THURSDAY, 30 APRIL 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Climate Change—Offsetting Deforestation

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

1. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Kua whiwhi whakamaherehere a ia ki te kōrero o Brian Fallow, arā, “i raro i te kaupapa kia topea ngā ngahere paina, me whakaritea anō tētahi ake tino kaupapa hei whai ake i te take e pā ana ki te āhuarangi i te mea, ka pai tonu ki te taiao, ki te ōhanga, ki te tōrangapū hoki mēna kāre, he aha ai?

[Has he received advice about the comments made by Brian Fallow that in the case of deforestation, “offsetting” is not only the principled thing to do to address climate change, but “it makes sense, environmentally, economically and politically”; if not, why not?]

Hon TIM GROSER (Associate Minister for Climate Change Issues (International Negotiations)) on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: No, but we do not need advice from officials to know what our own election policy is, which is that we have agreed to “[support] the implementation of a forestry offset scheme … subject to a full assessment of the costs involved.” This work is currently under way.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Ki te Minita, he aha tāna mahi hei whakatau i ngā whakaaro o ngā kaihautū Māori i mua i te komiti whāiti i tēnei wiki, āe, he whakaaro kotahi tō rātou ko te Minita kia pēnei nā; me aro ki ngā nawe e pā ana ki te āhuarangi, tuarua, kaua rā e tukuna kia wahatia e Ngāi Māori te nuinga o te nama?

* [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[What will the Minister do to assure Māori leaders appearing before the select committee this week that he agrees with them that climate change needs to be dealt with but the burden of doing so should not fall disproportionately on Māori?]

Hon TIM GROSER: The Government intends that any amendments to the emissions trading scheme ensure that all parties, including Māori, face only their fair share of any burden that needs to be faced.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does the Minister agree that if forest offsetting is to make sense environmentally, it may be necessary to plant more land than has been cleared, in order to compensate for trees growing more slowly on lower-quality land—in other words, to offset carbon for carbon, not hectare for hectare?

Hon TIM GROSER: Yes, that is certainly a valid argument. We are giving consideration to it.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Ki te Minita, e ai ki a Brian Fallow, ki te tuki ngā tiriti e rua pērā ki tō Waitangi me tō Kyoto, me whai mana ko tō Waitangi kē; he aha tō te Minita whakaaro?

* [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[What are the Minister views on the recommendation from Brian Fallow that in an area where two treaties collide—that is, the Treaty of Waitangi and the Kyoto Protocol—the former must take precedence?]

Hon TIM GROSER: The Government honours the Treaty of Waitangi, and ensures that it takes into account all such commitments when entering any negotiation of international agreements—trade or climate change.

Craig Foss: What is New Zealand doing internationally to ensure offsetting is incorporated in international climate change rules post-2012?

Hon TIM GROSER: This is a high priority for our Government in international negotiations of the post-2012 rules, and critical for land-based sectors. Land should be used according to its best use, and the rules should, in our view, provide for as much flexibility as possible. Under this Government and the previous Government, New Zealand has put forward a strong negotiating proposal, based on sound science, to allow offsets for plantation forests in any successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, on the grounds that the climate does not distinguish between a hectare of plantation forest replanted on the same hectare as opposed to a hectare planted somewhere else. If our negotiating partners cannot agree to such a simple, climate-change-neutral position, it does not bode well for negotiations over far more difficult issues.

2. Parliamentary Service Commission—Recommendations

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

2. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Did Cabinet decide against following the recommendations of the Parliamentary Service Commission reached at its meeting on Thursday, 9 April 2009; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes; because the Government decided to follow the recommendations of the independent 2007 appropriations review committee.

Hon Darren Hughes: Does he think it is appropriate to overrule the unanimous decision of the all-party Parliamentary Service Commission, chaired by an independent person, to achieve a result that predominantly benefits the National Party and the Māori Party by nearly $1 million a year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The recommendations from the Parliamentary Service Commission were going to give the National Party and Māori Party even more advantage than this decision does. That is why we turned them down.

Hon Darren Hughes: Can the Minister tell the House why National is so intent on feathering its own nest by increasing funding and pay in its offices, while at the same time sacking public servants?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a bit rich, coming from a member who was on a committee that put up a recommendation that invited us to feather our nest even more. So why is he now getting up to complain about National turning down that recommendation?

