Questions For Oral Answer
2 April 2009

Questions To Ministers

1. Prime Minister—Statements

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

1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all the statements he has made as Prime Minister in the last month?

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

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that the Minister of Trade “took the opportunity” to resign his business interests that could cause a conflict of interest, when he was advised to do so by the Cabinet Office last year; if so, why was his Minister still holding shares in the Indian Overseas Group Ltd this week?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those matters have been raised by the Opposition and by the media, and the Ministers have set about ensuring that every action they take complies with the Cabinet Manual and the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that all the world leaders he has talked to are “not particularly focused on climate change at the moment”, and how does he reconcile that statement with the talks that President Obama and Prime Minister Gordon Brown had on this issue just yesterday, or do they not take the Prime Minister seriously on this issue anyway?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, the Prime Minister does stand by his statement.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that the Minister for ACC has “a brain about the size of the South Island”, but after his bizarre behaviour in the last few weeks does he wish to revise the size to, say, the vacant Campbell Island?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, the Prime Minister does stand by his statement. The Labour Party may find it bizarre that a Minister wanted to go to the select committee to be accountable and explain his actions, but it is part of us being a good Government.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement that the Minister of Internal Affairs is stupid and unwise; if so, how long does he intend to retain a stupid and unwise Minister?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister stands by his statement that some of the Minister’s actions were unwise, and the Minister has set about correcting those actions.

2. Crown—Core Expenditure

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

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: How much has core Crown expenditure increased over the past 5 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Since June 2004 core Crown expenditure has risen from $41.9 billion to $63.5 billion. That is an increase of 51 percent over the last 5 years. In that time the economy grew by just 23 percent and tax revenue by 24 percent.

Craig Foss: Where has the burden of this increased expenditure fallen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Most public expenditure programmes bring benefits to the community. However, over the next few years we will have to carefully weigh up the benefits of increased expenditure with the benefits that that expenditure would have to the community. The burden of extra expenditure falls on all taxpayers, and taxpayers will want to know that it is all used productively. That is why the Government is going through a process of prioritising its expenditure.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that his answer to the first question mixed real and nominal numbers, and thereby misled the House and the public?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer is no, but it is quite clear that Government expenditure cannot continue to grow significantly faster than the growth of the economy.

Craig Foss: What would be the consequences if these expenditure trends were to continue?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The consequences of expenditure growing significantly faster than the economy—and particularly when revenue is dropping—would be an unacceptable level of debt. This Parliament needs to keep in mind, as the Government does, that every dollar borrowed now will have to be repaid with interest by some future taxpayer, and every time the Labour Opposition complains about the Government reprioritising, taxpayers need to remember that it simply means more debt.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, John Key, when he said to G20 leaders that they need to recognise that not every country, including a country like New Zealand, with “low initial public debt”—and so on and so forth—and does he concur with his leader’s recognition that he is extremely fortunate to have inherited an economy with such sound public finances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the public finances were as sound as that member believes, then we would not be facing the prospect of a probable doubling of public debt over the next 3 years. The fact is that in the last 3 years under the previous Government, with its shambolic and directionless policy, billions of dollars of extra expenditure was built into our baselines that was of low quality.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister seen reports from Business and Economic Research stating: “The middle of a recession was not the time for a ‘balancing of the books’ exercise. Growing signs of a cavalier, ‘across-the-board’ Razor Gang approach to culling government spending leaves one with a sense of déjà vu. The risk that the current Government will repeat the mistakes of the early-1990s would not only add to the gloom, but also further exacerbate the blow-out in the fiscal deficit.”, and does he, therefore, accept that his instructions to cut 10 percent of the Public Service are misguided?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There was no such instruction. The majority of the redundancies in the Public Service are due to the fact that the previous Government planned drops in spending in the Ministry for the Environment, the Inland Revenue Department, and other Government agencies. The redundancies are due to the fact that Labour made commitments that it did not fund.

John Boscawen: Would the Minister agree that although the previous Labour Government created the shambolic and directionless mess we are now in, it is his job to fix it, and when does he intend to start to do so in a meaningful way?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I agree that it is the job of the National Government to fix it, and I think that is why the public overwhelmingly voted to change the Government. We have set about doing that in a meaningful way by reprioritising the Government’s spending, dropping all the unfunded commitments made by the previous Government, dropping the programmes that are not working, and allowing the Civil Service to give us their best professional advice and to start exercising responsibility, instead of being treated like children, as they were under the previous Government.

3. Tax Cuts—Distribution

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

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Will all New Zealanders gain from National’s tax cuts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes, all New Zealanders will gain from the tax cuts, because lower taxes provide incentives to get ahead, are a reward for effort, and will help to get this economy back in the shape it needs to be in to replace the jobs that are being lost. Every New Zealander will benefit from policies that reduce unemployment.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that businesses that have employees on KiwiSaver, for example, will be worse off to the tune of $1,040 per worker per year, as a result of the loss of the employer subsidy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The National Opposition promised to make a number of changes to KiwiSaver. We campaigned on those changes, we were elected, and we have made those changes. Businesses and employees will certainly benefit from having a Government that knows what it takes to build business confidence, to enhance job security, and to provide an environment where new jobs can be created to replace the ones that are being lost.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I imagine you know what the point of order will be. The question was a very simple one about whether he could confirm a number that had been provided. It was impossible to tell from the meandering answer whether he was trying to bring himself to the point where he could say yes. Could you please invite the Minister to clarify that now?

Mr SPEAKER: The member still has supplementary questions that he can use to pursue the sharp point, and I think it is reasonable that he should explore that avenue before raising concern about the Minister’s failure to answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a separate point of order. Again, I saw that you looked in his direction, but right at the beginning of that point of order, in the first sentence, the Leader of the House interjected. You are being quite strict on this side of the House, and my invitation to you is to be strict on the person on the other side who is meant to show leadership in this area, and ask him to cease.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, I apologise if any disrespect was shown to you—the Chair—or the House. But when a member takes a point of order and says: “Mr Speaker, I suspect you can anticipate what I am going to say.”, he or she surely has to expect the rest of the House to treat it with some degree of derision.

