TUESDAY, 12 MAY 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Auckland—Local Government Reform

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

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he intend to deny Aucklanders the right to vote on the reorganisation of local government in Auckland as they would have if the reorganisation was carried out under the Local Government Act 2002; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : The Government wants Aucklanders to have the maximum impact into the proposals, and believes there should be a greater opportunity to give input than just a yes or no answer, as would be the case on a referendum question. That is why we have set in train a select committee process, which the member will be able to participate in, and we look forward to his contribution. Furthermore, the approach being taken on this matter by the Government is in line with the royal commission’s thinking, which said that despite the “superficial attraction” of a referendum, it is not the right approach for Auckland.

Hon Phil Goff: Why are Aucklanders being denied the right to vote for or against the changes that the Prime Minister is seeking to impose on Auckland, other than for the obvious reason that he lacks confidence that the people of Auckland see these changes as being the right changes, and as being in the form that is best for them and their city’s future?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are two points. The first of those is that the royal commission itself quite correctly pointed out that a poll of electors, which by a simple majority would determine whether the proposal would proceed, is plainly insufficient—that this is a complex and wide-ranging recommendation, and more is required than a yes or no. But I take this opportunity to thank Ross Robertson, who today in the Manukau Courier said: “I think a super-city to deal with city-wide issues is needed.” I agree with him.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Prime Minister not listening to Aucklanders, who by a margin of two to one have said they have not been consulted adequately about the governance changes; and why is the Prime Minister totally ignoring the people of Mt Albert, who overwhelmingly in their submissions said they do not want 600 houses and their green spaces destroyed by a surface motorway rather than a tunnel?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can assure the member that I am listening to Aucklanders. I am listening to Ross Robertson, who thinks a super-city is a good idea. Funnily enough, I am going to listen to another Aucklander—George Hawkins—who is today also in the paper, saying “I support the Auckland Council concept for the region as a vehicle for getting rid of development and economic stumbling blocks to progress in the area as a whole.” A majority of Aucklanders support the super-city, and it is rapidly emerging that a majority of the Labour caucus support a super-city, as well.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that as long as he is the Prime Minister, the sections of the Local Government Act that prevent the privatisation of water will not be repealed or amended?

Hon JOHN KEY: That is an issue that we have not considered.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister not understand that although many Aucklanders are in favour of the concept of strong regional cross-city governance, they do not want his “at large” seats, and they do not want his second tier of local government that has been so gutted of power and responsibility that it means nothing at all?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the select committee process will allow Aucklanders to have their say on what they want. The Government has a strong sense of what it wants for Auckland, and that is an Auckland Council that will provide leadership and guidance to the region. Mr Goff may not know his own mind. At one moment he seems to support a single regional body; then he says he opposes the establishing of the very council that would achieve that. He then says he sort of does not support the royal commission, but then says he does but does not recommend various councils “at large”. Actually, the reality is that the Government is showing leadership in this area, and that is what is required.

Sue Kedgley: Is it not an extraordinary situation when a day before legislation that will initiate the most radical restructuring in local government in recent times, neither Opposition MPs nor most mayors of Auckland have even seen the legislation or have a clue what it will contain?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the bill is being delivered to all of the research units around the various parties of Parliament today. Secondly, as the royal commission itself pointed out, it is important to set up a transition agency with some urgency. The first bill simply establishes the single unitary authority for Auckland of the transition agency, and sets out the limitations of its powers. All of the bulk of the other work that might take place is in the second and third bills.

Hon Phil Goff: Are urgency and the decision to rush through the Prime Minister’s changes on Auckland governance not a kick in the guts for Aucklanders, who have said they want the right decision, not a rushed decision, and is his decision on State Highway 20 not a kick in the guts for the people of Mt Albert, whose genuine concerns about a surface motorway have been ignored, both by him and Melissa Lee?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, but can I just remind the Leader of the Opposition of one small thing?

Hon Phil Goff: Why did you cut her off at the knees?

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I know the Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear this, but the one reason why we actually had a royal commission was that the previous Labour Government thought that Auckland governance was dysfunctional, was not working, and needed reform. By the way, I tell Mr Goff not to ask me, but to ask Trevor Mallard about that. He is the one who could not get his stadium proposal through the dysfunctional governance of Auckland.

Hon Trevor Mallard: So you’re funding Whangarei! [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order! Members, please show respect to Sue Kedgley, who has the floor.

Sue Kedgley: Further to the Prime Minister’s assurances that the way for Aucklanders to make their views known on the radical restructuring of their local government will be through the select committee process, can he assure Aucklanders that all of them will be able to make submissions on this radical restructuring proposal; if they cannot, how will they be able to make their views known to this Government?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I can assure the member that Aucklanders who want to put a submission before the select committee on issues of Auckland governance will be able to. I can tell the member that we are actually setting up a special select committee, so that—

Hon Annette King: Why?

