TUESDAY, 5 MAY 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Auckland—Local Government Reform Consultation

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

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he accept the view of nearly two-thirds of Aucklanders expressed in Reid Research polling that there has been insufficient consultation on his proposed changes for Auckland governance; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : No; because the consultation with Auckland is ongoing, as it has been since the royal commission was put in place by the previous Government. The commission received 3,500 submissions, and yesterday the Government announced that there would be significant consultation exercised in the form of a select committee process taking place. I am rather surprised that Mr Goff wants to talk about polling from Reid Research Services, given that it was the same company—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Time and again, you have seen the Prime Minister get up to give an irrelevant answer at the end of his replies—they are actually irrelevant all the way through. I ask you to bring him to order; otherwise the House will go into disorder.

Hon JOHN KEY: The Leader of the Opposition may not have liked the answer, but he asked a specific question about polling, and I was simply referring to the fact that he came third, behind Helen Clark, in a poll conducted by Reid Research Services. That is not my problem.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised an issue that obviously concerns him. There is a dilemma—as the honourable Prime Minister has pointed out, the question asked about polling, and he did include a reference to polling in his answer. It is one of the risks, when members ask opinion-type questions, that the answers they get will invariably have a political tone to them. I ask the Prime Minister not to overdo it.

Hon Phil Goff: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on it.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, you know that the Prime Minister’s answers are disingenuous in this regard. If you look at the question, you will see that it is very straightforward: “Does he accept the view?”. It is almost a yes or no answer. You know that the Prime Minister was going to go on to make what some people have termed a smart answer at the end of it. That will cause disorder. You have made continual rulings on this issue. I am asking you to bring the Prime Minister to order.

Mr SPEAKER: I have ruled on the matter, and I have asked the Prime Minister not to make an excessive practice of it. But the member knows that there is nothing precise about questions that seek opinions. There are some very precise questions on today’s Order Paper, but where opinions are sought the answers will sometimes tend not to be what members perhaps want. I invite the member to ask a further supplementary question.

Hon JOHN KEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I remind the member that I gave him a yes or no answer. The answer was no, and from that point on there was an enormous noise coming from Opposition members. If they want to do that, they will continue to get dealt to because that is the way they are treating us.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] The Leader of the Opposition will not interject when I am on my feet—and of course he was not the only one; he was just the loudest. The Prime Minister has made an absolutely valid point that where there are significant objections during an answer, invariably they will be responded to. We know that is the way this House works. If members want to get precise answers, they need to ask precise questions and be silent while they listen to the answers; otherwise there will be politics injected. That is not all bad, because, after all, this is a place of political debate.

Hon Phil Goff: Do we take it from the Prime Minister’s answer that he is arrogantly disregarding the views of Aucklanders—expressed in a ratio of 2:1—that this Government has not consulted, despite its promise in its manifesto that it would do so; and is the public wrong and Mr Key right, yet again?

Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is he continuing to insist on putting forward a bill that would have 8 out of 20 councillors of the proposed Auckland Council elected at large, when almost every Aucklander and every group in Auckland that have been questioned on this have said that that is precisely the wrong way to go, that it is undemocratic, and that it will produce unfair and unbalanced representation?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think it is a gross exaggeration for the Leader of the Opposition to say that every Aucklander is opposed to the currently proposed structure. Secondly, there will be a select committee process and Aucklanders are free to go through that committee process, which follows on from the 3,500 submissions received by the royal commission. I know that the Leader of the Opposition will find it difficult, but when the first bill comes into the House he will have to decide whether he is for or against the super-city, because he does not yet know, and certainly Mr Carter does not know—that is for sure.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Aucklanders who make submissions in the select committee process that the Prime Minister refers to, be treated with the same contempt that submitters in Auckland have been treated with over the last 2 days when making submissions on the Resource Management Act, whereby the chair of the committee gave them a third of the time they were promised to make submissions, after they had spent hours preparing them, and whereby submitters and community leaders have regarded the National Government process of hearing submissions as absolutely hopeless?

Hon JOHN KEY: Submitters will be treated fairly, but those comments are a little rich, coming from a member of the previous Government who seems to have forgotten the way it treated people when the Electoral Finance Act was going through a similar process.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Prime Minister insistent on denying Aucklanders their right under the Local Government Act to be polled on this major restructuring, which the Minister of Local Government says will last for 50 to 100 years; why is he afraid to let Aucklanders have their say?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are a number of reasons. Firstly, a simple referendum, as the Minister of Local Government pointed out, would be a yes or a no. The issue is highly complex, and I do not think a yes or no answer would do it justice. Secondly, it will not be lost on members that the reason there was a royal commission that received 3,500 submissions and heard 550 oral submissions was that the then Labour Government knew how dysfunctional Auckland was, and why it needed to change. That is one of the things that New Zealanders liked about the former Prime Minister—at least she knew her mind.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister say, just last week in Westport, that the Government would only amalgamate councils if people wanted to, saying: “The Government would not impose such a change.”; and why is he doing, arrogantly, exactly the opposite of that in Auckland, when people in his own electorate, by a 72 percent majority, say they do not want what the Prime Minister is imposing on them?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are a number of reasons. Firstly, we campaigned on it—

Hon Members: No!