Hon Darren Hughes: Is he aware that some general seats that are bigger than the Māori electorates miss out on his deal; if so, did he consult the member for Clutha-Southland, who campaigned for there to be one standard of citizenship?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not aware of the detail of that, but I am aware that the 2007 independent review set up by the previous Labour Government recommended that electorates in excess of 20,000 square kilometres in area be entitled to the services of an extra staff member. Of course, that has upset the Labour Party because now that they have lost all but one of the Māori seats they do not benefit from it.

Hon Darren Hughes: Can the Minister confirm to the House that his Government’s motivation for this move is to provide the Māori Party with payback for its support for tax cuts for the rich, and for its agreement to oppose the entrenchment of Māori seats?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Let us just get this clear: the independent review under the Labour Government in 2007 recommended the extra staff member. The Parliamentary Service Commission, on the urging of Labour, recommended spending more money on more electorates, and Cabinet turned it down because we thought it went too far.

Hon Darren Hughes: Where in the appropriations review does it state that in addition to a third staff member being supplied, MPs should get an extra $40,000?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Parliamentary Service Commission, the Speaker, and Cabinet have followed the recommendations of the appropriations review. We cannot help it that Labour lost the Māori seats, so misses out.

Hon Darren Hughes: When the Minister spoke last week about the constraints he is facing in putting together this year’s Budget, did he mention that he was increasing funding by 55 percent for 10 MPs—eight of whom are from the Government, including the member for Clutha-Southland?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The process that has been followed has been quite straightforward and transparent. As part of the confidence and supply agreement between National and the Māori Party, the conclusions of the 2007 review were incorporated. The Parliamentary Service Commission then looked at the process and recommended that we spend more money on more National MPs. We said no.

Hon Darren Hughes: Can the Minister of Finance just tell us how he is controlling Government expenditure by increasing the funding by 55 percent for 10 MPs, eight of whom just happen to be from the Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is the same question. The reason eight of the MPs happen to be from the Government is that Labour lost the Māori vote so badly that, having held the Māori seats forever, it has now lost all but one of them. If Labour ever happens to win back any of those seats—which I think is unlikely—it may well get the benefit of this provision for very large electorates.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do this somewhat reluctantly, but I think there is some obligation on you. I know we cannot debate the facts in answers, but that member was in the House when all of the Māori seats were held by a party other than Labour—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. [Interruption] The member must not interject on the Speaker; he should know that.

3. Public Services—Commercial Risks

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

3. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What commercial risks does the Crown face, and how do these relate to public services?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : In recent years the Crown has built up almost $30 billion worth of investments in financial markets. Gains and losses on these investments are eventually borne by taxpayers, as we saw recently with the $300 million blowout in accident compensation expenditure. It is important that the Government monitor those investments closely and make sensible decisions about the risks it is taking with taxpayers’ money, because when things go wrong those losses could affect the Government’s ability to continue to deliver public services.

Amy Adams: How have returns on Crown assets this year tracked against expenditure?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For the 8 months ended February 2009 the losses on the Crown’s financial assets have totalled $9.848 billion, relative to the projections made in the pre-election update—that is, those assets have lost $9.8 billion in value in the time since September. The majority of this shortfall—some $5.5 billion—relates to losses in the New Zealand Superannuation Fund.

Amy Adams: What would be the consequences if those losses were to recur?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The scale of those losses of almost $10 billion in 8 months is staggering. A recurrence of those losses in the future is an option that the Crown cannot really tolerate, so the Government will have to make some sensible decisions that weigh up the balance of borrowing money to invest in still risky financial markets, against the long-term benefit of the Crown’s continuing to build up its financial assets.

4. Māori—Voice in Government Decision-making

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

4. Hon MITA RIRINUI (Labour) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What steps is he taking to ensure that Māori have a voice in the Government’s decision-making processes?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Acting Minister of Māori Affairs) : The Minister along with all other Ministers who share this responsibility have taken great strides in ensuring that Māori have a greater voice in the Government’s decision-making processes. Across many steps the Māori voice is heard by the Government and is included in, and informs, decision making. The Minister and I believe that Māori need to be participants in decision making—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is probably a fairly obvious point of order. This is an answer on behalf of the Minister. A Minister acting for a Minister cannot say “the Minister and I believe”. She is speaking his words.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member makes a valid point. It is a shame to interrupt, but it is correct. I ask the Minister to continue her answer on behalf of the Minister.