Hon JOHN KEY: Oh, for goodness’ sake! So that we can actually listen to Aucklanders and to people who understand the situation, and give them time to make submissions.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the cost of the restructuring that the Prime Minister is proposing to impose on Auckland—or is it true, as Mr Hide’s office says, that the Government does not know the cost of what it is planning to impose?

Hon JOHN KEY: What I know is what the royal commission pointed out regarding governance in Auckland. I think reforming it will provide tremendous gains for Auckland over time.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You heard the question. It was very straightforward: what is the cost? If the Prime Minister does not know the cost, he should simply tell the House.

Mr SPEAKER: It is a shame the honourable member did not ask that question.

Hon Phil Goff: That is the question I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: The problem is that members put a whole lot of other stuff into a supplementary question. If the member had just asked that question, then the Prime Minister perhaps could have answered that question, but the Prime Minister is entitled to latch on to whatever part of a supplementary question he chooses to. It is a salutary lesson about making questions brief, succinct, and to the point.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept the point you have made, but the Leader of the Opposition asked the Prime Minister what costs were involved with that proposal, and then drew a comparison with what one of the Prime Minister’s own Ministers had said about it. That hardly introduced extraneous material. That was two members of the executive, and it was a question about costs. What we got from the Prime Minister was a response about savings. That was not the question the Leader of the Opposition asked.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member has just pointed out the problem with that supplementary question. The Standing Orders do not provide for the introduction of further material. They provide for the asking of one question, and one question only, with no further material added to it. If the member doubts me, he should read the Standing Orders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders might well say that, but it has long been the ruling of Speakers in this House that people have been allowed to ask supplementary questions with two, and sometimes three, legs. In this particular case there was only one question. There was some additional evidence in the question; there was an additional point in the question. There was one question, and the Prime Minister showed that he was unable to answer it.

Hon Simon Power: Rubbish!

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no comment while I am ruling on this point. The member has just pointed out the problem. It is quite correct that Speakers do not intervene, because otherwise the House would be interrupted all the time. I did not intervene; I do not intervene when members ask more than one question. But if other material is introduced, the Minister is perfectly entitled to comment on it. If members want an answer to be given to their question, they should ask a succinct question. The honourable member himself—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I will not take this matter further. I make that very clear. I am going to call Dr Russel Norman, and that is the end of this matter.

Dr Russel Norman: Can the Prime Minister understand the concerns of Aucklanders that their assets are at risk of privatisation, when the Minister for Local Government, who is leading the process, has a clear privatisation agenda and when, on two separate occasions now, the Prime Minister has refused to guarantee that the water assets of Auckland will not be privatised?

Hon JOHN KEY: There is nothing in these bills about privatisation. The changes that are proposed in the legislation do not make privatisation easier or harder. Ultimately, if there were to be the privatisation of assets in local government, that is a matter for the local councils.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the cost of the Government’s current super-city proposal to implement and run annually?

Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot give the member an annual charge.

2. Budget 2009—Spending Commitments

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

2. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2009 address large spending commitments made in Budget 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The previous Government made a number of large, unfunded commitments that were not consistent with this Government’s policies. Some of the commitments had funding attached. In those cases the Ministers have assessed whether to continue with them, or whether the money is better spent elsewhere. A second group of commitments were simply promises with no funding set aside in Budget 2008. We have indicated that we are weighing up these commitments against other spending priorities. Some of those commitments have been kept, but many have been dropped, either because they had no funding or because they were the wrong priorities.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be well aware that during the preparation of questions for the House today, the Government submitted a question that used the phrase “unfunded commitments”, or the word “unfunded”, which is the wording that the Minister used in his reply. That word was removed by the Clerk’s Office for being out of order, because it presupposes a misuse of parliamentary procedure, for which no evidence has been submitted. I ask whether the Opposition—the previous Government—has any relief in the circumstance where the Minister has used in his reply exactly the same phrase—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to sit down. This is not a matter that can be dealt with by way of a point of order. The member is questioning the quality of the Minister’s answers. Unless the member feels that matter is a personal affront to him, he can question the quality of the answer only through further supplementary questions, not the point of order process.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Forgive me; I may not have made myself clear. It is not a—

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me. The honourable member made himself perfectly clear. I have pointed it out to him that this is not a matter for a point of order. Questioning what the Prime Minister said in his answer and whether the Clerk had approved it as part of a question, is irrelevant. If the member disagrees with the answer given by the Minister, he should use his supplementary questions available to question the Minister in detail on that.

