WEDNESDAY, 25 MARCH 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Nine-day Working Fortnight—Reports

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

1. NATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) to the Prime Minister: What reports has the Government received on the 9-day fortnight?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : I have received a report today that Fisher and Paykel Appliances has negotiated with its workforce to take up the Government’s 9-day fortnight scheme. As a result, it is my understanding that some 350 workers now have a guaranteed job for the next 6 months and 60 workers who would otherwise have been made redundant have managed to keep their jobs. [Interruption] I note that the noise coming from Labour members means that they do not support those 350 workers who have kept their jobs. Let us see whether they are talking that tough when they visit Fisher and Paykel Appliances one day. I for one am proud to be leading a Government that has come up with a solution that has seen those workers keep their jobs.

Nathan Guy: Are there other elements to the Fisher and Paykel Appliances announcement?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, there are. Fisher and Paykel Appliances has announced that employees will work a 35-hour week, which will be supplemented by an additional 3.5 hours’ pay, consisting of the Government’s scheme and an equivalent contribution from the company. The remaining 1.5 hours per week may be taken as paid leave to ensure continuity of wage levels, and workers will attend a Fisher and Paykel Appliances - funded, in-house training and upskilling programme for the balance of the time. This is a great example of the Government, business, unions, and employees all working together. It is a successful programme.

Nathan Guy: How many companies have inquired about using the scheme?

Hon JOHN KEY: It is my understanding that as of this morning Work and Income had received 21 inquiries for the job support scheme—21 companies were looking to ensure that they can keep their workforces intact. This is a great example of the success of the Job Summit, and I take it, going by the silence of the Leader of the Opposition, that he is not quite so chipper today.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the advice he has received from his officials that the 60 jobs—not 350 jobs—saved today at Fisher and Paykel Appliances, as cited in the statement from the company, mean that he is now on track—[Interruption] Can I start again, Mr Speaker, because I cannot be heard over the Government benches—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I can hear perfectly well. The member should continue his question.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the advice from the Prime Minister about those 60 jobs—which all of us welcome as having been saved today—mean that the scheme is on track to save the 100,000 jobs that he said the initiative would save at the Job Summit earlier this year?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, let us get it right. There are 350 workers at Fisher and Paykel Appliances who are guaranteed their jobs for the next 6 months. There would have been many more—up to 60—who would have been made redundant. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to come with me to Fisher and Paykel Appliances, to stand on the shop floor, and to get up and say that he does not care about those workers’ jobs when I get up and say that I do, then he should feel free to join me.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is the statement made today by Fisher and Paykel Appliances that it would prevent about 60 redundancies.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that statement. Is there any objection? There is none.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Phil Goff: Secondly, I seek leave to table the statement from the Otago Daily Times where Mr Key states that this new scheme—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a press statement?

Hon Phil Goff: It is a statement made in the Otago Daily Times, dated 28 February of this year.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member. Leave is sought to table that press release. Is there any objection? No, there is no objection.

* Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

2. Recession—Job Protection

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

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is it his policy as Prime Minister to save jobs and to protect the most vulnerable from the effects of the recession?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes; unlike the Leader of the Opposition I do care about saving jobs for New Zealanders. This Government cares so much about this that it has undertaken a number of programmes. They include the ReStart package, the small-business package, the 9-day working fortnight, $2.5 million of additional promotion of New Zealand tourism in Australia, the reform of the Resource Management Act, of course tax cuts—

Hon Chris Carter: What about the cycleway?

Hon JOHN KEY: —and yes, I say to Mr Carter, the cycle track will also see people employed. The member should not worry; he will enjoy riding on it.

Hon Phil Goff: What credibility does the Prime Minister have in telling New Zealanders struggling to make ends meet that they should donate their tax cuts to charity to help those in need, when his own Government has done absolutely the opposite by slashing tax cuts, legislated for by Labour, for those on lower incomes, which would have helped those people directly?