Dr Russel Norman: Mr Speaker, I want to address your original ruling. I am not disagreeing with your ruling as to whether the question had been addressed. I want to ask you about your statement that members can always follow up a matter by asking a further supplementary question about it. The problem with that is that members use up their supplementary questions. If the original question was not actually addressed, we use up our supplementary questions chasing the Minister. Particularly for smaller parties, with fewer supplementary questions, that is a real problem.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the honourable member has made, and I would certainly try to make sure that that did not happen. If, in fact, no answer was forthcoming, and the question was very plain, I would invite the member to repeat the question so that he or she did not run out of supplementary questions. I think that is a very important point.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What other groups will benefit from yesterday’s changes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In addition to 1.5 million taxpayers who will benefit from lower taxes, almost 1 million superannuitants, veterans, beneficiaries, and students will experience a rise in income from 1 April. Most will get a boost of over $13 a week. In addition, all the people who are on the minimum wage will have an increase from $12 to $12.50 an hour, and small and medium businesses will benefit from a 4-year, $480 million programme of tax changes. All of this is being achieved in the face of one of the worst recessions the country has experienced for many years.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that Pasifika people will be overwhelmingly represented amongst those who are net losers from yesterday’s tax changes, and can he further confirm that over 80 percent of all workers and taxpayers in the electorate of Māngere, a heavily Pacific Island electorate, will be worse off, and that some 75 percent in Mr Lotu-Iiga’s electorate will be worse off?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I cannot confirm that. The member has taken to using all sorts of dodgy numbers to come up with these figures. The fact is that 1.5 million taxpayers are getting a tax cut, and almost 1 million other people on income support are getting rises on 1 April. That is a major achievement in the face of a deepening recession, with dropping revenue and coordinated global recession.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that a company that invests, say, $200,000 in research and development activity to improve its products, make itself more competitive, and help position New Zealand for an export-led rebound will now lose $30,000 because of National scrapping the research and development tax credit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If those numbers were right, that would be the case. However, a number of companies I have spoken to found that the amount they spent on consultants to work out the deduction they would get was more than the deduction. It is time the Labour Party got real. Times have changed. We cannot have everything that was nice to have. That party’s record of reckless spending is one of the biggest problems that this Government has to deal with.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Having exhausted my allocation of supplementary questions, I turn to you for your assistance.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Thank God for that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Well, if the Minister cannot take the heat, get out of the kitchen. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: We will have silence, thank you. Thanks; we have just got over that one. The problem was caused by an unhelpful interjection. I ask members not to interject. The Hon David Cunliffe does have the floor on a point of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: Thank you for helping the acting Prime Minister. Again, the question was a very simple question. In fact, it was a mathematical truism. Somehow, the member managed to create a Calvinistic sermon out of the response. Would it—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. The member must remember that points of order are meant to be made tersely, and are meant to be to the point. Whether there was a Calvinistic sermon is not consistent with the Standing Orders on making points of order. I take it the member is seeking my assistance because he believes that the reply was not adequate. If that is the case, all I can say to the member is that the Minister said that if the member’s figures were correct, then that would be the case. I believe that was an answer to his question.

Dr Russel Norman: Why does the Minister continue to ignore the advice from the International Monetary Fund that a tax cut - based stimulus package produces much better economic outcomes if it is targeted towards those on lower incomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are not ignoring advice from the International Monetary Fund. Its representatives were sitting in my office the other day, handing it out. It just happens that we do no agree with all its advice.

4. Community Law Centres—Funding

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

4.oboqNATHAN GUY (National—Ōtaki) on behalf of SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Justice: What further steps has he taken to improve access to justice following his announcement last month that the shortfall in funding for community law centres would be addressed?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : Last night, at the International Legal Aid Group meeting in Wellington, I announced a fundamental review of the legal aid system. Legal aid has a defining role in upholding access to justice by giving effect to the principle of equality before the law. However, I am concerned that the current system of legal aid may actually lead to inequity by creating perverse incentives to prolong justice, with a negative impact on victims and on costs to the court system.

Nathan Guy: What is the scope of the review, and who will lead it?

Hon SIMON POWER: The review will consider all aspects of the legal aid system, but the purpose is to consider how the system can be best structured so that it delivers effective legal services to those who need them the most in a way that is cost-effective and sustainable. I am very pleased to advise the House that Dame Margaret Bazley will chair the review team, with the rest of the team to be announced at a later date.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister stand by his statement that the immediate future of New Zealand’s 27 community law centres has been assured through interim measures that will mean they have the same level of funding next year as they enjoyed in 2008-09; if so, why has the Legal Services Agency not yet rolled over the existing purchase plans?

Hon SIMON POWER: All will happen in good time, I say to the member.

5. Internal Affairs, Minister—Ministerial Requirements

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

5. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Internal AffairsCan he confirm that as Minister of Internal Affairs he has met all the requirements of a Minister of the Crown as set out under “Conduct, public duty, and personal interests” in Part 2 of the Cabinet Manual?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) : Yes, I confirm that to the best of my knowledge I meet the requirements set out in Part 2.58 of the Cabinet Manual.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why does the Minister still own 5,000 shares in WSD Global Markets Ltd, a company substantially owned by Mr Riaz Patel of the House of Patel, a company that originates from India, trades in India, and has a physical presence in India; and how does that reflect on his judgment?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: The shares in that company, which is a minimal holding—I am not sure what the total capital of the company is, but it is a big number—are held by my family trust and are in the process of being sold. In fact, I had a discussion with the secretary of the company about that issue yesterday.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did the Minister obtain those shares, while he was a director of the company, on the day before last year’s general election, when most members of Parliament had other things on their minds; and did he pay for those shares?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: I do not believe that the date the member has offered is correct. That may be the date the shares were entered on to the register. I did pay for the shares.