Chris Tremain: What will be the effect of ending these unfunded commitments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The most important effect of it is that it will tell people who have been expecting money from those commitments that they should be realistic and not to expect the money. Most of the unfunded commitments related to future years, so ending them will have little direct effect. It simply means that people who have high expectations based on promises by the Labour Government now realise that those promises were not backed by funding, so they will not receive that funding.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is not the largest unfunded spending commitment the multimillion-dollar broken promise that his Government pulled on New Zealanders by campaigning for unaffordable tax cuts for the rich, months after Lehman Brothers collapsed and dire signs of international trouble were already obvious?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member who just resumed his seat may not be aware that the cost of National’s tax cut programme was exactly the same as the cost of his programme.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that the Auckland governance changes are a massive unfunded promise, given that his own leader confirmed in the House today that he has no idea how much the changes will cost the country; and can he also confirm that the Government has broken its promise to maintain New Zealand superannuation by failing to contribute to the scheme at a time when good assets are cheap?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: With respect to commitments made to Auckland, what the people of Mt Albert may know now is that the Labour Government promised them a tunnel, with no money to build the $3 billion project.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As a member of the previous executive, I do take exception to that phrase, and I will draw attention to a report published by—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Is he seeking leave to make a personal explanation? I am just trying to ascertain exactly what the issue of order is that he is trying to have addressed.

Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker, I take personal objection to the phrase “unfunded commitments”, which that member has used. Taking personal exception to that is an entitlement under the Standing Orders.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I refer you, Mr Speaker, to Speakers’ rulings 163(6), 165(6), 165(5), and 165(3), all of which, I think, satisfactorily deal with the concerns that the Hon David Cunliffe has. Those concerns are about the quality of the answer he has received. You, Mr Speaker, over and above the rulings by the Hon Jonathan Hunt and the Hon Margaret Wilson that I have referred to, have also said that the Speaker is not responsible for judging the quality of answers. You have been very clear that if a direct question is asked, then a direct answer should be given. This side of the House is endeavouring to comply with that. It is incumbent upon the other side of the House to ask responsible questions. The reality in this case is that the Government itself does not bear a direct cost for the restructuring of the Auckland governance.

Hon David Cunliffe: In your consideration of the point of order I wonder whether you could also consider Standing Order 377(2)(b), which prohibits a Minister to answer using arguments, inferences, or imputations that are inappropriate. The phrase “unfunded commitment”, which the Clerk has ruled out, arguably falls within that category. Also Speaker’s Ruling 164(7) reminds us that a Minister, in answering about a report that he has seen, may not use this to caste an inference on the policy of another political party for which he is not responsible.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want this debate to go any further, because, actually, I think there is some misunderstanding over the concern the member first raised. It is not that the question was not answered that was the issue the member raised. The member raised the issue whether the Minister used language that the member took exception to. The dilemma around the Standing Orders in respect of an answer to a question is that either the Minister takes personal exception to it and wants to make a personal explanation to clear it up, or it is simply a matter of the quality of the answer, which I cannot get involved in as the Speaker. That is the dilemma around our Standing Orders. So either the member wishes to make a personal explanation, or he has to pursue it through further questions. That is why question time is handled this way under the Standing Orders, because you do have questions to pursue the issue, if that is what the member wants to do.

Chris Tremain: In what areas has the Government identified unfunded commitments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have identified unfunded commitments in a range of areas, including the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and Ministry of Tertiary Education. In both of these areas most of the unfunded commitments have been dropped. However, spending in Vote Foreign Affairs and Vote Education will rise over the next 4 years. In the case of education the increases are substantial, and I am confident that the money spent to implement the Government’s commitments will be well spent, will get results, and will be backed by funding.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that his PR onslaught about unfunded commitments is actually a deliberate act of confusing a Government’s stated future intention to spend, with the technical process of appropriating money each year through Parliament; and does the Minister therefore agree with his previous statement that it is perfectly proper practice to specify funding commitments as specified, unspecified, or contingent fiscal risks in the Budget, as the Minister has confirmed he will continue to do?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Our discussion about unfunded commitments is an expression of frustration at finding that many New Zealanders believed the promises made by the previous Government of large amounts of extra money, when those promises were not backed by a specific allocation of funding; and even when they were, we found they were often misdirected priorities, and that is why we have done a reasonably comprehensive exercise in the time available of knocking out those promises of the previous Government that were unrealistic, and reprioritising that money that was misdirected.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave to table a statement by the Hon Bill English to this House where he confirmed that he will continue to use the same practices in future Budgets around unspecified fiscal risks, and contention liabilities.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this in the Hansard?

Hon David Cunliffe: Yes.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a Hansard record. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Could the Minister please explain to the House why he places a higher priority on massive increases in expenditure in areas such as broadband, State highways, and subsidies for small businesses for the 2009 Budget than he does on tax cuts, and improvements in productivity in areas such as health and education via the reintroduction of prices?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is possible to emphasise all of those things, and I appreciate that we are likely to take a different view of it from the member, but we think it is important to continue investing in infrastructure because the economy is going to grow and we would like to relieve those bottlenecks. We agree with the member that it is time for an increase in productivity in the public sector. There have been large increases in expenditure without much increase in services, and we are setting out on a 3 to 5-year programme to remedy that.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table chapter 4 from the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update October 2008, which runs through the specific fiscal risks facing the Budget, and nowhere uses the phrase “unfunded commitments” when listing those.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: It’s already been tabled.

