Questions For Oral Answer
13 May 2009

Questions for Ministers

1. Budget 2009—Unfunded Commitments

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

1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: How will Budget 2009 address commitments that were made but not funded in Budget 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The previous Government made several unfunded commitments as part of Budget 2008. These were promises that could not be paid for within the generous operating allowance in Budget 2008, so they were charged up against future Budgets. They included a $200-million-a-year economic transformation package, $70 million a year for an expansion of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and $190 million to fulfil contractual pay increases for teachers. As part of Budget 2009, the Government will decide whether they will be kept or dropped.

Craig Foss: What criteria is this Government using to decide which unfunded commitments it will fund?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some of the obligations are contractual and will be met. Such obligations are teacher pay rises. Others will be assessed against other spending priorities. For instance, we have to decide whether pre-commitments to adjustments in tertiary institutional funding 3 or 4 years away are more important than the growing demand on the probation service and corrections service.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm that the biggest unfunded commitment he has cut so far is John Key’s cycleway, and that that is why he said: “we won’t be spending $50 million on it this year, or next year, or the year after.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong. In the next few days, the Prime Minister will show exactly who is boss.

Craig Foss: What will the ending of some of the unfunded commitments mean?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Most of the unfunded commitments are related to Budget years 2 or 3 years away, so ending them will have no immediate effect. It will mean that some people will not get some of the things they might have been expecting, but, equally, no one will lose anything they already have. Unfortunately, we discovered that because no funding had been allocated to these commitments, when we removed the commitments we were unable to make any savings.

Hon David Cunliffe: What measures does the Minister intend to introduce in the Budget to help the thousands of ordinary New Zealanders who are struggling to pay their mortgages and small business loans, and who are suffering from the banks’ reluctance to lower lending rates in line with the reduced official cash rate? Does he take note of the fact that taxpayers are footing more of the risk via banking guarantees and Reserve Bank asset-building?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Those ordinary New Zealanders decided to do something for themselves by voting the member’s Government out and this one in, just a few months ago. In respect of the banks, the Government and the Reserve Bank are keeping a close eye on them. No doubt there will be a bit of pushing and shoving while we sort out how the banks will share the burden of getting through the recession.

Sue Kedgley: How much will the restructuring of Auckland governance cost? Will these costs be part of Budget 2009, or will all the transition costs be passed on as a debt to Auckland ratepayers when the transition agency winds up?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: My understanding is that the costs of setting up the transition board will be appropriated in the Budget.

Craig Foss: Will Budget 2009 continue the previous Government’s practice of making large, unfunded commitments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer is no. Budget 2009—

Hon Member: Oh!

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is possible to commit only to those things you are actually going to spend money on, and that is what is going to happen in this year’s Budget.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday in points of order around question time, we traversed the issue that the phrase “unfunded commitments” in the question was ruled out of order, yet we see it come back in this supplementary question. It is clear that no evidence has been presented for any unfunded—as opposed to unappropriated—future spending commitments.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: No such ruling was made. The member over there took offence at the use of the term “unfunded”, and quite understandably. The mistake the member David Cunliffe makes is that National voluntarily removed the term “unfunded” from a question. It appeared, therefore, on the sheets that the member probably saw. It was certainly not ruled on, nor was it ruled out of order. Quite frankly, it would be absurd to have it ruled out of order, because unfunded promises are a fact.

Hon David Cunliffe: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any more assistance on this matter. The phrase is not out of order. Members often do not like supplementary questions, but they do have supplementary questions of their own in which to pursue the issue. I thought the point of order the member was going to raise was that, in fact, the Speaker is not spending any money. The Minister perhaps should not have referred to the Speaker by saying “you”—as in what “you are actually going to spend money on”. Does the member wish to ask further supplementary questions?

Hon David Cunliffe: Perhaps as a point of order, just to clarify for the record that the supposed—

Mr SPEAKER: Order. The member cannot use the point of order process to clarify things for the record—it is either a matter of order in this House or it is not. Clarification for the record is a matter that is dealt with through elucidating answers to supplementary questions, if the member wants to do that.