Hon Annette King: He’s not being honest.

Hon Pete Hodgson: No, he bought them himself. Is the Minister happy to rise to the challenge posed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that he place in the public arena receipts for his own costs of travel, accommodation, and other requirements incurred on his recent trip to India?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: I think the member should accept the accuracy of the statements that I make in this Parliament. The costs have been correctly identified and the details published in the media.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is the Minister aware that WSBC, a company that the director of the New Zealand Serious Fraud Office described as “an associated entity”, was thrown out of the Cook Islands last week, and that last Friday the Minister of Finance for the Cook Islands issued a press statement praising the role of the Pacific anti - money-laundering programme; and how does that reflect on his judgment?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: I do not know of those matters. That is a different company. The company I was involved with was WSD Global Risks Ltd, which is a New Zealand company.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did the Minister tamper with his own Wikipedia entry earlier this week, and does he intend to take the advice Wikipedia gave him yesterday afternoon that he should consult Wikipedia’s conflict of interest guidelines?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Although some of these questions stray outside what might be normal in the circumstances, I know that my colleague is keen to answer them, but for goodness sake! Yesterday we had Mr Cunliffe getting upset about suggestions that he had been Twitter-ing on some site in cyberspace. How on earth does this particular Wikipedia entry have anything to do with the primary question that was asked today?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The primary question today was about the Cabinet Manual requirements in relation to conduct, public duty, and personal interests. That is a very wide set of requirements upon Ministers, and the supplementary question comes within that ambit. The primary question is not specifically related to the matters of shareholding.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a difficult issue. Obviously, I have to try to ensure that questions fall within the area of ministerial responsibility and relate to the primary question. I acknowledge the primary question is reasonably broad in terms of conduct under the requirements of the Cabinet Manual. But anyone, as I understand it, can seek to alter what is on Wikipedia, and I have some difficulty in believing that that question falls within the Standing Orders. So that I am not seen to be unfair in taking a question away from the member, I invite him to reword his question to see whether he can bring it reasonably within the Standing Orders.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister recall that the Prime Minister had undisclosed shares in a railway company last year, some of which were also in a family trust, and that when confronted by that the Prime Minister chose to not to hide behind that particular veil—so why does Dr Worth?

Mr SPEAKER: I must say to the honourable member that the dilemma is that the Minister of Internal Affairs is not in any way responsible for what the Prime Minister may or may not have done, and that is the dilemma I have with that question. I accept that the member is seriously trying to pursue a matter and I do not want to unduly constrain that, but I feel that what the Prime Minister may have done is not the Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am slightly reluctant to challenge your ruling, but I ask you to consider this matter. The question was not asking the Minister to answer for the Prime Minister, but it gave the Prime Minister as a very good example of proper transparency in these matters, and all that was being asked was whether this Minister is prepared to match the level of transparency that the Prime Minister has given and that Ministers in the previous Government were also expected to give.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It would be appropriate if the member were to be allowed to rephrase the question and to see whether he can bring it within your understanding—

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the member to do that.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Noting the Prime Minister’s expectation on all Ministers, does the Minister of Internal Affairs believe that he should follow the example given by the Prime Minister in respect of family trusts, and not chose to hide behind that veil?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: There is nothing unusual about family trusts. If the member was to look at the Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament, he would find that there are a significant number of members of Parliament who have trust arrangements. My recollection is that the previous Prime Minister has such an arrangement. There is nothing inappropriate about a family trust.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I have a number of documents to table, and to assist the House I have grouped them. The first set of documents are various share registry records and directors’ records from the New Zealand Companies Office. I seek leave to table them.

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

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

Hon Pete Hodgson: Secondly, there are assorted documents from court cases, including an affidavit, a court finding, and commentary from the British customs intelligence. I seek leave to table those documents.

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

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

Hon Pete Hodgson: I seek leave to table a press statement dated last Friday from the office of the Deputy Prime Minister of the Cook Islands.

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

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

Hon Pete Hodgson: Finally, I seek leave to table Dr Worth’s view of himself on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia’s comments to Dr Worth in response.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table comments from Wikipedia. Is there any objection to that? There appears to be none.

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

6. Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Cuts

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

6. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the AssociateMinister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations): What percentage of emission cuts for 2020 will the New Zealand Government commit to at the Bonn conference, in light of the EU commitment to cut emissions by at least 20 percent, and broadly comparable statements of intent by Australia and the United States?

Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations)) : New Zealand does not propose to announce a domestic medium-term target at the current United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Bonn. Cabinet has signed off on New Zealand’s climate change negotiating stance, which includes a commitment to the global goal of 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, and has also signed off on New Zealand’s goal of a 50 percent reduction in net 1990 emissions by 2050. There is considerable uncertainty over New Zealand’s net emissions figures, which the Government is working hard to resolve right now. Until we get reliable figures on that, we are not in a position to go further.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Can the Minister explain why this Government is unable to make a clear decision on emission cuts by 2020—not 2050—although the US chief climate change negotiator has recently forewarned that “those who hang back … will be economic losers in the end”?

Hon TIM GROSER: As I stated in my answer to the primary question, we first of all need to know exactly where we stand in terms of net emissions before taking a position for or against.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of that comment, when will the Minister admit that New Zealand is, in fact, not now a leader or a fast follower, but a climate laggard, and that we will be economic losers in the global green economy that is now coming?

Hon TIM GROSER: What I can say is that this issue about fast following and where we are in the rank of nations responding to this great global challenge was debated extensively during the election. We were elected by New Zealand to govern on a matter of balance between our environmental and our economic objectives, and that is what we are committed to.

Nicky Wagner: Has the Minister received any updates from the negotiations in Bonn?

