TUESDAY, 28 APRIL 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Government Expenditure—Increase

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

1. Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Is he aware that successive increases in Government spending over the last 13 years mean Government expenditure is today $30 billion higher per year having allowed for population growth and inflation, and what does he intend to do about it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : As I pointed out last week, core Crown spending in the year ending 30 June 2009 is expected to be $63.5 billion, up $21.6 billion—or 50 percent—in the last 5 years alone, during which time the economy grew by 23 percent and tax revenue grew by 24 percent. The Budget on 28 May will reprioritise low-quality spending, reduce the rate of spending increase, and set out a credible plan for getting the Government’s finances in order.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister agree that tax cuts are good for growth; and, given that ultimately the tax burden is what the Government spends, does he agree that cutting Government spending is an essential element in any programme to boost economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I agree with the member that tax cuts are good for growth and I agree that the very high rates of spending increase under the previous Government have to be brought under control—if only because a lot of that spending increase did not lead to better services for the public.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to the Minister’s answer, does he agree that tax cuts misdirected to those least likely to need them and least likely to recycle them through spending are an inappropriate attempt at stimulus; if so, can he confirm that if the Government does not proceed with its earlier proposed tax cuts in 2010 and 2011 it will rebalance this year’s tax cuts to benefit all New Zealanders and particularly those with below-average incomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member was genuinely concerned about New Zealanders getting the benefit of fairness in tax cuts, his party would have given some tax cuts in the 9 years that the Government had large surpluses.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Is the Minister comfortable with the fact that the growth in Government expenditure over the last 13 years is equivalent to $7,567 for every man, woman, and child in New Zealand, compared to a reduction of $300 over the previous 12 years; and how will the Government’s forthcoming Budget demonstrate the Government’s willingness to cut low-quality Government spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I agree that much of that increase in expenditure has not led to better, smarter public services. The Budget will take the first steps towards controlling that rapid rate of growth, which is now unsustainable, and focusing on better, smarter public services for the money we are spending. We do not believe more spending is the measure of success; we believe better services are the measure of success.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister seen the Prime Minister’s comment that Government debt will track down after the Budget; if so, is he aware of any other developed country that is responding to the global economic crisis by reducing Government debt?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen the Prime Minister’s comment. It is the objective of this Government to get on top of sharply rising public debt and bring it down. If we do not do that a whole generation of New Zealanders could end up carrying the burden of a large debt. That member should remember as well as anyone the pain this country went through to get the last mountain of debt down.

2. Prime Minister—Statements

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

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement “we are not so arrogant that we don’t listen to the views of the community”; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes, and I also stand by my caucus, which is more than the Leader of the Opposition did when it came to Mt Albert, where he was more than happy to drop Phil Twyford for David Shearer.

Hon Phil Goff: Why, then, was the Government so arrogant as to assume that after 1 week’s consideration, no analysis, and no consultation it could substitute its views for those of the royal commission, which did consult and did analyse extensively, and then ran the Government’s view through in legislation against the wishes of Aucklanders?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start-off, after millions of dollars worth of expenditure on the royal commission, three and a half thousand submissions, with 550 oral submissions, what came out from the royal commission was a situation where it supported a regional-wide body in the form of Auckland City Council. That has been carried forward by the Government. The Government does believe there should be more democracy at a lower level, and that view is supported by the community chairs.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister listen to, and act upon, the views of Aucklanders—including the 72 percent of people polled in his own electorate of Helensville—who said they preferred the royal commission governance model to the hasty, ill-prepared, and unconsulted model that his Government was trying to ram through; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Government will be undertaking change in Auckland. Secondly, the Government will be supporting a region-wide structure, which will deliver change for Auckland. Funnily enough, in one of the many positions that Phil Goff has had on that issue, he was on the radio today supporting exactly that by saying: “Labour’s position is broadly to support the concept of having a strong regional government to deal with the regional issues. I think that is really important.” Then he said that maybe we should have six local councils; maybe we should have a dozen. That has all changed from the royal commission’s report. The National Government will lead change in Auckland, which will deliver better results for New Zealanders. We will continue to engage with the public.

Sue Kedgley: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Local Government Act spells out that before any significant reorganisation of local government can take place, an extensive formal consultation must take place, including formally notifying the draft proposal, calling for submissions on it, and having a poll of electors; and can he explain why that has not happened in Auckland since the Government chucked out the royal commission’s proposals?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I am aware. I am also aware that the royal commission’s report, which forms the main body of the regional structure of the Auckland City Council it has proposed, has been adopted by the Government. I am also aware that there is a select committee process where members of the public will be able to put forward their submissions. Finally, I assure the member that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I am aware of the name of the co-leader of the Greens. I say that because when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking on 95bFM and was asked about the co-leader of the Greens, he said: “Russel um; God; oh, I’ve forgotten his name. Ah, Russel, help me; who is the co-leader of the Greens? Oh, it’s Russel Norman, that’s right.”

Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before the House rose for the adjournment last time, I raised with you the issue of noise and amplification in the House. What we have just seen was a really good example of the concern that I expressed. The Prime Minister was shouting at the top of his voice. I could see that from the way his facial muscles were contorting. The barracking over here was so loud that it was impossible to hear anything that the Prime Minister said in answer to that question. I plead for some fairness here. Members are entitled to hear answers and to hear what is being said, so they can form a view upon them. At the moment it is simply impossible.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: We are in the classic situation that where an answer goes on for a long time and drifts off into major and provocative irrelevancy, then I am afraid it does come back again upon the person giving the answer. So if the Prime Minister perhaps could control himself to a briefer, more precise and concise answer, there is less likely to be a lot of noise.

Hon Rodney Hide: Dr Cullen may well be right, but the appropriate response would be to stand and take a point of order, not to have the Leader of the Opposition and his mates screaming down so no one can actually hear what the Prime Minister has to say. The fact that the Labour members, once again, wanted to shut down the answer, meant that I was all the more keen to hear what it was.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe I need more advice on this issue. It was my perception that both sides of the House were making considerable noise on an issue where there was a lot of—

Hon Ruth Dyson: Interest.

Mr SPEAKER: —the member says “interest”; where there are a lot of quite strongly and passionately held views. I would simply ask members to be a little more reasonable with the amount of noise, but if I come back to the original point the Hon Peter Dunne raised, he was quite correct. He raised the issue of the volume and effectiveness of the amplification system in the House. I have had that investigated.

xxxfo I expect to receive a report on that this afternoon and I will be following it up to see whether there is anything that can be done. I must say that I did not hear the answer either, but there are times when the House gets so exuberant, and that may be the case. If it was hugely important, we might have sought further remedy, but let us just move on to the next supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you have now made a very important point. If you cannot hear an answer, then you cannot possibly rule or intervene if something is out of order. I suggest that in future if you cannot hear, you should do something about it.

Mr SPEAKER: It is my perception that the House was engaged in one of its sessions across the House of combative political exchange, and I think sometimes it is best to let that run. It did run, and I think we should now move on to the next supplementary question.

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, I do not believe that that ruling is right, because what you are saying is that both sides of the House were engaged in this yelling out, and, therefore, no one could hear it, and that that was fair enough. Actually I do not think that is right, because what that is saying is that if a loud group, particularly close to the Speaker, decides to shut someone down, the rest of us back here, who are actually straining to hear the answer because we are interested, are actually denied that opportunity. The person on his or her feet is denied that opportunity, and I think the requirement is that the answer should be able to be heard. If it is out of order, someone should take a point of order, and then you rule. You should not say that because 20 people want to scream and shut down an answer, that is acceptable.

Mr SPEAKER: I take on board the point the member has made—

Hon Peter Dunne: I suggest that the way through this might be to invite the Prime Minister to repeat his answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I think if we are to do that we just invite more—I heard enough of the answer to satisfy myself; the answer was not essential to the question asked, and maybe I should have closed it down. There are times when the House does let off a little steam, and that is not unreasonable. If it had been a hugely important matter that was being debated, of course I would have stopped the noise and made sure the Prime Minister could be heard on it. But it was clear from both sides of the House that the matter was purely political. We will move on now to the next supplementary question.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister, therefore, telling the House that he is reconsidering his stance of ramming through the Government’s elitist view on Auckland restructuring in the face of comments from the suburban newspapers—for example, that his Government was adopting a bullying approach, and making changes that actually stripped democracy from local residents in Auckland.

Hon JOHN KEY:

Far from doing that, I will quote from community newspapers. The Auckland City Harbour News says that “Community board chairs are applauding the government’s decision to retain grassroots democracy”. The Avondale Community Board chair says “By the looks of this the local is back in local politics.” In the Eastern Courier the Pakuranga Community Board chair is quoted as saying “It’s a lot closer to what’s acceptable.” The Government is working hard to get a good solution for Auckland.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland that ran the view that the Government was adopting a bullying approach—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that the House takes a dim view of the tabling of newspaper articles. He sought leave to table the front page of every community newspaper. That would be a difficult challenge for him, because under the Standing Orders he must do that if leave is granted. If he raised that point of order purely to try to inject the comment he injected, that is out of order. The House will come back to order. I will put the leave he has sought, but I do not want to see the Standing Order abused.

Hon Phil Goff: Can I speak further to the point of order, Mr Speaker? If a question is asked where I legitimately quote accurately the views that are expressed in the media, and the Prime Minister said, no, far from saying that, they said something else—in other words saying that the original quote was wrong—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is bringing the substance of a debate into a point of order. The Standing Orders are very clear on how members should seek leave to table documents. I am merely pointing out that it is not acceptable to use that Standing Order to make a political point. The Standing Order is available for the tabling of documents. The member has sought leave to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland. If leave is granted, he will do that. Leave is sought to table the front page—

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The leave that was sought was to table the front page of every community newspaper in Auckland that had stated that the Government was acting in a bullying capacity.

Mr SPEAKER: Because it has been alleged that I misrepresented what the member sought leave for, I ask whether the member agrees that he is seeking leave to table the front page of every community newspaper.

Hon Phil Goff: To clarify the point, I am seeking leave to table an identical front page in every suburban newspaper in Auckland.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the front page of every suburban newspaper in Auckland. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. Those front pages will be tabled before the end of this sitting.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Mr Goff.

Hon Phil Goff: The truth will out.

