WEDNESDAY, 29 APRIL 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Government Policy—Funding

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

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he agree with the statements in the House by his Minister of Finance on 16 December 2008 that “Yes, I can confirm that National will not be going back on any of those promises, as we fully costed and funded them”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes, I agree with the statement the Minister of Finance made at that time. Since then, as the member is well aware, New Zealand’s economic and fiscal position has deteriorated significantly. The Government has been up front in saying that in light of the deepening global recession, we will proceed with tax cuts in 2010 or 2011 only if they are affordable. If they are not affordable, we will defer them.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister therefore confirming to the House that the central promise on which he was elected, which was tax cuts, he is now going to renege on by not proceeding with the tax cuts on 1 April 2010 and 1 April 2011—yes or no?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I am not confirming that. What I am confirming is that it did not take this Government 9 years to cut taxes, like it did the Labour Government.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the value of the Prime Minister’s personal guarantee, set out on this document that he has signed, where he personally pledged tax cuts on 1 April 2010 and 2011?

Hon JOHN KEY: A very high value. But the other thing I would say, of course, is that New Zealanders recognise that around the world the situation has changed dramatically in the last 5 or 6 months. New Zealanders are aware that the Government is likely to earn $50 billion less in revenue in the next 3 years. The one thing I would say is that members on this side of the House understand what we are doing. Members on that side of the House were telling us to cancel tax cuts.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have seen this day after day, and you know there is a Speaker’s ruling regarding conduct that is likely to lead to disorder. The Prime Minister’s comments at the end of his answer had nothing to do with the question that was asked. I ask you to bring him to order before the House comes to disorder.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition has made a fair point. I urge the Prime Minister to limit that kind of comment, if possible.

Nathan Guy: Has the Government delivered on its promises?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware that the Hon Dr Michael Cullen is giving his valedictory speech at 5.30, so I will try to condense this so as to keep within that timetable. Yes, we delivered a billion dollars worth of tax cuts on 1 April this year, we have introduced the ReStart package, we have introduced legislation to address law and order issues, we have set national standards in literacy and numeracy, we have fast tracked the funding of PlunketLine, we have ensured that women receive a 12-month course of Herceptin—I could go on.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister now regret promising $4 billion more in tax cuts than the Labour Party at a time when he knew full well that the world was in serious recession but made those promises in order to get elected anyway, and was that not simply dishonest?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not regret that. I will make just one simple point, because it might help the Leader of the Opposition: the tax cut programme that National went into the election with in 2008 cost $250 million less than the one promised by the Labour Party.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: How can the Prime Minister still talk about implementing more Government spending in line with his election promises of 9 months ago, when the pace of economic deterioration means that the ideas mooted 9 months ago are both irresponsible and unaffordable?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I would not agree with that statement. The Government is honouring its commitments. It is making sure that it is putting money into health and education. It is making sure that it is committed to, and follows through with, all of the promises from the 100-day programme. What is true is that the Government is taking matters seriously in terms of trying to save money. Our line-by-line review has been successful, and when people see the Budget they will realise that we are taking the fiscal position going forward seriously, as well.

Hon Phil Goff: Was yet another promise broken by the Prime Minister when he said to the New Zealand Public Service that it would be capped, but that it would not have its numbers cut, and what is his explanation now to the more than 880 decent, ordinary, hard-working public servants who have already been sacked?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, and the only person who is going to be cut around here is the Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Nathan Guy.

Nathan Guy: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of a Minister of Finance not merely deferring but, in fact, cancelling tax cuts?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have seen a report of a Minister of Finance announcing personal income tax cuts in the 2005 Budget, but then cancelling them outright in 2007. When the Government was posting an $8 billion surplus, he said that he did not want to go through with tax cuts, because people would just spend the additional money anyway.

Hon Phil Goff: When the Prime Minister promised the country that he was not going to touch superannuation entitlements, did he also explain that he was going to cease pre-funding those entitlements, so, inevitably, his policy would lead to a crisis and a breach of those entitlements just a few years down the track?