Hon TIM GROSER: Yes, I am receiving updates. The member will be aware that the meeting is still progressing, of course. Last night New Zealand presented on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change stage. I believe we are making a contribution in Bonn to help shape international thinking on the objective and fair approach to sharing the effort on reducing emissions, taking account of different counties’ national circumstances. Our presentation was well-received, except, of course, by Greenpeace, which managed to present us with the “Fossil of the Day” award, but that is almost a badge of honour, I think, since it is unlikely that Greenpeace would ever seek to reconcile more than one objective. We will continue to work closely with countries to advance this thinking. To elaborate further to the member, I say that this week we will be participating in a workshop on the challenges and opportunities for reducing emissions from agriculture, which is an issue of great importance to the world, particularly in the context of developing countries making a contribution during the second commitment period. People are aware that New Zealand is a leader in research on the reduction of agricultural emissions.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Is the Minister in any way influenced by the Copenhagen scientific congress, which stated in March that “Weaker targets for 2020 increase the risk” of passing the point of no return?

Hon TIM GROSER: I am not familiar with that precise scientific finding, but it is certainly consistent with a number of scientific findings that I have heard that indicated that even 450 parts per million of carbon dioxide equivalent, for example, may not be sufficient. There is a range of views out there; I am very much aware of that range of views, yes.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of the Minister’s response, then, and his response to the earlier question pertaining to atmospheric carbon concentration, will the Minister and his Government now commit to the international goal of a 2 degree cap in global temperature increase—yes or no?

Hon TIM GROSER: At this stage we are committing to the different objective of trying to achieve 450 parts per million, which is equivalent on current estimates to reducing the increase in temperature that would occur otherwise, to an increase of 2 degrees. The objectives are similar, but we are choosing at this stage to focus on that as the measure. The indirect effect is, indeed, to reduce temperature increase globally on the basis of the current science to somewhat less than would otherwise be the case.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table a document, which is the summary report by the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change held in Copenhagen on 12 March.

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

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

7. Roading—Roads of National Significance

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

7. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the first of the roads of national significance, announced a fortnight ago?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I am pleased to announce that this weekend the New Zealand Transport Agency will be calling for expressions of interest in the project to deal with the notorious bottleneck on State Highway 1 at Victoria Park in Auckland. This project was originally set down to startconstruction in November 2010. The start has now been brought forward by almost a year, to January 2010.

Nikki Kaye: What has enabled the Victoria Park tunnel to be brought forward?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The New Zealand Transport Agency informed me that it is able to bring this significant construction forward due to the almost $1 billion of extra funding for new State highway construction over the next 3 years, announced only 2 weeks ago. I am also advised that because of the forecast reduction in funding under the previous Government’s Government policy statement, the entire project might not have been affordable, and the project might not have been able to start.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Has the Minister had even the tiniest of second thoughts about his unprecedented motorway-building binge, after reading the comments of various international transport experts in the Sunday Star-Times this week, including the statement made by Dr Paul Mees, who said: “If you live in Auckland you don’t appreciate what an extreme case it is, but it’s had the most unbalanced transport policies of just about anyone in the world. Even in Los Angeles they put a bit into public transport eventually. … in Auckland you’d think it was the 1950s, from the way the road lobby and the government carry on.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member will be aware that about $1.6 billion is currently being invested in Auckland passenger rail. This particular project will reduce congestion, improve safety outcomes, provide more reliable journey times, improve economic productivity, and also improve environmental outcomes in the vicinity of the project, and I think all of that makes it a pretty good thing to do.

Nikki Kaye: What benefits will the completion of the Victoria Park tunnel bring to Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The construction phase will provide an economic boost in the short-term, with more work for the construction industry. The longer-term completion of this project will boost productivity through the provision of an additional three lanes, which will greatly ease the congestion experienced by the 100,000-plus vehicles that use this route every day. It will remove a huge bottleneck on the Auckland motorway network, just south of the harbour bridge, and will improve journey times for people travelling to and from the North Shore to all other parts of Auckland.

Hon Darren Hughes: Is the Minister committed to the speedy construction of the Waterview Connection in Auckland, including the tunnels; if so, will it be to the same design specifications that the community was consulted on?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is aware that we are currently reviewing the costs of the Waterview project, because for 4½ kilometres of road, the price tag had risen to $2.8 billion for four lanes—

Hon David Cunliffe: We’re over here.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: —and $3.2 billion, I say to Mr Cunliffe, for six lanes.

Hon Darren Hughes: When does he think construction of the Waterview Connection in Auckland will start?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Wait and see.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister when he thought something would start. His answer cannot be consistent with the public interest in roads that the Minister himself calls roads of national significance. If they are significant, it must be consistent with the public interest for the Minister to tell us when he thinks the Waterview Connection in Auckland will start. He must have an opinion on that; he must have a view.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma of the honourable member’s point is that he has just pointed out that he was seeking an opinion—“When does the Minister think”—so he got an opinion in reply. That is the dilemma with these sorts of questions; if members seek an opinion, they will get an opinion, and it may not be exactly what they wanted. I cannot force the Minister to give a more precise answer than that, I believe.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raised with you not long ago the same point of order. During the point of order of my colleague Darren Hughes, the Leader of the House interjected on four separate occasions. You did not call him to order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the rules will apply equally to the Government and to the Opposition.

Hon Bill English: The Leader of the House was behaving with the dignity with which he usually behaves. It was actually I who interjected—twice—and I offer my apologies.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member. I apologise to the Hon Trevor Mallard; I did not actually hear the interjections. I was concentrating so hard on the point that his colleague was making that I did not even hear them. I apologise to him.

8. Emissions Trading Scheme—Forestry Sector

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

8. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What reports, if any, has he received on the impact that uncertainty relating to the emissions trading scheme is creating for the forestry sector?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) : I have received no specific reports of concern from officials. I have had informal reports from the forestry sector that it has had concerns over aspects of how the emissions trading scheme works for forestry, and that there is difficulty in its application. I am also advised that mistakes were made in respect of forestry in the emissions trading scheme legislation that was rushed through by the previous Government. Regardless of the select committee review, there will need to be an amending bill, which inevitably will create some uncertainty.