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Across many steps, the Māori voice is heard by the Government and is included in, and informs, decision making. The Minister believes that Māori need to be participants in decision making, not recipients of it. As the member who asked the question knows, although Māori had no voice in the previous Government, that clearly is not the case with this Government.

Hon Mita Ririnui: If the Minister was serious, as he claims, about ensuring that Māori have a strong voice in the Government’s decision-making processes, why did he and other members of the Māori Party sign a confidence and supply agreement with National promising not to pursue the entrenchment of the Māori seats here in Parliament?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: As part of the agreement between the Māori Party and National, there are certain understandings that do not include the issue of the entrenchment. That agreement is available in public.

Hon Mita Ririnui: How does the Minister, on the one hand, as Minister of Māori Affairs, insist on including Māori seats on the Auckland City super council; and, on the other hand, as the co-leader of the Māori Party, allow his right to pursue the entrenchment of the Māori seats in Parliament, to be traded away?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Quite easily. The Minister—[Interruption] Quite easily.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe e te Mana Whakawā, tēnā tātou e te Whare. What outcomes have been achieved by listening to the Māori voice?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The Minister has achieved impressive results in a short space of time. I can list them: economic workshop, Job Summit—he being in charge of streams—drivers of crime, Treaty summits, and Auckland governance. I could go on, but I will not.

Kelvin Davis: Will the Minister join Labour members on the hīkoi to support Māori representation in Auckland later this month, and will he encourage the Associate Minister of Māori Affairs and National Māori members to do the same; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: That is a decision I am sure the Minister will take in good time.

Hon Mita Ririnui: If the Minister of Māori Affairs is serious about supporting Māori representation, will he pledge to support Labour in its pursuit to entrench the Māori seats, and will he now put it on the public record that he and his Māori Party colleagues will vote in support of my member’s bill to entrench the Māori seats; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Since Labour never did it in the 9 years that it was in Government, the Minister will take time to see what that party’s proposal is all about.

5. Correspondence School—Board of Trustees

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

5. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Education: What changes has she made to the composition of the board of trustees of the Correspondence School?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : I have directed that three additional appointments be made to the board of trustees of the Correspondence School. Two of these appointments will be qualified people from within the school’s community, including parents and caregivers, and the third will be filled by a member of the school’s teaching or general staff.

Colin King: Why has the Minister made these changes to the composition of the board?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government believes that staff and school community representatives have valuable insights that can be used to drive good governance at the school. That is why we campaigned on a promise to include a staff representative and two school community representatives. This is the Government delivering on its promise to the Correspondence School community.

Hon Chris Carter: What instruction did the Minister initially give the Correspondence School about the process it should follow for appointing a staff representative to its board?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My recollection is that I asked it to conduct an election to appoint a staff member to the board.

Hon Chris Carter: Did the Minister in fact instruct the Correspondence School to appoint a staff representative to the board of trustees rather than follow the process of electing a staff representative, as required by the Education Act; if so, did she do so because she was simply unaware of the correct requirement?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My recollection is that I directed the board to appoint a staff representative by way of an election, as per the Education Act.

6. Public Service—Cap

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

6. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of State Services: Is it Government policy to cap, but not cut, the core Public Service?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : No. It is Government policy to cap core Government administration.

Grant Robertson: How does the Minister reconcile that answer with the statement John Key made to the Public Service Association before the election that public services would be capped, but not cut, by National; and will he be taking the Prime Minister aside to give him a bollocking for that statement?

Hon TONY RYALL: Quite easily; no.

Grant Robertson: Why is it acceptable for Ministers to hire 36 people being paid more than $100,000 to work in their offices, and to force departments to pay the cost of highly paid consultants who work directly for Ministers, when the rest of the Public Service is being cut; or is it a case of one law for Ministers and one law for everybody else?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is certainly my understanding that the National Government, by way of example, is employing fewer press secretaries than the previous Labour Government did.