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, we did. Secondly—

Hon Phil Goff: You did not campaign on it.

Hon JOHN KEY: The Leader of the Opposition should get his research unit to look at the speech I gave to Local Government New Zealand back in 2007. Secondly, it is my view that there is widespread support for a super-city at the top tier. There is some debate about what the second tier might look like. That is what the select committee process is all about.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister told Mr Hide yet that Mr Hide’s proposal that he would pay for some of the restructuring by privatising assets is simply not acceptable; if not, why not?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have had no discussions with Mr Hide about those issues.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question invited, in the first instance, a yes or no answer. But if there was a no answer, it was “if not, why not?”. It is commonly accepted that a Minister will answer a question of that nature.

Mr SPEAKER: It was a supplementary question that was asked, and the Prime Minister, as I heard, gave a pretty clear answer to the supplementary question. He does not have to answer a second part of a supplementary question. [Interruption] The member should not comment on my ruling.

2. Motorways—Policy

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

2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Is it Government policy to build new motorways through New Zealand’s poorest communities?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : No.

Dr Russel Norman: Why then is the National Government currently considering building the Waterview Connection through one of Auckland’s poorest communities—a community that is little able to protect itself from the collective might of the business and road transport lobby, whose interest this Government, like the last one, seems intent on serving?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government has a focus on lifting productivity and economic growth for all New Zealanders, and that involves investing in infrastructure that will help achieve that productivity and growth across the country. There are definitely some difficulties with possible options for the Waterview Connection. We understand those problems, and we will seek for the Transport Agency to mitigate those as much as is reasonably possible.

Dr Russel Norman: Which option does the Minister prefer: the tunnel that will demolish some houses, halve the playground at Waterview School, and put lots of pollution into the air; the above ground cut-and-cover that will demolish 400 houses and destroy a community; or increased investment in public transport that will actually reduce congestion?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is well aware that the Government is making very significant investments in public transport in Auckland, and is supporting about $1.6 billion of investment in the rail system in Auckland. But I point out to the member that a certain amount of reality has to apply. In Auckland around 1 percent of commuters currently use the train, so the best will in the world—even investing the $1.6 billion that the Government has committed—will not make a big dent on the transport requirements of and the transport options for the approximately 86 percent of Aucklanders who travel to and from work by motor vehicle each day.

David Bennett: What is the economic benefit of completing Auckland’s western ring route?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are big benefits economically of completing the final piece of Auckland’s western ring route, which is why we have designated the whole ring route as a road of national significance. The benefits include reduced congestion and improved travel times for thousands of road users, leading to improved productivity and improved economic growth. For example, morning peak vehicle trips between west Auckland and South Auckland will be reduced by about 20 percent. The heavy traffic that is already on local roads around the Waterview area would also be reduced, to the benefit of the local community.

Hon Darren Hughes: If it is not Government policy to build motorways through poor communities in Auckland, why has the Minister cut back on future increases to funding for public transport that was proposed by Labour—public transport projects that would have helped rich and poor communities alike?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The public transport investment has not been changed at all from what was proposed by the previous Government. Although the actual public transport services subsidy is not growing as quickly as proposed under the previous Government, it is, nevertheless, growing very quickly indeed.

Dr Russel Norman: Why is the Minister persisting with the Waterview Connection, a project with a benefit-cost ratio of only 1:1.15, when his own ministry has recommended a suite of road safety and public transport projects in the Auckland region with benefit-cost ratios 3 to 4 times greater than that of the Waterview Connection, and with a much lower price tag?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I share the member’s concern about the cost-benefit ratio of the twin two-lane tunnels proposed by the previous Government. The cost estimates for that project were extraordinarily high, and that is why I have asked officials to consider ways to save costs. We are still working through the final decision on that.

John Boscawen: How can the Government even contemplate spending an additional $2 billion over and above the alternative ground level route when the country is in the grips of recession and we need desperately to reverse the decline in our living standards?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the questions of both honourable members show the challenges that face the Government in making a decision on this project. It is, of course, important that we complete this project economically and cost-effectively, but it is also important that, as much as possible, we maximise the mitigation to the local community—that is the balance that both the Transport Agency and the Government will have to achieve.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister, therefore, saying that his Government is bound by the previous Labour Government’s ideological commitment to build either of the Waterview Connection options despite the meagre benefit over cost, despite Treasury’s advice, despite the Transport Agency’s advice, and despite the stated transport priorities of the Auckland region itself? Why is he persisting with this project?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have to say that I find that question interesting as it comes from somebody who so strongly supported the survival of the previous Government. I think the important point to make is that there are real benefits from completing the western ring route in Auckland, but those projects must be done as cost-effectively as possible while, as I say, balancing the environmental and community concerns.

Hon Darren Hughes: What is the minimum number of homes that the Minister will accept have to be knocked down if he decides to abandon Labour’s twin-tunnel solution for the Waterview Connection?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is currently reviewing the options, and the final decisions will be made via the Transport Agency. I point out to the member that there are no easy solutions in this regard. The tunnel option favoured by the previous Government affected some 152 properties in the area. Properties will always be affected by the completion of this route. It is not an easy decision.