Hon JOHN KEY: I personally happen to believe in giving, and I think that is a good message for New Zealanders who may not need to spend their tax cuts, or may not want to save their tax cuts, to give them away. Let me make just two points. The first is that when National announced this policy in Opposition it was greeted by the then Minister of the Labour Government, Steve Maharey, as Tory charity. Some weeks later the policy turned up in Michael Cullen’s Budget. That is how much the Labour Government thought of it when it heard about the policy from National—it liked it. The second point I will make is simply this one. Mr Goff is rapidly losing the title of being “Phil-in”, but he will certainly not be thought of as “Phil-in-thropic”, that is for sure.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I expected you to intervene on that comment. You have already ruled that comment out of order in the House, and I expect that when people address members in a way that you have already ruled out, we should not have to intervene. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: We are considering a point of order; both sides of the House might reflect on that. The Hon Trevor Mallard has made a perfectly valid point in his point of order, which is that members should not be referred to by inappropriate names. I am sure the Prime Minister would have no problem with withdrawing that comment. I ask him to withdraw that use of inappropriate language.

Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept the argument that focusing tax cuts on those in the greatest need would have been fairer and most effective in stimulating demand and saving jobs and businesses, as economists and people like Rob Fyfe and Steven Tindall have pointed out to him directly?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, Rob Fyfe is a great bloke, but he is not an economist. The second point is that I agree with the way the package is structured. It will be good for New Zealand, it will be good for growth in this country, and unlike under the Government that Phil Goff was a member of, New Zealanders have not had to wait 9 years for a tax cut under our Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept that people in streets like McGehan Close—the people about whom he professed so much concern before the election—will be the people most vulnerable to losing their jobs at the present time and will also be the people who get absolutely nothing from the tax cuts he has legislated for; if so, where is the evidence that he was sincere about his earlier professed concern?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have two points. It is not true that people in McGehan Close will not get a tax cut.

Hon Phil Goff: Oh, it is.

Hon JOHN KEY: Oh no, it is not, actually. For a start, if they get an independent earner’s rebate, then they will get $10 a week, so they will certainly get something. Secondly, I might add that the Leader of the Opposition should go and have a look at the ReStart programme, because the way the ReStart programme works is that if somebody living in McGehan Close loses his or her job, he or she will be getting $160 a week. Under the Labour package, if someone was a multimillionaire, whose spouse lost his or her job, and that person continued in the job paying $2 million a year, he or she would have got something under Labour, but a low-income person living in McGehan Close would have got absolutely nothing. The party that cares about all New Zealanders is on this side of the House.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister agree that insulating cold, damp houses and comprehensively improving their energy efficiency is good for our economy, good for workers, and good for health?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do agree that insulating housing is good for the economy and good for health.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept that the people in McGehan Close, most of them families with dependent children and earning under $40,000 a year, will get absolutely nothing from his tax cuts?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not accept that.

Sue Bradford: Has the Government done any work on assessing the—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member at the back of the Chamber has the floor and it is a little hard to hear from the back of the Chamber.

Sue Bradford: Has the Government done any work on assessing the job losses that are likely to happen in the wake of possible funding cuts to the community and voluntary sector—for example, if the Ministry of Social Development’s Pathways to Partnership programme is cancelled?

Hon JOHN KEY: I and the Government have certainly considered the impact on the voluntary sector. It is one of the reasons I spoke at the philanthropy conference last week and said that if New Zealanders want to give to all sorts of great charities out there, then that will help.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the latest estimate the Prime Minister has received from his officials on the cost of the proposed Cape Reinga to Bluff bicycle lane and the number of jobs that it will create?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have not had any updates in recent weeks.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister agree that the community and voluntary sector plays a vital role in society, both in terms of jobs created and the work it carries out; if so, what steps will he take to ensure funding stability for organisations whose work will actually be needed more than ever in this time of recession?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes; the Government is in negotiations and discussions with the community and voluntary sector to make sure it is in the best shape it can be, given the circumstances it faces, which are difficult for everyone.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister support the call by the Employers and Manufacturers Association (Northern) for workers to cash up 2 weeks of their annual leave, given his support in this House for the US position of having only 2 weeks’ annual leave entitlement for workers?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I will not. I have made it quite clear that I think it makes sense for people to potentially have the choice to cash in their fourth week. That will give them a 2 percent pay increase, so they may choose to do that. Of course, most workers will choose not to do that, but this party believes in choice, which is something the New Zealand public was robbed of for 9 years.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] I understood that members were not to interject on points of order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is absolutely right. There will be silence. The member can proceed with his point of order, please.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table this document in which Mr Key says that the 4 weeks’ annual leave is a retrograde step and that he supports the American position—

Mr SPEAKER: It is not clear what the document is.