Jacqui Dean: Why is the Government capping the size of core Government administration?

Hon TONY RYALL: Our priority is to grow frontline services that directly benefit New Zealanders. This will, over time, restore a better balance between the number of people working in core Government administration and the numbers working on the frontline to support New Zealanders.

Grant Robertson: Why did the Minister say on 26 March that a cap does not represent a cut to the Public Service, when National has overseen nearly a thousand proposed job cuts in the Public Service, with more to come; or is there no low that the Minister will go to when it comes to the number of public servants?

Hon TONY RYALL: In the current economic environment it is entirely reasonable to expect that State services resources will move to the frontline. Chief executives are making these decisions because they are realigning their organisations to the new Government’s priorities around improved frontline services, and because, like most organisations in New Zealand, they are working towards living within their means.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a speech given by John Key to the Public Service Association congress last year, on 24 September, in which he promises to cap but not cut public services.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a speech. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none.

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

7. Civil Aviation Authority—Accommodation Costs

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

7. Hon TAU HENARE (National) on behalf of DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What reports, if any, has he received on the Civil Aviation Authority’s accommodation costs?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I have received advice that the Civil Aviation Authority has decided to move from its present accommodation in Pētone to brand new premises in Wellington’s central business district, just down the road from Parliament, at the end of next year. The cost of the relocation will be about $8.5 million and will result in rentals much, much greater than the current accommodation. This move was decided before the election and supported by the previous Minister of Transport in the previous Labour Government.

Hon Tau Henare: What action did the Minister take after learning that the Civil Aviation Authority’s cost were going to increase so much?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I told the Civil Aviation Authority that I felt that spending so much money on relocation and increased rentals was not acceptable. I have tested the options—to make changes to these arrangements, or to not go through with this move—over a period of time with the chair of the Civil Aviation Authority. Unfortunately, commitments have been made, with the support of the previous Government, that are unable to be changed. Roughly 90 percent of the Civil Aviation Authority’s revenue comes from industry fees and charges. I am not impressed that these costs are being incurred to this level and at this time when all New Zealanders are having to tighten their belts in the current global economic recession.

8. Ministerial Services—Staffing

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

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services: Does he stand by the statement made by his chief press officer that “We were looking for quality, not quantity.” when it came to employing staff in the Beehive; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services: Yes.

Chris Hipkins: How does the Minister justify the fact that the number of Beehive staff earning over $100,000 has more than doubled since National took office, especially given that his Government is sacking other public servants and refusing to give those who remain a pay rise; or is this just another example of one rule for National and another rule for everybody else?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The current Government is employing 20 fewer staff in the Beehive than the previous Government was, and all of those staff are doing a great job.

Chris Hipkins: How does the Minister justify the employment of private purchase advisers in ministerial officers who are handpicked by the Minister of Finance to effectively act as spies for him in Ministers’ offices, given Ministers’ earlier claims that the Government was reducing expenditure on the number of core Government administrative staff; or will he admit that the Government is simply using smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that it is feathering its own nest?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The use of purchase advisers has been very successful for two reasons. The first is that when the National Government came in and discovered that such a mess had been left behind by Labour we needed the assistance of people who could take an objective view. The other reason is that the previous Government had run a brutal command-and-control regime out of the ninth floor, and therefore no one in the Public Service could make a decision.

Chris Hipkins: Can the Minister assure the House that the engagement of purchase advisers in ministerial offices at the direction of the Minister of Finance will comply with all Public Service requirements for the contracting of staff, and that these contractors will be covered by the Public Service Code of Conduct; if not, how does he reconcile that fact with the National Party’s manifesto promises of “Restoring Political Neutrality” and to “Ensure that public service departments are not used for party political gain.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Finance to Ministers instructing them on the engagement of purchase advisers.

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

9. Environment Court—Increase in Filing Fee

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

9. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for the Environment: Does he agree with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society regarding the increase in the Environment Court filing fee from $55 to $500 that the fee increase of over 900 percent will act as a barrier to representation in the court by parties with a legitimate case, and will reduce access to justice; if not, why not?

