?
Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, no assurance has been given to Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it will not be allowed to fail.
Those are the facts of life. Mr Mallard’s running around the press gallery, trying to tell its members that something
was said on Radio New Zealand National that was not said, is just a further example that Mr Mallard makes it up as he
goes along.
Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table this document, which says that Mr Key says allowing Fisher and Paykel
Appliances to fail would be unacceptable.
Mr SPEAKER: Could I just check for the benefit of the House. Is this a press release?
Hon Phil Goff: It is a statement. It might be from a blog site. Let me clarify it. It is headed “NewZealand”—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. Leave is sought to table a document from a blog site. Is there any objection?
There is objection.
Nathan Guy: Has the Prime Minister seen any other reports of measures to address growing unemployment?
Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have seen other measures, and members will be relieved to know that I do not look just at blog
sites to see those measures. I have seen a report from Ruth Dyson, who said last year, when the largest quarterly
decline in employment for 19 years had taken place: “Oh well, I don’t think that this is bad news at all, actually.” I
have also seen a report from the Opposition finance spokesman, who apparently is developing his own suite of measures to
address growing unemployment. He said that New Zealanders will be delighted to know that he intends to release that
report some time before the next election.
Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister telling the House that his comment quoted on NewZealand.co.uk that letting Fisher
and Paykel Appliances fail would be unacceptable is therefore inaccurate?
Hon JOHN KEY: I think the member should read out the whole quote. The question was whether, if an offshore company—I
think it was in reference to—wanted to come into New Zealand, we might look at changing the rules. The answer was that I
think failure there is unacceptable. No assurances have been given to Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it will not be
allowed to fail. That does not mean that the Government does not reserve the right to look at whether there are things
we can do.
Hon Phil Goff: How many companies are on the list of businesses that the Prime Minister referred to on 21 January as
being those that the taxpayer could be asked to bail out, how much is he prepared to spend on bailing out such
companies, and where will he draw the line between which companies will be bailed out and which companies will be
allowed to collapse?
Hon JOHN KEY: There is no list of companies to bail out; there is advice from Treasury of sensitivities within the
market and challenges that companies could face. There is no long list of companies to bail out.
Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a document that is headed “Key has business bailout list”. Is the media wrong
again?
Mr SPEAKER: Can I just seek clarification again. Is this a press release the member is seeking to table?
Hon Phil Goff: This is an article written by Vernon Small for the Dominion Post.
Mr SPEAKER: The member is seeking leave to table a press release. Is there any objection? There is objection.
3. Resource Management Act—Reforms
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
3. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast-Tasman) to the Minister for the Environment: What advice has he received
regarding the need to streamline and simplify the Resource Management Act?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : There is a very strong consensus across the public and private
sectors that reform of the Resource Management Act is long overdue. The advice of the Ministry for the Environment, the
Department of Conservation, the Department of Internal Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, the Ministry
of Economic Development, the Ministry of Fisheries, the Ministry of Transport, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Te
PuniKōkiri, and Treasury was that they all supported substantive reform. Local Government New Zealand and numerous
councils have also strongly advocated for change. There has been a similar chorus from private sector organisations
representing the farming, forestry, fishing, manufacturing, construction, and tourism industries. Comments from
environmental organisations, such as the Environmental Defence Society, have also acknowledged the need for reform. Many
of these groups noted their frustration that the previous Government refused to heed such advice.
Chris Auchinvole: Has the Minister received any reports on the time it takes for councils to write or change their
resource management plans?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have. The latest report is from October 2008. It identified that 17 years after the passage of
the Resource Management Act five councils still do not have an operative plan. It further showed that the average time
to complete the planning process under the existing law is 8.2 years. I know that this is the average, and that the
current law requires a complete plan review 10 years after the plans become operative. The process for plan amendments
is similarly cumbersome: the average time is just over 3 years.
Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister really believe that community participation in the resource consent process causes
unnecessary delays; if not, what guarantee can the Minister give community groups that their participation in the
decision-making process will not be limited by the proposed changes to the Resource Management Act?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is being quite up front and is saying that there needs to be a careful balance between
community participation and efficient decision-making. When it takes over 8 years for a council to make a plan, this
Government makes no apologies for saying that that is too slow and that those processes need to be changed.
Chris Auchinvole: Is the Minister aware of examples of where the health of the environment has been seriously
compromised by the cumbersome planning processes of the Resource Management Act?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I am. Most MPs would acknowledge that freshwater management has been poor, particularly in
Canterbury, where it has been under very significant pressure. Environment Canterbury first issued a draft regional
policy plan on water in 1994, but got stuck in multiple rounds of public consultation until the plan was notified in
2004. This plan has triggered more than 8,000 submissions. Those hearings are not due to be completed until the end of
this year, and the plan is then expected to face multiple appeals. The earliest likely time the water plan will become
operative is 2013—20 years after the process began. I am bewildered that the Opposition MPs who are calling for an
improvement in water management practice oppose the very measures that will enable us to make those improvements.
Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I timed that answer; it was 1 minute long.
Hon Members: Hurrah!
Hon Annette King: It was against the Standing Orders, and it is not acceptable to this side of the House that Government
members clap when they break the Standing Orders. A short answer is required under the Standing Orders.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised a perfectly valid point, and senior members in the Government know they should not be
making noise during a point of order. The honourable Minister has been giving fairly lengthy answers, but they have been
very informative—I will acknowledge that—and have given the House significant information. But I ask that he be a little
briefer.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I timed that point of order and your response; it was 1 minute
and 10 seconds. If the Opposition members are keen to progress matters, they should sit down and listen to the answers
for a change.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That comment is a bit rich. You might have noticed, Mr
Speaker, that since the change in Government, question time takes a lot less time than it used to. One half of the
reason for that is that Mr Hide is no longer raising points of order. The other half is no longer with us.