John Boscawen: How can it be a priority of this Government to build a $3 billion tunnel for the Waterview Connection when there are long waiting lists for cataract, coronary, and hip replacement operations? Indeed, how could this decision take more than just a few seconds to make?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has not yet indicated its support for a twin two-lane tunnel option. The previous Labour Government raised expectations regarding the very expensive tunnel option, which I must point out was unfunded and unrealistic. That project was expected to cost $2.77 billion. It is unfortunate that the previous Government saw fit to raise the expectations of the local community without providing any funding for the project.

3. Government Expenditure—Recent Measures

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

3. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government put in place to obtain better value for public expenditure in preparation for the Budget 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The Government has taken a number of measures to obtain better value for public expenditure. First, we have made clear that the priority is fulfilling the promises of the incoming Government. Secondly, we have made it clear to departments that we will fund only bids for emergency pressures, not just any new programme. Thirdly, we have charged Ministers and chief executives with reprioritising the commitments of the previous Government, and we have employed purchase advisers to assist with the task.

Craig Foss: How cost-effective has the use of purchase advisers been?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The use of purchase advisers has been very cost-effective. Almost all of them worked—[Interruption]—this is the bit those members do not want people to hear—in senior roles for the previous Government. They have been able to assist the Government in scrutinising $60 billion of public spending. The total cap on the cost of purchase advisers is around $400,000.

Chris Hipkins: Why will the Minister not simply admit that the Government instructed departments to appoint his hand-picked political hacks because they were trying to hide the fact that the number of Beehive staff has massively increased under this National Government, at a time when its members are asking everybody else to stomach cuts?

Mr SPEAKER: Did the Minister hear the question?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I did.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I doubt very much the Minister of Finance could have heard that question, because I am sitting next to the member who asked it and I could not hear him. I ask you to allow him put it again. There was a wall of noise—[Interruption] I am on a point of order. When Labour members take points of order, will they be heard in silence?

Mr SPEAKER: Absolutely. There will be silence.

Hon Darren Hughes: I could not hear the member, and my colleagues could not hear, because of the wall of noise. I think it is only fair that he gets to restate his question.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma, of course, is that the question was very politically loaded. I invite the member to repeat his question, but if it is exactly the same, I imagine there will be a similar reaction.

Chris Hipkins: Why will the Minister not simply admit that the Government instructed departments to appoint his hand-picked political hacks because it was trying to hide the fact that spending on Beehive staff has massively increased under this National Government, at a time when its members are asking everybody else to stomach cuts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member, along with a number of other new Labour members, would know what a hand-picked political hack was! I could not find any words that better described that member’s role in the previous Government, and that is why public expenditure got out of control.

Craig Foss: What would the result have been had better purchase advice been made available in previous Budget rounds?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In previous Budget rounds the Labour Government depended on hand-picked political hacks instead of well-informed and experienced people with years of public service behind them. The effect of that was that Crown expenditure grew by $20 billion, or 50 percent, in the last 5 years, and there are not many new public services to show for it.

Craig Foss: What previous arrangements to provide purchase advice is he aware of?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unfortunately, the previous Government decided to rely on hand-picked political hacks, but, actually, purchase advice has been available to every Government. I understand that the previous Government either used hand-picked political hacks or installed Treasury officers in this role, spread throughout the Beehive. This Government does not do what it is told by Treasury; that Government did.

4. Non-governmental Organisations—Minister’s Statements

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

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement “NGOs play a vital role in supporting the most vulnerable members of our society”; if so, why?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Yes; in these difficult economic times, a partnership between Government and the non-governmental organisation sector is more important that ever.

Hon Annette King: Why have non-governmental organisations that are part of the Pathways to Partnership programme been told that they will not receive the $29 million of additional funding expected in the 2009-10 financial year, at a time when the non-governmental organisations are under considerable pressure to provide more services; and if the Government can find $9 million to fund a task force to advise the Minister of Māori Affairs, why can the same priority not be put on funding services for vulnerable New Zealanders?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The only information given to non-governmental organisations suggesting that the entire funding was going to be cut has come from Labour members of Parliament, who have been scaremongering from one end of the country to the other. The Government continues an unprecedented dialogue with the non-governmental organisation sector, and is continuing to work on progress towards the Budget.

Hon Annette King: If she believes non-governmental organisations do play a vital role in supporting vulnerable members of our society, why have non-governmental organisations that are part of the Te Rito family violence network been told that their contracts for service are to be reduced from 3 years to annual contracts; and does she have any idea how disruptive and costly that change is for the non-governmental organisations and for the people they serve?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Ministry of Social Development has in excess of 2,500 contracts with non-governmental organisations. The practice of the previous Government was to routinely cut out a number of those contracts in any given year. I will not respond to the scaremongering from the Labour Party. The Government is involved in dialogue with the non-governmental organisation sector and we are progressing towards the Budget.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier today you said that members must ask specific questions to get specific answers. I asked a very specific question. I asked why non-governmental organisations that play a vital role as part of the Te Rito family violence network have been told that their contracts will no longer be 3 years, but will be reduced to annual contracts. The Minister went nowhere near an answer to that at all.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that. I think that an answer to the question is reasonable. The Minister does not have to do so if he does not believe it is in the public interest, but I believe that a reasonable question has been asked and I invite the Minister to answer it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I gave an answer before that said that the ministry has some 2,500 contracts with non-governmental organisations. The question today from the Labour Party started by asking why all this funding has been cut, and now members opposite want to know why it is not a 3 year track but only a 1 year track. What I have said is that contracts in those arrangements change from year to year. The member will need to wait for the Budget to know exactly what the Government has planned and negotiated with the non-governmental organisation sector.