Hon SIMON POWER (Deputy Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for the Environment: Although the Minister supports the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society in its work, he does not agree that the increase in the filing fee will act as a significant barrier to representation in court. The fee was last increased to $55, in 1988, from the previous rate of $50, which was set in 1978. That puts it way out of line with the current District Court filing fee of $140 plus a daily hearing fee of $750. The proposed fee for the Environment Court will still be lower than fees for the District and High Courts, because the Environment Court will not be charging daily hearing fees.

Dr Russel Norman: If the Minister does not agree with the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, does he agree with the statement made in 2004 by the National Party’s then environment spokesperson, Dr Nick Smith, that a proposed increase of the same fee to just $245 “cannot be justified”; if so, how can he justify doubling the fee now?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes, the Minister agrees with the statements made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith when he was the Opposition spokesperson on the environment, because the previous Government planned to increase the Environment Court fees to $245 for filing plus a hearing fee of $445 per day, totalling a minimum daily fee of $690.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware that 90 percent of cases that are filed with the Environment Court do not actually go to a hearing but are resolved at mediation, and that, hence, increasing the fee from $55 to $500 to simply to get through the door of the Environment Court will knock out most small environment groups, which will not be able to come up with $500 to access even the mediation provided by the Environment Court?

Hon SIMON POWER: The Minister is aware of the assertion to that effect made in a submission by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, but I do not agree with the conclusion.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree with the same Dr Nick Smith when he also said: “Middle-income Kiwi battlers will be hardest hit by these high charges, which will become a barrier to access to justice.”; if so, why has he already doubled this high charge—which Dr Smith railed against 5 years ago—simply to get through the door of the Environment Court?

Hon SIMON POWER: I believe I explained to the House the discrepancy between those two figures in an answer to an earlier question. The member might be interested to know that the advice I have to hand is that the Ministry for the Environment also operates the Environmental Legal Assistance Fund for not-for-profit groups to advocate for the public interest in resource management cases at the Environment Court and other courts. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society itself has had five applications to this fund approved since January 2008, totalling, I am advised, $147,000.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware of the Cabinet paper from the Ministry for the Environment that shows that 90 percent of cases are resolved at mediation—the figure is not just in someone’s submission—and does he not agree with the statement from the same Dr Nick Smith that the solution to frivolous appeals does not lie in making it too expensive for the average family to actually get through the door of the Environment Court so that they can access mediation?

Hon SIMON POWER: The Minister can advise that his colleague the Minister of Justice has no information to hand on that particular question, but if the member puts a written question down to the Minister, I am sure that he will answer it.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the accusation made by Dr Smith in 2004 that “The Government giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other.”, and is it the case that National complaineth loudly with one mouth when in Opposition, and maketh worse decisions when in Government?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes, the Minister does agree with the statement made by the then Opposition spokesperson on the environment, the Hon Dr Nick Smith, because he saideth it in a most helpfulest way in that context.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware that the Local Government and Environment Committee has referred the question of the fee increase to the Regulations Review Committee; and, in light of that referral, would he be willing to undertake to the House to put the increase on hold until such time as the Regulations Review Committee had had a chance to scrutinise it?

Hon SIMON POWER: The Minister is aware that that referral has occurred, and he is not going to prejudge the outcome of that committee’s work.

10. Employment—Local Initiatives

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

10. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to create employment opportunities at a local level and particularly for young people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : The Government and the Mayors Task Force for Jobs signed a memorandum of understanding to tackle common issues around unemployment. This extends the relationship from the way it was previously; it makes it meaningful. It is a memorandum about how we will support our young people in unemployment and it extends into other areas. It is another initiative that comes out of the Prime Minister’s Job Summit.

Jo Goodhew: What is the Government doing to help medium-sized businesses who are struggling to keep staff?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Last week we announced an extension to the Job Support Scheme for businesses with 50 to 100 staff—another Job Summit success story. This extends the scheme, allowing companies to operate a 9-day working fortnight in an effort to save jobs. Now an additional 2,000 firms and 140,000 staff are eligible.