Hon JOHN KEY: The economic understanding of the Leader of the Opposition is quite woeful if he thinks that a minor deferment in payments into the Superannuation Fund—if that was to happen—would cause a crisis in the superannuation system in New Zealand.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Could the Prime Minister please explain to the House how it is possible, in today’s economic circumstances, to spend more this year than Labour did last year, especially when households are having to spend less?

Hon JOHN KEY: That is because we are putting more money into things that we think are very important. I think if members were to look around the—

Hon Member: Like what?

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, $750 million into health, and hundreds of millions of dollars more in other areas. The reason for that is that we are taking the approach that most westernised countries are taking, which is that this is a time when Governments should use their balance sheet, but we are not going to diet on debt forever.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister not consult in any meaningful way with Aucklanders, as he had promised to do in his manifesto, before jointly, with Mr Hide, determining and announcing what was best for them, when clearly Aucklanders have rejected what he is trying to ram through and impose on them?

Hon JOHN KEY: They are not rejecting what we are proposing for Auckland.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister, as a result of all the answers he has just given the House, confirm that the personal guarantee he wrote and the promise the Minister of Finance made in the House on 16 December both count for nothing, because he has confirmed today that he has already broken not just one but three or four of his major promises—he has not met his undertakings to the people of New Zealand?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can promise New Zealanders that this Government will show good economic leadership, and that we will make sure that New Zealand comes through this recession. We are not a fair-weather Government that knows how to operate only under surpluses—that is for sure.

2. Government Debt—Forecasts

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

2. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: What would be the impact on public services if no measures to restrain public debt were taken?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The latest projections show that if the Government continued with the rate of spending growth that occurred under the Labour Government, gross debt would rise to 73 percent of GDP, which would lift finance costs to $15 billion per annum. That amount would be enough to fund all of New Zealand’s superannuation entitlements, almost enough to fund every district health board, and sufficient to fund tertiary education several times over. That is why the Government is determined to change the direction of spending that built up under the Labour Government, in order to prevent debt from accumulating rapidly to levels that are unsustainable.

Chris Tremain: Why is public debt projected to rise?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The primary reason that public debt, in the preliminary Budget forecast, was projected to rise to 73 percent of GDP was the undisciplined and reckless increases in spending under the previous Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree with the recent New Zealand Institute report that states: “The loading of New Zealand’s net stimulus package into tax cuts is notable internationally, and one of the likely reasons that New Zealand’s fiscal position is expected to continue to deteriorate while those of countries such as Australia and the UK are expected to recover … As a share of GDP, New Zealand is giving the largest personal income tax cuts of any OECD country.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I do not agree with the New Zealand Institute. But at least it knows what it thinks, in contrast to the Labour Party, where the leader of the party is for and against tax cuts, and the spokesperson on finance is against and for them.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister therefore agree with Moody’s that New Zealand’s debt challenges are only limited and are not as severe as other countries, and does he agree with the IMF’s chief economist that what is needed is forceful action on both the macroeconomic and financial fronts; if so, why is his Government a global outlier in believing that it can deregulate and tax cut its way out of this recession?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I tend to agree with a number of things that Moody’s has said, and with a number of things that the IMF has said. However, this Government makes up its own mind about what is appropriate policy for New Zealand. That policy is focused on lifting this economy out of recession as quickly as possible.

Chris Tremain: What has been the previous New Zealand experience with high debt levels?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Gross public debt peaked at 75 percent of GDP in 1987. At that point, finance costs consumed 20 percent of all Government spending. As members may remember, it required a monumental effort to get debt back down from that level. This Government has no intention of allowing the benefits of two decades of hard work by parties on both sides of the House to evaporate just because of the recklessness of the previous Government.

3. Unemployment—Resourcing for Front-line Services

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

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Are there sufficient resources available to front-line staff to provide services to the growing number of unemployed New Zealanders who require assistance from the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes, we are—

Hon Darren Hughes: It must be so hard being the Prime Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: The House has had its fun.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, but we are constantly having to re-evaluate the situation.