Mr SPEAKER: It is already tabled. I take it there is no objection? We get into difficulty when points of order are interjected upon. I take it there is no objection to part of a document that has already been tabled being tabled again? There is no objection. Sorry, there is objection to that course of action.

3. Families Commissioner—Appointment of Christine Rankin

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

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Why did she appoint Christine Rankin as a Families Commissioner?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Because I believe she will be good in the role, and she is a strong advocate for children and their families.

Hon Annette King: Is Christine Rankin a suitable appointee in light of the culture of extravagance and sideshows she created when last employed in public service, including the $1 million spent on a new logo for, and the rebranding of, her department; the $80,000 spent on roadshows; the $25,000 spent on self-promotion videos in which she appeared alongside Martin Luther King and Ghandi; the $250,000 spent on advertising to overcome her bad publicity; not to forget the $165,0000 spent on charter planes to take her staff to a luxury resort for a meeting?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In the last few years Christine Rankin has been a strong advocate for children and their families. She is one of seven Families Commissioners, and I believe she will do a fine job in that role.

Dr Jackie Blue: What other appointments have been made to the Families Commission?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Today I also announced the appointment of Mr Bruce Pilbrow, the Chief Executive Officer of Parents Inc., to the Families Commission. Parents Inc. is a well-known and long-established organisation that offers practical solutions for parents. Mr Pilbrow and his team run nationwide programmes covering parenting skills, family coaching, and attitude programmes. This Government believes that families need practical solutions, and we are appointing people with first-hand experience in the realities that New Zealand families face.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Minister support Christine Rankin’s appointment, in light of her comments to colleagues that Christine Rankin’s behaviour that had led to the sacking of a Television New Zealand staffer was outrageous and she avoided having anything to do with the woman?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have no recollection of making any comments like that, at all. I support Miss Rankin’s appointment to this role. I think she is a strong advocate for families, I certainly agree with her stance on child abuse and neglect, and I look forward to seeing the work she does on it.

Hon Annette King: What message is the Minister sending to the 200 hard-working Ministry of Social Development staff who have just learnt that they are to lose their jobs, in announcing the return of a person who brought the social welfare portfolio into disrepute and ridicule through wasteful expenditure?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I take umbrage at that member using what is a tough time for the ministry today as it is working through some difficult situations. [Interruption] Shame on them! That came through in the briefing to the incoming Minister. It is a very difficult time, and we will not be playing petty party politics with it.

Mr SPEAKER: I have allowed the House to let off a bit of steam after some provocation. I am now calling the Hon Annette King to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Annette King: Does the Minister agree with the comment of the Hon Peter Dunne that Christine Rankin is a divisive and disruptive person, and did the Minister consult Mr Dunne before she took the appointment to Cabinet, in line with the much-vaunted no-surprises confidence and supply agreement; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No and yes.

4. Middlemore Hospital—Building

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

4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What announcements has the Government made regarding building developments at Middlemore Hospital?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : Yesterday the Government announced approval of a $208 million upgrade of Middlemore Hospital. This includes a $100 million contribution from central government. The main parts of this approval include completion of the Edmund Hillary block, including additional in-patient beds; the establishment of a clinical services block, including three new theatres; the replacement of the ageing theatres; a 48-bed assessment planning unit; and an 18-bed high dependency unit. This is the single biggest commitment to a hospital redevelopment since 2004.

Dr Paul Hutchison: When will the people of the Counties Manukau District Health Board area see the benefits of this necessary and significant investment?

Hon TONY RYALL: The member is right; this is a very necessary development, because the Counties Manukau District Health Board area is predicted to—

Hon David Cunliffe: Is this an unfunded commitment?

Hon TONY RYALL: No, it is not an unfunded commitment, but I have inherited $600 million of unfunded capital claims from the Government of that party opposite. This is a very necessary development, because the Counties Manukau District Health Board is predicted to have the highest growth in health demand in the country in the next 20 years. The commissioning of the new wards in the block is expected to occur in the middle of next year, and further construction over that next period will, I am advised, create up to a thousand jobs in South Auckland. Lastly, I am advised that this approval finally means the demolition of Middlemore Hospital’s last remaining World War II buildings. This Government is bringing the health service into the 21st century.

Hon Annette King: Was the Minister told that the three-phase redevelopment of Middlemore Hospital, including the beginning of the Edmund Hillary block, was already under way—and had been for several years—before he announced the redevelopment yesterday as National Party policy, and will he now commit funding to all of phase three of the project; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL: I missed the question. If an announcement was made that those projects were being completed and there was no money set aside for them, then that is another unfunded commitment made by the Government of that party opposite, together with the $600 million worth of capital requests that it provided no money to cover.