Jo Goodhew: Has the Minister had any updates on unemployment figures?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Next week the household labour force survey announcement will give an official rate of unemployment. However, latest unemployment benefit numbers paint a gloomy picture. Numbers on the unemployment benefit were up by 95 percent in March over the same month last year, and we expect that the figures will get worse. But I can say that Work and Income is doing an outstanding job at triaging people through, and I think that number would have been a lot higher if it were not for the work the department is doing.

Hon Trevor Mallard: How can the Minister reconcile the approach to job creation with the Government’s decision to dismiss nearly 1,000 public servants?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There is no dismissing of public servants. My own department has been doing a value-for-money process that was started by Labour 2 years ago. In briefing the incoming Minister, it looked at some changes it could make. I think I would like to thank the previous Government for starting that process that we can now follow through.

Dr Rajen Prasad: What importance does the Minister place on the 2008 New Zealand Skills Strategy, and what is she going to do to implement its recommendations in order to enhance the real employment opportunities for young people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: With the Skills Strategy, this Government is looking at some of those initiatives that fit in the current situation. We are in a very different time from what we were in just 1 year ago. This Government is fully committed to upskilling our workforce, and upskilling those who find themselves unemployed. We are dealing with the now and with the future, and we will be doing that very conscientiously.

11. Government Spending—Policy

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

11. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister of Finance: Will he be reversing the cycle of ever-higher Government spending, an ever-rising tax burden, and mounting inflationary pressures, which occurred in the 9 years while the Hon Dr Michael Cullen was finance Minister, and which put so much pressure on household finances in New Zealand; if so, when?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The member is right to point out problems that existed in the New Zealand economy well before the global recession took hold. Those pressures are fairly embedded in the economy because of almost a decade of misdirected policy from the previous Government. Yes, we will set out to reverse that cycle, starting with the Budget to be delivered on 28 May.

John Boscawen: Will the Minister attempt to fix the Working for Families scheme, which properly reduces the burden on families, but which—like much else Labour was responsible for—is incompetently designed, leading to effective marginal tax rates for households of 53 to 59 percent, and, therefore—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do I need to make it clear what the point of order is, or will you act?

Mr SPEAKER: Yes, I would appreciate it, if the member could.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings make it clear that questions should be succinct and not contain unnecessary controversial matter; this does.

Hon Rodney Hide: The simple requirement is that oral questions be factual. I think that everyone accepts it as a factual statement that Working for Families, which was designed by Labour, was incompetent—

Mr SPEAKER: That goes beyond the point of order. The point of order made by the Hon Trevor Mallard is a perfectly valid point of order. However, if I were to enforce that in every supplementary question, I would be intervening on well over half of them. I invite the honourable member to continue his question, but he should be a little careful about making assertions about other parties’ policies.

John Boscawen: I will try to be succinct, and I will summarise it by saying this. Is the Minister of Finance prepared to rework the Working for Families scheme so the high effective marginal tax rates of 53 percent to 59 percent, which currently destroy any incentive to get ahead financially, are reduced?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has made it clear in recent months that we intend to leave entitlements such as Working for Families in place, because we believe that people need a sense of security in the middle of a tough recession.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can he confirm that from 1999 to 2008 gross Government debt was reduced from 36 percent of GDP to almost 17 percent of GDP, that for the first time in New Zealand’s history the Government accounts reached a net positive asset position, and that the unemployment rate dropped to 3.4 percent, the lowest rate in 21 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can confirm that the previous Government squandered the opportunity of a generation. New Zealand will—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a specific question as to whether he can confirm factual statistics—that those statistics are correct. I did not ask him about anything else. I asked whether he can confirm, for instance, that debt went down and unemployment went down. Those are very specific points, but he started waffling on about something else.

Hon Rodney Hide: The Hon Clayton Cosgrove has been here long enough, I believe—

Hon Member: Too long.

Hon Rodney Hide: —perhaps too long—to know that he cannot expect a yes or a no as an answer. He can put a question, and the Minister is entitled to answer it.