Mr SPEAKER: That point of order has been dealt with. Is the member asking a further supplementary question? He has the right to do so.

Hon Phil Goff: Why—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Before Mr Goff sought leave to table his documents, you had already called Sue Kedgley to ask her supplementary question. I ask that you allow her to pursue her question.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Greens. Would the honourable member Mr Goff allow me to come back to the Greens. I do apologise. You are quite correct.

Sue Kedgley: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the submissions on legislation that he mentioned in no way substitute for the formal consultation processes required under the Local Government Act? Why should Aucklanders be denied the right to a formal consultation process under the Local Government Act that all other New Zealanders are afforded, especially when the Auckland super-city proposal involves the mother of all mergers—the biggest in New Zealand’s history—involving $23 billion in assets and over 6,000 staff?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, there has been substantial engagement with Auckland. The royal commission was not a small event. There were 3,500 submissions. Secondly, the Government is continuing to engage with Aucklanders. I met with all of the Auckland mayors last week, with the exception of John Banks. To give the member some comfort, I will quote Mike Lee, the chairman of the Auckland Regional Council: “Over the last 20 years there have been a number of changes to governance in Auckland imposed on us by central government. Never before have we had a Government committed to such a high level of engagement with us, and I want to thank the Minister of Local Government for all that he is doing.”

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Prime Minister insisting on eight out of 20 councillors being elected at large, given the universal opposition to that proposal, and the overwhelming preference for a full ward system—or is his position yet another on which he will do a flip-flop?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. He was telling us before that we should listen to the royal commission. The royal commission recommended councillors at large. The Leader of the Opposition is now saying we should ignore it. He cannot have it both ways. Secondly, the decision was made because councillors at large are deemed to have a region-wide response to what is a regional problem. If anyone cannot make up his or her mind it is Chris Carter, who was asked last night whether, if Labour became the Government, he would roll back the super-city. He said: “I cannot possibly answer that.”

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister has quoted me incorrectly. I seek leave to make a personal statement on the issue.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal statement. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Hon Chris Carter: Last night over 250 people came to a meeting in West Auckland that was co-hosted by me, David Cunliffe, and Lynne Pillay. We had an open question and answer session. At the end I was asked what a future Labour Government would do about any reorganisation of Auckland. My answer was that we would look at it at the time, but we certainly would not follow the Key-Hide programme.

Mr SPEAKER: The House has let off some steam. Now could we have a little bit of order, please, and show some courtesy to Sue Bradford.

Sue Bradford: Does the Prime Minister agree with one of the Auckland mayors, who said recently: “The voices of everyone else in the city are relegated to the 20 or 30 toothless local boards, with no power or resources, who like Oliver Twist will be left to pluck up their courage to beg their new lords and masters”—that is the super-city council—“for a little bit more for their communities”; if he does not agree with that statement, why not, and what is he going to do about it?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. The reason for that is that the Auckland City Council will be well represented and will have those region-wide activities. The aim is for the second tier, whatever its structure, to be a strong voice for the local community, and to be able to carry out the programmes that are already being carried out today. In my view, that will deliver a much better governance structure for Auckland.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister follow the law under section 49 of the Local Government Act and seek a mandate from Aucklanders as to whether they agree with the proposed very radical restructuring, or is he concerned that it would show that, overwhelmingly, Aucklanders do not like what he is proposing, and will he, therefore, override that Act?

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, firstly, I would not take the assumption made by the Leader of the Opposition as being correct. The polling I have seen supports a super-city for Auckland. In fact, I can say—and I do not think it is breaking any confidences—that all of the mayors whom I met last week actually supported the regional structure. Yes, there is some debate on the second tier. We will carry on with that.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister instructed the Minister of Local Government, Mr Rodney Hide, that his proposal to meet some of the costs of the restructuring by selling assets is not acceptable; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: There has been no discussion on that point.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister finally acknowledge to the House that not only most Aucklanders but even his own MPs, including some of his own Cabinet Ministers, like Paula Bennett, have said that they do not have confidence in many of the changes that he and Mr Hide are proposing, because the Government has got it wrong?

Hon JOHN KEY: Far from the Government having got it wrong, I am sure that by the time this proposal for Auckland is rolled out we will have got it right, which is a lot better than the decision made by Mr Goff when he drop kicked Phil Twyford out of the Mt Albert electorate.

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

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being raised.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the public interest in this issue, and the fact that the Māori Party, particularly, does have an interest in it, I would like to offer one of our supplementary questions to it—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He is using the point of order system to play political games, and that is not consistent with the Standing—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not at all!

Mr SPEAKER: And he will not interject while I am on my feet.

Hon Trevor Mallard: That was a very serious offer to the Māori Party to take one of our supplementary questions, if it wanted it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If the member can show me the Standing Order where he can take a point of order and do that, I will consider the matter further.

3. Budget 2009—Financial Situation

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

3. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What would be the financial situation if no changes to current policy were made in the forthcoming Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The Budget Policy Statement announced in December showed that the Government had inherited a large and ongoing fiscal imbalance. This was due largely to a 50 percent increase in expenditure over the past 5 years without matching revenue increases. Preliminary Budget forecasts show recurring operating deficits of more than $10 billion a year, and that the Government would be continually in deficit for the next 15 years. As a result, if nothing was changed, gross debt would climb steadily from the current level of around 20 percent of GDP to in excess of 70 percent by 2023, and still be climbing.

