Questions for oral answer
8 April 2009

Questions to Ministers:

1. Recession—Prime Minister’s Statements

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

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statements relating to the downturn in the New Zealand economy?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Is Mr English’s view that New Zealand is “unlikely to aggressively grow out of” the recession closer to the mark than his own view of the deepening recession shown by the latest economic survey, where the Prime Minister previously claimed that, in fact, we would aggressively grow out of this recession by the end of this year?

Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, the Minister of Finance’s assessment of the economy and mine are remarkably similar. For the purpose of the Leader of the Opposition’s education, I just inform him that the advice the Government has received from Treasury is as follows. If the economy grows slightly faster than is predicted in the Budget round, then Treasury predicts that we will be growing in the June quarter of this year. If it is broadly in terms with where Treasury thinks the Budget might be, remembering that that is quite considerably worse than the Budget Policy Statement, then Treasury expects it to be no later than in the December quarter of this year. Even if it is Treasury’s doomsday scenario, it thinks it will be March 2010.

The Leader of the Opposition has asked the question, and for the purpose of good order, I will just repeat my quote. When asked by GuyonEspiner whether we would still be in recession in a year’s time, I stated—and this is the quote, verbatim—“I think by the end of 2009 early 2010 this time next year—we’ll be starting to come out of that and I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively. I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” Once again, we on this side of the House are right.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the transcript of an interview with Mr Bill English on Q+A on 5 April 2009, where, contrary to saying that we will come out of the recession reasonably aggressively, he stated that we are unlikely to aggressively grow out of it.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister talk to Mr English about contradicting, and therefore undermining, his view about aggressively coming out of the recession, and given the confusing signals to the business community and the public, when the two National Party leaders say things contradicting one another; is the Prime Minister confident that this will not happen again?

Hon JOHN KEY: Not in the slightest—I have huge respect for the views held by the Minister of Finance, and I talk to him regularly. I might add that, on top of the different scenarios that Treasury has provided, it is worth noting how much variation there is out there. Only this week Business and Economic Research Ltd came out thinking unemployment would be 5.2 percent at its peak. Members can contrast that with the New Zealand Institute saying a few weeks earlier that unemployment would be 11 percent, and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research had it at 6.1 percent. The reality is that we are in a very unusual recession—arguably the worst since the 1930s Depression—and there is a range of views on exactly when New Zealand will start growing again.

Nathan Guy: Is the Government more concerned about economic forecasts than it is about actually doing something to help New Zealand through the recession?

Hon JOHN KEY: Unlike the Opposition, this Government is not obsessed about updating, and talking about, forecasts. We are much more concerned about taking action to help blunt the sharpest edges of the recession. I might add as well—

Hon Chris Carter: What happened with the cycleway?

Hon JOHN KEY: If I were Mr Chris Carter, I would go out and get some bike shorts, because he will be using them soon. The basic point is that the Government has done a lot. Whether it is tax cuts, small to medium sized enterprise packages, the Resource Management Act reform, the reform of Auckland’s governance, or the 9-day working fortnight—this has been a very busy and active Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister stand by his commitment to a Cape Reinga to the Bluff cycleway, which would create 4,000 jobs at a cost of $50 million; if so, how does he explain his deputy’s comments on Q+A: “Well, we won’t be spending $50 million on it this year, or next year, or the year after.”, which again seems to undermine his leader, and has the Prime Minister talked regularly to Mr English about that?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am confident about the cycleway. However, after looking at the Television One poll results on Sunday night, I am fearful that Mr Goff will be on his bike before I am.

Nathan Guy: Will the Government be changing its economic and fiscal policies every time an economic forecast changes?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. The forecasts of the length and depth of the recession will continue to change over the coming months, but the pathway out of the recession is crystal clear—that is, all of the actions that this Government has been taking; it is a busy Government.

Hon Phil Goff: What new plans does the Prime Minister have to tackle unemployment, given Treasury’s prediction yesterday that 60,000 more New Zealanders will be out of a job by this time next year, and to what extent does he believe that those plans will reduce that estimated number?

Hon JOHN KEY: As I said in answer to one of the earlier questions from the member, there is quite a wide range of predictions from Treasury, both in terms of growth, where it pointed out that we may well be growing in this quarter, right through to the doomsday scenario, which was the March quarter. That is equally the case when we look at unemployment; there are a range of predictions. What I can say is that the Government is focused on keeping people in work or ensuring that people get into jobs as much as they can. This Government has taken action; the Opposition is taking no action other than whingeing.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: What action does the Prime Minister intend to take to restore confidence in the New Zealand economy, given the results of the Quarterly Survey of Business Opinion, which shows the lowest level of confidence since 1974?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think the business community is responding to what it is seeing internationally, which is a very weak international position. But I think the New Zealand business community is taking confidence from the fact that this Government is acting. Thirteen days after the royal commission’s report, we announced a plan for the reform of Auckland. Tax cuts were delivered on 1 April. The reform of the Resource Management Act is flowing through the House. The member’s own leader is working very aggressively and very effectively on reducing regulation across the New Zealand business community. When I go around businesses in New Zealand, the only thing I hear from them is: “Thank goodness there is a National-ACT Government. We are very pleased to see the back of Labour.”

Hon Phil Goff: Does Bill English’s comment yesterday that it was anybody’s guess how high unemployment would go next year indicate a lack of confidence in current plans to deal with unemployment; if so, what plans does he have to stop unemployment spiralling out of control, like Treasury has estimated?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, it reflects the reality, which is that it is anybody’s guess how high unemployment might go. The Minister of Finance is working very hard on making sure the New Zealand economy starts growing as quickly as it can. Can I say how lucky we are to have a Minister of Finance so focused on that issue.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he accept that the downturn in the economy will disproportionately affect in a negative way Māori unemployment; and how does this fact together with no tax cuts for low-income Māori families, fire-at-will in the first 90 days of employment, and the failure to even consult Māori in Auckland about representation in Auckland governance enhance mana, as the agreement with the Māori Party would have suggested?

Hon JOHN KEY: I do agree with the Leader of the Opposition that the recession is more likely to affect Māori New Zealanders as they are disproportionately represented as lower-income New Zealanders. We are doing a lot of things. It is not true that Māori did not get tax cuts; they got them like everybody else. It is true that the 90-day provision legislation will absolutely help Māori because it will help them, just as it will help other New Zealanders, to get a job.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Further to his reference to the importance of tax cuts to the recovery, has he accepted the proposal of the Minister of Finance for a Budget Day announcement that out-year tax cuts will be scrapped?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Government has not made any decision in relation to tax cuts for the out-years except to say that we recognise that there is a difficult economic position in front of us. The Government needs to make sure that it is balanced in what it does and it will take the actions that are necessary to ensure that we do the best for New Zealanders. I can say that tax cuts, whenever they occur, in my opinion are good for the economy because they stimulate demand and they put the right incentives back in the economy.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is he prepared to rule out the reversal of the legislation passed in December for tax cuts?

Hon JOHN KEY: All I can say is that no decisions have been made on tax cuts for the other years, at this point.

2. State Sector—Previously Agreed Pay Increases

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

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What previously agreed State sector pay increases is the Government having to fund as part of the Budget this year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : There are a number of previously negotiated pay contracts in place, which the Government will honour. Included in these contracts are those for 42,500 teachers and principals who received a 4 percent increase in July 2008, to be followed by another 4 percent in July 2009; 22,000 nurses and midwives who have received another 4 percent increase in March 2009; 2,800 senior doctors who received 4.5 percent in June 2008 and will received another 4.5 percent in June 2009; 2,400 junior doctors who will receive a 2 percent increase in July, on top of 8.68 percent in August 2008; and there are many more of them. The contracts are all legally binding agreements made by the previous Government, and they will be funded in this year’s Budget.