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

Mr SPEAKER: No, I have heard quite enough on this. When the member asks a question as to whether the Minister can confirm something, he invites the Minister to confirm a range of things that he may not have expected. If the member wanted information on those specific issues, he should have asked the Minister exactly what was the outcome on those specific issues. I would have made sure he got a specific answer. But when he seeks an opinion, it is standard practice that the Speaker cannot be responsible for the nature of that opinion.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can confirm that the previous Government squandered the best 10 years that the New Zealand economy will see in a generation.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he agree with Moody’s, one of the credit rating agencies that assess New Zealand’s sovereign credit rating, that looking at gross debt is “too simplistic” and that a much more sound approach “requires an examination of the whole of the government’s balance sheet and therefore of the government’s net worth.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can confirm that. If the member reads the Budget carefully he will see that the Government is moving in the direction of a much more sophisticated assessment of the Crown’s liabilities.

John Boscawen: Does the Minister realise that the effective tax rates that flow from the Working for Families scheme mean that the after-tax real return is now zero, and worse still, negative, and that at a time when households are desperately trying to rebuild their financial position, should this not be addressed as a matter of urgency?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm those details. With any kind of system like Working for Families there is inevitably the result that people face high marginal tax rates. Unfortunately, the only way to fix that is to take some money from them, and the Government is not planning to do that in the bottom of a recession.

12. Young Offenders—Boot Camps

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

12. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement aimed at those who presented to the Social Services Committee yesterday that “Critics of so-called ‘boot camps’ have missed the point” and that they have “misled the public”; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I certainly do stand by my statements. That new member may not realise this, but her Government spent the past decade missing the point for these young people and misleading the public about trying to stop youth offending.

Jacinda Ardern: How does she justify her claim that groups like Barnardos, Unicef, and the Families Commission misled the public when their submissions on her proposed military-style training programmes were based on evidence, unlike the Minister’s policy, which is based on a political agenda?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually I did not say that those groups had misled the public. I said that actually the Opposition had and the media had, and that it was time the public heard the true story. I am not prepared to walk away from young people who need assistance to get back on track. Quite frankly, if we keep on doing what we are doing, their numbers will just increase. This Government will not stand by and let that happen.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have just heard two answers from the Minister. In her first answer she said that she stood by her comments, and in the second reply she gave she said that, oh no, she was not talking about people in the original primary answer. She said she was talking about a third group: the media. How can those two answers be consistent—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot use a point of order to question the quality of a Minister’s answer. Further supplementary questions are available to the member who asked the questions in order for her to pursue any inconsistencies she may see in the answers.

Jacinda Ardern: How does she reconcile her statements with those made by the Prime Minister at the launch of Fresh Start that he would use “the most advanced expertise in youth offending and rehabilitation that New Zealand has to offer”, when experts such as Dr Ian Lambie, Professor John Werry, Professor David Fergusson, Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft, Unicef, Barnardos, the Families Commission, and the New Zealand Council of Christian Social Services have all spoken against her proposals and had their views dismissed?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, those groups have stood up for the mentoring programmes that this Government is introducing. Actually, those people have stood up and said that they support the parenting orders that we are putting forward, which will make a difference in the families of those young offenders. Actually, those people have stood up and said that they support the drug and alcohol rehabilitation that will be attached to these programmes, which will turn these young offenders around. Yes, it is hard, but we will stand by turning around the lives of these young people.

Jacinda Ardern: Does the Minister stand by her claim that it was the media and not the submitters to the select committee yesterday that were misleading the public, when she stated in her press release yesterday: “The criticisms, aired by several groups at the Social Services select committee today, show fundamental misunderstandings of the Government’s … programme”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It sounds as though they misunderstood, not that they misled, which is the point that I was making.

Jacinda Ardern: How does she reconcile her criticism of those who dared to express their opinions on her bill, which is apparently beyond reproach, with her own criticism of Government policy on Greater Auckland governance?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would like to make it clear that people are entitled to an opinion. It will not affect their funding, which is something that the previous Government held over organisations on a daily basis. They had to agree with the Government or their funding was gone.

Simon Bridges: What trends has the Minister seen on violent youth offending over the last 10 years?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the years 1999-2000 young people aged 14 to 16 years committed 3,301 violent offences. In 2007-08 a staggering 5,029 violent offences were committed by this same age group. Under the Labour Government violence by 14 to 16-year-olds increased by a staggering 52 percent. We want these young people to graduate to a fulfilling life, not to a life spent in jail.

ENDS

© Scoop Media