Craig Foss: What consequences would follow if these projections were to be realised?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the Government continued the projected spending levels under the previous Government, combined with the recession’s impact on our tax revenue, Government debt would quadruple over the next decade, eventually reaching $30,000 per New Zealander. Of course, at that level it would require radical steps to bring it under control. It would also create additional finance costs equivalent to around $5 billion per annum today. These costs do not allow for the detrimental impact on growth and access to credit that such an outcome would inevitably create.

Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the Minister’s two positions does he now stand by: his earlier position that there was no debt problem, and that therefore tax cuts should have been given earlier to New Zealanders; or his position now that there is a debt problem, and that therefore he must have been wrong to call for earlier tax cuts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is certain there is potentially a debt problem, and a significant driver of that debt problem was the previous Government’s refusal to implement tax cuts. It used those surpluses to commit to structural spending levels growing at twice the rate of the economy. That is unsustainable and will have to change.

Craig Foss: What principles will the Government follow in outlining a responsible Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has already outlined a number of principles. It is committed to retaining social entitlements, committed to improving public services, and committed to reprioritising spending so that taxpayers’ money goes to those areas where we can make a real difference to New Zealanders and maintain better, smarter public services.

4. Nine-day Working Fortnight—Employment

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

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How many jobs does he expect the 9-day fortnight will save?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : I expect the 9-day fortnight programme will save as many jobs as businesses, unions, and employees can negotiate to enter the scheme. So far 123 jobs have been saved. We expect more jobs will be saved in coming weeks and months. Work and Income has had approaches from 67 firms, and a further seven smaller firms have made inquiries about the extended scheme announced by Prime Minister John Key last week.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm, therefore, that last week’s changes to the 9-day fortnight were a political patch-up because the scheme was simply not working, and that with unemployment up by more than 17,000, National’s efforts to protect 123 jobs, although worthwhile, were simply inadequate; if so, how can he insist that the 9-day fortnight has been successful when Fisher and Paykel Appliances has cut another 20 Kiwi jobs after having received public funds from the scheme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member may be interested to know that the scheme has been operating for 1 month and that the Government has provided sufficient funding for many workplaces, businesses, unions, and employees to negotiate to use the 9-day fortnight. In the end it is up to them. The member should understand that many of them face some difficult and stark choices between people keeping their jobs or losing them, people taking pay cuts, and people going on the 9-day fortnight.

Amy Adams: How does New Zealand’s unemployment rate compare with that in other parts of the world?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unemployment started to rise at the beginning of 2008 under the previous Government. It currently stands at 4.6 percent which is relatively low compared with the United Kingdom’s rate at 6.7 percent, and the 8.5 percent rate in the United States and in the eurozone. The Government is keen to do everything it can to help people to retain jobs, but it also wants to build confidence in the economy, so that we can create the new jobs that will replace those that are inevitably being lost as part of the global recession.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that approximately 1,160 public service workers have been capped in recent months, why are they not being afforded the benefits of the 9-day working fortnight?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government made the decision that the best way it could contribute to inhibiting job loss was to have a scheme applicable to the private sector; the Government can make its own decisions about the public sector.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister therefore confirm to the House that John Key’s unfunded cycleway—that is, not this year, next year, or the year after—the 9-day working fortnight, and the scrapped equity scheme have failed to live up to their hype; and does this not just confirm that Mr Key’s Job Summit was the talkfest that everybody suspected it would prove to be?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No; the Job Summit was a very interesting and effective interaction between the Government and the private sector—a bunch of people that the Labour members forgot about when they were in Government, to the extent that they were completely ignored. A number of initiatives will be pursued, and the cycleway, in particular, will be pursued with vigour because it is a great idea.

5. Emissions Trading Scheme—NgāiTahu Treaty Settlement

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

5. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues: Has he received advice that the emissions trading scheme will cost NgāiTahu up to $120 million; if so, what strategies will he establish to ensure that the scheme is not prejudicial for assets transferred under Treaty settlements?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues) : I am advised that NgāiTahu is affected by the emissions trading scheme in the same way as all pre-1990 forest owners, in that if their areas are deforested they incur very substantial liabilities. The cost is difficult to assess as it depends on which areas of forests would give higher returns from alternative land uses. This issue adds complexity to the Treaty settlement process as it significantly affects land values and the quantum of settlements. The Government wants to act in good faith with Māori on these complex Treaty and climate change issues, while also acknowledging that issues over the emissions trading scheme application to forestry also impact significantly on the property rights of all landowners.

Rahui Katene: What responsibility do forest companies have for situations such as that of NgāiTahu, which has no control over trees on its land that are cleared by forest companies, but thereby incurs a liability of $40 million to $120 million?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Landowners who may be faced with forest companies removing their trees have the option of either replanting trees themselves, contracting with an alternative forest company to plant trees on the land, or, in the event that they want to change the land use, incurring those liabilities. I think there are legitimate questions and debate to be had about the application of the emissions trading scheme in respect of forestry, and that is one of the reasons the Government is reviewing the scheme through the select committee process.