Charles Chauvel: How does the Minister reconcile his statement that his, and John Key’s, No. 1 priority for any climate change policy should be the reversing of deforestation, when the Minister’s policies have stopped the planting of any new trees and caused the destruction of 7 million seedlings, as confirmed by David Rhodes of the Forest Owners Association, and Peter Clark of PF Olsen, yesterday?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No matter how poorly this Government might do on forestry, it will not be able to compete with the previous Government, which had the worst record of any postwar Government. I accept that it will take some months for this Government to restore confidence to the forestry sector. I note, though, that in respect of the issue of seedling planting, some forestry companies have over-pitched the value of carbon credits and understated the fact that there are large carbon liabilities when those forests are harvested. As people have become more aware, down the track, of those liabilities, the investment interest has been more realistic.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we have an assurance the senior Government whip is not coaching Mr Bennett in advance of his answering some question later on today?

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, and the honourable member knows it.

Charles Chauvel: What reports, if any, has the Minister received from the major energy and transport businesses, which will become bound by the emissions trading scheme on 1 January 2010, about the significant additional costs they are having to incur, and the jobs now at risk in those businesses, as a result of their having no idea of whether they will still enter the emissions trading scheme on that date?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reaction I have had from both the transport sector and industrials is that they welcome the select committee review. There is a broadly held view that the previous Government rushed the emissions trading legislation, which is confirmed by the fact that officials have said there are mistakes in that legislation that will need to be fixed by the new Government.

Craig Foss: What reports has the Minister received on overall planting rates; and how do they compare historically?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The most up-to-date figures for forestry are for 2007, and that was the worst year for deforestation since records began in 1951. That year saw the loss of 39,000 hectares of forests, or 13 million trees. Frankly, I cannot understand the audacity of members opposite in even being prepared to ask questions, given their appalling record.

Charles Chauvel: When will the Minister for Climate Change Issues and his colleagues, despite already having drawn ministerial salaries for some 15 percent of the term of this Parliament, show that they can take responsibility for their own inability to implement coherent policy, as demonstrated by the chaos the Minister has created in climate change, and the answers from Ministers to so many questions today?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government announced a review through the select committee on the emissions trading scheme. Officials are working on a bill that is required in order to fix a number of mistakes that the previous Government made. We have also initiated, with the Prime Minister’s summit with Prime Minister Rudd, a sensible harmonisation of the New Zealand and Australia—[Interruption] Members opposite scoff, but I actually think that most New Zealanders would think it is perfectly sensible, with the close trans-Tasman relationship, for our two countries to work closely together on a global issue like climate change. I am surprised that members opposite would take such an irresponsible view of that.

9. Bail—Reform

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

9. DAVID GARRETT (ACT) to the Minister of Justice: Does he agree that bail laws need to be further tightened, in light of revelations that Haiden Davis was on bail for a violent offence when he killed Augustine Borrell; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : Yes, which is why this Government campaigned on tightening the Bail Act In addition to the law that the Government passed within its first month of office, we also promised to review the Bail Act. This work is under way.

David Garrett: Will the Minister consider a return to requiring bail sureties, which are set out in the Habeas Corpus Act 1679, and which are in place in the United States and Canada; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER: No, I have not considered it, but, as always, I am happy to discuss any suggestion that the member may make to improve the criminal justice system.

10. SuperGold Card—Future

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

10. H V ROSS ROBERTSON (Labour—Manukau East) to the Minister for Senior Citizens: What representations, if any, has he made to the Minister for Social Development and Employment on behalf of senior citizens on the future of the SuperGold card?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) on behalf of the Minister for Senior Citizens: The Minister has had no meetings with the Minister for Social Development and Employment on the subject, as the future of the card is not in question. She has assured the Minister that there are no immediate plans, no medium-term plans, and no long-term plans.

H V Ross Robertson: Can the Minister, therefore, tell the House whether the Minister for Social Development and Employment indicated to him that the SuperGold card is safe only in the immediate future and that she is giving no guarantee of the long-term future of the card?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Minister is assured by the Minister for Social Development and Employment that there are immediate plans, no medium-term plans, and no long-term plans for cutting the SuperGold card.

H V Ross Robertson: Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that he will not allow the SuperGold benefits, or the card itself, to be replaced during this term of Parliament?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In line with the Prime Minister’s statements that the Government will continue to fund the SuperGold card regardless of any increase in demand, and in line with a similar indication given by the Minister of Transport, Steven Joyce, there will be a commitment by the Government to this initiative. As Minister of Social Development and Employment, I can also give an assurance that there are no plans to replace it.

Jacqui Dean: Has he seen any reports of the member’s views on schemes like the SuperGold card?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, the Minister has seen a report in the New Zealand Herald from 1991, where the member Mr Ross Robertson argued strongly in this House against the precursor of the SuperGold card, stating: “It is a passport to poverty.” Luckily, this Government does not agree with that view. [Interruption]

H V Ross Robertson: I am older and wiser now! Has the Minister had any indication from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that she believes that the SuperGold card is “so last year”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No, the Minister has not.

11. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—Discussion with Australia

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

11. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: What were the outcomes of the meeting held between him and his Australian counterpart on 29 March 2009, with regard to New Zealand’s position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples?

Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister of Foreign Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Foreign Affairs: New Zealand’s position on the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was not discussed during the Minister’s telephone conversation with the Australian Foreign Minister on 29 March.

Hone Harawira: What consultation processes is the Government planning with regard to the declaration, given the extensive work done by Māori over the past 25 years to have the declaration ratified by the United Nations, and given the previous Government’s refusal to consult Māori on that matter?

Hon TIM GROSER: The Government is very aware of the importance of indigenous rights to the Māori Party, and, indeed, to all New Zealanders. The Government has not made any decisions on the way forward with regard to that particular declaration. The Government will need to see the details of what the Australian Government announces and consider them very carefully before making further decisions. It is our understanding that the announcement will be made tomorrow.