Mr SPEAKER: Everyone, including me, understands the importance of brevity for the House to get on.
Chris Auchinvole: Can the Minister assure me and the House that his reforms will address the problem faced by my
constituents in the Buller District, where a protest group acted irresponsibly in trying to block a council decision,
had costs awarded against it by the Environment Court, and simply wound up its incorporated society, leaving a bill of
thousands of dollars for ratepayers?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. The member highlights a very real problem that has also cost the ratepayers in the Western Bay
of Plenty $300,000 and the ratepayers in Otago more than $250,000. I note that Opposition parties have cried foul over
the proposal to allow the Environment Court to require security of costs, saying that this undermines the fundamental
right to object and appeal. These parties seem to have no regard for the ratepayers who actually end up having to pay
the bill.
Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware of the recent Environment Court decision regarding the Waitakere Ranges and the
Waitakere City Council, whereby the Environment Court ensured that there were much fewer subdivisions in the Waitakere
Ranges, hence protecting them for the people of Auckland and protecting the environment; that that was only possible
because people could appeal the district plan to the Environment Court; and that the Minister is taking away the right
to take that kind of appeal?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reality of changing appeal rights is that it cuts both ways. It is true that some appeals that
environmental groups might want to pursue will be constrained. But equally, so too will be appeals from developers who
want to proceed. I note that the mayor of Waitakere City, Bob Harvey, an ex-president of the Labour Party, who is very
passionate about the protection of the Waitakere Ranges, has strongly endorsed the Government’s reform package because
he thinks that it will work better for areas like the Waitakere Ranges.
Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister realise that in that case the Environment Court overruled the Waitakere City Council
plan because the council wanted to have a certain number of subdivisions and the Environment Court said that it had to
have less, and that therefore it is not surprising that the mayor might support the kind of changes the Minister is
making? Surely both sides of this House want to protect the environment and protect the Waitakere Ranges—does that not
mean giving community groups the right to challenge district plans when they undermine environmental values?
Mr SPEAKER: Dr Nick Smith, if you can make sense of that question.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to seek your advice on your comment. I understand that
you have been a very fair Speaker, and everyone across the House recognises that. You do a very good job, but I found
that comment from you unnecessary. It undermines your role as the manager of good behaviour in this House.
Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for her genuine point. I accept that I was perhaps unfair, but I was making
the point that the member should be asking a question, not making a small speech. Dr Norman made a significant speech
there that would make it extremely difficult for a Minister to give a sensible answer. A point of order was raised
before about the length of the Hon Nick Smith’s answers, which I agree were a bit long, but he was informative and clear
in what he was saying. Questions also need to be brief and to the point, and that question went way too long; I was
almost at the point of standing and sitting the member down, simply because the question went on and on.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s intent in the reforms is to reduce the times and delays of the resource consenting
process and not to change the overall balance between development and the environment. For that reason, we are not
making any changes to the key tests that are provided for in Part 2 of the Resource Management Act.
4. Company Bail-outs—Criteria
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What criteria is he developing, if any, in relation
to Government assistance for companies in financial trouble?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Government assistance could take many forms, and clearly there would be a high
hurdle for any assistance. Our primary method of supporting the corporate sector is to ensure that the banking system is
sound. All companies should look to all commercial options before considering any approach to the Government, and we
have consistently said that any Government assistance would be a last resort.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect upon the question and the answer.
The question did not ask what forms of assistance would be available, but what the criteria for assistance would be.
Apart from making a passing reference to a high hurdle, the Minister did not outline any criteria or whether any
criteria were being developed. The question was very specific about whether criteria were being developed—yes or no.
Mr SPEAKER: I listened carefully to the member, and I accept that he has raised an interesting point of order, but I
cannot judge the quality of the answer. The Minister in answering the question gave one criterion, and that is that it
is a high hurdle. I cannot judge whether that is a good quality answer. The honourable member has the chance to delve
further into that matter with supplementary questions, and I invite the Hon David Cunliffe to do that.
Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister been surprised at the very cautious reaction of a range of business leaders to the
Prime Minister’s possible bail-out of Fisher and Paykel, and in his view could this lie behind the Prime Minister’s
clarification today that what was unthinkable—to allow a business to fail—on Monday does not now constitute an
assurance?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I am not surprised at the cautious reaction. I think anyone would be cautious about the Government
taking steps to assist a business in a recession, and that is why the hurdles for any assistance have to be very high.
Craig Foss: What steps has the Government already taken to provide assistance to companies and businesses?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has supported a very significant programme of fiscal stimulus to the economy that will
inject around $9 billion, which the Government will be borrowing, into the economy over the next 2 years. We have also
announced a package that directly affects the compliance and tax obligations of a whole range of businesses. Just last
week we announced that we were bringing forward $500 million worth of infrastructure. Businesses are fully supportive of
the Government’s regulatory reform programme, which is intended to lighten the load on businesses and build confidence
for them to invest with such steps as the changes to the Resource Management Act, which are now well under way.
Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister have any advice as to the costs to, say, Fisher and Paykel of the removal of the
research and development tax incentives, and can he confirm that it was the Government’s own policy that in part lies
behind the Prime Minister’s quasi-assurance that the company should not be allowed to fail now?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be surprised to know that many firms have much more challenging issues than the
abolition of the research and development tax credit. I might say that in discussions I have had with firms, a number of
them have told me that they spent more on the consultants they employed to work out what their company would be able to
claim than they would actually be able to claim. One firm paid $70,000 on consultants who told it that it would be able
to claim $20,000 in deductions.
Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm whether he has provided any advice to the Prime Minister in relation to any
Securities Act implications from his statement that the company could not be allowed to fail and whether that
constituted an assurance that was material information in the market place?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to confirm any version that member gives of what the Prime Minister may have said.
The Prime Minister is knowledgable in these matters and takes expert advice on them.
5. Surgery, Elective—Waiting Lists
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
5. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) on behalf of Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What advice has
he received in relation to elective surgery and waiting lists?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : I have received a number of reports, and in total they are an indictment on
Labour’s failure and manipulation of hospital waiting lists. In order to reduce waiting lists, the number of people
receiving elective surgery needs to grow faster than population growth. From when district health boards were set up in
2000-01, to 2007-08, the number of patients receiving elective surgery each year on average did not even meet population
growth, let alone population ageing. It is undeniable that if waiting lists had not been reorganised to hide the
numbers, and thousands of patients had not been culled, waiting lists would be much greater today.
Dr Jackie Blue: What other advice has the Minister received in relation to elective waiting lists?
Hon TONY RYALL: I have received advice that in relation to the two waiting list systems some district health boards may
have not been disclosing the full numbers. In particular, I am advised that many district health boards hold people in
their individual patient management systems and do not submit this information through to the national booking system.
They are therefore not officially counted.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Can the Minister confirm that like the figures he quoted for district health board deficits, when he
forgot to recognise that there are two sorts of deficits—cyclical and structural—the figures he has just reported
confuse individuals on elective surgery with case rate numbers, discharges, and cost weights; if not, which figures was
he quoting?
Hon TONY RYALL: What is quite clear is that that member fails to realise that elective surgery simply failed to keep up
with population growth during the term of the Labour Government, and if we look at the elective discharges we will see
the evidence there. The member should be embarrassed, because under her Government the health budget doubled and fewer
people were getting elective surgery on a real basis.
Hon Ruth Dyson: What impact on access to primary healthcare—generally the route to elective surgery—will occur as a
result of the Minister’s planned removal of the cap on general practitioner fee increases?
Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has no plans to do so.
Dr Jackie Blue: How can it be that the health vote has basically doubled from $6 billion to $12 billion, yet fewer
people in real terms get elective surgery?
Hon TONY RYALL: That is an astonishing $6 billion question. The facts are that under the Labour Government the health
vote nearly doubled, fewer people in real terms were getting elective surgery, thousands were culled from hospital
waiting lists, and the new lists did not count all the people. Although the new Government has inherited many worrying
failures from the previous Labour Government in the public health system, including the track to financial crisis I
outlined yesterday, elective surgery and manipulation are at the forefront of Labour’s failures.
6. Otago District Health Board—Dismissal of Chair
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
6. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Health: Why did he dismiss the chair of the Otago District
Health Board?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : While Mr Thomson was chair of the Otago District Health Board, the single-biggest
fraud in the history of the New Zealand State services was taking place; $17 million was defrauded. This is about
accountability.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Has the Minister seen the transcript of an interview this morning with the new chair, Mr Millar, who,
when asked whether he would have done the same thing as Mr Thomson said yes, and when asked whether Mr Thomson’s
handling of the issue was proper said yes; if so, why is the Otago District Health Board in a better place today than it
was before he sacked Mr Thomson?
Hon TONY RYALL: Yes. I think it needs to be recognised that Mr Millar was commenting in the context of managing ongoing
board relationships.
Dr Jackie Blue: Has the Minister seen the recent statement by Mr Hodgson that Mr Ryall only wants to install his own man
in the job; if so, whom has he appointed to the role of chair?
Hon TONY RYALL: I have seen those comments from the former Minister of Health, and I can confirm that I have appointed
Mr Errol Millar. Mr Millar was first appointed to the Southland District Health Board in 2002 by Annette King. He was
reappointed to the Southland District Health Board in 2004 by Annette King. He was then appointed to the Otago District
Health Board in 2007 by David Cunliffe. He was also made the chair of the Airways Corporation in 2001, when appointed by
the former Minister for State Owned Enterprises, Mark Burton. Then he was appointed deputy chair of the Civil Aviation
Authority in 2007, by the then failed Minister of Transport, Annette King. This matter is not personal, and it is not
political.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Has the Minister seen public comment today contrasting the actions of Mr Thomson, who immediately
acted on a tip-off of illegal activity, with those of the person who was the responsible Minister 10 years ago when the
illegal activities of the “goon squad” in Christchurch were at their height, but who did nothing to stop them and did
not resign; and does the phrase “double standards” come to mind?
Hon TONY RYALL: While Mr Thomson was chair of the Otago District Health Board, the biggest single fraud in the history
of the State services in New Zealand was taking place; $17 million was defrauded.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did the Minister ignore the result of the October 2007 elections, when Mr Thomson and all five
other board members were re-elected by an Otago public that had full knowledge of the fraud case, and might that be why
he is now viewed by many people as being prone to misjudgement and prone to arrogance?
Hon TONY RYALL: Well, I have to say, having that claim from Pete Hodgson is unbelievable, is it not? My primary
accountability relationship as Minister of Health, as that member would be aware, is with the chair.