Hekia Parata: Ā, tēnā koe e Te Mana Whakawā, tēnātātou e te Whare.

* [And greetings to you, Mr Speaker, and to us the House.]

Has the Minister received any specific reports on NgāiTahu’s concerns about the impacts of the emissions trading scheme on its settlement?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the previous Government commissioned a report by Helen Aikman QC on the very specific concern of Ngāi Tahu that they were prejudicially adversely affected by the emissions trading scheme, in that the Government knew but did not disclose the adverse effect that climate change policy would have on forest values. This independent report rejected this claim and concluded that the Government had acted in good faith. I have provided this report to Ngāi Tahu and want them to have the opportunity to comment on its analysis and conclusions.

Rahui Katene: What progress has been made to respond to the concerns of Te Ohu Kai Moana, Aotearoa Fisheries, Sealord Group, and Endurance Fishing that during the process of reviewing the scheme the effect of emissions trading on Māori fishing interests must be explicitly recognised?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: An issue with the emissions trading scheme is that for industries like cement, steel, aluminium, and dairy a 90 percent allocation of its emissions is provided through to 2018 and then phased out, as compared with the fishing industry, which receives an allocation of only 50 percent of its emissions and for a period of only 3 years. I know that the Māori Party has a keen interest in that issue, and it is one on which the Government is keen to have a dialogue to ensure that our important fishing industry is treated fairly.

6. Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill—Implications

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

6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Justice: Will his Government continue to support its Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill in light of advice suggesting it may lead to criminals attempting to kill police and victims in order to avoid arrest?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : Yes, but the ultimate form the bill takes will be shaped by the outcome of the select committee process. The member might be interested to know that I am also advised that similar concerns that offenders may kill their victims to avoid liability for an increased penalty were raised when the maximum penalty for sexual violation was increased from 14 to 20 years in 1993. The Ministry of Justice is not aware of any evidence that this has occurred.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will his Government continue to support its Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill in light of advice that it could lead to judges giving shorter sentences to offenders to avoid the no-parole policy, cause havoc in prisons, and clog our court system?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes. As I said in response to the first question, I have an open mind about what shape the bill may take when it emerges from the select committee. The member might be interested to know that the advice I have is that the number of offenders before the courts at any one time under this legislation would be small. With regard to court backlogs, I can assure the member that much is work under way in this space, and real change is on the way.

Paul Quinn: Is he satisfied with the progress of the “Sentencing and Payroll Reform Bill” and other justice legislation—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am trying to assist the member. I do not think it is the “Sentencing and Payroll Reform Bill”.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point. I invite the member to ask his question again.

Paul Quinn: Is he satisfied with the progress of the Sentencing and Parole Reform Bill and other justice legislation?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes. Since the election the Government has passed five justice bills, introduced another seven, and progressed three others. I am afraid that the member opposite, Clayton Cosgrove, will have to do better than getting his ideas for questions from last week’s Dominion Post. He will have to lift his game.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree that National and the Prime Minister have misled the public—

Hon Simon Power: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was unable to hear that question because the member’s own leader was interjecting at the time he was putting the question. I would be happy to answer it if he would repeat the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure, but I do not think it was the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I suspect it was the Hon Trevor Mallard. I confess it did make it— [Interruption] A point of order has been raised by the honourable member, and he is now interjecting on his own point of order. I found it difficult to hear too, so I invite the Hon Clayton Cosgrove to please repeat his question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does the Minister agree that National and the Prime Minister have misled the public by campaigning on a no-parole policy that they said would see an estimated 572 additional prisoners by 2011, when in reality, as his own Government has only now admitted, its policy would result in just 50 more offenders being added to the prison population over 4 years?

Hon SIMON POWER: No, I agree completely with the Prime Minister’s statements because unlike the previous Labour Government, which saw Damien O’Connor deny the need for a new prison, despite its own forecast that showed another would be needed, we wanted the public to know the cost of what we were putting in front of them. That is why we incorporated the forecast increase in prison numbers into our estimate of the impact of the sentencing policy. That information was provided on our website at the time the policy was launched, and the member might be interested to know that it is still there today.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree with his own Government’s spokesman who said in the New Zealand Herald on 18 April 2009, in relation to National’s misleading figures: “In any case, as a responsible opposition we thought it was better to over-estimate rather than under-estimate, because we wanted the public to be clear that parole changes come at a cost.”, and does he think that deliberately misleading the public with a figure that was more than 10 times the factual reality is an acceptable “overestimation”?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes, I do agree with the Government spokesperson on those numbers because, as I said in answer to the last question, it was quite clear that the forecast numbers had to be included. It was made clear at the time the policy was launched on our website. If the member did his homework he would see that fact is still on our website today.