5. Climate Change—Australian Scheme

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

5. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he sure that he was correct to claim in the House last Thursday, that “the Australian Government did notify my office in advance of the changes it was proposing to make to the emissions trading scheme”; if so, when did that notification occur?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) : Yes, Australian officials informed my office on Monday, 4 May at about 2 p.m., prior to the public announcement of the changes to their Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. New Zealand was the only country to be informed prior to the announcement.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister told the media last week that the New Zealand Government had not been informed in advance of Australia’s decision; if so, why did the Minister’s office know about the announcement and the Prime Minister did not?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, the member misquotes the Prime Minister. But as members of the Cabinet would know, as a hard-working Government we were still hard at work in Cabinet. By the time I returned to my office and received the information, it was publicly known.

Nicky Wagner: What dialogue has the Government had with Australia over proposals to align the New Zealand and Australian response to climate change?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This initiative was first advanced by Prime Minister John Key at his summit in early March with his Australian counterpart, Kevin Rudd. Work was further advanced when I met with my counterpart Senator Penny Wong later that month, when we established a trans-Tasman officials group, and agreed on terms of reference. I had further discussions by phone last week with Senator Wong, and I am further meeting next week to advance these issues.

Charles Chauvel: When the Minister invited Labour members during question time last Thursday to “engage constructively in the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee”, can he confirm that he did not mean to suggest that this cooperation was not already being extended, in light of numerous examples of constructive engagement in the committee from members on this side of the House—such as by David Parker and me, who provided a quorum to the committee yesterday so that it could actually meet?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am pleased that the select committee is doing a good job. The Government made quite a deliberate decision to have Peter Dunne as the chair, because climate change is an issue that will outlive the life of any Government, and the broader the consensus we can build in this Parliament about the way forward, I think the better we serve New Zealand and this important issue.

Charles Chauvel: Does he stand by his answer during question time last Thursday that “What is lacking from members Opposite is an understanding of how critical an emissions trading scheme is to the New Zealand economy.”, in light of the fact that it was his Government that suspended the scheme, and in light of Labour’s written offer to him to cooperate in talks to allow the scheme to proceed, a letter to which a written response is still awaited 6 weeks later.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I would make is that I wrote, then as climate change spokesperson for National, in December 2005, to the then Minister David Parker. I would note that to this date I have not received a response to that letter. I am pleased to have received a letter from Charles Chauvel suggesting that there may be opportunity for some dialogue between National and Labour about the future of climate change, and that is something I have had discussions about, both with Mr Chauvel and with Mr Parker. It is something that the Government is happy to advance.

6. Firearms—Registration

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

6. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister of Police: Does she agree with Chester Borrows MP that “the horse has bolted” and that it is too late to find all of the unregistered weapons in New Zealand; if so, what action can she take as police Minister to address the critical issues around the registration of gun owners?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) : New Zealand does not have a universal registration system for firearms. The Arms Act 1983 moved to a licensing regime to ensure, as far as possible, that only fit and proper people can legally have access to firearms. Reasons for change at the time were that the previous firearms registration scheme was inaccurate, had low compliance, did not assist crime prevention, and was costly. There are, however, very serious issues around unlicensed gun owners who are criminals.

Hone Harawira: Is the Minister aware that New Zealand is probably the only country in the world to allow online sales of guns, and that as result we have one of the highest rates of gun ownership per capita in the world? Can she please tell the House what action is planned to respond to concerns that little is being done to revise one of the weakest weapons monitoring systems in the world?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am advised that other countries—including the UK, Australia, and the US—have online sales of guns. The online sale of guns is one of the issues I will be asking police to consider.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table the 1997 report by Sir Thomas Thorp, which advocates a system of licensing of guns.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection?

Hon Member: It has already been tabled.

Mr SPEAKER: I have asked whether there is any objection. There appears to be no objection, although it has been suggested that it has already been tabled.

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

7. Young Offenders—Boot Camps

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

7. JACINDA ARDERN (Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement in the House on 30 April 2009 with regard to submissions made to the Social Services Committee on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Bill that “Actually I did not say that those groups had misled the public”; if so, why, given that in her press release of 29 April 2009 she said “The narrow focus on boot camps by the media and critics has, I believe, misled the public.”?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I just make it clear that the member’s original question asked whether I was claiming “groups such as Barnados, Unicef, and the Families Commission misled the public”. I have never said that those groups misled the public. What I have said time and time again is that critics of the scheme have not given the public the full story about Fresh Start, that is, about mentoring programmes, parenting programmes, drug and alcohol rehabilitation, and a whole set of programmes around the military-style camps.

Jacinda Ardern: Is the Minister of Justice, Simon Power, one of the critics she thinks is misleading the public, given that in a recent meeting with Grey Power he stated that on the matter of boot camps he is of the opinion that they do not work for offenders?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I go back to my original statements. I did not say that those groups were misleading the public. But I know that my colleagues also share with me the view that intensive, wraparound services around these young offenders, long-term, are what will make a difference in their lives. If we keep doing what we are doing now, we simply will not get different results.