Craig Foss: What has the Minister done to ensure future State Service pay agreements are fairer and more reasonable in the current economic environment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have indicated to the chief executives of Government departments that we expect State pay settlements to fall in line with what is happening in the rest of the economy, in particular in the private sector, where pay increases are quite low. We have also indicated to them that they will be funding remuneration increases from within the budgets they are given and that there will not be additional funds or ministerial funds to assist them. This will be the Government’s position for the foreseeable future.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister of Finance understand that this policy means that after 1 July, school cleaners will be paid substantially more than support staff who work with kids with disabilities; if so, does he think that is fair?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Fairness will be a critical part of the Government’s approach to State sector remuneration. The member should wait and see the bargaining parameters for that pay round before he gets too worried about it.

Craig Foss: How does the Minister’s approach to State Service pay contribute to the Government’s objective of providing better, smarter public services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In a time of recession, more New Zealanders will need more front-line services. In that environment it will simply not be feasible to continue to provide significant pay increases of the order of 3 to 5 percent for public servants, without any benefits to productivity and more front-line service. Our focus will be on providing more public services.

3. Business Confidence—Reports

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

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he seen about business confidence in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Reports this year have shown that business confidence was in freefall until just recently. Business confidence measures appear to be stabilising, although, I must say, at very low levels. Well, in fact, they were falling so fast that they had to stabilise somewhere.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister believe that the Prime Minister’s “sunny disposition” is justified when business confidence has been in freefall and is now at its lowest level since 1974, when 65 percent of businesses think the situation will worsen further, and when half are reporting falls in their output, and a third have cut staff in the last 3 months, adding to Treasury’s projection of 60,000 more jobless by Christmas; or can he explain to the House what part of those numbers the “tweet” next to him does not understand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Somehow, the Opposition members seem to be surprised about this situation. For several months forecasts have shown that a coordinated world recession will have an effect on the world economy. I can only confirm what the Prime Minister says, which is that everywhere we go businesses say “Thank God there’s a National Government and we got rid of Labour.”

Chris Tremain: What measures has the Government taken to ensure that the recent stabilisation of business confidence is sustained and upturned?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is putting in place a range of measures that in the shorter term are designed to assist New Zealand businesses through a recession, but, just as important, in the longer term are designed to build their confidence that this economy is one in which they can invest. Unless businesses invest new money, we will not see new jobs to replace those that are lost. In the shorter term, we have implemented a package of measures worth $480 million over 4 years to assist small to medium sized businesses, we brought forward a range of major infrastructure projects, and on 1 April we delivered a tax cut to 1.5 million New Zealanders.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which of these measures will do more to turn round the historic lows in business confidence revealed by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research yesterday: a cycleway that the Minister will not fully fund this year, next year, or the year after; a 9-day working fortnight policy that excludes 99 percent of Kiwi businesses; or tax cuts that shift demand from low and medium income earners who need it and would spend it to upper income earners who do not and will not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What will lift business confidence over the next 12 or 18 months will be the continued programme of an active Government that is making decisions quickly about things that make a real difference to the business environment. That is how we will get new jobs to replace the jobs that are being lost now.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Minister aware that the active Rudd Government in Australia is once again stepping up by injecting massive stimulus into that economy through a combination of income boosts for needy families and bold plans for infrastructure, and why does he not admit that his Government’s double act of irrelevant PR gimmicks by the Prime Minister and dour fiscal conservatism from him is likely only to further undermine confidence and drive New Zealand deeper into recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Opposition finance spokesperson could do a bit better than that, I would have thought. When the New Zealand Government announces a bold plan for broadband, he criticises every aspect of it; when the Australians do it, he calls it a bold plan for infrastructure.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: What policy actions does the Minister intend to take to ensure that foreign bank lenders are more likely to roll over debt owed to them by New Zealand companies when it falls due for repayment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This issue will be less of a challenge in New Zealand than, perhaps, in other countries, but there is no doubt that global banks are de-globalising. Where Governments increasingly own them, they are putting pressure on those banks to lend in their home markets rather than here. The most important thing we can do is to continue to underpin the stability of financial markets and the relatively favourable credit conditions that are enjoyed in the New Zealand banking system. But this issue is one of any number of risks to the availability of credit in New Zealand, as it is in other countries.

4. Nuclear Disarmament—New Zealand Commitment

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

4. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he share the vision of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, who, on 5 April, stated his commitment to “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons”; and does he also share the President’s commitment to take concrete steps towards that goal?

Hon JOHN KEY (Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs): Yes. New Zealand warmly welcomed President Obama’s recent leadership on the elimination of nuclear weapons. Renewed engagement by the US in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation is very welcome to New Zealand.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he agree, then, with the statement of the New Zealand Prime Minister of 1985 that the United States carries the burden of “knowing that the deterrent which defends them will also destroy them and all the rest of us if it is ever used. No nation should carry that burden.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. Broadly, we do agree that the United States can, because of its position in the world, show leadership in this area. That is why we welcome the statements made by President Obama. We believe that they are a step in the right direction, but we do not underestimate the size of the challenge that lies before the United States. We just hope that the United States is successful.

Jo Goodhew: What recent action has New Zealand taken following President Obama’s statement on nuclear weapons?

Hon JOHN KEY: At the conclusion of today’s meeting between the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, an agreement was signed for New Zealand’s fourth contribution to the G8 Global Partnership Against the Spread of Weapons and Materials of Mass Destruction. This is a practical way for New Zealand to assist international efforts to prevent the smuggling of nuclear material, and therefore reduce the potential for nuclear weapons to end up in the wrong hands.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of his response to my earlier question, and also of New Zealand’s vote in support of the December 2008 UN resolution for a nuclear weapons convention, will he confirm that our Government will urge the United States to commence negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a specified time frame?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think it is fair to say that New Zealand has supported resolutions of the United Nations seeking negotiations on such a convention, but we have done that against the background that such negotiations are unlikely to get off the ground in the foreseeable future. New Zealand’s emphasis has been and remains on the practical steps that President Obama outlined in his speech in Prague. Yes, we will be encouraging that. As I said, it is a very positive step, and, really, it is one that almost only America can take.

Hon Phil Goff: Has his Government warmly welcomed the vision of President Barack Obama in moving forward measures to effectively deal with climate change; if so, if it was not President Obama that the Prime Minister was referring to, why did he say: “The leaders I have talked to, I can assure the member, are so focused on the recession that they are not particularly focused on climate change at the moment.”? Which leaders was the Prime Minister referring to?

Hon JOHN KEY: It is a fairly long way from nuclear proliferation to climate change, but, that said, no, President Obama was not one of the world leaders I was talking about there. I have not spoken to him. I do share—

Hon Phil Goff: Who was it? Who were the leaders?

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, there was quite a number, actually. If you like, I am happy to give—

Hon Phil Goff: One name!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Your mate Joe Biden!

Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have a photo of me with Joe Biden.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: You’ve got to run up from behind and grab him!

Hon JOHN KEY: That is right. I do not know who was happier: Joe Biden seeing Phil Goff, or Phil Goff seeing Joe Biden. The fundamental point here is we support the view that the world needs to take climate change seriously. New Zealand has its own prescription for that, and we will be following it.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he agree—bringing the matter of nuclear weapons closer to home—with the statement of the New Zealand Prime Minister in 1986: “New Zealand is a nuclear-free country. We reject any strategy for our defence which relies on nuclear weapons.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Hon Phil Goff: Is it not true that the Prime Minister was just making it up when he said that other world leaders were not focused on climate change because they were focused on the recession; if not, why can he not name just one leader who said that to him?

Hon JOHN KEY: It would be inappropriate for me to relay conversations—

Hon Phil Goff: Oh, you’re just making it up!

Hon JOHN KEY: As a former Minister of Foreign Affairs—

Hon Phil Goff: You’re not supposed to make things up as Prime Minister, John. You should have learnt that by now.