2. Government Members—Conflicts of Interest

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

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he believe all members of his Government are handling conflicts of interest appropriately?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Paragraph 2.59 of the Cabinet Manual states: “Ministers themselves are responsible for proactively identifying and reviewing possible conflicts of interest, and ensuring that any conflicts of interest are promptly addressed.” I expect my Ministers to act in accordance with the requirements laid out in the Cabinet Manual.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister stand by his reported comments that he, as Prime Minister, approved Melissa Lee’s decision to continue to have a role with the television programme Asia Down Under after becoming an MP, and how does that reflect on his ability as Prime Minister to identify and manage conflicts of interest?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise as an issue the fact that the Prime Minister is answering a question about a member of Parliament, not a Minister. It is not usual for the Speaker to allow questions to be asked about MPs in the Government. I assumed that the question that was set down referred to a Minister, even though it states “members”. I ask you for your guidance on that issue.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I am sure you were listening carefully to the supplementary question, as well as to the primary question. The Leader of the Opposition made it quite clear that he was referring to advice given by the Prime Minister. Melissa Lee is on the record as indicating that she received advice from the Prime Minister on that matter. That is the Prime Minister’s ministerial role, and his judgment is being questioned, as well as hers.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Speakers’ rulings are quite clear on this matter. Speaker’s ruling 147/2 sets out the ruling from the former Speaker Margaret Wilson. Interestingly, the Speaker said on that day “I remind members that Ministers are responsible for only those matters that fall within their responsibilities …”. She went on to say further that members are to ensure that a “question is addressed in the capacity of Prime Minister and not as leader of” a party. This was a response from her, making it very clear that the leader of a party, although he or she is the Prime Minister, does not have any accountability in this House for actions taken as the leader of the party, even though he or she may in other places be identified as the Prime Minister. Most interestingly, this was a response to a point of order raised by a member. The point of order was “I invite you to rule on whether the responsibility just referred to is a responsibility of the Prime Minister or of the leader of the Labour Party. If it is the responsibility of the leader of the Labour Party and not the Prime Minister, then the question should be ruled out of order.” The Speaker agreed. The person who raised the point of order was Trevor Mallard.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be silence. This is a serious matter that has been raised. Finally, I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard, because his name was mentioned.

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is very clear and very easy for you to differentiate between those situations. In this particular case we are talking about the spending of a company receiving New Zealand On Air—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard: This is an important point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: No. [Interruption] I do not need assistance. Points of order are dealt with in silence. The member cannot get into the substance of the issue; he can only raise matters in a point of order to do with order. When I saw the question I must confess I was surprised by it, because members should understand the difference between Parliament and the Government. I automatically assumed that the questioner was referring to members of the Government, which means Ministers. Members of Parliament are not members of the Government unless they happen to also be Ministers. When the supplementary question was asked I contemplated intervening, because it seemed to me that, in fact, it was asking something the Prime Minister could not be responsible for because the member referred to is not a member of the Government but is a member of Parliament. The member might belong to the same party but the Prime Minister is not responsible as Prime Minister for matters where he might have responsibilities as party leader. I do not want to penalise the honourable member in losing his supplementary question, but I invite him to ask a further supplementary question that comes within the Standing Orders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry if I did not express myself clearly in my first attempt. This matter is a matter of the expenditure of Government funding through New Zealand On Air. I submit to you that the Prime Minister does have responsibility for that and matters related to it. It is appropriate for the Leader of the Opposition to ask questions and to have them answered where New Zealand On Air funding is being used for a company and then used for—

Mr SPEAKER: Again, the member is starting to argue matters of fact, which are not matters of order. There is a dilemma here. If the primary question had asked the Prime Minister about a member of Parliament, it would not have been approved, I would imagine. It asked about all members of his Government. His Government is his executive. In the supplementary questions, the Prime Minister cannot be questioned about members who are not members of the executive. That was the point the Hon Rodney Hide raised. I ruled in favour of Rodney Hide’s point of order because it is correct that members of the Government are members of the executive, and the supplementary questions can relate only to conflicts of interest regarding members of the executive.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just for clarity, in your ruling, are you saying that if one were to ask about a conflict of interest, for example about how the Minister of Broadcasting was handling conflicts of interest, that would be acceptable and the Prime Minister could be asked about how he thought the Minister of Broadcasting was handling conflicts of interest and that would be acceptable?

Mr SPEAKER: Correct.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may be helpful for the Leader of the Opposition to recognise that if he were to take that particular advice solicited by Russel Norman, he would be talking about the Minister of Broadcasting at the time of this event occurring, which was, of course, prior to the election.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable member, because I believe I should have intervened sooner.

Hon Trevor Mallard: As the former Minister of Broadcasting, I say that if that matter had been properly declared it would have been declared to me. Melissa Lee did not do so.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no interjections while I am on my feet. We can see the problem the Speaker gets into when he or she allows points of order that are not points of order. I should have stopped the honourable Leader of the House, and I regret that I did not, because it led to disorder.