7. Kyoto Protocol—Compliance

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

7. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What do the latest reports on New Zealand’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol show, and how do these vary from previous reports?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) : The 2009 net position report shows New Zealand is expected to exceed its Kyoto Protocol obligations by 9.6 million tonnes for the first commitment period, which on current carbon prices equates to $241 million. This is a marked improvement from the 2008 report, which indicated a 21.7 million tonne deficit, equating to $546 million. The Government has responded cautiously to this good news, noting that in previous reports these projections have varied from over a billion dollars in surplus to over a billion dollars in deficit.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has the Kyoto balance changed by nearly $800 million in the last year?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The big changes have been in forestry and agriculture. Drought conditions in 2007-08 resulted in fewer cattle, sheep, and deer, and together with more accurate data on actual nitrous oxide animal emissions, that has resulted in a predicted reduction in agricultural emissions. New forest data show that the post-1990 forests for which New Zealand gets credits are absorbing significantly more carbon than was anticipated a year ago, because the forests are being planted on better soils than previously and because they have not been thinned, so they are producing thicker stands. There has been no significant change in the projections of emissions for energy, transport, and industrial processes. These significant variations in agricultural and forest data are a cautionary message about the uncertainty and challenges of carbon accounting in respect of natural systems.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What steps is the Government taking to try to get greater certainty in respect of New Zealand’s carbon balance?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government is taking three steps. First, these latest figures will be independently audited and internationally reviewed over coming months. Secondly, we are investing heavily in the Land Use and Carbon Analysis System, to get greater certainty on those forestry figures. Satellite data should be available later this year, and we should continue to treat the forestry figures with caution until that satellite information is available. Thirdly, this Government is investing heavily in research on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, as there is still significant uncertainty with regard to emissions from that sector and they are particularly significant for New Zealand’s unique emissions profile.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealand’s gross greenhouse gas emission levels are still some 23 percent higher than the 1990 levels, that the effort required to lower emissions will still be very significant, and that National’s policy-setting so far—such as stalling the implementation of the emissions trading scheme, scrapping the ban on thermal baseload generation, doing away with the biofuels obligation, and generally failing to plan for a transition to a lower-polluting economy—is heading in exactly the wrong direction?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is true that New Zealand’s gross emissions have increased very substantially, and the great irony is that during the course of the previous Government, when there was great talk of carbon neutrality, New Zealand’s emissions grew at a faster rate than those of any other developed country in the Western World. I say the only thing that is currently saving New Zealand’s bacon on the carbon balance is the large tree planting that occurred in the 1990s. That is actually offsetting that large increase in emissions. But no one in this House should doubt the challenge for New Zealand of constraining its emissions and making real progress on climate change.

8. Resource Management Act Reforms—Minister's Statements

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

8. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he stand by his statements that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill will reduce costs and delays?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : Yes, and this view is supported by the vast bulk of submissions to the Local Government and Environment Committee on this bill. Some submitters have expressed concern about some of the specifics of the 167 clauses of the bill, which is not surprising for a reform of this size. The tragedy is that for the last 9 years the previous Government not only ignored calls for reforms of the Resource Management Act but actually made amendments to the Act that increased costs and delays.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Transport that the New Zealand Transport Agency’s submission in relation to that agency’s notices of requirement is “a minor technical matter”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Transport Agency has made a quite specific submission around how the requiring authority status can work better.

Hon Trevor Mallard: “Minor technical”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is, and it is important. It is minor and technical; it affects one of the 167 clauses. The Minister of Transport noted that the agency wished to make that submission to the select committee, and I think that it was important for the select committee to have the best advice possible because it is crucial for New Zealand that we get this bill right.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Minister received on differing views of the Opposition on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question, as it starts, cannot possibly be the responsibility of that Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has made a reasonable point. The Minister really has no responsibility for the views of the Opposition. I know that the construction of “What reports …” is an attempt to get around that fact. It is something of a dilemma. We know what is happening: the Minister has no responsibility for the views of the Opposition yet he is asked what reports he has received on the views of the Opposition. In recent time that construction has often sufficed to bring it within the responsibility of the Minister. Maybe I can invite the member to repeat his question in a way that brings it more consistently within the Standing Orders.

Tim Macindoe: What reports has the Minister received on differing views on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been amused that there have been reports from the spokesperson on infrastructure opposite saying that the bill does not go nearly far enough, and from the spokesperson on the environment opposite saying that it goes way too far. I think that this is what happens in a dysfunctional family when mum and dad are both leaving home.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister agree with the submission from the chief executive of the Transport Agency that the amendment to the notices of requirement section could “significantly increase project costs”—his estimate in a supplementary submission is that the Manukau Harbour crossing would cost in excess of $100 million more—and does he still think that this is a “minor technical matter”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the submissions not just from the Transport Agency but also from the electricity industry and other major infrastructure providers make plain that they strongly support the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill. Those submitters say the bill is crucial to the building of additional infrastructure. The question for this Parliament in respect of a requiring authority is whether it is appropriate for requiring authorities, many of which are private companies, to be both the applicant and the decision-maker on such consents, noting that it actually adds an additional stage to the process. That is an issue on which I am very keen to hear the views of the select committee.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question that asked whether the Minister agreed, and whether it was a “minor technical matter”. Neither of those legs to the question was addressed. If he had addressed one of them, I would not have taken this point of order. He gave us an answer to a question that was not asked.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s question referred to a submission from the New Zealand Transport Agency. That submission made plain that the bill will substantially improve its capacity to build roads and infrastructure. It is not good enough for the member to quote simply a small element of a submission. It was perfectly proper for me to refer to the complete submission from that organisation.

Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard sufficient on this issue. The member was offering to give away a supplementary question a little while ago; he has further supplementary questions to pursue this issue. My judgment is that the Minister did actually address the serious issue around the requiring authorities. The member raised the issue of possible cost. The Minister handled the question by way of pointing out the seriousness of the issue around requiring authorities. However, I invite the member to pursue his interests with a further supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister of Housing share with the Minister the Housing New Zealand’s view that the Hobsonville project was subject to nimbyism before or after the Minister of Housing supported that submission to the committee—as the committee was told?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A submission was made by some Housing New Zealand staff. It was not approved by the board, by senior management, or by the Minister, and the Minister has received an apology for that. I note, though, that that submission was very supportive of the Government’s Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill, and pointed out the advantages. The submitters wanted to extend the major project provisions for infrastructure to Housing New Zealand’s development. I do not think that that is sensible—I think housing issues are best dealt with at the local level—so the Government does not intend to pursue that change.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koutou katoa. How does increasing the filing fee from $55 to $500 for groups wishing to appeal to the Environment Court reduce their costs?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In considering the $500 appeal fee we need to take into account the fact that the actual cost to the court system is well over $1,000. When we look at the cost of appeal to the Environment Court, as compared with the fees for the High Court or for District Courts, we see that they compare very well. I also note that the registrar of our courts has the discretion to waive that fee in the event that he or she believes it would be unfair, and would block out a reasonable appeal.

9. Trades Academies—Establishment

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

9. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Education: What announcements has the Government made to progress its promise to establish at least five trades academies?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : The Government has recently asked the education sector for expressions of interest in establishing trades academies. Schools and tertiary institutions have been asked to submit short proposals that can be evaluated. Proposals that are judged to have significant merit will then be taken to a business case stage, so that final decisions can be made by Cabinet.

Colin King: What is the Government looking for in the expressions of interest?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The key attribute we are looking for is relevance. We are looking for proposals that will provide students who prefer to opt for practical, hands-on education experiences with exactly that, and that will provide them with more opportunities to gain the practical skills they need to enter the 21st century workforce. Members opposite may laugh, but I have been really heartened as I have gone around the country, talking to principals and tertiary institutions, to hear about some of the very exciting opportunities that they want the opportunity to create for young New Zealand students.

Hon Chris Carter: How can the replacement of the previous Labour Government’s Schools Plus programme, which was a comprehensive response to student underachievement, with five proposed trade academies over 3 years be considered anything but pathetic, when, currently, 25 percent of young New Zealanders leave school without the equivalent of National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 1?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can answer that question very simply. I looked high and low in the Ministry of Education for the substantial Schools Plus policy, and I could not find it, and I could not find any money to do anything about it. The principals out there in secondary schools do not know what that substantial policy was, either. Calling for expressions of interest in establishing at least five trades academies, which will be in place by the next election, goes a long way further to actually addressing the issues of young New Zealanders.

Hon Chris Carter: Does the Minister agree with John Key, who said that “National will make the off-site learning opportunities of Gateway and STAR a mainstream part of what schools can offer.”; if so, will she commit to keeping the $21 million for the enhanced Secondary Tertiary Alignment Resource (STAR) programme, which was part of Labour’s Schools Plus initiative?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can assure that member of the quality and the worth of the STAR and Gateway programmes. [Interruption] National takes credit for those programmes, because we invented them. But I say to that member that he will have to wait for the Budget to see exactly what expenditure will be put into them.

10. Energy—Gas Supplies

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

10. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement 9 weeks ago that “gas will be a big part of New Zealand’s energy mix in the future”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : Yes. In a speech on 24 February I also said” “New Zealand’s electrical energy future will rely more on wind, hydro and geothermal. Gas will bridge us to that future.” I stand by both those statements.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with the Electricity Commission’s finding last week that even if there is a big new gas discovery in New Zealand, the price of gas will “be very vulnerable to the international LNG price and the $US/$NZ exchange rate”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not necessarily agree with the position that the Electricity Commission has taken with regard to future gas price, nor do I accept that there will necessarily be the importation of liquefied natural gas into New Zealand. It is interesting to note, though, that estimates of gas reserves in New Zealand regularly change. Indeed, the previous Minister, David Parker, said in 2006 that when it comes to “forecasting gas demand and supply, there is significant uncertainty around a range of factors on both the demand and supply sides.” I agree with him.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Has he seen any reports about the importance of gas to our electricity system?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. I have read a speech from the previous Minister of Energy, the Hon David Parker—

Hon Member: Well done!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I tell you what: it would be a good idea if Charles Chauvel spent a bit of time with Mr Parker, because he said in February 2008 “Fossil fuels, especially gas, will continue to have [an important] role for some time to come. They provide security, versatility, and stability in the delivery of electricity.” I have also seen a speech from Mr Parker in 2006 in which he said “We”—that is, the Labour Party—“accept … that some thermal power from fossil fuels will be needed in our energy system for the foreseeable future,”. I think Mr Chauvel should spend a lot more time talking to Mr Parker.

Mr SPEAKER: Charles Chauvel.