Hon JOHN KEY: I do not have to go out there and ankle-tap world leaders, then email the photo to the Dominion Post in order to get profile. I have my own profile.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption] There is a Standing Order that you continue to fail to enforce, because members keep interjecting when I raise a point of order. I ask you to bring the House to order, please.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will hear the point of order in silence.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, as you are aware, the question was very straightforward. It asked whether there was a world leader that he had spoken to. Either there was one or there was not, but none of his answer pertained to that question.

Mr SPEAKER: If the question had been straightforward and serious—and I am not sure whether the barracking from the member’s colleagues indicated the seriousness of the question—I believe that the response the member was getting was absolutely in response to the interjections from his colleagues. Ministers are perfectly entitled to respond to interjections when answering questions.

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not going to relay conversations I had with other leaders, simply because I think that is inappropriate. But I can say that with quite a number of leaders I have met recently, what has come up first and has dominated nearly every conversation we have had has been the recession. If the Leader of the Opposition does not think leaders around the world are almost solely focused on the recession at the moment, as opposed to anything else, then he is showing why he is so out of touch with what is happening in the world.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of his response to my third question, which rejected the use of nuclear deterrents in the defence of New Zealand, and in light of the judgment of the World Court that the use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international law, can the Prime Minister confirm that New Zealand supports the UN General Assembly Resolution 63/75 calling for negotiations to commence for an international convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances?

Hon JOHN KEY: As I said in response to an earlier question from the member, yes, New Zealand has supported those resolutions in the United Nations, but it is important, as I said, to put them against the backdrop of what is happening out there. We think that the fastest way to achieve those kinds of results is not necessarily through a UN resolution; it is through the leadership that America is demonstrating in Prague this week.

Dr Kennedy Graham: I seek leave to table three United Nations documents.

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member identify the three documents, please.

Dr Kennedy Graham: The first is General Assembly Resolution 63/75 of 2 December 2008, which sets out the resolution calling for a convention for the non-use of nuclear weapons, and which New Zealand voted against.

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

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

Dr Kennedy Graham: The second is General Assembly Resolution 63/49, which calls for a nuclear weapons convention, and which New Zealand voted for.

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.

Dr Kennedy Graham: The third document is United Nations General Assembly document A/62/650 of 18 January 2008, which sets out the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention.

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.

5. Māori Affairs, Minister—Statements

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

5. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats and I’ve done so as the Minister of Māori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Māori people”?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Māori Affairs) :Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnātātou e te Whare. Yes, I most certainly do. As the Minister of Māori Affairs I have an interest in all the affairs that affect Māori and I have a responsibility to reflect their views.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was listening very carefully to that answer, and you will probably realise why. We have previously had an exchange in this House about what the responsibility of the Minister of Māori Affairs was and what questions he could be asked in that light. We have had both a question and an answer now, which accepts the point that I made at that time—that is, the Minister of Māori Affairs has a responsibility to represent the views of Māori people. His responsibility is across all those areas of policy that affect Māori people and he can therefore be questioned in this House on those matters. We have now had that confirmed by the Minister himself in the House.

Te Ururoa Flavell: As I understood it, the Minister said he has interests in those affairs that affect Māori people, rather than responsibility for them. Perhaps it is a matter of looking at the Hansard to check the statement. I think there is a big difference between an interest and an understanding of the affairs that might be raised across the board, throughout the country, as opposed to those affairs that he has responsibility for. I ask you to have a look at the Hansard to consider that question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think it is a matter of how far a Minister takes an interest. If he takes an interest so far as to call for reports or ask for briefing notes as Minister of Māori Affairs, he then has responsibility for those reports for which he has asked.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Mr Speaker, I refer you to the principal question. The Minister was asked to stand by his statement: “I’ve done so as the Minister of Māori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Māori people”—as Minister of Māori Affairs. That, in fact, is the position that has been well understood for a long time but which was questioned previously by the Minister in trying to avoid giving answers. He has established clearly that he can now be questioned in this House on any matters that might impinge upon the views of the Māori people, because he has a responsibility to represent those views as Minister of Māori Affairs. He has now defined his own responsibility. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: We are still considering a point of order, and members should respect that, please.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is no surprise to me that they applaud when I get to my feet! I think the point Dr Cullen makes is an interesting one. But there will equally be occasions when Dr Sharples will find that he speaks in a different capacity, just as Helen Clark found that rather than speaking as Prime Minister, and therefore with the interests of all New Zealanders, there were occasions when she spoke as leader of the Labour Party. There were occasions where the Hon Jim Anderton spoke as leader of the Alliance, and where any number of others who supported previous Governments spoke in a capacity, while being a Minister, as somebody else.

If we look back through Hansard, we will find some very interesting discussions, led by Jonathan Hunt from the Chair, about which hat was being worn at which time. Most people at the time found that ridiculous.

The fact the Opposition now reaches that conclusion some 6 or 7 years later should not be any material factor to the point that there will be times when Dr Sharples, quite legitimately, speaks for members of the Māori Party. That is quite obvious, so trying to get a clear position on the issue that any time Dr Sharples opens his mouth to speak on an issue he is deemed to be speaking as Minister of Māori Affairs, is extremely unreasonable in the MMP environment.

Hon Rodney Hide: I think the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is drawing a very long bow by trying to stretch the definition of responsibility with the answer to this question. If we go to what the Minister said in the statement he stands by, we see that it states: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats and I’ve done so as the Minister of Māori Affairs”. Of course, he did that because the Minister of Māori Affairs was on the Cabinet committee that received the royal commission’s recommendation and was considering it. And I can tell the House that the Minister of Māori Affairs spoke strongly and forcefully for his views. He did so—

Hon Members: What’s the point of order?

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister is pointing out the issues around responsibility, and why there is certain responsibility here.

Hon Rodney Hide: So he was voicing his opinion, then, as the Minister of Māori Affairs, because he was on the Cabinet committee that was considering the royal commission’s recommendation. His statement then goes on: “because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Māori people”. The Hon Pita Sharples clearly has that responsibility, and I say that so do all of us.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There is some difficulty, I think, in trying to follow the logic of that position. Of course, the Minister may well have been speaking in Cabinet as the Minister of Māori Affairs, but if he had chosen to speak on this matter publicly as the co-leader of the Māori Party, saying in fact that he has a responsibility as co-leader of the Māori Party to represent the views of the Māori Party, of course that would have to be quite an obvious statement. But he chose to say that as Minister of Māori Affairs he has a responsibility to represent the views of the Māori people. We on this side of the House certainly do not confuse the Māori people with the Māori Party. They are not one and the same thing, at all. Indeed, if people have any doubt on that, I simply refer them to the last election in relation to the party vote for Labour versus the party vote for the Māori Party.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank all members. I allowed that point of order debate to go on for some time, because this is an issue that will always be a little difficult, in the House. I believe that we were not heading towards difficulty with this question, because clearly the Minister, in making a statement, said he made it as Minister of Māori Affairs so there was no issue about responsibility. But we cannot lock in today exactly how all questions will be handled in the future, because where a Minister denies ministerial responsibility, I as Speaker have to accept that. The Speaker cannot say—I am not allowed; I cannot say—“I disagree with that, and I am not going to accept it.” Where a Minister makes it clear that he or she does not have ministerial responsibility, I have to accept the Minister’s word. But the House can rest assured that I accept the point raised by the Hon Dr Michael Cullen that initiated this discussion; it is an important point. I accept fully that when he first raised this issue some weeks back, his points were made on good ground. We must treat this issue seriously as we move ahead, but I believe that today’s questioning should not be that difficult because the Minister has accepted responsibility for the statement he made as Minister of Māori Affairs—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you, if possible—and I am not seeking here an early retirement from the House—to consider what you said in that last judgment. You said you have to accept that if a Minister denies ministerial responsibility, then he or she has no responsibility. Now, there must be limits upon that. If the Minister of Finance was to get up and say that he has no responsibility for the Budget, one might well ask which Minister does have responsibility for the Budget. I think you have to accept that at a certain point you cannot avoid being drawn into the issue of a Minister saying that he or she is not responsible for “X”, and it is blatantly obvious that the Minister is responsible for “X”. The Minister will be forced to reply on that particular matter. Otherwise we could have weak Minister after weak Minister popping up saying that he or she has no responsibility for that, and we sit here wondering whom we now try to ask about that matter.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That point pushes it far too far. It is quite an absurd position. That would mean that, for example, the Minister of Women’s Affairs could be expected to speak as Minister on absolutely everything—similarly with ethnic affairs, or consumer affairs. One might find all sorts of other links between ministries—so that position simply cannot stand for a House rule.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the points are made with goodwill on this issue because it is a challenging issue for the House. But to come back to the Hon Dr Michael Cullen’s point, I am sure that if a Minister denied ministerial responsibility for something that was clearly his or her responsibility, he or she may not be Minister for much longer. I think there are natural forces that come into play. I dare to suggest that if a Minister denies responsibility, for example, as Minister of Finance, for something that is clearly his responsibility, clearly his future as Minister of Finance may not be great. This example applies to all Ministers. There are natural boundaries around these things.