7. Corrections, Department—Parole Management
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
7. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Corrections: What reports has she received on the department’s
management of offenders on parole?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : I have received an alarming and damning report from the Auditor-General,
which identifies serious deficiencies in the management of offenders on parole. I am extremely concerned by the findings
of the report, and staggered at the extent of non-compliance, especially as the audit took place after Karl
Kuchenbecker’s senseless murder, when one might have expected that those responsible had learnt from failings of the
past.
Simon Bridges: Did the previous Minister make any assurances regarding the management of offenders on parole?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. The previous Minister of Corrections, the Hon Phil Goff, claimed that his Government had made
“extensive changes” and “quickly moved to deal with deficiencies in the system”. He gave assurances that action had been
taken to improve the management of high-risk parolees, that enforcement had been strengthened, and that there were new
requirements for home visits. Unfortunately, these requirements were among the many identified by the Auditor-General as
not having been complied with.
Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that last June the Wellington Coroner, who looked into the case of the murder of
Mr Kuchenbecker, stated that the then Government had moved quickly to deal with the deficiencies that had come to light,
and, as a result, he had no further recommendations to make for necessary Government action.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can confirm that assurances were given to the coroner. Unfortunately, they were not kept.
Simon Bridges: What other assurances did the previous Minister make regarding the management of offenders on parole?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: After Mr Kuchenbecker’s murder, Mr Goff said: “we must learn from failings which occurred during
this tragic episode.” Mr Goff gave assurances that changes had been made and lessons had been learnt. But these promises
were meaningless, because Mr Goff clearly did not check that the changes were actually being complied with. I have
already asked the department to confirm that compliance checks are taking place, and I will be demanding ongoing reports
to confirm compliance with requirements.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister of Corrections guarantee—given that she failed to do so when asked
yesterday—that National will fund additional probation officers and prison staff to ensure that staffing keeps pace with
the workload created by the increasing numbers being dealt with by the Department of Corrections, as Labour did when in
last year’s Budget it funded an extra 89 probation officers, which the department had requested? Will she guarantee
that? She failed to give any guarantee yesterday.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member who asked the question will be aware that there is a thing called a Budget, and that he
should wait for it, but I will say to him that it is very important that the probation service is properly resourced. He
would have heard me say yesterday that I agree with every one of the recommendations made in the Auditor-General’s
report. I note, however, that the Auditor-General stated that “recruiting more probation officers will not fix all the
problems my staff found.” Clearly, more is needed.
Rahui Katene: What action can be taken to lift the performance of service managers in particular, to address the finding
that 63 percent of the parole plans for offenders did not contain all the signatures required for the plans to be signed
off?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: One of the matters that I have asked the State Services Commissioner to come back to me on concerns
what can be done to restore the public’s faith in the parole system. I am sure that is one of the issues that will be
addressed in the reply.
David Garrett: Has the Minister yet received a letter of resignation from Mr Barry Matthews; if not, is she still, as
she said in this House yesterday, “confident that Mr Matthews is fully aware of how seriously I view this issue.”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have not received such a letter. I say to the House that I am not prejudging who might, in fact,
be accountable. In fact, I am saying that there may be one or more people accountable.
Rahui Katene: Does the Minister agree with Ombudsman Mel Smith that “A risk averse approach to granting parole, which
lessens the chance for critical media headlines, will condemn some prisoners, who would pose little risk to the
community, to longer terms in institutions and in my view the potential for rehabilitation is lessened.”; if so, what
will she do to protect the interests of those low-risk prisoners?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My primary concern in the management of parole is the safety of the public.
8. Emissions Trading Scheme—ACT Confidence and Supply Agreement
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
8. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Does he intend to honour the terms of the 2008
confidence and supply arrangement with the ACT Party concerning the emissions trading scheme; if not, why not?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) : Yes.
Charles Chauvel: What is the Minister’s view of last week’s reported comments by Mr Peter Clark, Chief Executive of the
forestry management and marketing firm PF Olsen Group, that the National Government has “quietly swept that [part of the
coalition agreement] under the carpet. What Rodney Hide has to say about that I don’t know,”?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The confidence and supply agreement with ACT provided for the establishment of a special select
committee to look at climate change. I note that that committee has been established, that its terms of reference have
been agreed, that submissions have been called for, and that its important work is progressing. I also note that the
confidence and supply agreement provided for the repeal of the thermal ban. That occurred prior to Christmas. In respect
of the delay, I say that I and my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, Mr David Carter, issued a press release last
week announcing delays to aspects of the emissions trading scheme process in respect of forestry—all as provided for in
the confidence and supply agreement.
Craig Foss: Is it still Government policy that New Zealand should be a world leader on climate change; if not, what is
the new Government’s approach?
Hon David Cunliffe: Good question!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is a very good question. The irony of the previous Government’s policy of being a world leader on
climate change is that the only thing on which we seemed to lead was the fastest growth of emissions of any developed
country in the world. As far as the policy of carbon neutrality is concerned, I say that emissions figures reported to
the United Nations show that emissions during the Labour term of office went up by 12 million tonnes greater than what
they did under the previous Government of 9 years. It is this new Government’s view that climate change is incredibly
challenging. Our objective is to ensure that New Zealand does its fair share as a developed nation in addressing this
global problem. Frankly, that will mean doing a whole lot more than the last Government.
Charles Chauvel: Apart from relying on a recession in the economy to get carbon emissions down, what are the Minister’s
plans to achieve that end?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has a suite of measures to address climate change. Tomorrow I will be introducing an
amendment bill for the Resource Management Act. Let me explain to the member opposite why that is so important. During
the course of the last Government, every year there was a decline in the proportion of renewable energy. In fact, under
the previous Government there was a trebling in the amount of electricity produced from coal. By amending the Resource
Management Act National intends to make renewable energy more viable so that we can do a whole lot better—that is just
one of many measures we will be taking.