Hon Phil Goff: The document is Hansard from 16 December 2003.

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you. Leave is sought to table Hansard. Is there any objection? There is objection.

3. Economy—Reports

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

3. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: My question is to the Minister of Finance—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Amy Adams is at the back of the Chamber. It is hard to hear.

AMY ADAMS: What reports has he seen on the state of the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yesterday, the latest consensus forecasts collated by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research were released. These forecasts confirm the difficult situation the Government has inherited. All forecasters have revised their forecasts downwards, and are now, on average, expecting two more quarters of negative growth.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister on this matter. The Labour Party submitted a question: “Has he seen the latest economic forecasts of the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research?”, which the Clerk’s Office ruled out because, apparently, the Minister has no responsibility for the institute. That, of course, is true, but it seemed to us that whether he had seen those reports was certainly a matter of ministerial responsibility. Yet the Government has been allowed to ask the question: “What reports has he seen on the state of the economy?”. Of course, the Minister has launched into an answer about consensus forecasts, the institute, etc. I simply draw that to your attention, Mr Speaker, because we do not want to get into long arguments with the Clerk’s Office. It does seem to me that there are not entirely even-handed rulings from the office on these questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think that last point was fair, but the member makes an interesting point. As he well knows, having served many years as a Minister in this House, the rules that apply to answers are a little different from the Standing Orders that apply to questions. Of course, although the Minister cannot be questioned about something that he is not responsible for, as long as the reports that he is asked about are in the area that he is responsible for, he can refer to those reports. That has been longstanding practice. I invite the Minister to continue his answer.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you may have slightly misunderstood my point. My point was that the question that was submitted in the name of Mr Cunliffe asked whether the Minister had seen certain reports, and it actually named those reports. This question from Ms Adams asks: “What reports has he seen on the state of the economy?’. It is hard to see the difference between those two questions, unless the Minister is confined to reports for which he has direct responsibility. Quite properly, he is not answering along those lines, because the Minister of Finance has responsibility to be aware of any reports on the state of the New Zealand economy.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the interesting thing that the member might like to reflect on is that he could have submitted a further question along the lines of the question that has just been asked. He acknowledges that it his different from the question he sought to lodge. It is slightly different. I assure him that I will endeavour to make sure that questions are treated in the same way. I will be watching for that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The latest consensus forecasts show that all forecasters have revised their forecasts downwards, and are now expecting two more quarters of negative growth. The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research forecasts all show ongoing twin deficit problems. The consensus view shows the balance of payments deficit persisting above $12 billion in each of the next 2 years. That is about the worst level that New Zealand has experienced.

Amy Adams: What is the outlook for economic growth as reflected by the consensus forecasts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The consensus forecasts show 2 years of declining output. GDP is projected to decline by almost 1 percent in the year ending March 2009, and by a further 0.6 percent over the 12 months after that, through to March 2010. That will have a considerable impact on Government revenues.

Amy Adams: What does this outlook imply about the basis for future growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I wish the forecasts could show that there was a strong basis for future growth, but actually they show how poorly the foundations for growth have been laid over recent years. The previous Government oversaw a period of growth based on an unsustainable credit-driven boom, notably in housing, and very low productivity. This boom is now reversing in spectacular fashion, and it will take a considerable period of well-founded economic policy to lay some foundations for growth.

4. Economic Growth—Forecasts

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

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with reports from NZIER consensus forecasts that show that on current policy settings growth will remain negative for the next 2 years, with the beginnings of recovery not expected until 2011?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : I am not sure whether the member has correctly understood the forecasts. They are prepared on a March year basis. The 2 years they are referring to are the year to the end of March 2009—and it is now 25 March—and the next year, to March 2010. In fact, they think the economy may start recovering in 2010, rather than 2011.

Hon David Cunliffe: What advice has the Minister therefore given to the Prime Minister, who as recently as last Sunday told television viewers on Q+A that he expected the recovery to commence in 2009, or is the Prime Minister perhaps taking his advice from Steven Joyce and not that Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, the Prime Minister has a positive outlook for the New Zealand economy. In fact, I think it could be described as upbeat and aspirational.