Hon Annette King: Why does the criteria to be used in the Minister’s community response package, which is about to be announced, specifically exclude assistance for growing demand for services at a time when, for example, the Salvation Army has seen a 44 percent jump in the number of food parcels distributed in the first quarter of this year; or does she think that a rise in unemployment is just a “blimp”, as she has said?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I reply by saying simply that I will not reply to a question about an announcement that has not yet been made.

Tim Macindoe: What commitment has the Government demonstrated towards working with the non-governmental organisation sector?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Unlike the previous Government, which shut up shop and refused to talk to people when times got tough, this Government is taking a proactive approach. The Minister has met with the sector on a number of occasions, and the sector has had direct input into decisions that are being made as part of the Budget process. We talk to people about issues that concern them, regardless of whether they agree with us.

Hon Annette King: Has the Minister seen a press release issued yesterday from within her electorate, headed “Bennett lets down Waitakere voices”; and how many more electorates does she intend to let down by ignoring the pleas of non-governmental organisations for proper consultation and adequate funding to address the growing number of New Zealanders who need a hand up in these hard times?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No; but I do not make a habit of reading Labour electorate committee press releases.

5. Staff and Prisoner Safety—Improvements

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

5. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: Has she received any reports regarding improvements to staff and prisoner safety?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : Yes; as of next week, high-security and remand prisoners will no longer be able to keep razor blades in their cells. Instead, they will be issued with a safety razor on request, which they will be able to keep for only 1 hour. The razor blade will then be collected, checked, and securely disposed of. Each prison unit will be required to account for both the issue and return of all razor blades.

Sandra Goudie: Why did the policy on razor blades need changing?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Under the previous policy, prisoners were able to accumulate razor blades in their cells, and excess numbers of razor blades were being found and removed from prisoners’ cells. Over the years, a number of prisoners have died from razor blade injuries, and many more staff and prisoners have been injured. As soon as I became aware of this issue, I asked the Department of Corrections to immediately review its policy on razor blades for prisoners. I expect this common-sense change to reduce the risk of prisoners harming themselves or others with razor blades.

Sandra Goudie: Are razor blade incidents common?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes; in 2007, there were 272 razor blade incidents in prisons, including 107 incidents involving self-harm, and 28 incidents involving razor blades that had been fashioned into weapons. Allowing prisoners to accumulate razor blades in their cells puts staff and other prisoners at risk, and it is unacceptable to this Government.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does the Minister’s proposal to introduce widespread double-bunking without proper consultation with staff and the Corrections Association of New Zealand, a proposal that the Prime Minister has said is a cost-cutting measure, contribute to the safety of our prison officers, given that the President of the Corrections Association of New Zealand, Beven Hanlon, has said that double-bunking is “of grave concern to corrections officers and nursing staff”, and would “increase the risks for staff”; and, in light of these concerns, why is she selling out our prison officers by pushing ahead with this cost-cutting policy, which clearly will jeopardise the safety of prison officers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Double-bunking is currently used across most prisons at times to manage muster levels, as it was under the previous Labour Government. The Department of Corrections has already undertaken to ensure that the staff to prisoner ratio is maintained in any unit that is double-bunked. This means that as the number of prisoners increases in a double-bunked unit, the number of staff working in the unit will also increase. The Department of Corrections is currently negotiating with both the Corrections Association of New Zealand and the Public Service Association to increase double-bunking at the four new facilities.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can the Minister confirm that a serious incident occurred yesterday at the Kaka Unit, a partially double-bunked unit in the Northland Region Corrections Facility, in which five prison officers, including a unit manager, were attacked by 15 prisoners, with some officers receiving serious injuries, including a smashed Achilles heel, a dislocated shoulder, and a broken arm ball-and-socket joint; and, how does this incident show that she is taking the safety of prison officers seriously?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The incident occurred in response to a change in routine at the prison, which requires prisoners to eat meals in the dining area rather than in their cells. Unfortunately, a number of staff received minor injuries. The most serious injury is a suspected fractured shoulder, not actually at the level that that member has just told the House.

6. Waterview Connection—Progress

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

6. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: Has he received the report on the future of the Waterview Connection he requested in January; if so, when does he plan to release it?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : Yes, I have recently received the report on the Waterview Connection. However, further work is being undertaken before Cabinet will be in a position to provide its view. I can assure the member that Cabinet’s view will be released to affected residents and to all New Zealanders as soon as possible.