Hon Phil Goff: How can New Zealanders have confidence that all members of his Government are handling conflicts of interest appropriately, when Richard Worth’s failures to handle conflicts of interest are well documented and when last night the Melissa Lee documentary suggested that conflicts of interest are in fact endemic in Government members’ caucuses?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Which part of that question will be allowed to stand, and why was not there a move to stop that line of questioning sooner?

Mr SPEAKER: I could have intervened, but I am sure the Hon Bill English is perfectly capable of handling a question like that.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I said in answer to the primary question, the Cabinet Manual lays out the processes, and, as that member will know, when Ministers are appointed there is a post-appointment review of their personal interests conducted extensively by the Cabinet Office, and that is exactly what it did.

Hon Phil Goff: Which conflict of interest does the Prime Minister think is worse—Richard Worth purporting to act as a Minister while promoting his own private business, or Melissa Lee, using taxpayer funding—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. The member knows that I was tolerant with the last question, whereby I did not intervene. He knows he cannot ask about matters relating to members who are not members of the Government. He knows that. He deliberately sought to flout my ruling. I will not tolerate it again. That part of the question is ruled out.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am just curious to know from you how the Leader of the Opposition can frame his questions in a similar way that was done when Opposition members asked questions about Taito Phillip Field, who was not a member of the executive, but there was day after day of questions asked by a member of Parliament on that matter, and those questions were all allowed. I wonder whether you could perhaps give some advice as to why you thought those questions were in order about Taito Phillip Field, but today you do not believe those questions are in order about Melissa Lee, apart from the fact that one of them is in the National Party.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. All of the questions that related to the Field case, which are easily able to be researched in Hansard, were asked primarily of the Minister of Immigration at the time. Questions that were asked of the Prime Minister were asked of him in that capacity. As we have said, there have been numerous times during my time in Parliament when this particular issue has arisen. There was the famous explanation from Helen Clark in about, I think, 2001 about the hats that various members wore in this House at different times. There is also the very clear ruling I spoke of before that does back up the position you have taken this afternoon, and I think that regardless of any way Opposition members may try to get around it, they must remember that it was their pleadings to the Speaker that got us to this position.

Mr SPEAKER: We do not need to spend more time on this issue today. The matter is very clear. The primary question is about members of the Government, and conflicts of interest regarding members of the Government. Supplementary questions must relate to that and cannot veer off into issues around members of Parliament who are not members of the Government. I have ruled on the matter, and taking that matter any further will not be productive. I am prepared to allow the honourable member, as members will have forgotten, to ask the first part of that question again but not the part that relates to a person who is not a member of the Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Maybe I will change my question, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, I will allow the honourable member to do that.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister asked the Minister of Broadcasting to examine whether there have been any conflicts of interest or misuse of NZ On Air money to produce party political advertisements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That would have been a matter for the previous Prime Minister to address, because the events being referred to, outside the House, occurred under the Labour Minister of Broadcasting.

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

Mr SPEAKER: All around the House there will be order. A point of order is being taken.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I do take personal exception to that. If someone stole money on my watch—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If he wishes to make a personal explanation about the matter, he can seek leave to do that. But he cannot dispute an answer using a point of order; it is totally outside the Standing Orders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take personal exception to that comment, and I ask that it be withdrawn and apologised for.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I made a statement of fact, and the fact is that the events outside being referred to—

Mr SPEAKER: The issue of what the Minister said cannot be debated under points of order. I take it that the member possibly wishes to use—and I am just trying to find the Standing Order he is using to address that issue of order—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, it is a personal reflection on me, because he said I didn’t do my job properly.

Mr SPEAKER: There should be no interjection. The member could possibly use Standing Order 115, in particular, or Standing Order 116. In Standing Order 115, the words used by the Minister would have to be “offensive or disorderly”. If there is a dispute over the accuracy of an answer, that is not “offensive” or automatically “disorderly”. Standing Order 116 refers to a personal reflection: “A member may not make an imputation of improper motives against a member, an offensive reference to a member’s private affairs, or a personal reflection against a member.” The dilemma in whether I insist the Minister withdraw and apologise is that it does not appear to me that he has used words that could meet those requirements. That is why, if the member feels offended by it, he could seek leave to make a personal explanation about it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I just want to make it clear that I regard as a personal reflection on me the suggestion that I should have stopped using NZ On Air funding when she did not declare it.