Charles Chauvel: Does his Resource Management Act amendment propose, then, to reverse the recent decision of the Supreme
Court, which stated that climate change was not a relevant consideration when consenting generation for electricity?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The irony in that question is that the previous Government passed an amendment bill—[Interruption]
No, the previous Government passed an amendment to the Resource Management Act, and that amendment specifically removed
the element of climate change being considered. The previous Government introduced and passed a bill to specifically
remove climate change from being considered under the Resource Management Act. It is National’s view that the most
important thing we can do under the Resource Management Act is to provide timely processes for renewable energies, so
that we do not get projects being delayed for 6 years, 7 years, and—in some cases—over a decade. National is confident
that with those changes we will actually see an expansion of renewable energy and some show of us meeting the target of
90 percent renewables.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have not been involved at all in this question but a number
of us would be extremely interested to hear that last question answered. Is the Government going to reverse that change
to the Resource Management Act?
Hon Member: Yes or no?
Mr SPEAKER: Unfortunately, the member cannot insist on a yes or no answer. My concern was that the honourable Minister’s
answers are too long. They have to be reduced in length.
John Boscawen: Why does the Minister not save jobs in New Zealand by immediately repealing the emissions trading scheme
until after the Kyoto II meetings in Copenhagen later this year?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not the Government’s view that we would serve New Zealand’s interests well by simply
backtracking. It is the Government’s view that an emissions trading scheme is the right answer. The problem is that the
legislation last year was rushed. Officials have noted that there are mistakes in it that will have to be corrected. It
is subject to the review that is undertaken by the select committee. It is the Government’s preference to amend the
emissions trading scheme so that it better balances New Zealand’s economic and environmental interests.
9. Education Review Office—Review Process
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
9. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister responsible for the Education Review Office: Has she made any changes
to the way that the Education Review Office will review schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister responsible for the Education Review Office) : Yes. I have asked the Education Review Office
to identify schools that are performing consistently well, and from 1 March this year these schools will now be reviewed
every 4 to 5 years. These schools will have shown that they are capable of reviewing their own performance and processes
and that they are able to use this information for the benefit of their students. This Government is proud to recognise
that there are many high-performing schools in the education sector that should be able to get on with the business of
providing high-quality teaching and learning experiences for their pupils.
Aaron Gilmore: What reports has she seen on support for these changes?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a report from the New Zealand Educational Institute lauding the move and applauding the
Government for “creating a high trust model which will be welcomed by those schools and they will appreciate the show of
confidence.” I have also seen a typically confused report from the Labour spokesperson on education, Chris Carter. In
one line of his release he states that the policy may have some merit, but in the next he refuses to support this
high-trust model. The question for Opposition members is very simple: do they support a review system that lets our best
schools get on with the job of teaching or not?
Hon Chris Carter: Will the Minister assure the House that extending the review periods for some schools will not affect
the Education Review Office’s staffing numbers and resources, given her recent commitment to enhancing support for
struggling schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This policy is not about changing the number of jobs at the Education Review Office. It is about
ensuring that the resources of the office are focused on schools that are not performing consistently and that really
need the support.
10. Schools—Staff-pupil Ratios
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
10. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Why has she scrapped the planned improvements to staff-child
ratios, which were to be implemented on 1 July 2009?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : As the member was advised at the Education and Science Committee this morning,
studies of staff to child ratios are inconclusive as to whether there is any one correct staff to child ratio for early
childhood education and care. The focus of this Government is that additional money spent on early childhood services
should be directed towards increasing participation amongst groups that have ingrained low participation rates. I was
not convinced that the proposed increased ratios would meet this goal.
Sue Moroney: Does the Minister agree with the Ministry of Education’s statement in its annual report that the quality of
early childhood education is linked to the level of the qualifications of the staff; and can she assure New Zealanders
that she will maintain and improve the use of qualified teaching staff in this sector?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The difficulty is that there was no plan from the Opposition’s previous administration to ensure that
the additional teachers needed for this change were there. A lack of qualified teachers would threaten the
sustainability of some teacher-led services and limit the development of early childhood education in areas of high
population growth.
Allan Peachey: What advice has the Minister received on the impact of going ahead with the planned ratio changes?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have received advice that suggests that the planned changes to ratios would have required an
additional 1,150 teachers. Despite the previous Government knowing about the size of the teacher injection needed to
meet this policy by 1 July 2009, no plans were in place to ensure that this number of additional teachers would be
ready. It is another case of promise and hope from the previous Labour Government.
Sue Moroney: Which organisations representing parents or educators did the Minister seek advice from before she made the
decision to scrap planned improvements to staff-child ratios in early childhood education?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The previous administration left the books in such a poor state that we have had to make some hard
decisions. So we promised a reduction in the staff to child ratio for under-2-year-olds from 1:5 to 1:4, and we will
deliver on that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very, very direct question: “With whom did she
consult—parents or educators?”. The question was not addressed.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to answer the question. The question was very clear and asked which organisations were
consulted. I think that the question deserves an answer.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I stated in my answer to the substantive question, studies of staff to child ratios are inconclusive
as to whether there is any one correct staff to child ratio for early childhood education and care. That answer is drawn
from a range of advice.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I ask you to ask the Minister to answer the
question—not to repeat what she read out. She should answer on which organisations she consulted with. That is exactly
what she was asked.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think you have to be careful that we do not get into a situation where people asking questions use
the Standing Orders process—or the letter of the Standing Orders, to some extent—to ask for interpretations that simply
cannot be given by the person answering or accepted by the person asking the question. In other words, if we think about
the answer that the honourable Minister just gave, we see that she essentially said that any analysis is inconclusive.