Hon Darren Hughes: Minus financing costs, what is the cost of the twin two-lane tunnel option for the Waterview Connection that Labour proposed, and how does it compare with the same project—again, without finance costs—of August 2008?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The cost of $2.77 billion provided in the business case that was sought by the previous Government and provided to the incoming Government after the election included financing costs of $200 million. For the member’s benefit—I have some concern at his skill level—I tell him that without those financing costs the cost is $2.57 billion.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why will the Minister not just front up about the actual cost of the Waterview project without the extra things he has included in it, which no other project faces—like financing costs or the additional scoping of the project—and tell us that the cost of the project is not $2.77 billion, as he keeps claming publicly, but rather $1.98 billion if finance costs, which no other project faces, are not included?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That is much better. I have been quite upfront about this matter, and the business case has been published. The $2.77 billion includes $240 million of costs for increasing capacity on State Highway 16, and financing costs of around $200 million, which are simply for during the period of construction. Under the business case sought by the previous Government, that funding was added because there was an understanding that the project would not be completed from within the National Land Transport Fund, and that therefore those funding costs would need to be provided during the project’s construction. I can tell the member, in order to alleviate his concerns, that any alternative options for advancement of the Waterview Connection will include comparisons on a like-with-like basis.

Dr Jackie Blue: How much money has been allocated by the Government to complete the Waterview Connection?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Unfortunately, despite inheriting plans for twin two-lane tunnels at a cost of $2.77 billion in total, I found that the previous Government had given no indication as to how such an expensive project could be paid for. Regardless of which option is progressed under this Government, the option will be funded. We will not be unfairly raising a community’s expectations of a solution that is completely unaffordable in the New Zealand context.

Hon Darren Hughes: Does the Minister intend to release at the end of May the revised Government policy statement, which realigns money away from public transport, coastal shipping, road maintenance, and policing; if so, can we expect funding for the Waterview Connection to be included in it at a cost of $1.98 billion for two twin tunnels?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The revised Government policy statement will, I imagine, be released by the end of May.

7. North and South Islands, Māori Names—Consultation with Māori

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

7. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Land Information: He aha he tohutohu i whāia i a Ngāi Māori e pā ana ki ētahi atu ingoa Māori mō Te Ika-a-Māui me Te Wai Pounamu, ā, e pēhea ana te haere o taua mahi kimi tohutohu?

[Why are Māori being consulted about alternative Māori names for the North and South Island, and what progress has been made on that consultation exercise?]

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister for Land Information) : I understand, from the New Zealand Geographic Board, that this consultation is being conducted because there are several different known Māori names for each island. The board will be writing to iwi throughout the country by early June, to seek their known traditional Māori names for both islands. In answer to the second question, I say that the board will then determine which are the most appropriate alternative Māori names for each island before seeking views from the wider New Zealand public.

Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, ā, tēnā anō hoki tātou e te Whare. Ā, ki te Minita anō, hoi anō ki tana whakaaro, ka pēhea te whakanui o ētahi atu ingoa Māori mō ngā wāhi, i te ahurea tukunga iho o Aotearoa?

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

[Greetings to you again, Mr Speaker, and to us, the House. To the Minister once again, in your view how does having alternative Māori names for places celebrate the cultural heritage of Aotearoa?]

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: It recognises the historical and cultural importance of the traditional Māori name for each island. It also respects the fact that Māori is the official language of New Zealand.

Kelvin Davis: Will there be consultation on alternative Māori names for the Māori seats on the council of the proposed super city in Auckland?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: That is not an issue within my portfolio responsibility.

Rahui Katene: What advice has the Minister been provided with by the New Zealand Geographic Board to explain why the use of Māori names for the North Island and South Island on official maps changed in the 1950s?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: It is a good question. The board has advised me that it is not known how that occurred, and I do not know the answer.

8. Purchase Advisers—Compliance with State Sector Act 1988

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

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any advice on whether the Government complied with the State Sector Act 1988 when engaging ministerial purchase advisers; if so, what was that advice?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes. It is also worth noting that the Government is following Cabinet Office guidance on the use of purchase advisers. It was set out in 1993.

Chris Hipkins: How can the Minister claim that the Government has complied with section 33 of the State Sector Act—which states that chief executives of a department must act independently when appointing individual employees—when the official briefing paper I have here from the Ministry of Research, Science and Technology reveals that he not only specified who was to be appointed but specified the rate at which they were to be paid?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because we have complied, and I am happy to table the advice.

Chris Hipkins: Why is the Government refusing to release information on how much his little army of spies are being paid, or is he simply embarrassed that he has been caught out telling everybody else that they have to trim back their budgets while he himself splashes taxpayer money around to employ his own expensive political hacks?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, actually, I have released that information. I am happy to table it here. But I can tell that member that we have 30 fewer Beehive staff than Labour had, which equates to about $3 million less in salaries. I can also tell him that, so far, the purchase advisers have cost $137,000—less than a tenth of the cost of Labour’s hand-picked political hacks.

Mr SPEAKER: I call question No. 9, Aaron Gilmore.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I was not sure whether the member was seeking to ask a supplementary question, or we were moving to the next question. The Minister made an offer to table information, then sat down—he has not tabled it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot raise that in a point of order. He cannot ask another member—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Was the Minister quoting from official documents?

Mr SPEAKER: I am perfectly happy to ask the Minister whether he was quoting from an official document. I did not see him with an official document in his hand.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Mr SPEAKER: No. Well, the member cannot seek to have it tabled.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I seek leave to table the information I referred to.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that information. Is there any objection? There is none. It will be tabled.