Chester Borrows: Has the Minister received any information about what tools the judiciary feels it needs in order to deal with youth offenders?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, the Youth Court judges have been calling for some time for a wider range of options for young offenders, particularly for those who have already been through existing programmes. The Fresh Start package will allow judges to hand out longer sentences, and give them the ability to order offenders into custom-made programmes to address the causes of their offending.

Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister explain what proportion of the Fresh Start programme will include the other interventions she has outlined, and what proportion will be military-style training, when the New Zealand Army has been confirmed as the provider for the entire programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is quite clear in the legislation that we envisage up to 40 young people in the first year being involved in the military-style camps. However, all youth offenders may be sentenced to the other programmes. The Fresh Start programme is a tool box that is given to the judges, which they can then use to sentence young offenders. There are no strict numbers around the programme. It is for those young people who come before the Youth Court. The judges actually make the decisions as to what sentences they give out. It is pretty straightforward.

8. Oil and Gas Exploration—Promotion

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

8. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the Government doing to encourage exploration for oil and gas in New Zealand waters?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : Last Friday I announced that over the next 3 years the Crown will spend $20 million acquiring and processing seismic information about New Zealand’s offshore subsurface geography. Petroleum exploration and investment companies will be able to use that data to assess the oil and gas potential of those prospective basins.

Jonathan Young: What are the benefits of seismic data acquisition by the Government?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Good seismic information is the first step towards understanding the hydrocarbon potential of any particular area. The previous surveys have resulted in $1.4 billion of expenditure by exploration companies. So far, for every $1 invested by the Government, explorers have invested a further $50, so it was very surprising that the previous Government chose to cancel what has been a very successful economic development project.

Jonathan Young: What benefits do oil and gas developments bring to New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Indigenous oil developments, like the Tui and Maari fields, provide economic benefits such as jobs for New Zealanders, and also help our balance of payments. For the 11-month production period ended 30 June 2008, the Tui joint venture paid the Crown $210 million in royalties and at least a further $250 million in related corporate taxes. This year will be no different. These are significant benefits.

David Garrett: Does the Government have any plans to return the rights to oil and gas lying beneath the land of private landowners, from whom that right was confiscated by a Labour Government in 1937, which was confirmed in the Crown Minerals Act 1991; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, this is a settled matter of law.

9. Emissions Trading Scheme Legislation—Prime Minister’s Statements

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

9. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement to Investigate magazine in March that “the select committee that has been set up, that will review our ETS legislation and come up with recommendations for potential changes …”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Which one of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee’s terms of reference asks it to come up with recommendations for potential changes to the emissions trading scheme legislation?

Hon JOHN KEY: The whole purpose of having the select committee is to consider what the appropriate climate change response is that the Government should adopt. The Government is working hard with all parties, actually, and the submitters to try to find the appropriate response so that New Zealand can balance both its economic opportunities and its environmental responsibilities.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: If the Prime Minister is unable to find in the terms of reference anything that directs the select committee to actually consider the legislation or amendments to it, has he discussed with his coalition partner the ACT Party which is the greater hoax: climate change or an Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee that is not tasked with reviewing the emissions trading scheme?

Hon JOHN KEY: I will repeat my answer to the first question. The whole purpose of the select committee is to come up with a response that the Government thinks is the right response to the long-term problem of climate change.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Prime Minister confirm that consideration of alignment of our scheme with Australia’s is a term of reference of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee; if so, can he confirm that the Australian Government’s position on alignment of its scheme with New Zealand’s was set out in public by Australian officials at the select committee yesterday—namely, that in order to link with Australia’s scheme, New Zealand will have to either take whatever price exists at any time on the Australian carbon market, or wait until Australia gives 5 years’ notice of an intention to link with New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme?

Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm whether it is a term of reference of the select committee; I can confirm, though, that I think it makes sense, if it is possible, for New Zealand’s climate change response to be aligned with that of Australia. I would have thought that that member would think so, as well, given the fact that New Zealand gives fairly bipartisan support to CER. Ist does the same to the single economic market. I cannot, for the life of me, see why we would want to develop different climate change responses on either side of the Tasman; it could lead to perverse outcomes, and the wrong incentives being faced on either side of the Tasman.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question I asked was whether the Prime Minister could confirm the very clear position set out by Australian officials yesterday in describing the Australian Government’s position, which was that we either take the price it offers or wait 5 years to come in. I would like the Prime Minister to address the question of whether he understands that that is the position New Zealand is in.

Hon JOHN KEY: The member needs to go back and look at his own Hansard. His very first question was about whether it was a term of reference, and I addressed that directly.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There were two elements to the question—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will take his seat. We are not going to have a debate over the quality of the answer. The member knows that if he wants an answer to a question, the question must be succinct. Then there can be no debate. I look forward to that happening.