Charles Chauvel: Does—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Your colleague is asking a question.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with energy analyst Molly Melhuish’s calculation that allowing a linkage to the international price of gas could see household power bills jump by more than $300 a year; if so, how does he reconcile his calls for low energy price rises with his promotion of a gas-fired electricity future for New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: It is unfortunate that the member does not listen, firstly, to me, and then, as a back-up, to his own colleagues. You see, it is quite evident that gas will be a bridge fuel for the future. It is abundantly clear from everything I have said that we will have greater reliance on renewable energy, and that gas will be sort of the icing on the cake. I might note that due to the previous Government’s absolute failure to look after the transmission infrastructure, right now North Islanders are almost totally dependent on thermal generation, because the Cook Strait cable is out. That Government failed to look after the infrastructure of this country, and it is hopeless for its members to start saying they have clear ideas of where the future lies.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister stand by his statement 9 weeks ago that “The Government is currently considering the best way of carrying out the update of the [New Zealand] Energy Strategy and I will make further announcements about this in the coming weeks.”; if so, how many more coming weeks will have to pass before he makes his further announcements; if not, is it because his Government has no consistent energy policy?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do stand by my statements, and the member has a lot of exciting things to look forward to.

11. Economic Stimulus Package, Housing—Employment

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

11. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Housing: What has been the impact to date on employment as a result of the housing component of the Government’s jobs and growth stimulus package?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : I was pleased to announce early last week that in fact 935 people were in jobs in March due to the money set aside earlier this year under the stimulus package. Those jobs include work both for upgrades and construction and they are employing people across the sector. We are talking about design consultants, carpenters, joiners, plumbers, electricians, roofers, insulators, gardeners, and others. It is, quite frankly, fantastic news.

Jo Goodhew: How does this work fulfil commitments made by the National Government?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The member will recall that when the package was announced we made it clear that this work would keep people in jobs and that is what we are doing. Also, the Government’s job summit raised the need to accelerate initiatives to open up opportunities for employment—and we have delivered on that too. We are also delivering on clear commitments to improve the standards of existing Housing New Zealand stock. That is something that I think the whole country now knows was neglected by the previous Government.

Hon George Hawkins: Does the Minister see the irony in this Government congratulating itself for creating jobs when an estimated 1,160 jobs have been lost so far thanks to this Government’s public sector cuts and a huge opportunity to create more jobs was lost when this Government put the brakes on the Hobsonville State housing project?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I find that quite interesting because Cabinet papers show that the Hobsonville development was passed by Cabinet in 2002. Mr Gosche announced it at that time. I remember that after that Steve Maharey announced it a few years later. I believe Chris Carter announced it after that, and then Maryan Street. When I became Minister of Housing there were no consents for Hobsonville, I found out that earthworks had not begun, and not a single house has been built. But now that National is in Government, we have the consents, the earthworks are about to start, and we are actually going to build some houses.

Chris Tremain: What impact is the stimulus package having on employment in the regions?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: When we initiated the package I asked the corporation to ensure that the contracting saw local builders and tradespeople get work from the infrastructure package. The member from Napier witnessed it in Hawke’s Bay last week, when a local tradesperson approached us and thanked us because he was able to keep in work and to employ an extra person. That is happening right across the country. We are delighted that it is affecting people’s lives so positively.

12. National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Ltd—Dr Jim Salinger

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

12. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: Does he stand by his statement in the Dominion Post last Saturday that the dismissal of internationally renowned scientist Dr Jim Salinger from his position at the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research is “an employment dispute, which must be handled by the chief executive and the board”?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology) : Yes, I do.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is there ever a point where an employment issue justifies his intervention as Minister because of its potential effects on the quality of science and on New Zealand’s international reputation; if so, does he think that the dismissal of a Nobel Laureate on grounds that appear to the public to be quite flimsy might be such a point?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The chief executive of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Mr Morgan, and the chair of the board, Sue Suckling, came and saw me on the matter, in accordance with the no-surprises policy. I advised them that this was a matter for the chief executive officer and the board since it was an employment matter, and was not a matter for the Minister.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will the Minister reconsider his position in the light of the considerable overseas consternation about the dismissal of a Nobel Laureate of Dr Salinger’s status and call in the board of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research again and ask for an assurance that this action by its chief executive was justified, so that we do not, in the words of our Prime Minister, “continue to export scientists and import taxi drivers”?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I am aware of Dr Salinger’s work and reputation. However, as I have said previously, this is an employment matter and is a matter strictly for the board and the chief executive officer.

Moana Mackey: Will the Minister undertake to write to all Crown research institute chief executives this week, assuring them that all publicly employed scientists are still entitled, and, indeed, encouraged, to make scientific information publicly available, including in circumstances where such information may contradict Government policy?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: There is an operating framework—in fact, prepared by the previous Government—that still is current, which states there must be good employment practices conducted by all of the Crown research institutes. I would assume that all of the employees, and, indeed, the boards would operate under that practice.

Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I specifically asked whether the Minister would undertake to write to the chief executives this week, and I do not believe that he answered that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I cannot elicit out of a Minister a yes or no answer, but the member does have a further supplementary question.

Moana Mackey: In refusing to call in the board of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research to further investigate this issue, is the Minister telling the House that based on his information, Dr Salinger is not telling the truth in his public comments about his sacking being unfair?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: This is a matter for the board and the chief executive officer, and that is where the issue shall lie. It is not a matter for the Minister.

ENDS

© Scoop Media