David Bennett: What do the consensus projections imply about the balance of payments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand has a particular vulnerability with its high balance of payments deficit. I might say that the previous Minister of Finance made much of setting out to fix that when he went into Government, and if the result in 2008 was a measure of success, then he and the Labour Government utterly failed .The consensus projections show an accumulative increase in net foreign liabilities of $42 billion in the 3 years to June 2011. That is uncomfortably large and not a level that the Government can be comfortable with.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister consider that upbeat and aspirational action is now needed in New Zealand, when US stock markets rose nearly 7 percent in recent days on the back of such intervention by the US Obama administration, or is he instead using this recession as political cover to undertake a pre-ordained agenda of privatisation, gutting KiwiSaver, the Superannuation Fund, and accident compensation, and, to boot, hobbling regulators like the Commerce Commission and Overseas Investment Office?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It may well assist the Labour Party if it stops trying to rerun its terribly failed 2008 election campaign and actually pays some attention to the economy. I am very pleased that the New Zealand Government does not have to put a trillion dollars into stabilising the banking system—it is probably about the third or fourth attempt the US Government has made. I acknowledge the efforts made by the previous Government to help to stabilise the banking system; we are continuing with those, and I hope we do not have to follow the course of the US Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister further acknowledge, therefore, that of the approximately $13 billion of stimulus that he claims he has injected into the New Zealand economy, nearly all of it results from Labour’s policies in the 2008 Budget and Labour’s planned business tax reforms, or does he just consider cycle lanes a stimulus, even though his Government has just removed funding from such non - State highway transport classes, or is this just another example of his leader being aspirational—

Mr SPEAKER: This is the third question.

Hon David Cunliffe: —while he does the opposite of that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am pleased that the combination of tax cuts on 1 October, which occurred under that member’s Government, and tax cuts on 1 April, which we campaigned on, along with significant cuts in interest rates are putting cash in people’s pockets and are helping to protect New Zealanders from the sharpest edge of recession. However, these policies come at a cost. That cost is increasing debt, and this Government is determined to get on top of that rising debt problem.

5. Recession—Job Losses

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

5. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she seen about job losses in the current economic climate?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : There has been a sharp increase in the rate of unemployment. There are 35,283 people currently on the unemployment benefit, and that number is up by 15,250 on last year’s number. It is telling us that people need all the support they can get and the help they can get via Work and Income. We are seeing people, though, walk in, and walk out with jobs. For those who are attending seminars, up to 38 percent are walking out with a job instead of having to go on the unemployment benefit.

Jo Goodhew: How many people are being helped by the Government’s ReStart package?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are 1,245 families receiving ReStart. They have worries about job security out there; people are concerned. ReStart inquiries have been up. Around 9,300 people have been calling our helplines to get information on ReStart. But there is good news: 10 percent of those people have cancelled their ReStart package because they have found new work.

Hon Annette King: Has the Minister received representations from Jacqui Dean MP to support the 80 workers who face redundancy at Summit Wool Spinners Ltd in Ōāmaru, who went away from a meeting with Ms Dean very disappointed that she had washed her hands of their problem?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Jacqui Dean has made many representations to my office on behalf of her constituents. She is indeed concerned about their well-being and their welfare, and she is certainly looking at how they can get assistance through Work and Income.

Jo Goodhew: What other assistance can redundant workers expect the Government to provide?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Work and Income is already working with companies and businesses to help them get through this time. We have beefed up the redundancy support to such a level that staff are walking in and talking to businesses about what is available. The focus is on the transition of getting people from job to job, and we are seeing some successes with that.

6. District Health Boards—Letter of Expectations

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

6. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: What cuts to existing health services is he prepared to accept in order to have district health boards meet the demands of his letter of expectations?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : I am expecting district health boards to be more productive within the resources they have, and within the additional resources they will be receiving. I have also made it clear that some low-quality programmes will have to be stopped or deferred, in order to move resources to better help sick people. My letter of expectations made it very clear that the new Government expects improved performance, particularly in relation to elective surgery, emergency department waiting-times, cancer treatment waiting-times, and clinical leadership.

Hon Ruth Dyson: So does that answer mean that it is OK for women from Karamea, Waimangaroa, and Westport to now have to travel for up to 3 hours in order to have a breast screen, when women working in this parliamentary complex just have to walk out to the forecourt to have exactly the same level of service; if it is not OK, what is the Minister going to do about it?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Ministry of Health is in discussion with the provider of breast-screening services on the West Coast, and made it very clear that the new Government expects an improvement on the service that it has inherited on the West Coast.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why, in the Minister’s letter of expectations, did he include a significant emphasis on district health boards living within their means?