Hon Parekura Horomia: How can the Minister claim to act with integrity when, on the one hand, he is railed against the scrapping of Māori seats in Auckland, and, on the other hand, he signed the confidence and supply agreement promising not to pursue the entrenching of the Maori electorate seats in Parliament?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: It is very simple. I reflect the views that have been given to me by the Māori leaders of Auckland City, and I make their case for them. I am surprised that a party that purports to represent Māori, like Labour does, has not made the same move.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Which of these statements best reflects John Key’s decision to cut the proposed three Māori seats from the new Auckland Super-city Council: the one calling the decision “institutional racism”, or the other calling it “integrity in action”?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have no responsibility for the Prime Minister’s statements. Those statements were my statements.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it is not long since the Minister made those statements about institutional racism and integrity in action, but it was, in fact, he who made those statements, not the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: If I am to understand the question correctly, there was more than one statement involved in it, and if one of the statements was, in fact, not made by the Minister, his answer is perfectly in order.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Does the Minister agree with the comments of Associate Professor Ann Sullivan that “At the local government level, Māori are unfairly, inequitably and disproportionately under-represented on elected councils.”; if so, does he think that the Minister of Local Government’s decision to remove Māori seats and mana whenua seats will have a further negative impact on Māori representation?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I totally support the advice from Associate Professor Sullivan, and it has also been my experience in trying to get Māori on to the various city councils in the Greater Auckland area.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister received any reports from Māori living within the Tāmaki-makau-rau region responding to the Government’s decisions announced yesterday?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Yes. I have seen Māori leaders—mana whenua—on television saying they do not agree with the views. I have also had phone calls from those leaders. I have been asked to convene a hui on their behalf. There is total support for the stand I have taken, and it is a wonder that Labour has not done something about it itself—amazing.

Catherine Delahunty: Is the complete absence of Māori seats in the proposed Auckland super-city a breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Well, the Waitangi Tribunal is the forum that would decide that, and I understand that some people in Auckland want to take the issue before that forum.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker—

Hon Members: What’s your policy?

Mr SPEAKER: I point out to members interjecting that the Speaker does not have a policy.

Hon Phil Goff: Very wise, Mr Speaker. Why does the Minister of Māori Affairs continue to describe his relationship with the National Government as mana-enhancing, when both his views and the views of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Auckland Governance have been rejected without any consultation with any of the people in Auckland affected by that decision, and when other decisions made by the Government—the 90-day fire-at-will bill, the lack of tax cuts for low-income families, and growing Māori unemployment—mean that this Government has not delivered mana-enhancing benefits for Māori people?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The agreement that the Māori Party has with National is totally mana-enhancing. We agree to disagree and to not talk behind each other’s backs. We have an open, honest policy. We agree to disagree. We have done that, and at all times there are no surprises, and that is why our relationship is growing stronger every day.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Te Ururoa Flavell is asking a supplementary question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I did not hear all of that answer, but I am hoping that it did not cover my question—

Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Did the Minister support the recommendations from the royal commission for designated Māori seats on the super-city council; if so, why?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Yes, I most certainly did, because I believe that the Government has a responsibility to make sure that the Māori voice, particularly mana whenua, is heard at the top table—right at the first level. That is why I supported them.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Given that answer, does the Minister believe that his Government’s rejection of separate Māori representation for Auckland indicates that any signing up to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples by his Government will at best remain aspirational, and at worst could be interpreted as a form of covert institutional racism?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Why did you not sign the agreement when you had the chance to sign it?

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Nanaia Mahuta is raising a point of order.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: The Minister may think that was a flippant response, but he should answer the question that he was asked. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I realise that the House takes this issue seriously, but we must have some silence. I ask the honourable member to repeat her point of order in a way that is not provocative, please.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: My question was very clear. It required a response. The Minister did not attempt at all to provide a response to the question that he was asked. If he cannot answer it, he should simply say “I don’t know.”

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the honourable Minister to answer further, because in his answer he asked why the Speaker had not signed the declaration, and the Speaker is in no position to do so. I invite the Hon Dr Pita Sharples to further answer that question.

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: The answer is that for the past 3 weeks the Māori Party has been in negotiations with National over that very document, and we are hoping that something will be released very soon.

Hon Parekura Horomia: Does the Minister stand by his statement on Radio New Zealand National this morning that disagreement between the Māori Party and National on this issue strengthens relations between them, sand does this mean that the relationship will achieve the status of a marriage made in heaven if there is total disagreement?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I would expect that member to draw that conclusion from that statement. I did make that statement and I totally stand by it. You see, this is the bit about integrity and honesty. We can disagree in public, because this is a matter still in progress. This is a matter that is not completed, and this is the time that we disagree with each other. Until that legislation is passed in Parliament I will keep putting forward my view. There you go.

Hon John Carter: Has the Minister received any reports that a senior Labour member of Parliament made a statement yesterday that Labour would not have accepted and implemented the royal commission’s recommendation of three Māori seats?

Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Actually, I do not remember whether I have, but I can imagine that that is exactly what those members would say.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I seek leave to table the questions that the learned Minister has forgotten he made.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that I can possibly seek leave for that, because it is not a document, and I think that is—

Hon Members: A list of questions?

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member describe for me what he is seeking to table. Is he seeking to table a list of his supplementary questions?

Hon Members: His statements.

Mr SPEAKER: Could the member please tell us what he is trying to table.

Hon Parekura Horomia: I seek leave to table the statements that the Minister made that he has forgotten.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is really trifling with the House, and because—[Interruption] Members, for goodness’ sake! If the member is seeking leave to table the statements that the Minister has just made, they are available in Hansard—

Hon Members: No.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove will just get a little less excited, please. Could the Hon Parekura Horomia please make clear what on earth he is trying to table.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You may recall that the member asked a supplementary question quoting two statements. One was in relation to institutional racism, and there was another statement. Those statements were made by the Minister of Māori Affairs, who appeared to have forgotten that he had made them. Those are the statements being referred to.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. Is that the document that the member is trying to table?

Hon Parekura Horomia: That is right.

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

6. Agriculture—High Country

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

6. JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he seen on agriculture and high country management?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : Yesterday I received the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s excellent report entitled Change in the high country. This report takes a sensible and constructive approach to tenure review. It aligns with the Government’s election commitment to take a fresh approach to the issue, while it rejects the previous Labour Government’s divisive and damaging work in this area. As such, we will be carefully considering the recommendations made in the report.

Jacqui Dean: How will this Government’s approach to tenure review differ from that of previous administrations?