Hon Annette King: How will making 180 people redundant from the Ministry of Social Development, as proposed in a confidential briefing paper last week, assist the Ministry in providing front-line services for New Zealanders, particularly children and families affected by the economic crisis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has made it clear that it wants to move resources to the front line. In the case of the Ministry of Social Development, that is particularly important because of the growth of the numbers of unemployed. I am surprised that the Opposition is asking that question, because the Ministry’s plans for living within its budget were actually made under the previous Government.

Hon Annette King: If resources provided to front-line staff are adequate, why did the Work and Income office of Upper Hutt cut corners and use an employment broker who had been issued with an improvement notice by the Department of Labour for mistreating workers in Marlborough by cramming 22 of them into a house built for six to eight people, and for ripping off their wages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If there was a genuine problem there, I am sure the Minister will look into it. By and large, though, the Ministry of Social Development, as that member will know, has shown itself to be an efficient and innovative Government department. It will have huge demands to meet over the next 12 months.

Sue Bradford: What steps will the Ministry be taking—if it is shifting staff from the back room into the front room—firstly, to make sure that such staff are adequately trained to deal with the greater number of unemployed people coming through the door, and, secondly, to deal with the very likely wage differentiation between the people coming, for example, from areas of policy analysis to be front-line case officers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those are essentially operational matters for the chief executive, but we would expect that the Ministry will train the people who are on the front line, because it is important that anyone coming in the door who has lost his or her job gets the best service that the Public Service can offer.

Hon Annette King: Is the Minister aware that 80 unemployed people were handed over by Work and Income to the said “employment broker” and sent to the Wairarapa to work, only to have 20 of them be underpaid or receive no wages at all; and what is she doing to reduce the pressure that she has put on staff to get people off the dole at any cost?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If those events occurred, I am sure the Minister will move to remedy them, because people should be treated fairly. The Government makes no apology for the fact that the Ministry of Social Development does have the job of doing everything it can, within reason, to ensure that people do not go on to the benefit, and it has been able to show a track record of some success in that.

Hon Annette King: Is the Minister aware that regional Work and Income offices are being inundated with recently unemployed workers wanting financial assistance and guidance, and that officers are now barely coping with the number of new clients; and will she now admit that her comments about the growing number of unemployed being “just a blip” were wrong?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it is obvious to anyone who reads a newspaper or knows about his or her community that unemployment numbers are rising. The Ministry of Social Development is going to work as positively as it can to ensure that as many as possible of those people who are unemployed are redirected into jobs so they do not have to go on a benefit, and that those who are on the benefit get a good service.

4. Police Staffing—Counties-Manakau

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

4. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received regarding extra police for Counties-Manukau?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) : I have received very good reports. Since National became the Government, the number of police in Counties-Manukau has increased by 26 to 780. In addition, police numbers in Counties-Manukau are expected to grow by a further 16 constables by 30 June 2009. Overall, the police expect to achieve an extra 150 police this year and 150 next year. This boost of 300 new frontline police in Counties-Manukau by the end of 2010 is a key Government policy, and I am pleased with progress to date.

Sandra Goudie: Has she received any other reports regarding extra police for Counties-Manukau?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. I am advised that a further 41 recruits destined for Counties-Manukau have just started at the Royal New Zealand Police College, and are expected to graduate in August 2009. The police have many recruitment activities under way, and are working hard to implement the Government’s policy.

Sandra Goudie: What are the police doing to ensure that the additional police in Counties-Manukau include both new recruits and experienced police officers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The police have planned two intakes at the police college for former police who are rejoining the organisation. These two intakes will result in 40 experienced police officers rejoining the police. Each officer has between 5 and 12 years’ experience as a police officer.

5. Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill—Collection of Levies

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

5. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister for Courts: What advice has she received about the collection of levies that would be required by the Sentencing (Offender Levy) Amendment Bill from those officials in the Ministry of Justice who report to her?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Minister for Courts) : In late January I was briefed by officials on the offender levy: what it was for, who was going to pay it, how much money it would collect, and proposed administrative arrangements for collection of the levy. I have also received documentation about the funding for the operation of the levy, but this is Budget-sensitive and the member will have to wait until the Budget.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Is she aware of advice from the Ministry of Justice as contained in the document Structure of Operations in the Ministry: Proposals for Consultation that people who owe the offender levy will be grouped based on their “willingness and ability to pay and their attitude towards compliance”; and does this mean that the Government is prepared to tolerate targeting only those most likely to pay while hard-core fine defaulters are let off the hook?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No, not at all. The Government’s approach is that every offender who owes the levy, fines, or reparation will be held responsible for the payment of those. Anything else that the member has inferred is not going to happen, because this Government is serious about collecting those fines. I will be introducing into the House pretty soon a courts and criminal matters bill that will address some of the matters around enforcement. But I stress once again that no offender who owes fines will be allowed to get away with not being responsible for them.

Shane Ardern: What reports has she received about previous attempts to establish a victims’ compensation scheme?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: A very good question. I have seen three reports in Labour’s 1996 election campaign policy. The party promised to investigate the establishment of a separate criminal injuries compensation scheme. In Labour’s 2005 election campaign policy, it said it would “inquire into the level of immediate financial support available to victims or families of victims of serious crime, especially homicide, and examine options for providing improved support”. Again, in February 2008, in the Prime Minister’s opening statement to the House she said that Labour would look into a victims’ compensation scheme. We are a Government of action. We have taken less than 100 days to do something that Labour thought about for over 13 years.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does she reconcile her answer to my previous supplementary question where she said that all those owing their levies would pay, with the statement from the Minister of Justice who also advocated a levy collection system that selectively targets some offenders over others based on how easy it will be to recover the money from them, when the Minister of Justice, in a Cabinet paper of 26 January 2009, stated that enforcement actions, such as seizure of property or bringing the defendant before the court, will be used for some offenders but not for others because the cost of those enforcement actions “would be greater than the levy amount, rendering it uneconomic to pursue.”?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I can easily reconcile them. Where a person owes only the offender levy, enforcement actions will be limited to court-ordered deductions from wages, a benefit, or a bank account. That keeps overall enforcement costs from becoming greater than the value of the outstanding levy and recognises that the levy is not a fine. We will be endeavouring to collect payment on the levy, although that will take second place to reparations. As I said, this Government is serious about addressing the concerns of victims. The party opposite thought about the matter for over 13 years and did nothing about it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given that the Minister has not reconciled the two answers, are we now going to have two classes of victims: a first class of victims where offenders are pursued and compelled to pay their levy because of their “willingness and ability to pay”, and a second class of victims where offenders make life difficult and are therefore let off the hook by this Government?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: That is rubbish. Nobody will be let off responsibility for paying a levy, fines, or reparation. No one will get away without paying the fines or reparation that he or she owes. Everyone will have to deal with his or her fines, reparation, and levy. One way or another people will be held responsible for what they owe. Those who decide not to pay will feel the full force of the law, and quicker. Every day, action is being taken to enforce payment by taking money out of wages, benefits, or directly from bank accounts, by seizing and selling assets, clamping vehicles, arresting offenders—

Mr SPEAKER: That answer is excessively long.

6. Food Safety—Initiatives

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

6. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister for Food Safety: What initiatives is the Government implementing to promote food safety?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) : This week I was privileged to be invited on to the Tūrangawaewae Marae in Ngāruawāhia to launch the New Zealand Food Safety Authority guide Te Kai Manawa Ora. The guide has been designed specifically for a marae setting, and provides food safety tips around gathering, storing, and cooking traditional Māori food. I am pleased to say the guide has been widely welcomed, and will hopefully be put to good use throughout the country.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What further initiatives does the Government have planned?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Next week we will be releasing another food safety guide—a booklet titled Food Safety in the Home. The booklet aims to educate everyone on best practice in an effort to address food-borne illnesses, which cost New Zealand more than $86 million each year through lost productivity and medical expenses. Salmonella and campylobacter-related illnesses are a big concern in New Zealand, and the booklet offers expert advice on how to avoid bacterial risks.