Rahui Katene: Does the Minister agree with the Oxford Dictionary that an “aspiration” means to have “hope or ambition”, and why would the New Zealand Government oppose an aspirational, non-binding declaration that promotes hope or ambition for the rights of indigenous peoples?

Hon TIM GROSER: New Zealand has worked very hard over the last 30 years to recognise the rights of indigenous peoples, and although the declaration is indeed aspirational and not legally binding, this Government, in contrast, is committed to going well beyond aspirational commitments and working on binding responses to indigenous peoples’ issues. For example, the Government is reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 to ensure, amongst other things, that mana whenua in relation to the foreshore and seabed is indeed appropriately recognised.

12. North Shore Hospital—Emergency Department

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

12. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Health: What reports has he received on North Shore Hospital’s emergency department?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : I have received reports that North Shore Hospital, including its emergency department, has insufficient capacity to meet its growth in acute or emergency services. The Waitemata District Health Board has reported that core acute-service patient numbers have increased by a huge 42 percent in just 3 years. The report makes it clear that, over the last year and a half, urgent admissions have exceeded the hospital’s ability to care for its patients, with patients languishing on stretchers in open spaces in the emergency department.

Dr Jackie Blue: What has been the new Government’s response to that issue?

Hon TONY RYALL: Today I can announce that the new Government has approved Waitemata District Health Board’s business case for the so-called Lakeview extension at North Shore Hospital. The business case sought approval for the $48 million project to build a much-needed extension to the North Shore Hospital emergency department and the hospital’s acute medical capacity. The approval of that case will now allow the Waitemata District Health Board to progress to final design work and ministerial approval. Construction is expected to begin at the end of this year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What increase in the number of admissions to the North Shore Hospital’s emergency department, and, in fact, the emergency department of every hospital in the country, does the Minister expect as a result of his decision to allow district health boards to hold on to the 3 percent future funding track money on 1 July this year, rather than passing it on to community-based health providers?

Hon TONY RYALL: This Government has inherited a public health service with a very dire financial situation, and this Government is determined to ensure that New Zealanders get improved service from emergency departments. We think it is unacceptable that patients were languishing under fluorescent lights in the emergency department at North Shore Hospital for days on end. That problem cannot be fixed overnight, but this Government is determined to fix it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister failed to address my question, yet again.

Mr SPEAKER: I must say it is not helpful when the Minister starts his answer by talking about the questioner’s party or what this Government might do, and making a statement instead of actually responding to the question. I invite the member to repeat her question.

Hon Ruth Dyson: My question was quite specific, and I am pleased to repeat it. What increase in the number of admissions to the North Shore Hospital’s emergency department, and to the emergency department of every hospital in the country, does the Minister expect as a result of his decision to allow district health boards to hold on to the 3 percent future funding track money from 1 July this year, rather than passing it on to health providers in the community?

Hon TONY RYALL: Many health providers in the community will be receiving funding increases associated with the future funding track.

Dr Jackie Blue: What are the details of the approval?

Hon TONY RYALL: The announcement includes a major enhancement of bed capacity, and a new assessment and diagnostic unit. It includes 26 extra cubicles in the emergency department; the reintroduction of an admissions planning unit, including 19 extra beds, at North Shore Hospital, which is essential to address the flow of patients between the emergency department and the hospital; and 48 extra medical in-patient beds—a total of 93 more beds for North Shore Hospital, so that we can begin to address the problems we have inherited at that hospital.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What criteria has the Minister allowed district health boards to use in determining that some health providers in the community and voluntary sector will not have the 3 percent future funding track money passed on to them, and others will? What criteria will make the difference?

Hon TONY RYALL: Those criteria are the same that one would have expected under the previous Government. The district health boards have the responsibility to manage their resources effectively. This Government will be giving the district health boards more money in the Budget. There will be record budgets for the district health boards, and that will give them the responsibility to manage the needs of their patients.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What increase in the number of admissions to the emergency departments of South Canterbury hospitals does the Minister expect, on the basis of his decision to allow the South Canterbury District Health Board to cut home support services to anyone receiving services of fewer than 2 hours a week?

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty with that question was that the primary question was very specifically in respect of North Shore Hospital’s emergency department.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Further supplementary questions expanded it to other emergency departments.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister’s answers can expand questions. Just because I have allowed a supplementary question that does that, the options do not just keep expanding.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last answer that the Minister gave referred to district health board budgets plural—the budgets of district health boards across the country. He was quoting and trumpeting that he was, supposedly, increasing those budgets. The member is now asking a question about a specific district health board. This line of questioning is because of the Minister’s answers.

Mr SPEAKER: I will accept the member’s word, and I invite, therefore, the Minister to answer the question.

Hon TONY RYALL: The South Canterbury District Health Board will receive increased funding in this year’s Budget. Is this member standing up in the House and saying that no district health board, under Labour, ever responded to the requirements of its community? The fact is that this Government is increasing resources for those district health boards. She should be worried about that, because there will be improved services for New Zealanders.

Hon Ruth Dyson: So how does the Minister’s decision to allow the South Canterbury District Health Board to cut services align with his promise to New Zealanders that there would be no health cuts to front-line services, and what else is a home support service of only 2 hours a week to a frail elderly person, who will now get nothing, other than a front-line service?

Hon TONY RYALL: Those services are the responsibility of the South Canterbury District Health Board. How shameful of that member to fake some sort of concern about those older people in South Canterbury, when she allowed older people on the North Shore to languish under fluorescent light bulbs in the local emergency department. When the report from the Health and Disability Commissioner comes out, I will be interested to hear what she has to say.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Can the Minister confirm that despite his attempt at self-promotion through patsy questions, there was no emergency department at all at North Shore Hospital until 2001, when Annette King was the Minister of Health, and that, in fact, there was no hospital on the North Shore before Stuart Nash’s great-grandfather Walter Nash built it in 1958—that both were built under Labour Governments?