Hon DAVID CARTER: This Government will approach tenure review in a vastly different manner. We fundamentally believe that high country farming and conservation are not mutually exclusive, and that the ongoing expansion of the Department of Conservation estate should not go on unquestioned. Clear instructions have already been given to relevant Government departments to implement a good-faith approach to tenure review negotiations, and I am pleased to report that high country runholders are already reporting to me a marked improvement in the approach taken by officials on this issue.

Jacqui Dean: What role does the Government see for farmers in the management and enhancement of our unique high country landscapes?

Hon DAVID CARTER: This Government, unlike the previous Labour Government, is not interested in driving a wedge between high country farmers and the Crown. In many situations, farming families can be more effective in delivering environmental outcomes for our unique high country landscape than any Government department can. That is why the National Government sees the high country runholders, who have often farmed this land for generations, playing a major role in managing and enhancing the high country for all New Zealanders.

7. Internal Affairs, Minister—Ministerial Requirements

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

7. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Can 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.

Hon Pete Hodgson: In respect of his recent trip to India, which passport did the Minister travel on: his ministerial passport, or his personal passport?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: I travelled on my diplomatic passport, which, in terms of the rules, is correct. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The members’ colleague is seeking to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: What possible explanation might there therefore be for the Minister and his mates receiving ministerial facilitation, to which he was not entitled, from Ministerial Services from Auckland Airport, or must the House conclude that because the Department of Internal Affairs is also the responsible department for Ministerial Services, the Minister used his own influence wrongly to pull a few strings?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This provision has been in the Cabinet Manual since 1984. Dr Worth has no responsibility for the Cabinet Manual. I think that it is ridiculous for these members, who were Ministers just a few months ago, to pretend they do not know what is in that manual.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is not alleging that the—[Interruption] Order! I ask members to desist; I am trying to deal with the point or order that the member has raised himself. I do not believe that the Hon Pete Hodgson is questioning the Minister in respect of the Cabinet Manual, but rather he is questioning the Minister’s compliance with it. I invite the Hon Dr Richard Worth to answer the question.

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: The current question is in connection with facilitation. The position there was that I was the only person who received facilitation in New Zealand.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is the Minister satisfied that he has kept his Prime Minister abreast of all matters surrounding the appropriateness of the Minister’s behaviour since becoming a Minister, or might he wish to make further private disclosures?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: To the best of my belief, I have behaved to the highest standards and in accordance with the Cabinet Manual.

8. Treaty of Waitangi—Settlement Progress

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

8. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: What is the Government doing to help achieve its aim of settling all historic grievances by 2014?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) : In 2 weeks the Government is holding a hui to discuss with iwi who are currently engaged in Treaty settlement negotiations, or who are about to enter negotiations, how the Government’s aim of settling historic grievances by 2014 can be achieved.

Hon Tau Henare: Why is the Government holding the Te KōkiriNgātahi hui?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government is committed to resolving historic grievances in a just and durable manner, because settlements protect and promote Māori interests and identity by helping to develop a strong economic base. In order to increase the momentum in Treaty settlements, we have to look for ways in which we can achieve these settlements more quickly than we have done in the past. The Crown cannot make effective change unilaterally. The central North Island settlement shows how powerful creative cooperation can be in removing longstanding obstacles to progress.

Hon Tau Henare: What issues or proposals will be discussed with iwi at Te Kōkiri Ngātahi?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government believes that changes in the Crown-Maori relationship can help it to achieve the settlement of historic grievances by 2014. These changes focus primarily on a stronger role for Māori in determining the nature of settlements, how settlements may be resolved, and how settlements are to be carried out. Māori have clear ideas about what works and does not work in this area. This hui is an opportunity to have a dialogue with Māori on these issues.

9. ACC, Minister—Statements

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

9. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by his statement on Morning Report on 1 April when, in response to my statement that “you’ve been calling ACC insolvent”, he said “I have not”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : Yes. The member’s assertion on Radio New Zealand National was incorrect, as it was based on a half-quote. I originally said: “if ACC was an insurance company, it would be insolvent.” The advice I have received from the department and from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is that the corporation’s solvency has declined over the last 3 years, and that its financial position is unsustainable without very large levy increases or significant changes in policy. I note that the new chair of ACC, Mr John Judge, whose experience I put over both mine and the member’s in respect of finances, has used even stronger language than I have about the state of ACC’s finances.

Hon David Parker: How can the Minister’s denial have any credibility when Hansard, the official record of Parliament, quotes him as saying on 4 March 2009: “The reality is that ACC is effectively insolvent.”; and how can he continue to deny that he misled the public and Parliament?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The financial issue is very clear. As John Judge, the new chair of ACC, said to the select committee, this organisation has liabilities of $22 billion—and I note that Mr Judge thinks that that is probably understating them—and assets of $10 billion. Any private financial organisation in that position would be insolvent.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today in question time you made a good point, and I wrote it down at the time. You said that for Ministers to deny responsibility for something they plainly are responsible for leads to their not being a Minister for much longer. I think that struck to the heart of what question time is about. It is the role of the Opposition to ask questions of members of the executive in order to point out inconsistencies or irreconcilable statements. My questions today are not about whether ACC is insolvent; they are about whether Dr Smith has denied saying it was insolvent, when, in fact, he has said that. The member’s answer to that question went down a completely different track and did not address the question I had asked.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, I ask you to turn your attention to Speakers’ rulings 165/5 and 165/6 and, for that matter, 165/3 as well. They make it very, very clear that the Speaker does not judge whether a Minister replies. Appealing to you, as Opposition members have been doing frequently lately, for an intervention like that stands in stark contrast to the intention of those rulings. There are quite a large number of other Speakers’ rulings as well on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Honourable members are well aware that I have been trying to improve the standard of answers to questions rather more than, perhaps, some other previous recent Speakers have done. But I would ask the honourable member to reflect on the fact that, as Speaker, I can require more precise answers only when the questions are clear. The primary question was, I must accept, pretty clear, and the Minister answered it. But if the member reflects on the words he used in introducing his supplementary question, he said—if I recollect correctly—words like “How can the Minister deny that …”—it was that type of question. If one wants precise answers, the language used in questions has to be very clear. Members will have noted that where I have been requiring answers, the nature of the questions asked has been very simple, very clear, and with no political overlay. As Speaker I will do my best to make sure members get an answer, but I invite the member just to think about the language that precedes the substance of his question, because it makes it difficult for me to insist on an answer. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My difficulty is that it is hard for me to be more specific than to quote Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER: The point I was making to the honourable member was that there was nothing wrong with quoting Hansard—that is dead right. It is the language that precedes his question that makes things so difficult. When he asks “How can the Minister …” he is seeking an opinion about how the Minister can do that. The Minister gave an answer about how he could successfully do that, in his opinion. That is why I invite the member to think about the language he uses when asking a question. The Minister, in my view, has to try to answer the question, and the Minister did, because in explaining how he could say what he said he explained his thinking around that. As Speaker I cannot insist on a better answer than that.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister take his standard of conduct from the John Key edition of the Cabinet Manual, which is also relied upon by Richard Worth?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If there is any issue—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If you are going to demand higher-quality answers from members on the Government side of the House, then surely you should be asking for higher-quality questions from members on the Opposition side of the House. That question was totally gratuitous in its nature.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Mr Speaker, as I recollect your rulings so far—and we are creating a whole new set of rulings in this area—what you have argued is that if a political question is being asked, then a political answer is perfectly in order. I suspect you would think that that question was a rather political question, and the Minister may be able to give, therefore, a rather political answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a good point. I did not intervene, because the Minister gets the last word. Where a question is gratuitously political, the member asking it can expect to be dumped on politically. I am sure that Ministers are perfectly capable of doing that, and I am sure that they would not wish me to rule out questions that gave them the opportunity to do it. But the reason why answers are important when a straight question has been asked is that I believe the accountability of Ministers to this Parliament is at stake. But where a political question is asked, I am sure Ministers are perfectly capable of dealing with it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I stand by the statements I have made about the state of the finances of ACC in being honest and up front with the public about the extent of the problems. It is just a pity that Labour breached the Public Finance Act in hiding the mess that it left in ACC.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is a difference between a political answer and one that point-blank denies an independent inquiry. Labour was not found guilty—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat! The member must resume his seat now! I do not want the member, in his last days, to be the first to take an early shower—although I am very impressed by the member’s exercise regime. The member cannot use a point of order to question whether the statement the Minister is making is correct; that is not the correct procedure for dealing with his disagreeing with it. He can ask a further supplementary question should he wish.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take personal exception to the statement that there was a breach of the Public Finance Act by Labour, because that could refer only to me and the previous Minister for ACC. There was an independent public inquiry. The scaffolding was erected, the rope was provided, but the independent inquirer declined to hang us.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave of the House to table the report of the inquiry, which makes plain that the Public Finance Act was breached in the non-disclosure of the—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member—and, indeed, you—ignored my point of order. The breach was found to be a breach in terms of Treasury—