Sue Kedgley: Is the Minister aware that many New Zealanders are concerned about the adequacy of the food safety systems in some of the countries that we import food from, and want to avoid buying food from certain countries? Will she, therefore, commit to introducing mandatory country-of-origin labelling for fresh foods so that consumers can work out where their food comes from; if not, why not?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am aware that this issue certainly interests the Green Party, and, in fact, that that member was the author of the Consumer’s Right to Know (Food Information) Bill, which was actually not passed in the House in the last term. Mandatory country-of-origin labelling has long been debated. It is not a matter of food safety; incorrect labelling is covered by the fair trading legislation.

Sue Kedgley: Is the Minister aware that more than 60 countries in the world already have mandatory country-of-origin labelling of food because their Governments accept that consumers have a right to know where their food comes from for many reasons, including food safety? Why will the Government not make good on the promise the Prime Minister made earlier this year that he would consider introducing mandatory country-of-origin labelling of fresh food?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: We are always willing to listen to good ideas and to consider them. I have not personally counted each country that has mandatory country-of-origin labelling, but I am happy to accept her word there are 60 of them.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. For the Minister’s benefit and for any member who is interested—

Mr SPEAKER: If the member is seeking leave to table a document she should make that clear at the outset, because the member cannot use a point of order to dispute what the Minister has said. The member may certainly use it to table a document, but she should make that clear at the outset when she raises the point of order.

Sue Kedgley: I was seeking leave to table a list of more than 60 countries that have mandatory country-of-origin labelling of food, for the Minister’s benefit and any other—

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

7. Recession—LWR Industries Ltd

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

7. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for Economic Development: Has he received a request for, or offered, possible Government assistance to Lane Walker Rudkin; if so, when?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) : No.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Minister visited Lane Walker Rudkin in Christchurch since the election; if so, when?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister ring the receivers for Lane Walker Rudkin yesterday; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. Like the rest of New Zealand, I found out about the receivership on the 6 p.m. news.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the fact that, as the Minister has just informed the House, he found out about it on the 6 o’clock news, what action did he take between 6 o’clock last night and 2.30 this afternoon?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: A very long list of actions has been taken by the Minister for Economic Development in the time period referred to by the member. People’s jobs are at stake here; it is a serious issue. A pathetic attempt to make some trite politics out of it is not fair to those people. Our understanding is that commercial solutions are being pursued, and we watch and await the outcome of those commercial discussions.

8. Broadcasting—Contestable Funding

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

8. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What recent announcement has he made regarding contestable funding for broadcasting?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting) : Last week the Government announced the establishment of a $15 million contestable fund to support New Zealand public television broadcasting. The Platinum Television Fund, as it is known, takes the $15 million that was formerly ring-fenced for Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ) and opens it up for competition to the full range of national free-to-air broadcasters and independent producers. The money will be available from 1 July this year and will support a range of quality content that would not otherwise make it on to our television screens.

Katrina Shanks: What will the Platinum Television Fund deliver?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In the first year priority will be given to high-end drama and documentaries, specialist current affairs programmes, and special events programming. The aim is that at the end of each financial year the public will be able to see clearly how the $15 million has been spent and what it has produced. Under the previous Government it was not always clear what the $15 million in charter money actually went into. Under this Government the emphasis will be on funding high-quality public broadcasting content in a transparent manner, and that is what the Platinum Television Fund will deliver.

Katrina Shanks: How will the Platinum Television Fund help fulfil the Government’s visions for broadcasting?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Before the election National committed to funding the best possible public television content regardless of what channel it appears on. The Platinum Television Fund will allow all New Zealand free-to-air broadcasters and independent producers to compete for that funding. The National Government does not believe that one broadcaster has a monopoly on good ideas. We know that Kiwis want to access quality content and that they do not mind if it is on TVNZ, TV3, or Māori Television. By making the Platinum Television Fund fully contestable we will ensure that the best possible content makes it onto our screens. That is what the public wants.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe. Kia ora tātou to the Minister. How will the provision of contestable funding support channels to meet their charter requirements to ensure that the participation of Māori can be clearly identified and the presence of a significant Māori voice can be heard?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is important to note that TVNZ is the only television broadcaster with a charter. Although this Government has signalled its intention to repeal that charter, the statutory function that includes reflecting Māori perspectives will be included in the Television New Zealand Amendment Act. TVNZ has a specific Māori content strategy. I am advised that its commitment to Māori programming will not change. In addition, one of the key statutory functions of New Zealand On Air is to promote Māori language and Māori culture. New Zealand On Air also has a specific strategy for Māori programming. Finally, this Government is a supporter of Māori Television, which received approximately $32.5 million in direct funding last year. It also received over $19 million in contestable funding from Te MāngaiPāho.