Hon TONY RYALL: The previous Labour administration left the New Zealand public health sector on a track to financial crisis. Let me give the House three facts: firstly, district health board deficits that that party opposite said were only $111 million are heading towards $160 million; secondly, we face requests of $600 million in capital with little resources to meet those; and, finally, the outgoing Labour administration must surely have known that it had removed $150 million from the health budget over the next 2 years. I call on the member opposite to admit these facts, and to explain them.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will the Minister join the chairs of district health boards and the chief executives of district health boards whose jobs he has put on notice if they cannot cut cancer treatment times, and offer to resign if the women from Buller have to wait longer for breast cancer screening and diagnosis?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is quite clear that district health boards have a responsibility to provide services for the people of their communities. This Government is not prepared to tolerate a situation whereby the health budget doubled in the last 9 years and fewer people received service, on a population basis.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has he seen newspaper reports that cash-strapped patients are putting off having cancer treatment from their general practitioners, and will he take any action about that, or is he still determined to let the market decide general practice fees?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is determined to improve the service that cancer patients in this country receive. We think it is intolerable that the previous Government doubled the health budget, yet sent 180 New Zealand men and women to Australia for treatment. We are not going to be able to turn this round overnight, but we are at least dealing with the problems that that member failed to deal with.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect the member’s question correctly, she asked whether he had seen reports of something. That kind of question is not exactly that precise. I think we need to make sure that questions are asked very clearly if the answers that are sought are to be received. If I misheard the member—

Hon Ruth Dyson: You didn’t mishear.

Mr SPEAKER: That was correct? I call the member for a further supplementary question.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Is it OK that in the 4 months since he has been Minister, New Zealanders have seen service cuts in Taranaki, staff cuts in Tai Rāwhiti, home support service cuts in Otago, elective surgery cuts on the West Coast, and now, increased costs and waiting-times for women from Buller who are waiting for breast cancer screening; if it is not OK, what is he going to do about it?

Hon TONY RYALL: First of all, those allegations that the member makes all happened under the Labour Government’s funding cuts in the public health system. Just because that member repeats the allegations, it does not make them true.

7. Immigration Policy—Labour Demands

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

7. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Immigration: How is the Government’s immigration policy responding to the changing demands for labour in the face of current economic conditions?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) : The first thing to note is that this Government’s priority is jobs for New Zealanders first. We also recognise the importance of an immigration policy that ensures that in the long term this country has the skills and the capital to build a strong economy. Each year New Zealand approves somewhere in the region of 45,000 permanent migrants, most of whom supply skills that New Zealand is short of on a long-term basis. That will continue. In contrast, in situations where more New Zealanders become available, temporary visas will not be renewed and new ones will not be issued. In summary, we will be retaining permanent migration in areas where there are long-term skill shortages and cutting back on temporary migration in areas where New Zealanders are becoming available.

Jacqui Dean: How does the Government balance adjusting the flow of temporary migrants against continuing to encourage permanent migrants with the skills and capital that the country needs?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: An analogy is to think of temporary migration as a tap, the flow of which can be controlled according to New Zealand’s labour needs. In the current economic climate we still need highly skilled permanent migrants, but we need fewer foreign workers to come in on temporary visas when there are Kiwis available to fill those positions. Permanent residency programmes encourage people with skills that are in demand worldwide to move to New Zealand, and they also encourage people with significant capital to move to this country. Those types of people actually create jobs for all New Zealanders and help to grow the economy.

Jacqui Dean: What concerns does the Minister have regarding the MCK Metals Pacific case in Taranaki?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The concern is that six foreign workers were issued with a variation of conditions to their work permits that allowed them to do work for which New Zealanders were available. Two weeks after the issue of those permits, New Zealand workers were made redundant and foreign workers retained their jobs. If the Department of Labour had known that the redundancies were imminent, it would not have issued a variation of conditions. I have therefore asked the Department of Labour to investigate whether the revocation of those permits is appropriate.

8. Corrections, Chief Executive—Confidence

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

8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she have confidence in the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections; if so, why?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : As the State Services Commissioner said at the Law and Order Committee this morning, confidence will come from improvement in performance, and the magnitude of the task ahead of the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections means that confidence will take months, not days or weeks.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she consider, given that answer, that nine prison escapes, two prison deaths, and two prison assaults, in the course of a little over 2 months under her watch, constitute an improvement in the performance of the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. The basis on which that member has asked the question is disputed.