Mr SPEAKER: This is a debatable point.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: No, Mr Speaker, it is not a debatable point; it is a point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: Where we get into difficulty is that I know that the member may feel strongly about this matter, but the Standing Orders do not provide for a debate during question time about the accuracy of answers. Where the member feels that an answer has not been accurate, he can use a supplementary question to further delve into that matter, but he cannot use points of order to refute an answer a Minister has given, no matter how strongly he feels—unless he wishes to make a personal explanation, and he can seek leave to do so. But he cannot use a point of order to refute the answer from the Minister. He can use only supplementary questions to do that. I am warning the honourable member.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am entitled to seek protection from you in this matter, and I am entitled to seek an assurance from you that when the Minister said Labour he was not referring to a member of this House being in breach of a statute, because if he was, I will require him to withdraw and apologise.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Often, the debate in the House is about ministerial responsibility. There is no question that Dr Cullen was the responsible Minister for the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update. It is clear—

Mr SPEAKER: Will the Minister please resume his seat. We are getting into a debate about this matter, not matters of order. I realise that Dr Cullen feels strongly about this matter, but the Standing Orders do not provide for answers to be refuted by way of points of order. I cannot provide the kind of protection he seeks, because the Standing Orders do not provide for that. He can, though, ask a supplementary question, if he wishes, to refute the answer the Minister has given. I think we should come now to a further supplementary question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not seeking to refute an answer; I am seeking an assurance, which I am entitled to do in this situation, that when the—

Mr SPEAKER: Dr Cullen will resume his seat. I have reached the limit of my patience. He cannot raise a point of order unless he wishes to make a personal explanation. The Standing Orders provide for that situation. If he feels that his integrity has been impugned, he can make a personal explanation, and the House must accept it. But he cannot use the Standing Orders to refute an answer. There is no provision for that situation. I have ruled finally on that issue, and will not hear further on it. I make that very clear. If this matter is raised again, I will ask a member to leave.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to make a personal explanation on this matter.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is none.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: On a number of occasions in the House since the election the claim has been made that I breached the Public Finance Act because of non-disclosure of matters relating to ACC. An independent inquiry was formed to inquire into that matter. That inquiry found that the rules that Treasury was following in relation to disclosure were not consistent with the Public Finance Act. The inquiry specifically did not find any blame on the part of, or any breach by, the two Ministers who might have been involved—I and Maryan Street. Therefore, there was no breach of the Public Finance Act by me or, indeed, by Labour.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a completely different point of order. We have a new microphone system in this House—relatively new; it was installed in the last year—and I noticed that when Dr Cullen was making his earlier points of order, the person in control of the microphone button cut him off prematurely, as soon as the Speaker started to rise. It is very normal in this House for the end of phrases to be allowed to be delivered, and things come to a natural conclusion. I find it somewhat over the top when, effectively, someone acting for the Speaker—and I am not suggesting it is the Speaker—switches people off in a way that ruins the flow of Parliament.

Mr SPEAKER: I have no control. I assure the member that I did not switch off the sound. But I do make clear that the one thing I insist on being respected in this House is that when the Speaker gets to his feet, any member on his or her feet, unless it is a special occasion, will sit down. I do not care whether the member has finished what he or she is saying. There is no dispute about that matter; he or she will sit down. It is hugely important to the good order of this House. If the member has a further supplementary question, I invite him to ask it.

Hon David Parker: Doses the Minister intend to adopt the National practice made popular by his colleague Dr Worth of phoning the Prime Minister on Saturday afternoon to confess to being caught out on his irreconcilable inconsistencies; if so, does he expect absolution?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I find it interesting that the answers I have given to the member about the financial state of ACC are totally supported by the evidence that was given by Mr John Judge at the select committee, which was actually that, far from my statements being shonky, I had been too conservative, and the problems were worse than I had stated.

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has the Minister received from the new ACC chair on ACC’s liabilities?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr John Judge has advised me that after meeting with the scheme’s actuaries and the auditors he believes that the figure of $22 billion in liabilities—described by members opposite as a gross exaggeration—is actually light. He notes, for instance, that the $22 billion is based on future health-care inflation in the out-years of 1 percent per annum, when in the last 10 years it has been running at an average of 6 percent. There are also very optimistic assumptions about improvement in rehabilitation rates, when over the last 5 years rehabilitation has been getting worse. The chair has advised me that the true liabilities of ACC—making more realistic assumptions—are likely to be at least $2 billion worse than those I have quoted.

10. Holidays Act—Review

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

10. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Labour: What progress has the Government made in reviewing the Holidays Act?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) : I am pleased to say that significant progress has been made under this Government. Draft terms of reference have been drawn up for a working party to review several areas of the legislation, including the calculation of relevant daily pay, the transfer of public holidays by agreement, and giving workers the choice to trade their fourth week of leave for cash.

Allan Peachey: Who will be involved in the working party that is reviewing the legislation?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The working party will feature both Business New Zealand and the New Zealand Council of Trade Unions. I am incredibly pleased to work with both organisations on this, and I can say that the level of cooperation from both has been fantastic. One of the first tasks the working party will undertake will be to determine who else needs to be consulted on the proposed changes.

Allan Peachey: Why is the Government reviewing the holidays legislation?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: We are reviewing the legislation because it is not up to the job. It is causing significant issues for employees and businesses, leading to unnecessary confusion and compliance costs. It is absolutely absurd that cases centred on the Holidays Act have had to go as high as the Supreme Court to be resolved. The previous Labour Government tried to address the issues in 2003 and failed; it tried again in 2004 and failed; and it did so again in 2008. We are just doing what should have been done years ago.

11. Accident Compensation Corporation—2007-08 Financial Review

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

11. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for ACC: Did he tell reporters: “my appearance arose because the chairman phoned me, the chairman of the committee said that having been advised that Mr Judge was unavailable, would I be available for answering questions about the changes I was making on the board”; if so, does he stand by that comment?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : Yes; the indisputable facts are these. First, Mr Judge was genuinely unavailable, and asked me to attend the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee. Second, I discussed my attendance with the select committee chair, David Bennett, and Mr Bennett agreed. Third, the first thing I said to the committee when I attended was that Mr Judge would appear at the earliest convenient opportunity, and this he has done. I think arguments over whether I phoned Mr Bennett or Mr Bennett phoned me, or whether I was attending the select committee on Mr Judge’s behalf or apologising on his behalf, are simply diversions from the real issue of the mess that the previous Government left the accident compensation scheme in.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Minister’s answer to the substantive question, why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The record is quite plain. I spoke with Mr Judge after a Cabinet meeting, stating his appointment as the new chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). He advised me that he would be unavailable on the Thursday when the select committee sought the attendance of the chair. Mr Judge asked me to attend. I subsequently had a discussion with the select committee chair. He believed and agreed that that was a good thing to do, given that I was in the process of reconfiguring the ACC board.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This was a very simple question. It was: “why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. It had nothing to do with the general background. We only have one supplementary question left for the day, so the option of asking the supplementary question again, as you often invite people to do, is not one that is useful. I ask you to ask the Minister to address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member has pointed out that he does have a further supplementary question available to him to delve further into this issue. I cannot insist on the Minister answering in a particular way. The Minister seemed to give an explanation as to exactly what went on. In that, it appeared to answer the question. If that is not the case, the member does have a further supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did the Minister tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear at the committee?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The record is quite clear. On the Monday, I advised Mr Judge, with Cabinet’s support—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Answer the question. It’s about NZPA.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I am underlining the events that occurred. The new chair of ACC—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I will now do something that is really unusual. I will ask my colleagues to let the Minister hang himself and to not interject.