Mr SPEAKER: It is not provided for in the Standing Orders to have such a debate. On the basis of what I heard the Minister say, I could not ask him to withdraw it as meeting the requirements of Standing Orders 115 and 116, because it did not appear automatically to be offensive. If the member feels that it is a personal reflection, then he can explain to the House under the personal explanation provisions. But there are no other provisions. So if it is not a personal matter—

Hon Trevor Mallard: It’s not personal; it’s ministerial.

Mr SPEAKER: —and the member should not be interjecting, but I will allow him because I know he is trying to be helpful in this—it is then a matter of debate, and he cannot insist that the matter be withdrawn under those circumstances. Now I have lost track of where we had got to, to be quite honest; the Minister had just given an answer?

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called, and recognised.

Hon David Parker: My point of order goes to the denial of responsibility that the Minister articulated in his answer, on the basis that the alleged wrongdoing happened before—

Mr SPEAKER: How many times—the member will resume his seat—do I have to point this out to the House. I know that the House got into some bad habits, but the point of order procedure is not a process for debating issues and questioning the accuracy of Ministers’ answers. There are further supplementary questions. The Minister has given an answer; supplementary questions can be asked about it, to elucidate whether it is an accurate answer.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. About a month ago, the Speaker stood me down before I had finished my point of order, in a way that led to a disorderly exchange. I would suggest that you listen to my point of order before you sit me down, because I had not said enough in respect of my point of order for you to judge whether it was in order. The Deputy Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, said that he did not have to answer the question as it was not within his responsibility, because the events that were being considered had occurred before the date of the appointment of the Minister concerned. With respect, that is not correct. The Minister has responsibility—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member will resume his seat.

Hon Member: Sit down!

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no interjections. The member will resume his seat, because he is debating; he is not raising a point of order. That is why I have sat him down. That is not a point of order. He is debating the accuracy of the Deputy Prime Minister’s answer. I cannot judge that, but it is in the hands of the questioner to question it. If the answer to the question appears to be inaccurate, he can dive into that. Anything the Deputy Prime Minister has said in answer is now open to questioning.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon David Cunliffe: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I will let the Hon David Parker continue, because I do not want to make him feel that I have not listened.

Hon David Parker: My point of order is that the Deputy Prime Minister did not address the question, because he denied that there was responsibility to address the question and therefore declined to do so. In my submission, he had responsibility for it and ought to have addressed it, but he did not, because he denied responsibility.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want this to go on any further. In my assessment, in my judgment, the Minister absolutely answered the question. I can see that Opposition members did not like the answer, and if we let the Leader of the Opposition get on with it, I am sure he has some very good questions.

Hon Phil Goff: Has the Prime Minister asked his Minister of Justice to report on whether there have been any conflicts of interest that might have led to a breach of the Electoral Act in terms of failure to declare donations?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has not had any such facts put to him.

David Garrett: Does the Prime Minister perceive a conflict of interest in politicians’ advocating the spending of an extra $2 billion of taxpayers’ money to build a tunnel through the Mt Albert electorate during a by-election, and does he think the public finances could cope with such pork-barrel politics if they were to spread to every electorate in the country?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to say that there is one rule for all parliamentarians.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: The Deputy Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, was asked whether he had seen reports. That is perfectly legitimate.

Mr SPEAKER: We do not need to waste any more time on this issue. I found the question highly debatable as to whether it was in order. I invite the member, so that I do not cut the Act Party out of a supplementary question, to ask his supplementary question, but I ask him to please keep it relevant to the primary question.

David Garrett: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports that suggest there might be a conflict of interest in politicians advocating an extra $2 billion of taxpayers’ money being spent in Mt Albert during the by-election; if so, does he think that the public finances could cope with such pork-barrel politics if they were to spread to every electorate in the country?

Mr SPEAKER: Having just ruled out the opportunity of the Leader of the Opposition to question the Prime Minister about members who are not members of the Government, I can hardly allow the member to question the Prime Minister about members who are not members of the Government. I am afraid that I have to rule out that supplementary question.

3. Roading—Auckland

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

3. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with Paul Mees, a senior lecturer in transport planning, who is reported as saying that Auckland has spent 50 years putting all its eggs in the motorway basket and that “in Auckland you’d think it was the 1950s, from the way the road lobby and the Government carry on”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : No, and I note that Mr Mees is also a noted Melbourne-based public transport activist—which is fair enough. My view is that there are no single-modal solutions in Auckland. We will need both public transport and roading solutions, and this Government is investing heavily in both.