Sandra Goudie: What other statements has the Minister heard about the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am advised that at the Law and Order Committee this morning the State Services Commissioner confirmed to committee members that the department had repeatedly warned the previous Minister of Corrections, Phil Goff, that the probation service was struggling to cope with the number of offenders, and of the risks associated with that. But his Government chose to ignore those warnings.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister not agree that it is impossible to expect the public to have confidence in the Department of Corrections, given her and her Government’s continued failure to express confidence in the department’s chief executive?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, I do not agree with that.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can the Minister explain why the following statements about the report of the State Services Commissioner into accountability at the Department of Corrections are contradictory: the first being her own statement, when she claimed on Newstalk ZB on 10 March that Mr Matthews had been held accountable by the State Services Commissioner; and the second being the claim from the Prime Minister on Television New Zealand’s Breakfast programme on 16 March that the State Services Commissioner in his report had not apportioned responsibility to anybody?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: One word is “accountable”; the other is “responsible”. They are two different words. Mr Cosgrove should get them right.

Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware that Arohata Women’s Prison recorded the highest assault rate among small prisons, and given that some 58 percent of the female inmate population are Māori, what specific interventions will be undertaken to ensure that Māori responses are instrumental in addressing violence?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am concerned about assaults and violence in prison, and I look forward to working with Minister Sharples to provide Māori-appropriate responses, because this Government is focused on what works.

Rahui Katene: Has the Minister been advised that the Corrections Association president, Beven Hanlon, has called prisons “a powder keg”, referring to an intolerable amount of violence, and how does she believe that contract management of prisons could address the seeming rising tide of violence in prisons?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, I have heard that report. Mr Hanlon has recently released a report that portrays privately managed Port Phillip Prison in Melbourne as comparatively safer than the New Zealand public prisons that he visited when he was recently in New Zealand.

David Garrett: Does the Minister’s failure to express unequivocal confidence in the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections mean that she is not satisfied with the report of the State Services Commissioner on the Auditor-General’s report, which identified numerous failings within the Department of Corrections?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No. It means that, as the report of the State Services Commissioner has noted, Mr Matthews is working very hard to bring corrections to a standard where I as the Minister, and, more important, the public, can have full confidence, because this Government cares about public safety.

9. Nursing Council—Appointment Process

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

9. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: Who appoints members of the Nursing Council, and is the Government proposing changes?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : Yes, the Government is changing the appointment rules for the Nursing Council, so that nurses will be able to elect half of the six health practitioner members of the Nursing Council. Unlike the previous administration, which wanted to control and appoint every last position, this Government trusts our health professionals. We believe that nurses can make a significant contribution to the regulation of their profession, and from later this year we are giving them this opportunity.

Dr Jackie Blue: When are those changes expected to take place?

Hon TONY RYALL: The first elections to the Nursing Council will take place in September this year, when two health practitioner members will be elected for a term of 2 years. The next elections will be held in 2011, when three health practitioner members will be elected for a term of 3 years, with the elections being run by the Nursing Council.

10. Emissions Trading Scheme—Removal of Agricultural Emissions

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

10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for the Environment: Is he considering removing agricultural emissions from the New Zealand emissions trading scheme; if so, why?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : I think the member meant to set down the question to me as the Minister for Climate Change Issues, but I am happy to oblige. No; agriculture emissions make up—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My understanding is that the question was set down for the Minister for Climate Change Issues, but that it was transferred by the Office of the Clerk to the Minister for the Environment.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table the form signed by Mr Darren Hughes, which set down the question as being for the Minister for the Environment.