9. Broadband Roll-out—Cost

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

9. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What is the Government’s response to a recently released Treasury report warning that it will cost between $5.3 billion and $10.4 billion to connect 75 percent of New Zealand homes with ultra-fast broadband, given this Government’s election promise to spend $1.5 billion to achieve this goal?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) : The report that the member refers to is a report that was written for Treasury, not by Treasury—which, Treasury assures me, is an important distinction. It was written by a consultant, Dr Murray Milner, and was published on the Ministry of Economic Development website 4 weeks ago. It signals a wide range of deployment costs, which vary considerably, depending upon the deployment method used, the level of take-up, the technology chosen, the level of consumer expenditure, and whether the expenditure is an active or passive level service. The figures quoted in the member’s question of between $5.3 billion and $10.4 billion are at the extreme end of the range; the report also quotes much lower figures.

Clare Curran: Can the Minister confirm that his Government’s $1.5 billion election promise to deliver fibre-optics to the home does include the cost of actually connecting to the home?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said to the member, there is a wide range of possibilities. It does not necessarily include the cost of connecting 100 percent of homes, but, with the level of co-investment from the private sector that the Government expects, and an appropriate level of use of existing fibre-optic infrastructure, we believe we will get most, if not all, of the way to our goal of providing ultra-fast broadband availability to 75 percent of New Zealand homes.

Michael Woodhouse: What has been the reaction from submitters to the Government’s ultra-fast broadband proposal?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Some 105 submissions have now been received. It shows a very positive engagement in the process.

Hon Darren Hughes: Hot under the collar!

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Thank you, Darren; sartorial assistance is always appreciated. The New Zealand Regional Fibre Group said that the “Government’s Broadband Investment proposal … will leap frog New Zealand to world class broadband.” InternetNZ said it “supports the broad approach outlined of an open access network providing dark fibre and some wholesale services.” Finally, Telecom has stated that the Government has shown a “bold vision” for New Zealand’s broadband future, which it supports and shares.

Clare Curran: Can the Minister confirm that New Zealanders may face a personal cost of between $2,000 and $3,600 per household to connect their homes to the ultra-fast broadband provider to their streets, and that this represents another broken promise by the National Government to all New Zealanders?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No.

10. National Administration Guidelines—Amendments

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

10. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Education: What risks to the health and educational achievement of young New Zealanders did education officials alert her to, regarding amending the National Administration Guidelines, in a briefing paper dated 30 January 2009?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : Officials pointed to risks and to studies showing links between nutrition and educational achievement. I was convinced that by removing national administration guideline 5(iii), a move that school principals have applauded because of the guideline’s burdensome and confusing nature, and retaining national administrative guideline 5(ii), which requires schools to promote healthy food, those risks could be mitigated.

Sue Kedgley: Why did the Minister not seek any advice whatsoever from health professionals or from the Ministry of Health after concerns about the health, as well as the educational achievements, of young New Zealanders, and particularly Māori and Pacific Island children, were clearly flagged to the Minister by her own officials?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I say to that member that having a ban on the types of foods at tuck shops, which can be easily thwarted by kids buying the same kinds of foods on their way to school or outside school grounds, does nothing to help them. I quote for the member’s benefit from an email—and I apologise as it is a bit long—that came to me and was supplied to the member, from someone from Ōtara, which has a high Māori and Pacific Island population: “I am writing with a sigh of relief to see the clause removed. The last 2 years I have had to compete with our local dairy that sells up to 600 Big Ben pies and fizzy drinks on a daily basis. He constantly has pallets of chips”—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Apart from the answer becoming very long, the question that was asked was very straightforward. The question asked whether the Minister had received or asked for advice from health professionals. The answer immediately ignored the question and went on to a whole set of irrelevant information. It seems to me that the question Sue Kedgley asked was capable of being given a fairly simple and straightforward answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The questioner referred to the advice that the Ministry of Health provided to me that specifically refers to some of the risks around Māori and Pacific Island students, which the member alluded to in her question. The answer I am giving is from someone who is actually in Ōtara—which, as I said, has a high Māori and Pacific Island population—and who is directly involved—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think we need any further explanation. I take the point the Hon Dr Michael Cullen has raised. The member, as I heard it, asked quite a specific question. It was not about official advice in general, but about advice from Ministry of Health officials. Now, they may or may not have given advice, but I invite the honourable member to repeat her question, so that the House can satisfy itself that it is being answered.