10. Internal Affairs, Minister—Ministerial Requirements

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

10. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Can he confirm that as Minister of Internal Affairs he has met all the requirements of a Minister of the Crown as set out under “Conduct, public duty, and personal interests” in part 2 of the Cabinet Manual?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) : Yes, I believe so.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When he told the Indian Express in an exclusive interview: “We will be making it easy to get visitor visa as the rules will be relaxed”, had he spoken to his colleague the Minister of Immigration beforehand, or did he do so on his return?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: All the comments that I made on immigration issues in India reflected National Party policy as set out in the manifesto.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When the Minister told the Indian Express: “We have asked the government to start a direct flight between India and Auckland and also an India Trade Centre in Auckland.”, had he received the Government’s response at the time of the interview in late February; if not, has he received the Government’s response to each of those requests since?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: There are two questions there. As to the first, the position of the India Trade Group has been obvious for a number of years, and—Mr Goff will know this—we are very keen to see direct trade links established between India and New Zealand. That is a straightforward statement of fact. I had no further discussion with the Minister of Transport when I returned to New Zealand. As to the second question, about the India Trade Centre, that is something I know nothing about and it has never been India Trade Group policy.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he recollect telling the same newspaper about 10 weeks ago: “My personal commitment to Punjab Deputy Chief Minister Sukhbir Singh Badal is that New Zealand will be committed to improve efficiency and productivity of the farmers in the state”, and was he speaking then as a Minister of the Crown, as reported, or was he speaking as a private individual?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: That was a private trip on which I was chairman of the India Trade Group, and all times I spoke in that capacity.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I seek leave to table answers to 25 questions to the Minister of Immigration, the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Trade, the Minister for Tertiary Education, and the Minister of Transport, which show in their collective that on the honourable Minister’s return he approached none of them about any of the issues he grandstanded on—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a collection of answers. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection.

11. Drought Conditions—Reports

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

11. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Agriculture: What reports has he received on drought conditions throughout New Zealand?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has been providing me with regular updates on the developing dry conditions on the East Coast of both the North Island and the South Island over the last several months. Until very recently, dry weather has meant that conditions have deteriorated in many of those areas and a high number of farming families are facing extremely tough conditions. As such, in recent weeks I have declared medium-level droughts in Gisborne, Wairoa, Hawke’s Bay, the Bay of Plenty, Taihape, Wairarapa, and North Canterbury.

Shane Ardern: What do these drought declarations mean?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Declaring a medium-level drought means that Government officials can provide a number of vital recovery measures for financially and emotionally stressed farmers. These include tax flexibility under the Income Equalisation Scheme, funding for rural support trusts to provide welfare and counselling to affected farm families, and funding for field days and publications to give advice on drought management options. The declarations are also an important psychological step in demonstrating to affected farmers that they have this Government’s full support.

Shane Ardern: Why are droughts being declared now, when we are heading into winter and some of the wettest months of the year?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The recent rain has simply been too late for these drought-affected areas. Plummeting soil temperatures mean that grass will not grow, and farmers have been left desperately short of feed. Even with sustained heavy rain over coming weeks the outlook is bleak, and making matters worse is the fact that many of these farmers have endured back-to-back droughts for the last 3 years and are now suffering from the cumulative effects of those tough conditions.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the National Drought Committee, established by the previous Government, met yet on these issues; if so, what recommendations or initiatives is it advocating?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The National Drought Committee has been meeting on a regular basis, including today, and I visited it about an hour or so ago. It is happy with the initiatives that the Government has taken to date. I seek leave to table two maps that demonstrate quite clearly the effect of the drought around New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two documents. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

12. Internal Affairs, Minister—Ministerial Responsibilities

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

12. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: Does he believe he has adequately fulfilled all of his responsibilities as Minister of Internal Affairs since accepting the role; if so, why?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH (Minister of Internal Affairs) : Yes, I believe I have carried out my responsibilities as required.

Chris Hipkins: Why has he refused to answer basic written parliamentary questions and Official Information Act requests regarding his activities as a Minister, including refusing to release any information about reports he has received from his department or who he has met with? Is it because he is embarrassed to admit that he has not done anything, or is it that he has something to hide?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: That member has asked 1,483 questions of various members since December 2008. He has also asked similar fishing-expedition questions of other Ministers, and has received similar responses. There is a real double standard in place here; there were at least 142 written questions during the last Parliament to which a Minister responded that an answer would not be provided on the basis of the time and/or the resources that that would have required.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to consider whether the line of questioning from Mr Hipkins is appropriate. He is asking questions that relate to written questions, and I have to say that we have been somewhat surprised by the quality of the written questions coming from the Opposition. You know, Mr Speaker, that you—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, it is a reasonable point—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member cannot use the point of order process to criticise the Opposition. Commenting on the quality of questions is an implied criticism; there is another process for dealing with that. The member’s primary question related to the Minister’s responsibilities as Minister of Internal Affairs; answering questions is part of a Minister’s responsibilities. The nature of the question enabled the Minister, I believe, to say almost anything he liked, because the question went all over the place. I am sure the Minister is perfectly capable of responding to that kind of question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not wanting to question your ruling, but the fact is that a number of written questions have been submitted to you that ask whether certain matters are a reasonable use of a Minister’s time. A small example would be one from the member for Hutt South, who asked me whether I had visited Hutt South recently. You—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member is the Leader of the House, but when I am on my feet he will resume his seat. This is not a matter for the order of the House, and he knows that. I accept that there are issues around at the moment about the nature of written questions being asked, and that they need to be sorted out, but there is a process for dealing with that—

Hon Darren Hughes: And answered.