Mr SPEAKER: I think we do not need to take this matter further, because it is the Government’s responsibility as to whom the responsible Minister is. The question is to the appropriate Minister, the Hon Dr Nick Smith. The House will listen to the answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No; agricultural emissions make up 49 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, so they do need to be included at some stage. However, we do need to be honest about the huge complexities of including agriculture into an emissions trading scheme, in that accuracy in the measurement of greenhouse gas emissions from animals is very difficult to obtain. This is a sector that is very much subject to pressures from international competition. There are also issues in terms of the technologies that enable us to reduce emissions from farm animals, and that is an area in which the Government is making a substantial investment into research.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister think that the inclusion of agriculture in the emissions trading scheme will be a barrier to his stated desire for there to be harmonisation between Australia’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and New Zealand’s emission trading scheme, given that the Australian scheme will not include agriculture?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not. There are some issues around harmonisation between New Zealand and Australia where the provisions do have to be the same. If, for instance, there is to be a price cap in one country and not in the other, that would be unworkable. If there are issues around the assigned amount units that are able to be traded internationally that, too, would be critical. Having said that, the Australian approach to agriculture is that its inclusion is programmed for after 2015, with a decision on that intended to be made in about 2013.

Charles Chauvel: Will the implementation of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme be further delayed if the Australian Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is not legislated for according to the Australian Government’s anticipated timetable?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In my discussions last week with the Minister for Climate Change and Water in Australia, Penny Wong, she remained confident of being able to secure the numbers, particularly in the Senate, for that Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to be able to come into effect on 1 July. But that is substantially an issue for Australia. It is this Government’s view that there are real advantages in harmonising the approach of both New Zealand and Australia. If it is necessary to take a bit more time in order to get those schemes harmonised in the early stage, it is worth doing that.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether, in the event of delay in the implementation of the Australian scheme, there would be further delay in respect of the New Zealand scheme. He said, based on assurances from the Minister in Australia, that he did not think there would be a delay, but that it was worth taking time. I am not quite sure whether the question was actually addressed—[Interruption] Members opposite may think it is funny, but it is actually a very serious question.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly good point, and there should not have been any interjection. I think it would be fair to say, though, that the member asked whether there would be a delay, and the answer he got from the Minister was an assurance he had from the Australian Minister that things were on time. The Minister cannot really speculate—and I do not think the member can expect him to speculate—beyond that, and I think the answer to the question was a reasonable one.

John Boscawen: Does the Minister agree that it would be foolish for New Zealand to move faster than Australia in the area of agricultural emissions, which Australia is not including in its scheme until 2015 at the earliest; if not, why not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think it is important to recognise that the significance of agricultural emissions for New Zealand is significantly greater than they are for Australia—they make up about 49 percent of New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions, as compared with about 15 percent for Australia. But I also think we need to be honest in this Parliament about the huge difficulties of including agriculture in an emissions trading scheme. The measurements are extremely difficult, this sector is very much exposed to international competition, and the third point I make is that we have not even resolved the question—nor did the previous Government—of whether the obligation would be with the processor or at farm level.

Nikki Kaye: What recent reports has the Minister received on the inclusion of agricultural emissions by other countries?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have received reports today that Denmark had included having a price put on agricultural emissions, but has subsequently decided not to proceed with that because of the international competitiveness issues. I think that response and what is taking place internationally are matters that New Zealand needs to responsibly keep a brief on, so that we are not putting our key exporting industry at risk.

11. Overseas Investment Rules Review—Sensitive Land

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

11. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Finance: Will the Government be reviewing all the land deemed sensitive in the Overseas Investment Act 2005 in its upcoming review of overseas investment rules; and if not, what particular categories of sensitive land will be exempt from the review?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : There are no particular exemptions from the review; the terms of reference are deliberately broad. As I said when we issued the review’s terms of reference, we will ensure that land of particular significance or importance to New Zealand continues to be protected.

Dr Kennedy Graham: What communication has the Minister had with the Minister of Māori Affairs about the implications the review might have for the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi, and specifically statutory provisions pertaining to the foreshore and seabed; and what was the outcome of any discussions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have begun those discussions. As a rule, we will be discussing aspects of the review with a wide range of groups.

Craig Foss: Why is the Government reviewing overseas investment rules?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are setting out to reduce the time and the cost of making decisions. The current regime is too complex, too slow, and very expensive. Processing sensitive land applications, for instance, involved assessing 27 different criteria and factors. Over the next few years New Zealand will have to compete for the kind of investment that will replace the jobs that are being lost in this recession. Among those investors will be overseas investors, and we want to make sure they can get a decision quickly, rather than being frustrated by bureaucratic process.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can he confirm that in respect of section 17 of the 2005 Act the Government will not relax the provisions pertaining to indigenous fauna, protected wildlife, public walking access, and historic heritage sites?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said, the terms of reference are deliberately broad and it would be premature of me to confirm any particular aspect. The member could ask a dozen questions about what I can or cannot confirm; I am unable to do that.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he agree with ACT’s recorded belief: “There is no evidence that foreigners make poor landowners.” or John Key’s admonition of June 2005: “There is a genuine concern, and I think a warranted concern, from New Zealanders, that we do not want to become tenants in our own country. I think the long-term future for New Zealand is not that of a bunch of people running around, serving lattes to foreigners who own our country.”