Hon TONY RYALL: Actually, I think George Gair deserves a lot of credit for what has happened at North Shore Hospital.

1. Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review

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

1. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Was John Judge invited by him or a staff member to attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee on the 2007-08 ACC financial review?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) : I did not invite Mr Judge, and it is my understanding that he was not invited by any staff member of the committee to attend the meeting on 12 March.

Hon Trevor Mallard: What has changed since Tuesday, when the member gave a different answer to the same question?

DAVID BENNETT: I have no understanding of giving a different answer to that question. I maintain that I did not invite Mr Judge to that meeting and I ask the member to show me otherwise.

2. Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review

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

2. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Between whom was the agreement he referred to in his answer to the House on 31 March 2009, and when did it occur?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): The agreement was between me and the Minister, and the agreement was in the time leading up to the select committee hearing on 12 March.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did Dr Smith tell him that he had been asked to act for Mr Judge or that Mr Judge had asked him to convey his apologies, as Mr Judge told the select committee this morning?

DAVID BENNETT: I was not told that he was asked to act.

3. Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review

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

3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Did he discuss who would be invited to the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year with the Minister for ACC before the meeting on 12 March 2009; if so, what was the date of that discussion?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): As I am aware, there were no invitations given to that meeting but it was agreed upon that the Minister would attend the meeting due to the reconfiguration of the board at the time. The Minister’s input was very valuable at the meeting.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a question of whether the date of the discussion, which was a specific part of the question, was addressed.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: We are getting into very interesting territory when it has been long established that members answering questions as chairpersons of select committees or members in charge of bills are to be questioned about procedural matters. Something that happens outside the committee—a discussion that happens away it—is hardly a procedural matter. If, in fact, all of the discussions that might take place in any caucus or between caucus members—I am not suggesting anything in saying that—somehow become subject to questioning in the House, where on earth do we have the opportunity to discuss matters that are relevant to the politics of the day? All I am saying is that to ask Mr Bennett to recall the date, when clearly everything about this was in the newspapers and clearly there was agreement between him and the Minister that the Minister would attend—and, oddly, Labour members think it was a bad thing for the Minister to attend a select committee—is just pushing well past what is a procedural matter for the committee.

Mr SPEAKER: Were the question a supplementary question and the member had to think about when an important discussion about who might be giving evidence took place—and giving evidence for a financial review is an important procedural matter—the point the member made would be perfectly valid. This question is on notice. The member has had a couple of hours to check the record about when, if a discussion took place, that discussion did take place. If it is not in the public interest for the member to answer it, if there is some reason why the question cannot be answered, I will accept that, but on the face of it I invite the member to answer the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, I think you miss my point. I am actually questioning why on earth this question was allowed in the first place. It hardly goes to the heart of a procedural matter for the committee.

Mr SPEAKER: The question was accepted and I think it was accepted on good grounds: that the chair is responsible for the conduct of the committee. Financial reviews are a very important business of select committees. Who should give evidence at those financial reviews is a very important part of the business and procedure of the committee. I think the question was validly accepted. It was on notice. As I say, if it was a supplementary question I would accept the point made that we cannot expect the member to remember the date. But it is on notice and I invite the member to answer.

DAVID BENNETT: There were no invitations given, to my knowledge, to the meeting. On the Tuesday, to the best of my recollections, the Minister confirmed that he would be attending the meeting.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of his answer, how can he reconcile that answer—that no invitations were issued—with the statement in this House by the Minister that he was invited by himself, David Bennett?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The chairman of the select committee has no responsibility for any comments made anywhere by the Minister for ACC. That is a most unreasonable question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It was very clear both in the beginning and the end of that question that I referred to discussions that he had, as chairman, with Dr Smith, and in the primary answer that Mr Bennett gave in the House now.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Firstly, noting that we are in the absurd position of Labour members getting upset that a Minister turned up to a select committee—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Might I make the point?

Mr SPEAKER: I will let the member make the point, but that is not the way to start a point of order, which is an important point of order.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: If Labour members want to know that answer, they should set it down as a question to the Minister for ACC. They should not be chasing the chairman of the select committee around, expecting him to somehow know or reconcile—or whatever members want—a statement made by a Minister. It is not his responsibility.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: That is a very important point, because what the Minister is now trying to argue is that it is perfectly legitimate for us to ask a question of the Minister as to how he reconciles his statement in the House with another statement by a non-executive member, but somehow it is not appropriate for us to ask the member in his capacity as the chair as to how he reconciles his statement with the contradictory statement by the Minister in the House. It seems to me that those two are exactly the reverse of each other.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a very interesting point that members have raised, and a serious point. It is a difficult point to rule on because the point the Hon Gerry Brownlee has made is absolutely correct in that the member cannot be responsible for what the Minister might have said in the House. The further element of difficulty is that we must accept the member’s word in this House. What the member has said in this House, we have to accept that as well. So the only way I can see the matter being pursued is to allow the member a further supplementary question to dig in to exactly what that member has said in the House, but he cannot, in any way, be held accountable for what the Minister might have said in the House. I invite the member to—

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

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee first.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That may seem like a fair solution to you, but I think it is unreasonable, given that the Standing Orders make it very clear that the chairman of any select committee or a member responsible for a bill can be questioned only about procedural matters that relate to that. This does not relate to a procedural matter; it relates to a matter that took place in this House. Saying “Well, you got that question wrong, so I’ll give you anther one.” to a member who has been here for a very, very long time and who does know the rules and the Standing Orders seems to me unreasonable.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: The issue actually embedded in the question is the issue around who was invited to the select committee. Mr Bennett has said that Dr Smith was not invited by him to the select committee—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Did not!