Mr SPEAKER: —and answered—and we will deal with it in the appropriate way.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, but I have been brought into this. I want to say that the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will take his seat right now! Senior members are setting a wonderful example to newer members of the House of how not to behave. Senior members should know the point of order process and not abuse it. That is something I take a dim view of, because it wastes the time of the House—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Have a coffee!

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and the member will not interject. Let us allow this matter to lie here, because I have made my position very clear.

John Hayes: What is the Minister doing to address concerns in the community regarding the gambling—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member asking the question. There was such an exchange going on up the front of the House here that I could not hear the member. I invite him to repeat his question.

John Hayes: What is the Minister doing to address concerns in the community regarding the gambling sector?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: My two key priorities in the gambling arena are, first of all, to maximise community funding from non-casino gambling machines in commercial venues, and, second, to resolve dubious grant-funding practices in the sector. I am keen to see gambling trusts address real community needs and provide long-term benefits, through their funding decisions. In the current economic downturn, when gaming-machine revenue is declining just as demand for community funding is rising, I believe that this is a critical issue.

Chris Hipkins: Is the Minister aware that during the term of the last Parliament, the Minister of Internal Affairs, the Hon Rick Barker, answered 892—

Mr SPEAKER: I fail to see the responsibility that this Minister has for what a Minister during the last Parliament did. I will not cut the member’s supplementary question, but I invite him to—

Hon Members: Sit down!

Mr SPEAKER: To the National members, or any members, who were interjecting, I say that that is not appropriate. I was going to deal with the member, who must resume his seat. I invite him to ask a question that is in order.

Chris Hipkins: Why is the Minister refusing to answer the 140 written parliamentary questions that have been put to him, when Ministers in previous Parliaments have answered exactly the same questions without any trouble?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: I do not accept the statement of assumptions and fact in the question. I have, in fact, answered the questions; it is just that the member does not like the answers.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear the question.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Has the Minister received numerous written questions from that member, Mr Hipkins, that ask the same question asked by other back-benchers and Ministers; and would the Minister, in his view, agree that that is wasting a huge amount of Ministers’ resources and time?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: It is—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear the answer.

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: It is right to say that the member is on an open fishing expedition. Ministers have to decide whether it is appropriate for significant departmental resources and time to be spent on preparing answers to such open questions.

Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister instructed the Department of Internal Affairs to change its output plan, which currently estimates between 550 and 650 written parliamentary replies per year; if he has not, why is he refusing to answer questions on the basis that it would take too many resources to do so?

Hon Dr RICHARD WORTH: I have already answered that question. The member has been receiving answers; it is just that he does not like them.

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table several documents. The first is the reply from the Minister to an Official Information Act request in which he refuses to provide information on all stakeholder and lobby groups he has met since becoming a Minister.

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

Chris Hipkins: The second is a reply from the Minister to another Official Information Act request in which he refuses to provide information regarding all reports, briefings, and submissions he has received since becoming a Minister.

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

Chris Hipkins: The third is a compilation of answers to written parliamentary questions to the Minister, in which he refuses to provide any information on who—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise, I missed—[Interruption] Order! There must be no interjections. This is a point of order process. I missed the description of that document. I apologise.

Chris Hipkins: I seek leave to table a summary of answers the Minister has provided to written parliamentary questions, refusing to reveal any information about—

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table answers to questions—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is important that the leave is put accurately. It is a summary of those answers. The member did not—

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. Could I just seek guidance on who wrote the summary?

Chris Hipkins: I wrote the summary.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that summary of answers to questions. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Questions to Members

1. Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee—Terms of Reference

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

1. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Co-Leader—Green) to the Chairperson of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee: Do the terms of reference of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee include a review of the emissions trading scheme legislation?

Hon PETER DUNNE (Chairperson of the Emissions Trading Scheme Review Committee): The committee’s terms of reference, which were set by the House, do not expressly refer to reviewing the legislation. However, they are broad enough to allow the committee to recommend changes to the scheme that might require amending the legislation.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Were submitters informed that their submissions did not need to stay within the written terms of reference; if not, were not those submitters misled by the Act Party’s terms of reference about what was acceptable?

Hon PETER DUNNE: Submitters were informed that they needed to submit in accordance with the terms of reference of the select committee. Whether they felt misled is for them to determine. I draw the member’s attention to the fact that one of the terms of reference was to “examine the relative merits of an emissions trading scheme or a tax on carbon or energy as a New Zealand response to climate change”. Within that term of reference, there would have been scope to make comments about the emissions trading scheme.

ENDS

© Scoop Media