Sue Kedgley: Why did she not seek any advice whatsoever from health professionals or from the Ministry of Health after concerns about the health of young New Zealanders, particularly Māori and Pacific Island children, were clearly flagged to the Minister by her own officials?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I did have conversations with the Minister of Health, but at the end of the day this Government trusts boards of trustees and principals, who are, after all, the parents of the children at schools. We trust them to make sensible decisions about the provision of food and drink in their schools. We retained the national administration guideline that requires schools to promote healthy food and drink.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to trouble you again, Mr Speaker, but I asked whether she had received advice from the Ministry of Health. She talked about the Minister of Health; she did not answer my question.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister did actually say in her answer that she had had discussions with Ministry of Health officials.

Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you will find the Hansard will say she did speak to the Minister of Health. But she did not say anything about speaking to the Ministry of Health officials. She has not answered the question. I do seek your protection here, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I check with the Minister. Did the Minister say she spoke to the Minister of Health, or to Ministry of Health officials?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I said I spoke to the Minister of Health.

Mr SPEAKER: Could I ask the Minister to answer the question, which specifically asks whether she spoke to Ministry of Health officials. It is very easy to answer, I would have thought.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Colin King: What reports has she received on the evidence used by those who would like to see the return of the “food police”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I understand that some members in the House continue to rely upon a school lunch survey that they commissioned for themselves. This survey has responses from 50 schools. That is less that 1 percent of the number of schools in the country. I am also advised that for a survey of the New Zealand schools to be statistically credible, one would need to survey at least 400 schools.

Sue Kedgley: Why did she not seek any advice from the Ministry of Health before she scrapped the school food guidelines, given that the ministry had worked for more than 4 years on developing the school food guidelines and had spent $4.5 million on doing so; is it because she knew that it totally opposed her decision?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have explained to the member previously, this Government trusts boards of trustees, who are, after all, the parents of the children who are attending the schools, to make sensible and responsible decisions about the type of food that is served to their children at their schools.

Sue Kedgley: Does she agree with four public health experts who wrote in the New Zealand Medical Journal that her decision to allow the sale of junk food in schools on a routine basis is sending “a message to children that it is okay to eat junk food”, that her decision will contribute to a “generation of young people facing a lifetime burden of obesity, diabetes,” and other chronic conditions, and that it will have a hugely negative impact on the health system and the economy; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table the advice from the Ministry of Education on 30 January 2009, advising the Minister against removing the school food guidelines.

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.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table an article saying that a junk food diet—

Mr SPEAKER: Could I ask the member, when she says this is an article, whether it is a press statement.

Sue Kedgley: No, absolutely not. It is from the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

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

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

11. Water Quality Standards—Reports

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

11. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Local Government: Has he received the reports he called for from officials on the water quality standards, due on 9 April, and what do they say?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) : No.

Brendon Burns: When the Minister told this House last month it was ridiculous for local government representatives to be facing major upgrading costs for water supplies, was he then aware of communities whose supplies are so poor they have had, or have every reason to fear, serious outbreaks of water-borne illnesses such as giardia, cryptosporidium, and E. coli?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: The Government is very aware of the need to ensure good, safe drinking-water. The debate has been about the costs and the standards, and that is why the report has been called for.

Brendon Burns: What has the Minister of Tourism told the Minister about the impact on the tourism industry if a group of overseas visitors suffered illnesses caused by contaminated drinking-water supplies?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: The Minister of Tourism has not raised that with me.