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

9. Export Growth and Trade Finance Risks—Government Measures

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

9. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What steps has the Government taken to stimulate export growth and mitigate trade finance risks?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) : In February the Government approved for the New Zealand Export Credit Office a new product called short-term credit insurance. The new product will guarantee exporters payment for their consignments. The New Zealand Export Credit Office now offers a complete range of guarantee-only export credit agency products.

Aaron Gilmore: Has he received any reports on the success of the new short-term guarantee product?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. I am advised that since the new short-term guarantee product was announced the New Zealand Export Credit Office has received 50 applications seeking Crown guarantees, totalling some $47.7 million, and seven bank inquiries for guarantees, totalling $5.9 million. The net effect of those guarantees would support export sales of $125 million that might otherwise be lost to the New Zealand economy.

Aaron Gilmore: Will the Government be actively promoting the short-term guarantee product; if so, how?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. The New Zealand Export Credit Office has been talking to banks to promote the scheme, working with New Zealand Trade and Enterprise to ensure information about it is out in the market place, and presenting to industry organisations such as Business New Zealand, Export New Zealand, and the Chamber of Commerce. This Government is backing our exporters in a difficult time.

Hon Shane Jones: Is the real reason such initiatives as the research and development tax credit scheme and other economic development initiatives were scrapped that, as quoted by Rod Oram, the Minister “had done no thinking about economic development. And … had not expected …” to be indulged with this job?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No. I would advise that member that if he really wants to know about what is going on in the economy he should not rely on Rod Oram for factual information.

Hon Shane Jones: Will the Minister concede that it is actually initiatives like the Fast Forward Fund—in the event that he is aware of it—which was ditched by his Government, that stimulate economic growth; or was he so idle while in Opposition that he does not have any understanding? Is he likely to seek advice from the last character in his party who held the role, Max Bradford?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There was no Fast Forward Fund; there was simply a name. Like everything the previous Labour Government did there was a title but no funding. So my answer is simply no.

10. Accident Compensation Corporation—Chair of Board

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

10. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for ACC: Who was the chair of the ACC board on 12 March 2009?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : Mr John Judge was the chair designate on 12 March. This was in the middle of the process I had embarked upon to reconfigure the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board and strengthen its financial governance skills. His predecessor was dismissed as chair on 9 March, the Cabinet decision to appoint Mr Judge was made on 9 March, I phoned him with the decision, and Mr Judge accepted the role. The appointment was announced that day. He changed from being the chair designate to the chair on Friday, 13 March, when he signed the formal letter of acceptance.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very clear question. It was “Who was the chair …”. I did not ask who the chair designate was; I asked who the chair was. The Minister knows who the chair was at the time. It was a very simple question to answer, and I ask you to ask him to answer it.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: With any appointment process, whether it be for a member of Parliament, a Minister of the Crown, a Prime Minister, or a chair of a board, there is some time between it being publicly announced and the formal legal steps that need to take place—for instance, what we have seen between Dr Cullen’s resignation and the time of Damien O’Connor’s appointment. So I set out in my answer the formal process, from the Monday through to the Friday, of the appointment of the chairman of the ACC board.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe that the Minister gave a very comprehensive answer to the question. The member has further supplementary questions.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who was the chair of the ACC board on 12 March 2009?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As I have stated to the member in answers to written questions and in this House, the chair designate was Mr John Judge. His appointment was announced after Cabinet had met on the Monday; on the Friday, when he signed the letter of acceptance, he formally became the chair. I can hear the grinding on the bottom of the barrel as a desperate Opposition tries to make news out of nothing.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As before, I asked a very clear question: “Who was the chair …”. There is always a chair under the Injury Prevention, Rehabilitation, and Compensation Act. If the chair was not Ross Wilson, it was Peter Neilson. I did not ask who the chair designate was. If I had wanted to know who the chair designate was, I would have looked at the answers to written questions in which that question has been answered by the Minister. I asked who the chair was, and I think it is your job, Mr Speaker, to ensure that Ministers address the question that was asked, not a question that they have made up.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are times in an appointment process—for instance, from the time that the previous Prime Minister, Helen Clark, resigned, to the time when the new Prime Minister, John Key, took the formal oath—when there are these periods. This is exactly one of those periods. Mr Judge’s formal appointment as chair was announced on the Monday, following a Cabinet meeting; I am advised that he formally became the chair on Friday, 13 March, when he signed the letter of acceptance. That is why I quite correctly stated that Mr Judge was the chair designate on the Thursday.

Hon Pete Hodgson: It might help your judgment, Mr Speaker, if I observe that the Minister has twice now answered the question, which was “Who was the chair …”, by advising the House who was not the chair. It was not the previous guy, it was not—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now getting into the substance of the answer, which is not a matter of order; I invite the member to resume his seat. The dilemma that the honourable member has raised with me is the difficulty I have in judging the quality of the answer that has been given. The Minister gave an explanation as to the status of the various people—the former chair and the newly appointed chair, or the chair designate. I believe that it is within the honourable member’s grasp to ask further supplementary questions; if he wishes to elucidate a particular issue, then he has got further supplementary questions, and I believe he can do that. It is unreasonable, I think, to expect the Speaker to rule on the quality of the answer, because, certainly, the information given was pretty comprehensive.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was Peter Neilson the chair of the ACC board on Thursday, 12 March 2009; if so, why did the Minister lie to the committee, to the media—

Mr SPEAKER: If I heard correctly what the member just said, he cannot ask that in a supplementary question. He will withdraw it. Did the member impugn the Minister in his supplementary question by saying that he had been untruthful?