Mr SPEAKER: The point of order is a good one, that if members do not want the Minister to deviate in answering the question, they should not interject.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My statements have been absolutely consistent in the fact that when I informed Mr Judge of his appointment as the ACC chair, he informed me that he would be unavailable for the select committee meeting later in the week. He invited me to attend and to apologise on his behalf. That is exactly what occurred. The very first statement I made to the select committee when I attended was that Mr Judge would make himself available at the earliest convenient opportunity. He did that. I cannot believe that the Opposition believes that simply a 2-week delay in being able to meet the new chair of ACC over a financial review for the previous financial year is some big deal.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order that I raised when I had one supplementary question left. It is that this was a very simple question: “why did he tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear?”. The New Zealand Press Association was not referred to in the answer, and no reason was given for the Minister giving an answer to the New Zealand Press Association that was inconsistent to that he has just given to the House.

John Hayes: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I need to deal with this point of order that has been raised. It is a very difficult one. I accept the point the member is making, that he is asking a very specific question. If we look at the primary question, which has to be verified, what he is now building into this supplementary question is what the Minister might have told the New Zealand Press Association. The dilemma I have in trying to extract a more precise answer from the Minister is that that question has not had to go through the verification process that the primary question did. That is something of a difficulty for me, because the Minister has explained what he did, in answer to the member’s question. Obviously, there is the chance to pursue this matter further in the future, but it is difficult for me. I have to accept an unverified—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is absolutely right. You do have to accept something that is unverified when a member quotes it. It is open to the Minister if he wants to deny saying he said that to the New Zealand Press Association. As a number of us have done in the past when inaccurate quotes have been given to us, he has chosen not to deny saying that to the New Zealand Press Association, notwithstanding that he has had two opportunities to do it. It is very clear that he did—he was quoted as doing that, and the supplementary question related to why he told the New Zealand Press Association that. He has been given two opportunities to deny the quote and he has not.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Last week we covered the issue of the questioner trying to frame the context in which an answer must be given, and then expecting the Chair to back him or her. The other day I gave the example of the “yes” or “no” answer that is in Speaker’s ruling 157/8. There is also Speaker’s ruling 162/6, and Speakers’ rulings 163/6 and 163/2, and so on; throughout Speakers’ Rulings there are these requirements. Mr Speaker, you are being constantly asked to put yourself in a position that previous Speakers have roundly rejected. In that regard, although I do not want to read it out, I commend Speaker’s ruling 163/5, where Speaker Hunt makes it extremely clear that the position Mr Mallard wants to put you in is an unacceptable one. For the order of the House, you have made some explanations to Mr Mallard, but I do not think they are necessary. I think they are giving greater credence to the capacity of a questioner to frame a question that then must be answered according to the parameters set in that question.

Dr Nick Smith gave an explanation. That surely stands as an answer that satisfies any one of the complaints that might have arisen before recourse to any of the rules in Speakers’ Rulings that essentially mean a Minister can answer in a way that he or she deems fit.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I have been listening very carefully to your rulings since you became Speaker, and I have taken your advice to ask tight primary questions and tight supplementary questions. This supplementary question was very tight. It asked “why?” in relation to a particular quote. Neither the quote nor the “why?” was addressed. So it is my submission that you are not being asked to judge the quality of the answer; you are being asked whether the supplementary question was addressed. It is my submission that it was not.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a difficult issue and I accept that I have put myself in a position that is rather more difficult than some recent Speakers have. But I have done that intentionally, because I believe that this Parliament and the issue of accountability are too important to allow the practice of evasion of questions that developed during the previous term of this Parliament to continue.

In the interest of fairness—because I cannot judge the quality of an answer—I will allow the honourable member to repeat his question, although his allocation of supplementary questions has expired. We will accept that the quality of the answer will be judged by members of the public, and we will not intervene further on the matter. I am giving the member a chance to repeat his question. I will allow the Minister to answer it, and the quality of that answer will be judged by others, not us.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. On what basis are you doing that? That was surely—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I want to tease this out.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I can tell him exactly on what basis I am doing that. I suggest that he looks at Standing Order 377. The very first requirement of that Standing Order is that a question shall be answered. It does not say that a Minister will respond to a question. The actual Standing Order, in respect of contents of replies, states: “(1) An answer”—it does not say “a response”, it says “an answer”, and in the English language it is pretty clear what “answer” means. That is the basis of my ruling. I have invited the Hon Trevor Mallard to ask a further supplementary question but we will not continue the debate beyond that. The answer given will be judged by others, not us.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. All of the Standing Orders are given life by Speakers’ rulings that accumulate over a period of years. I refer you to Speaker’s ruling 166/6. I think it would be impossible for anyone to suggest that Dr Smith has not made every attempt to answer the question. There is another ruling that deals with the issue of the problem in the word “answer”. Someone has to reach some sort of definition or conclusion about what an answer is. That is why Speakers are protected by the accumulation of rulings. Are we now going to toss all of those out and start again?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: It does seem to me—and I have some sympathy for the position taken by the Leader of the House—that the interpretation of Standing Order 377 has to be governed by the first few words of Standing Order 377(1), which are: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked …”. That effectively has two qualifiers within it before it gets any further—first of all, “seeking” and, secondly, “addressing” the question asked—if, of course, it can be given consistently with the public interest. It is always for a Minister to decide whether it is consistent with the public interest to give an answer. The response to that, of course, is simply not to give an answer, or to indicate that an answer will not be given because is not consistent with the public interest. Once a Minister has launched into an answer, the answer should seek to address the question asked. It is all very well, on quite narrow factual matters, to try to get Ministers to address a factual question—“When did the Minister do such and such?”; “How many such and such?”, “What such and such?”—but most questions are not phrased in that framework. When they go beyond that framework, then the Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings have not required Ministers to have a very narrow interpretation of what they are able to do.

Indeed, Mr Speaker, I invite you perhaps on occasion to look at the Australian Parliament if one wants to see a very bad question time in operation. A person asks a question, there are no supplementary questions, and the Minister has, in effect, unlimited time to give a speech in response to that question. Answers are often 3 minutes or more in length.

Question time is something of a farce. It is a series of ministerial speeches in response to questions, half of which are patsy questions, anyway, from members of the Government.

Our question time is much more robust on Ministers in that regard. I think we have to be careful, in going so far as to try to bring Ministers up to the mark, to start insisting on a particular type of answer in a way that allows a much less free interchange between members on both sides of the House. Our question time, in my view, is already by far the most robust of any Westminster-style Parliament in the world. I think one should not be going too far in changing the thrust of past Speakers’ rulings in that regard.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Speaking to the point of order, I think the difficulty for a Minister is that when a member without notice quotes a particular statement and asks why that contradicts, I have no opportunity to check it. What I chose to answer to the House was specifically what occurred around the question: “What was the communication I had with the new chair of ACC about attendance at the committee?”. I gave a very clear and straight answer about that important issue relating to my ministerial responsibilities.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard enough on this matter, and we cannot take any more time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is actually helpful, I think. It will be very short and very helpful.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member is trying to be helpful, I will give him that opportunity.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I know we should not be coaching the Government from the Opposition benches. The proper response in that case is to say “I don’t recall making that statement.”

Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their contributions. There has been tremendous public support for the attempts to make question time a time when Ministers are held more to account in this House. The impressive point is that answers have improved enormously. The point the Hon Dr Michael Cullen made is a good one—that it works best where questions are seeking factual information on notice. The point that the Hon Dr Nick Smith made is also a good one—that where supplementary questions contain material that is not verified, it is very difficult for a Minister to be able to answer exactly, because he or she has no opportunity to check the validity of the quote.

I think it has been a useful discussion. Let me make it very clear that I do not intend to back off from my interpretation of Standing Order 377. It has had widespread support. In fact, I think Ministers look rather better when they answer questions, rather than evading them. The House is improved by that. But members do need to be reasonable when seeking my intervention in answers to questions.

We got to the stage where I had agreed to allow the Hon Trevor Mallard to ask a further supplementary question, which promoted a point of order. My dilemma now is having allowed the member to ask a further supplementary question, I think we should allow it. However, I take on board the points made by honourable members. I do not seek to make question time impossible at all. The quality of answers has improved hugely compared with the last parliamentary term, and I do not want that improvement to be lost.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is important. You have decided to allow the member to ask his question again, after he protested about not getting a satisfactory answer. We would contend that by every standard you have set, either for this Parliament or previously, when an answer was given, it does tend to mean that you will interpret Speakers’ rulings 165/5 and 165/6 in quite a different manner. I would be very interested if you could come back to us at a future time to tell us how those matters that are raised in those two Speakers’ rulings—the matters of the neutral word “answer” and then of course the subjective term “address”—will be considered in the future.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member and I am very happy to rule on it right now. Yes, he is correct. I am not continuing with Speaker’s ruling 165/5, because I happen to disagree totally. The word “answer” is not a neutral word. I have studied the academic writings of the previous Speaker in some detail where this matter has been discussed. I have read the papers carefully. I have read the Standing Orders very carefully. I have a different view. In fact, that Speaker’s ruling is not one that will guide my decision making. I have made it very clear, in response to this further question, that we will not be judging the quality of this answer. I have made that very clear to the member. I invite the question to be asked and the Minister to answer.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a substantial shift in the way in which the House deals with things. I ask myself whether it means that you will refer to Speaker’s ruling 163/5 as a guide to how you will run question time in this House.

It may be best that you do not respond now. It would useful if we could have some notification of that in some other way.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the honourable member that these matters are not difficult. The Speaker does not, as Speaker’s ruling 163/5 points out, judge whether an answer is correct. What is often so plain to all, including the public watching and listening, is when a very simple and clear question is evaded. If accountability is to be as those who wrote that original Standing Order intended, then questions should be answered with rather more clarity than has become the practice in recent years. That does not mean, though, that the Speaker will judge the quality of an answer, or whether it is correct. That is why we had the trouble with Dr Cullen’s point of order earlier on. I cannot judge whether an answer is correct, but it is patently clear, at times, where questions are evaded.

I have made it clear that there will be no further debate on the answer to this question. I have invited the member to ask a further supplementary question. I cannot now go back and take that off him. I invite the Minister to answer it, and there will be no further debate on that answer.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps if I could helpfully, I hope, draw to your attention that the Speakers’ rulings in the current Speakers’ Rulings book are, of course, quite recent ones, but they repeat in essence Speakers’ rulings that go back many, many decades. In other words, while you are appearing to argue that this is a relatively recent matter, in fact, the issue of the nature of Ministers’ replies to questions is one that has been argued in this House for many, many decades, long before anyone in this Chamber was anywhere near it. So I think it would be somewhat unhelpful if you were to assume this was some kind of recent occurrence, and recent rulings are responding to those occurrences. They are not. They are deeply embedded within the tradition of our Parliament.

I think, therefore, you might want to contemplate over the coming adjournment just how far this new interpretation goes. I think it will cause continued difficulty during question time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did the Minister tell the New Zealand Press Association that he never said Mr Judge asked him to appear at the meeting?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I cannot recall the exact words I used to the New Zealand Press Association, but my very clear recollection is that when Mr Judge, the new chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation, was unavailable to attend the select committee, he asked me to attend.

12. Veterans—Health

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

12. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Veterans’ Affairs: What reports, if any, has she received on veterans’ service-related health?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Veterans’ Affairs) : I am pleased to confirm the appointment of the expert panel on veterans’ health, one of the commitments agreed to in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown, the Royal New Zealand Returned and Services’ Association, and the Ex-Vietnam Services Association. The expert panel is an important step in improving the understanding of issues related to the service-related health of all veterans.

John Hayes: How did the memorandum of understanding come about?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The memorandum of understanding was a direct result of the Health Committee’s inquiry into Viet Nam veterans’ exposure to defoliants. The then National Opposition worked with the Greens, ACT, United Future, and New Zealand First to secure the inquiry. It was a great example of parties working together. I also say that once the inquiry was secured, all members of the committee, including the Labour members, worked very hard to address the concerns of veterans.

John Hayes: Did the previous Government exaggerate any part of the memorandum of understanding package?

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What responsibility does the National Minister have for the previous Labour Government? She has none.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the honourable member to repeat his question, and to be mindful of the Minister’s responsibilities.

John Hayes: Since you have come into the House as Minister, have you—

Hon Rick Barker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member asked a question and said “you”. I respectfully suggest that you, Mr Speaker, have no responsibility for that question, at all, and that that is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a very good point, and I will give the member one further chance to ask a question that is in order.

John Hayes: What reports has the Minister seen that might suggest there has been an exaggeration in elements of the memorandum of understanding package?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Unfortunately, when the memorandum of understanding was announced in December 2006, the former Minister of Defence, Phil Goff, and his colleague Rick Barker implied that the package would deliver $30 million up front. They said “The package will deliver benefits close to $30 million.”, and they did not correct the media when it was described as such. However, the figure of $30 million was based primarily on an initial endowment of $7 million, which was expected to be invested at 6 percent over 30 years. Unfortunately, the current financial crisis and fall in interest rates could result in a fall in the funds available for distribution.

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 he asked to phone the Minister for ACC to discuss the question of who should attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): I had discussions with the Minister about his attendance. That may have involved some phone calls at the request of his office.

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: Did he phone the Minister for ACC and discuss the matter of who should attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): I had discussions with the Minister, and that may have involved phone calls to the Minister’s office.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Very directly—did he call, or not?

DAVID BENNETT: I had discussions with the Minister, and that may have involved phone calls.

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 the Minister for ACC inform him that John Judge was not available to attend the committee meeting on 12 March 2009?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): I did not ask Mr Judge to attend, so it is not a matter of his availability. I did agree that the Minister would attend, and Mr Judge made it quite clear at the select committee on 2 April as to his availability.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister for ACC tell him that John Judge could not come?

DAVID BENNETT: I did not ask Mr Judge to attend, so it is not a matter of whether he was asked to attend. The Minister did attend, and the Labour members got much value out of his attendance.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister tell the chair that John Judge could not come to the committee?

DAVID BENNETT: We have had this question a number of times in this House. I did not ask Mr Judge to attend that meeting, so it is not a matter of his availability.

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: Did he invite the Minister for ACC to attend the meeting of the committee on the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year held on 12 March 2009?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): I agreed that the Minister would attend the meeting of 12 March, and I am not aware of any invitations made as chair of the select committee.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When the chair agreed, was he agreeing with the proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC?

DAVID BENNETT: I agreed that the Minister would attend, and there was a lot of value in his attendance at that time because of the reconfiguration of the board.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When the chair agreed, was he agreeing to a proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC?

DAVID BENNETT: I agreed, and the Minister did attend the meeting. There was much value there for members of the Labour Party.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Supplementary—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I think I have allowed as many supplementaries as is reasonable—far more than any other Speaker has previously allowed.

ENDS

© Scoop Media