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may not be surprised to know that I disagree with ACT and that I agree with the Prime Minister.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that the amendments to overseas investment rules for land purchases made and enforced by the Labour Government have led to the return of the foreshore and seabed as well as river and lake beds to the Crown, for the benefit of all New Zealanders, and to the creation of legal access to many previously landlocked waterways?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The previous Government, along with its coalition partner, had a wide range of political objectives it was trying to achieve. I would have to say our objectives are focused on protecting those interests that are vital to New Zealanders but also on providing for the opportunity to compete for the kind of investment we will need to replace the jobs that are currently being lost. Over a number of years, changes to the Overseas Investment Act have made it complex and expensive and confusing. Along with a lot of other changes this Government is making, we want to make it clearer and simpler so decisions can be made quickly, and people can know whether they are welcome.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister undertake not to dilute the legislative controls on the purchase of New Zealand land by overseas people; or is the next part of his right-wing agenda to give up New Zealanders’ birthright of free access to our waterways?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member continues the Labour practice of trying to rerun the 2008 election. Labour members shouted about all those conspiracy theories, and used all those conspiracy theories in election year. Even their own voters are telling us after the election that they have stopped supporting Labour because they think it is all nonsense.

12. Public Service—Front-line Services

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

12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of State Services: How many front-line Public Service jobs have been created by this Government?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) : Every year the State Services Commission conducts a human resource capability survey as at 30 June. The next report, as at 30 June 2009, will be available around October and it should provide us with an indication of the answer to this question. It is the Government’s intention to improve front-line services for New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: How is the cutting of more than 200 public sector jobs and the apparent creation of no new so-called front-line public sector jobs consistent with John Key’s promise to shift resources to the front line and to cap, but not cut, public services?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is the Government’s intention to move resources to the front line. One example might be provided by the information that the Minister of Social Development has passed to me this afternoon, that Work and Income is looking to move 100 staff to bolster front-line services in Auckland. This is on top of the 60 staff who have been moved to help deal with the higher demand in that area as well.

Louise Upston: How much did the Public Service grow by between 1990 and 2008?

Hon TONY RYALL: Between 1999 and 2008 the Public Service grew by 50 percent. After 9 years of unfocused and unmanaged growth under the previous Government, the new Government has been left with a Public Service that is unbalanced between head office administrators and front-line services.

Grant Robertson: Which of these statements is correct: the statement that the Government has no idea how many public sector jobs are to be cut but that it will be less than 4,500, or the statement that under National no public services will be cut? Both statements were made by John Key.

Hon TONY RYALL: I think there is a difference between public services and the original quote, but, of course, both were from the Prime Minister, who is providing this country’s superb leadership.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister stand by his statement yesterday—

Mr SPEAKER: This time Labour members might show courtesy to their own colleague.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister stand by his statement yesterday that the reason the Government is to make an announcement about what it considers to be the core Public Service is that “people have been asking”, and does this mean that the Government has been implementing a policy with no idea of what it actually means?

Hon TONY RYALL: No. The Government does know what it means, and that member will find out in due course.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister stand by the answer given on his behalf in this House by Gerry Brownlee, that the core Public Service is “the bit that will not be cut”, and does he think that simply shifting the goalposts is a good way to manage the Public Service?

Hon TONY RYALL: I think the most important way that we can manage the Public Service is to ensure that we can move front-line services to improve the services that New Zealanders receive from the Public Service. We simply cannot have a 50 percent increase in the size of the Public Service over 9 years and not have the accent on the improved front-line services that New Zealanders would expect.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It asked the Minister whether he stood by Gerry Brownlee’s statement that the core Public Service is “the bit that will not be cut”. The Minister did not answer that.

Mr SPEAKER: The member actually went on and added some more, and the Minister answered the last bit of the question, which he is perfectly entitled to do.

ENDS

© Scoop Media