It may be Labour Party practice to consult on inconclusive analysis, but that thought just would not enter the heads of
most people.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I will listen to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I am not quite sure what Mr Brownlee was trying to add to the discussion by way of that last
point. If one is asked what organisations one consulted with, a perfectly legitimate answer is “None.”, which I suspect
is, in fact, the answer. That answer should be given. To go off into some fantasyland about what studies have been done
and what they mean seems to indicate that the Minister is probably relying upon official advice.
Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard sufficient on this point of order. It is an interesting point because the question was
very clear. The issue for me, as Speaker, is how closely the answer relates to the primary question. The primary
question asked why the Minister has scrapped planned improvements to the staff-child ratios. There is no reason to
believe that the Minister could not know who was consulted on the matter. It seems to me that an answer to that question
is deserved because there is public interest, unless the Minister considers it not in the public interest to provide an
answer, and I will totally support the Minister if she says that. But I believe that the question is clear—it relates
very clearly to the primary question. The House will listen to the answer.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I will repeat what I said in answer to the last question. I took a range of advice, including from the
ministry.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister has given an answer.
Hon Steve Chadwick: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister could repeat her answer. We
could not hear it; it tailed off at the end.
Mr SPEAKER: I will invite the Minister to repeat her answer. I confess I did not hear the last part myself.
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I said that I took a range of advice, including advice from the ministry.
Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table a document entitled The Continuing Contribution of Early Childhood Education to Young
People’s Competency Levels, in which the authors identify the importance of improving staff to child ratios in the
sector.
Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seeking to table an academic document?
Sue Moroney: It is a research document.
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 Chris Carter: I seek leave to table a document showing that the previous Labour-led Government increased early
childhood spending by 281 percent, from over $400 million—
Mr SPEAKER: I would like to understand what the document is.
Hon Chris Carter: It is a document put out by the previous Government just before the last election,
showing—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The tabling of documents is a serious procedure and it will be heard in silence. But I warn the member that
if the document does not exist, he risks misleading the House. Leave is sought—
Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: We are dealing with the first point of order.
Hon Chris Carter: Speaking to that point of order, I want to assure you I have such a document and I will be tabling it.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It arises out of the ruling you just gave, which was very
interesting. I wonder whether I can inquire whether Mr Rodney Hide yesterday tabled the document that he claimed to
have.
Hon Rodney Hide: Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: I will listen to the honourable member.
Hon Rodney Hide: Of course I did.
Mr SPEAKER: I wish to find a particular document, which at the moment for some reason is not on my desk. I seek the
assistance of the Clerk. Forgive me, honourable members, for taking time to find what I want to say about this.
The honourable member has raised a very serious issue. I note the contribution from the Hon Rodney Hide that, in fact,
he did table the document. I want to make this clear statement to the House. I remind members that the rules for tabling
documents have changed. I have indicated to members that where leave is granted for a document to be tabled under
Standing Order 368, it must now be provided to the Clerk by the end of the sitting day. Where a member seeks leave to
table a document, the Clerk should not have to discern whether the document that has been provided is, in fact, the
document for which the House granted leave. It should be evident on the face of it. The purpose of tabling a document is
to inform debate by making available to members documents that otherwise would not be available. Members cannot use the
procedure for tabling a document simply to make a political statement. If members seek leave to table a document that
does not exist, they run the risk of misleading the House. I draw members’ attention to Speaker’s ruling 142/4, which
says that if the House grants leave to a member to table a document and the member delivers a totally different document
to the Clerk, the member deliberately misleads the House and commits a contempt.
Following the granting of leave to the Hon Rodney Hide to table a document yesterday, Mr Hide provided to the Clerk a
series of documents, rather than a particular document. The practice of manufacturing a document after leave is granted
does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders. I am aware that this is not the first time this practice has
occurred. I am prepared to be lenient on this occasion, as the rules have only recently changed. But in the future I
will not tolerate the practice of using the procedure of seeking leave to table a document to make a statement, and if
leave is granted, manufacturing a document to fit the leave after the event.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take it, then, that that means—as you have shown your
practice to be—that no newspaper-type clippings should be tabled, because they are readily available from other sources.
Does that also mean that printouts of blogs, which are easily accessible by the public, would also be outside the
requirements you have just outlined?
Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised a good point. Unfortunately, I cannot rule on the type of documents that members seek
leave to table. I have made it very clear, I think, in handling such leave being sought that where members seek to table
press statements I try to elucidate the fact that it is either a printout from a blog or a press statement, and let the
House make its own judgment. There is nothing outside Standing Orders about that, but the member raises a very good
point. Members should desist from seeking to table press statements, because it is not in the spirit of the Standing
Orders that they should be raised. I will do everything I can to expose for what they are members who are seeking to
table press statements, but I cannot rule it out.
Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take it from your ruling previously that, in your view,
Mr Hide manufactured those documents after leave had been sought and that that is a practice you will not countenance in
future.
Mr SPEAKER: In fact, on that occasion, it was not that the documents were manufactured—genuine documents were tabled—but
that leave was sought to table one document showing something. The House generously gave leave for that purpose. Instead
of one document showing something being tabled, a series of documents were tabled. If one went through them one may have
reached the point that the honourable member was trying to make. Had leave been sought to table a range of documents,
then that would have been a different matter.