Mr SPEAKER: Please do not interject.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: —and Dr Smith has said that he was invited to the select committee. One of the problems in arguing that we have to accept the word of a member is if one member says “a” and another members says “not a”, it is difficult for anybody—at least in the general world outside—to accept that both can be simultaneously true.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: The public record is very clear. Both I and David Bennett agreed that I would attend the select committee because I was in the middle of reconfiguring the ACC board. I do not see the point that is being raised in all these claims of contradictions. It is a matter of public record that both I and Mr Bennett have said that we agreed that I would attend.

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members, I appreciate your indulgence on this, because it is an important issue. The House is dealing with an issue that is serious and that has been pursued for some days, because the member asking the questions is asking perfectly proper questions and they must be treated in accordance with the Standing Orders. The chairperson is being asked to account for the procedures of the committee that he is responsible for as chairperson, and to question him on what he has said in this House in relation to those procedures is perfectly proper. If the member is to chair a committee, he must be accountable for those issues. Because of the point that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen made about the extraordinary difficulty around reconciling statements, and the difficulty, which I acknowledged a moment ago, that the chair of the committee is not responsible for another member’s statements—on the face of it, we must take the member’s word—I am inviting the member to ask one further supplementary question that does not seek to hold the chair accountable for what anyone else might have said but only for what he has told this House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In answering in this House, did he—

Hon Members: That’s not a question.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the members make. If the member could ask “Did he, in answering in this House …”.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that in this particular area not only you but some of your predecessors have gone too far. I think the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt brought in the question word ruling. Before that, as long as there was a question, people were not at all pedantic about starting with a question word.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, but I cannot let that go. If anyone in this House pushed the envelope on the need to start with a question word, it was Trevor Mallard. The irony of him standing up now and appearing to be somewhat aggrieved by the fact that he has been caught by his own lack of knowledge in these things is just a complete irony.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to waste the time of the House on this issue. The reason that procedure is established is that Speakers’ rulings make it very clear that members should not start questions “Given that …” and make a whole statement prior to asking a question. On this occasion, the member was actually reflecting on an answer that the member had given and the question was coming very quickly on the heels of the first few words. I think a little reasonableness and sense in these matters is not unreasonable.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he take into account Dr Smith’s assurance that he had been invited when he told the House recently that no one had been invited?

DAVID BENNETT: To my recollection, nobody had not been invited to the select committee, and I stand behind that answer.

4. Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review

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

4. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: When he agreed with the Minister for ACC that the Minister appear before the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee for the financial review of ACC on 12 March, did he do so on the basis that he understood that John Judge was the chair of the ACC board and that the Minister was replacing him?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): I was aware that the board was in a state of being reconfigured, and it would have been presumed in the public arena at that time that Mr Judge was the chairman. But it was agreed that the Minister would attend that meeting, and that does not necessarily mean that the Minister was replacing Mr Judge.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did Dr Nick Smith inform him before the meeting of 12 March that because of an error on Dr Smith’s part, Mr Wilson was the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation board at the time of the meeting?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member’s assertion is quite incorrect. It is contrary to Crown Law opinion—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise for interrupting the honourable member, but that is not a point of order.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is important that you know when a member’s question makes an assertion of fact that is incorrect. A member cannot ask a question of another member when something is—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It’s a debating point.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: No, it is not debatable. It is a matter of record. I made the announcement on the Monday, and the assertion made by the member is incorrect.

Hon Trevor Mallard: This is actually very important. We were told by the chief executive at an open session of the committee today that—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. See how we get into difficulty? These are not points of order; they have nothing to do with the order of this House. The point the Hon Dr Nick Smith made has some validity in that outrageous assertions should not be made in questions. The question for me as Speaker to judge, in deciding whether to rule something out, is whether an outrageous assertion was made. In this case, I think it is quite within the competence of the member answering. It did not seem to me that the question was unduly compromising or outrageous. But I accept the basis of the point of order that the Hon Dr Nick Smith was making. I invite the Hon Trevor Mallard to be careful when asking his question not to make assertions that are unfair.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did Dr Smith inform the member before the meeting of 12 March that Mr Wilson was the chairman at the time of the meeting?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to make a personal explanation in respect of the assertion that has been made by the member asking the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that leave has been sought. This is a ministerial matter, not a personal matter. The member is using the wrong Standing Order.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave has been sought by a member of the House to make a personal explanation. All members of the House have the right to seek leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not clear. Is he seeking to make a personal explanation on the matter that Mr Wilson was not the chair? One could not possibly make a personal explanation on that matter.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot prejudge what a member might be seeking leave to make a personal explanation on. A member could seek leave to make a personal explanation where his or her word is being questioned or doubted. If the word of a member of this House is being brought into question, I believe that he or she does have the right to seek leave to make a personal explanation. I now put that request for leave to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection? There is objection. We come back to the supplementary question that was asked by the member. I fear that now members will have lost track of it, so the member had better ask it again.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did Dr Smith inform the member before the meeting of 12 March that Mr Wilson was, in fact, the chairman at the time of the meeting, as the committee was told this morning by—

DAVID BENNETT: It was agreed that Dr Smith would attend the meeting. I think the Labour Party members would have got a lot of value out of his attendance at that meeting.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Supplementary question—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague during his question. The point of order I am raising is that Mr Quinn, who sits at the back of the Chamber, has briefly moved to the ministerial seats in order to interject on my colleague. It is hard to hear what is going on.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure the member is actually assisting his colleague. I have just given his colleague a further supplementary question, which is most unusual for a Speaker to do. I invite the member to take a deep breath while the Hon Trevor Mallard asks his supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did Dr Smith inform the member before the meeting of 12 March that Mr Wilson was, in fact, the chairman at the time of that meeting, as the chief executive told the committee this morning?

DAVID BENNETT: In the public arena at that time, Mr Judge would have been expected to be the chairman, as has been noted. The Minister agreed to come to that meeting and he attended it. The transcript of today’s meeting will provide further details on the member’s question, I am sure.

ENDS

© Scoop Media