Hon Trevor Mallard: He certainly did—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot do that. I ask him to withdraw that part of the question before I will ask the Minister to answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw. Do you want me to rephrase it?

Mr SPEAKER: No. The Minister will answer the first part of the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised that Mr Peter Neilson was not the chair on 12 March.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You’ve got a bit of paper that says he was. Why didn’t you read it? Why did you not read the bit of paper?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I think Mr Mallard should go back to his anger management classes, now that he is back on the front bench. I am advised—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The question has been answered. I asked the Hon Trevor Mallard to withdraw a statement he had made, and we will not have the problem being added to. If the member wants to ask a further supplementary question, he may.

Michael Woodhouse: Did the Minister think it was appropriate that Peter Neilson appear before the select committee, given the reflection he was having on board membership and future direction?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: At the point of 12 March, I had been quite public about the fact that all the board members’ positions were up for review as part of the reconfiguring of the board. So I did not think it was appropriate that Mr Peter Neilson appear. That was why I attended, and that was why I said that the new board members would make themselves available at the earliest opportunity, and they did so.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a document. It is legal advice to, I think, the Chief Executive of the Accident Compensation Corporation. The advice was supplied to the Minister’s office, and makes it—

Mr SPEAKER: We know what the document is. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not hear. Was there objection or not?

Mr SPEAKER: There was objection.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Who from?

Mr SPEAKER: There was objection. Sue Bradford, question No. 11.

Sue Bradford: My question is to—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Members cannot even interject that kind of comment in this House. The member cannot say that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, what can I do, Mr Speaker?

Mr SPEAKER: I am going to ask the honourable member to withdraw and apologise, because he knows he cannot say that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I withdraw and apologise. I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What remedy does a member have when he knows that a Minister has advice that says one thing, and he assumes that the Minister has read it, because the Minister has given it to a select committee, and the Minister comes into the House and says exactly the opposite?

Mr SPEAKER: The member does not need to seek the Speaker’s advice on that. The member is a very capable politician. I am sure he can imagine all sorts of way to get his point across, if he wishes to.

11. Wholesale Funding and Retail Deposit Guarantee Schemes—Conditions

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

11. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister of Finance: What conditions, if any, has the Government placed on financial institutions participating in the wholesale funding and retail deposit guarantee schemes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : A range of eligibility requirements must be met by institutions that receive the guarantees. The requirements are primarily designed to ensure that participation is restricted to genuine institutions that are financing New Zealand’s economic activity, and also to limit risks to the taxpayer. Full details of the eligibility criteria are available on the Treasury website.

Sue Bradford: Does the Government agree with the 79 percent of respondents to a UMR Research poll, released today, who supported job protection conditions being placed on banks that are participating in the schemes, and does the Minister agree with the 10,500 New Zealanders who signed the FinSec petition that called for job protection conditions to be introduced?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I do share their concern about the retention of jobs in New Zealand. However, I think that the sanction of removing a guarantee from a bank that breached those conditions is very heavy-handed. The removal of a guarantee from one of our major banks would have a very significant economic impact, and I am sure FinSec and the people who answered the poll would also share a concern about that.

Sue Bradford: If the Minister does agree in part that keeping jobs in New Zealand is a fair thing to ask of the banks, which, after all, are relying on our taxes to back them, then why has the Minister refused to meet with representatives of FinSec to discuss the proposals and find a way forward on this?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, I met with representatives of FinSec a few weeks ago and did an interview for its newsletter—which I see has been published—covering this matter. I am quite happy to discuss it, but I have made it clear today that there is no prospect that the Government will enter into an agreement that raises the possibility that a guarantee may be removed from one of our major banks, because the effects on the economy would be significant.

12. Housing—High-need Communities

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

12. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Housing: What is the Government doing to improve the accommodation of people in high-need communities?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) : I am pleased to announce a kick-start housing investment of $46 million to be put into the Auckland suburb of Tāmaki over the next 3 years to redevelop and renovate up to five housing precincts. This investment will involve the replacement of old State houses with newly built ones; free up land for new private homes, some for first-home buyers; and upgrade up to 120 State homes. Not only will that work benefit those living in Tāmaki, but also it will benefit the tradespeople and builders who are working in Tāmaki.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What other work is being undertaken as part of the Tāmaki Transformation Programme?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: This work is just the start. The next stage of the programme brings together the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the Ministry of Social Development, the Ministry of Economic Development, and Te Puni Kōkiri. We are determined to stop talking—like the Labour Government had done—and actually start doing something when it comes to Tāmaki. Labour started talking about that issue more than 2 years ago; we are getting on and doing something about it—a little like Hobsonville.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How will the Government ensure that what is delivered is appropriate for the Tāmaki community?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The local member should not be concerned at all. The programme will work with the residents of Tāmaki to ensure they are involved in the design and delivery of the Government services that they receive. It is acknowledged that 40 percent of the Tāmaki community are from the Pacific Island community and 20 percent are of Māori descent. That is why it is important that we talk to the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs and Te Puni Kōkiri, which are involved along with the Auckland Regional Council, the Auckland City Council, local iwi, and stakeholders.