Te Ururoa Flavell: What are the views of iwi, relevant to water quality standards, that have emerged from the ongoing dialogue between the Crown and Māori leaders in relation to water management?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I understand that the Ministry for the Environment and the Ministry of Health are engaged in a constructive dialogue with iwi on water management and water quality standards. The Government recognises that iwi regard water as a taonga, with life-giving qualities and a spiritual essence. I am afraid that if the member would like to know more about where those discussions are at, he will need to put a question down to my colleague the Hon Nick Smith.

Brendon Burns: I seek leave to table two papers from Otago University that show that New Zealand has some of the highest recorded rates of gut infections caused by cryptosporidium and giardia.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

12. Defence Policy—Review

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

12. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Defence: What steps has he taken to review defence policy?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) : Last Tuesday the Associate Minister of Defence and I launched the 2009 defence review. This review will result in a white paper early next year that will set out the Government’s defence policy. There has not been a defence review since 1997, and the world has changed a great deal since then.

Amy Adams: What reports has the Minister received on the various ways of running defence?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: There are, in fact, a variety of ways in which defence forces can operate. For example, I have read a report entitled “Outsourcing War”, which discusses military companies like Blackwater Worldwide, and suggests that we “recognize them as multinational entrepreneurs eager to solidify their legitimacy.” Interestingly enough, this report came from Mr David Shearer, a man with considerable experience in Iraq and, I understand, Mr Goff’s preferred candidate for Mt Albert’s by-election.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that the person he is seeking to undermine at this point has over the last 10 years constantly put his life at risk, has won gallantry awards for saving the lives of children in refugee camps, and, in fact, has done far more for humanity than John Key and the dirty-tricks brigade in the National Party who are seeking to undermine him?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I certainly have heard of Mr Shearer’s reputation. I have also heard that he has written, in fact, four articles and books: the first is entitled “Dial an Army”, from The World Today in 1997; the second is “Outsourcing War”, from Foreign Policy in 1998; the third is Private Armies and Military Intervention; and the fourth is “Privatising”—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can this answer from the Minister possibly be in line with the question asked by Mr Goff? Mr Goff did not ask what publications the author had put forward, and I think he is not responsible—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear any more about this, at all. If the member had listened to his leader’s question, he would have found that towards the end it was very politically loaded, and it got the kind of answer that could be expected.

Amy Adams: Has the Minister received reports on defence land sales?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Yes, I have. Mr Goff was very keen to sell Whenuapai Air Base, and had convinced the Labour Cabinet to sell that major defence asset. This Government, of course, rejected that plan because it simply did not make economic or operational sense. We are retaining Whenuapai Air Base as an active base, and we have a substantial programme to upgrade that base because of all the maintenance that was deferred under the previous Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that the advice of his defence officials is that retaining the base involves a very expensive duplication of facilities; and is it appropriate that he is spending more, unnecessarily, here when he has sacked 880 good public servants, who have lost their livelihood because of Government cuts?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: In fact, quite to the contrary, the advice that we received was that it would cost $500 million to shift from Whenuapai to Ōhākea, so in that case there were no savings to be made from that, and the previous Government’s plan was fundamentally flawed.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister explain why the Chief of Defence Force, General Matepārae, advised the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee only a few weeks ago that the closure of Whenuapai would result in savings, and that, in addition, the military has a need for further expenditure to try to reduce its still high vacancy rate, thereby creating jobs, which the retention of Whenuapai would preclude?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: It is quite clear that when one expends $60 million on upgrading Whenuapai in terms of new runways and so forth one will actually generate a good deal of construction jobs. The advice from the Defence Force is that having the two facilities is highly desirable, and that, in fact, closing one would cost more money.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can I put it to the Minister that he is getting close to misleading the House if he suggests—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a question?

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can I put it to the Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: All right; the member may continue.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can I put it to the Minister that he is getting close to misleading the House if he characterises the retention of Whenuapai as being of net economic benefit to the military, when the advice of the Chief of Defence Force is directly to the contrary?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: No, I certainly would not agree with that.

ENDS

© Scoop Media