That was not the first occasion that this has happened. I am aware of another member from another party seeking leave to
table a document, when it seemed to me that the document that was tabled at the end of the day had been generated on a
computer during the course of the day and clearly did not seem to me to have existed at the time that leave was sought
to table it. This is a serious issue and I want to stamp out this practice. It is in the interests of the House, because
it is just wasting the House’s time.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have to say that I take grave exception to your statement that
I manufactured documents. I sought leave to table documents. The first document was a press release in the name of Sue
Kedgley. How on earth could I manufacture—as you alleged in your statement—a press release put out by Sue Kedgley? I
consider that to be very serious. I did not manufacture that document; Sue Kedgley produced it some time ago, and I
tabled it. The second document I tabled was a newspaper clipping reporting MetiriaTurei complaining about the police
operation on University of Otago students. Again, I did not manufacture that document. The two documents showed
precisely the point that I sought leave to table them for. What did I manufacture?
Mr SPEAKER: I have allowed the member time because I understand well why he may be concerned by the way I have described
the situation. Had the member sought to table two press statements, there would not have been a problem. The House could
then have made a decision about whether it gave leave to table those two press statements. I invite the member to show
me his Hansard to demonstrate to me that he sought leave to table two press statements. I do not believe that Hansard,
in fact, shows that.
That is the point I am making: that the House was not given the opportunity to make a judgment about whether leave
should be granted. The House was led to believe that a document existed showing two positions on the same document,
which is what the House gave leave to table. I am not prepared to debate the matter further. If the honourable member
wishes to bring me his Hansard showing that he sought leave to table two separate press statements, then I will
apologise to him in the Chamber.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. First of all I thank you for that very helpful clarification
and ruling; I think it was very much needed. I suggest that if the House is to be clear about what it is giving leave to
table, then the title, author, and date of the document really need to be stated when leave is sought. Otherwise, a
member may well go and find a document that is broadly related to the topic, and nobody can say that that was not the
document he or she had in mind. I invite you to rule on that question, too, please.
Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member makes a perfectly good point. She will notice that when members are seeking leave to
table a document, I allow more time for members to describe the document than perhaps has previously been the case,
because I want the House to be able to make a valid judgment about the document. She may also note that if it is not
clear exactly what the document is, I have been seeking further advice from the member to assist the House. The member
makes a good point. If members could make it more clear exactly what the document is, then we can be more certain that
that document is what is tabled by the end of the day. I will do my best to support the honourable member in achieving
precision in that area.
I hope we do not take further time on this issue right now. I think it is important for the House, and I appreciate the
spirit in which members have taken this ruling. We should come back to question time, though, which we departed from. We
were dealing with question No. 10 at the time but it is finished because leave was sought for a document to be tabled.
11. Forests—New Plantings and Emissions Impact
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
11. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: How many hectares of new forest
does he expect to be planted during the 2009 season, if any; and how will these plantings impact on New Zealand’s net
greenhouse gas emissions in 2020?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) : I am advised that through the Afforestation Grant Scheme and
the East Coast Forestry Project, 3,235 hectares of additional indigenous and exotic plantings are expected this year.
This planting will assist in meeting New Zealand’s 2020 emissions target, but insufficient data exists on the types of
species to have an accurate estimate on what the carbon capture would be in that year. I have no advice about the level
of private sector plantings.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is the Minister concerned that, apart from the Permanent Forest Sink Initiative he has described, 7
million tree seedlings grown in nurseries last year in preparation for a boom in planting under the emissions trading
scheme remain unsold and have no prospect of going in the ground? Some 7,000 hectares of forest will not be planted,
because of investor and landowner uncertainty over his Government’s review of the emissions trading scheme.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that between 1951 and 2004, 34,000 hectares of trees were planted every year; over the last 5
years there has been huge deforestation. The worst 5 years ever have been the previous 5 years. I accept there is some
uncertainty as the Government works through its changes to the emissions trading scheme, but I assure the member and,
more important, forest investors that this Government is committed to carbon credits for forest owners, and they can
have confidence that those credits will be transferred in good time so that plantings can occur and we can reverse the
appalling record of the previous Government.
Shane Ardern: Has the Minister received any reports or advice on what caused the collapse in forest plantings during the
term of the previous Government and the record high levels of deforestation, particularly given that the previous
Government throughout much of its tenure was supported by the Green Party?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There were three factors. Firstly, there was a wave of deforestation in response to the deadline of 1
January 2008, whereby the previous Government provided a perverse incentive for people to cut down their trees. The
second factor was the relative economics of pastoral farming, particularly dairying, and forestry, which resulted in a
greater level of investment in farming. The third factor was the uncertainty created by the previous Government’s
flip-flops on policy. It firstly said that foresters would get carbon credits—
Hon Jim Anderton: Flip-flops?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —then Mr Anderton, who has interjected, changed his mind and said that they would not get carbon
credits. Two years later the Government changed its mind again. That sort of uncertainty destroys investor confidence
and is one of the reasons that New Zealand’s forest estate declined over the last 5 years.
Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware that as a result of his Government’s so-called suspension of the emissions
trading scheme, which the forestry sector had actually entered into, the Forest Owners Association says that New Zealand
has lost one deal worth more than $100 million worth in plantings, the Kyoto Forestry Association says that New Zealand
has lost new forestry investment worth over $125 million, and the New Zealand Stock Exchange has sold its carbon
registry business to an offshore owner, blaming the uncertainty caused by the Government’s suspension; how is all this
in New Zealand’s interests at a time of recession, when we desperately need inwards investment?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I hate to plagiarise my colleague Bill English, but hearing Labour lecture us about forest plantings
is a bit like Jack the Ripper talking about domestic violence. This Government will change the record on forestry. I
invite members opposite to consider that forestry is a long-term investment. It is an investment whose horizon is likely
to be about 30 years. I invite members opposite to constructively engage with the select committee on the review of the
emissions trading scheme, so that we can get long-term certainty. The last point I make is that the emissions trading
scheme, according to officials, has mistakes in its forestry provisions, and they will need to be amended regardless of
any policy changes from the new Government.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister seen his own ministry’s projections of New Zealand’s future net greenhouse gas
emissions, which show a huge spike around 2020 as today’s forests are harvested; and what will he do to ensure that
those 7 million seedlings go into the ground this year so that they will be big enough to offset that carbon loss in
2020, instead of just blaming the previous Government when he is responsible for the current lack of certainty?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that we have little control today over the extent to which emission levels are offset by
forestry in 2020, because it depends on what trees were actually planted in 1992. There is that spike because the
previous National Government, from 1990 to 1999, caused a huge amount of new forest plantings, and those trees will be
harvested in the 2020s. Regardless of what any future Government might do, that peak will be there. Underlying this,
though, is the trade-off; the trade-off in terms of our taking our time to do the review of the emissions trading scheme
properly, and the long-term gains of doing it right, compared with the short-term uncertainty arising from the review. I
think the Government has that balance right.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister acknowledge that trees planted this winter would be just the right age to offset
that peak in 2020, and that is being delayed; and will he also acknowledge that the 7 million unwanted seedlings sitting
there today represent one of the best shovel-ready job schemes he could find in a recession?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What surprises me about that member is that for the last 9 years, when she was part of a Government,
she did not so much as raise a finger when there was a chainsaw massacre of trees, yet she is demanding action from a
Government that has been in office for less than 3 months. I ask that member to reflect on the record of the previous—
Hon Members: Answer the question!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Members opposite should simply reflect on their record on deforestation—the worst of any post-war
Government. I assure them that this Government backs the forest industry. With the work that David Carter is doing with
that industry, I have confidence in its future.
Hon Jim Anderton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is bad enough to hear a lengthy answer to a question; it is
worse when the lengthy speech does not even address the question.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not blame the honourable member for his concern, because answers have been too long—I must say to my
friend the Hon Dr Nick Smith. But the dilemma was that the question asked whether the Minister would “acknowledge”
something. Where a question asks that, it is very difficult to expect a precise answer.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister knows very well that the Greens have never been
part of a Government, and did not contribute—
Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.
Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister then answer his own 2007 questions to the previous Minister responsible for
Climate Change Issues: “What sort of incompetent Government is it when it . . . cannot tell foresters who are about to
contemplate planting trees in June, July, and August of this year whether they will get credits for those trees? . . .
when this very day nursery and forestry contractors are making decisions about whether to plant commercial trees this
season; . . . can he not see that that is critical to their making investment decisions . . .say to the Minister that
they do not want options or discussion papers but a simple answer:”—do we have an emissions trading scheme, or not,
Minister?
Mr SPEAKER: Before the Hon Dr Nick Smith answers, I ask members that if they expect Ministers to give brief answers,
could they please focus the questions a bit more.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have made plain to that member and to those who want to plant trees that this Government is
committed to providing carbon credits for them. I stress again that forestry is a long-term investment. Over the last 7
years we had the previous Government saying that foresters would get carbon credits, then it said that they would not
get carbon credits, then it changed its mind a third time and said that they would. That is not a way to encourage
long-term investment, and that is why I would encourage all political parties in this House to build consensus around
this issue of forestry so that we can restore confidence to that industry.
Charles Chauvel: I seek leave—bearing in mind, Mr Speaker, your ruling about the tabling of documents—to table a
document, in light of the Minister’s exaltations to members on this side to take their time and participate in the
scheme. This document is a media release from Nick Smith and David Carter saying that the select committee—
Mr SPEAKER: Can we please hear what the document is. The member is taking a long time.
Charles Chauvel: This is a press statement—
Mr SPEAKER: It is a press statement.
Charles Chauvel: —indicating—
Mr SPEAKER: From what?
Charles Chauvel: —it is the Ministers’ press statement—that Nick Smith expects the select committee to report back in
April.
Mr SPEAKER: OK. Leave is sought to table a press statement from the Ministers. Is there any objection? There is
objection to that course of action.
12. Copyright Act—Implementation of Section 92A
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
12. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister of Commerce: Does he intend to respond to public concerns
expressed about the implementation of section 92A of the Copyright Act, which comes into force next week; if so, what
will be his response?
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) : Yes; I respond by saying that I am mindful of the concerns that have been
expressed by the public in relation to this provision coming into force. As the member will be aware, industry
representatives are currently working on a code of practice to help implement this law, which was passed by the previous
Labour Government.
Clare Curran: Will the Minister delay the implementation of section 92A of the Copyright Act due to the concerns of
Internet service providers, Internet users, and rights holders?
Hon SIMON POWER: At this stage, I have confidence that the discussions that are occurring between the various parties
will produce the code.
Clare Curran: Given the Minister’s party’s support for this legislation at its time of passage, will he amend the
legislation to assist in developing workable guidelines to implement the policy; if not, why not?
Hon SIMON POWER: The Government will do everything it can to assist the implementation of the code between the parties
concerned.
ENDS