Moana Mackey: Does the Minister agree with the statement made by Housing New Zealand Corporation staff—before they were forced to apologise to him for being honest at the select committee—that “affordable and social housing initiatives are nationally significant”, and should be added to the Government’s streamlining process in the Resource Management Act to avoid the kind of nimbyism displayed by John Key over the Hobsonville project?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I guess I share the frustrations of the Housing New Zealand Corporation and other householders who watched while the previous Government announced the Hobsonville development in 2002, yet 7 years later no spade had hit the ground, and again when it announced the Tāmaki development three or four times over the last 2 years, yet no consents were sought nor houses built. Perhaps if the previous Government had won the election it could have talked about the Tāmaki development for 5 years, instead of just talking about it for 2 years.

Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a very specific question, and he chose to go into a rant and not answer it. I asked him whether he agreed with the statement that housing initiatives should be added to the Resource Management Act streamlining process.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma is that where a member asks for the Minister’s opinion it is very difficult to expect a particular answer. Where a Minister is asked whether he or she agrees with a certain statement—some Speakers even rule that sort of thing out, because they rule it as being a means of injecting an opinion into a question. I do not rule it out, but we cannot be too precise with answers.

Moana Mackey: How can the Minister be taken seriously when his own leader has said that building State houses in his electorate would be economic vandalism; or is it the case that National members only support high-need communities as long as they are not in their own communities?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: This Government actually supports building houses and repairing State homes; we do not support constantly talking about it. We just want to get on with it, and that is what we are doing.

Questions To Members

Dr. Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill—Submission Process

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

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Have all submitters on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill who asked to appear before the committee and speak to their submission been offered an opportunity to do so?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): I am pleased to answer the question. Yes. The committee received 840 submissions and 560 of these have asked to be heard. When we were in Auckland last week I was advised that some Auckland submitters were still being contacted. This was because their submissions were being scheduled to be heard this week in Wellington by way of video and teleconferencing. All the committee members knew that this would be necessary if we could not fit submitters into the prepared Auckland hearings. This was a decision made by the committee, and there were no dissenting voices.

Dr Russel Norman: Were all submitters from places near Auckland and Christchurch given the option to be heard at hearings in those places, rather then by teleconference to Wellington?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The best way to answer this question is to give to members the committee’s agreement on the hearing of all oral submissions: allocating individuals 5 to 20 minutes, depending on how substantive their submission was; allocating organisations 10 to 25 minutes, depending on how substantive their submission was; allocating form submitters a single time slot, and asking them to appear as part of a group; grouping submitters with like-minded views; and holding hearings in Auckland on 2 days, Christchurch on 1 day, and Wellington on 4 days. A total of 66.5 hours will be spent on hearing oral submissions. Staff advised that oral submitters who could not be fitted into the Auckland hearings would be scheduled for the Wellington meetings and offered video and teleconferencing if they were unable to travel there in person.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table an email from Joshua Avery of Auckland, a submitter who was not notified of the Auckland hearings and only by virtue of contacting the committee and complaining was granted a hearing by teleconference.

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

2. Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill—Submission Process

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

2. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Is he aware of any complaints about time allocated to submitters on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill; if so, what is his response?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee): Yes, I am aware of complaints. Again, there are 840 submissions with 560 submitters asking to be heard. I am conscious of complaints received by the Clerk during timetabling, as well as five others. First, a submitter complained that a letter to her association from the Green Party asking her to send a submission opposing the bill, gave her only 5 days before the submission closed. She considered this an insufficient allocation of time to prepare. I agreed with her complaint. We had a complaint from one group of community association representatives who anticipated being heard separately for 15 minutes each. I apologised to them for the misunderstanding. However, the committee developed real skill in engaging with groups of submitters, to our mutual advantage. Most expressed appreciation for being heard and for our committee being in Auckland and Christchurch. Mr Norman would not have been aware of this as he absented himself from the hearing for long periods to attend—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Thank you, Mr Auchinvole. Does the member have a further supplementary question?

Dr Russel Norman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Members will show a little courtesy to the member seeking to ask his supplementary question.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to explain why—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot do that. I have invited him to ask a supplementary question. If he does not wish to do so, he can sit down.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the member concerned that former Principal Planning Judge Arnold Turner has been allocated just 5 minutes to speak to his submission tomorrow, and that New Zealand’s foremost experts on environmental law, who are members of the Environmental Defence Society, were given just 10 minutes to speak to their 69 page submission last week in Auckland? Is it acceptable for a former senior judge to have just 5 minutes to speak?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: Yes, I will be aware of those times, as the member is. The member will, perhaps, not be aware that, where we have people of particular significance, it was a request of the committee that they be invited to maintain a level of contact with the officials. This would be one such case. This is a hard-working and diligent committee concentrating on obtaining the best outcome for a very serious piece of legislation.

ENDS

© Scoop Media