Dr Russel Norman: How can he say that he is committed to, or investing heavily in, public transport when one of his first acts as the Minister of Transport was to cut $420 million from funding for rail, bus, walking, and cycling, and put that money into an expanded motorway-building programme?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That money was not cut from any programme; it had not been spent. All those activities receive increased expenditure in the Government policy statement shortly to be released.

Dr Russel Norman: Dos he agree with Paul Bedford, the former chief planner of Toronto, who says that Auckland should stop spending on new motorways, and vastly improve public transport, because the reality of motorways is that they fill up to capacity with additional traffic almost immediately after they are built?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have to say I prefer the opinions of Aucklanders to those of Australians, Canadians, and—for that matter—Scotsmen.

David Bennett: What commitments has the Government made to public transport in Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government is investing hugely in Auckland’s public transport infrastructure. There is the ongoing $600 million Project DART, $500 million for the electrification of Auckland’s rail network, and $500 million for the new electric trains themselves. In addition, the new Government policy statement will increase funding for public transport services next year by a further 5 percent, to its highest level ever.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why is he one of the only people in New Zealand who thinks that redirecting $420 million in future funding increases away from things such as public transport is not a cut?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Members of the previous administration confuse what they expected to do with what actually happened and is about to happen. One cannot cut money that has not actually been spent.

Dr Russel Norman: How can he say that he wishes to listen to Aucklanders, when all the surveys show that the No. 1 priority of two-thirds of Aucklanders is better public transport, and, furthermore, when his Government took away the ability of the Auckland region to have a fuel levy that could fund improved public transport?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The reality is that about 86 percent of Aucklanders, whether or not the Greens like it, proceed to and from work each day by car, truck, or motorcycle, about 7 percent use public transport, and about 1 percent use rail. We are committed to improving the investment in all those modes, but we have to have some basis in reality in terms of our investment in the transport sector.

Dr Russel Norman: How can it possibly make sense for his Government to spend $8 on motorways for every $1 on alternatives to motorways, when the latest reports from the Transport Agency show that motorway traffic has reduced to 2004 levels—it is declining—and that, secondly, buses and trains are at capacity in Auckland because we have simply under-invested in them for decades?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The point is that we have to have some basis in reality. The reality we are faced with is that 86 percent of Aucklanders go to and from work each day by car, truck, or motorcycle, and 7 percent use public transport. I appreciate that the Greens want to save the planet, but I think in this instance it would be appropriate to first work out which planet they are on.

Mr SPEAKER: Dr Russel Norman.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to Russel Norman, but the last part of that was a gratuitous insult. Although the question was political in its nature, it was not the sort of offensive political question that you have ruled out before; it was a pretty simple question and did not deserve that sort of response from the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard that statement used in this House on more than one occasion. It has never been ruled to be offensive before. In fact, the Minister gave rather more information that he needed to. He was asked how he can do something; he could have said “Easily.” and he would have answered the question perfectly well.

Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister therefore confirming that it is not the policy of the Government to do something to save the planet, which most New Zealanders actually want; and does he realise that the reason why most Aucklanders are stuck in cars is under-investment in alternatives for years, which means they do not have the choices that survey after survey show they want?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This Government is very committed to supporting the planet and environmental causes. I was just making the point that one has to understand the reality of people’s transport options, and the impact that investment can have. We are investing around $1.6 billion in public transport in Auckland, which will increase the amount of rail use from about 1 to 2 percent, to probably 3 to 4 percent. It would require a massive, massive amount of money to move that percentage to anything like the 80-something percent that roads provide now.

4. Families Commissioner—Appointment of Christine Rankin

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

4. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What consultation was carried out before the appointment of Christine Rankin to the Families Commission?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : It has been a long process. There have been a number of consultations.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submit to you that that answer did not address the question. It sort of waved in the general direction of the question, but it gave no specifics as to consultation, at all.

Mr SPEAKER: Given that the question was on notice, and that there has been considerable time to prepare the answer, I believe that the honourable member has a valid complaint.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This process has been through Cabinet, it has been through the Cabinet appointment and honours committee, and it has also been discussed with one of our coalition partners.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Supplementary question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member’s colleagues might pay him some respect; he is asking a supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister indicate to Peter Dunne in March that Christine Rankin would not be appointed?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I met with Mr Dunne in March, and we discussed Christine Rankin’s impending appointment, but I do not believe that that was the end of the process. There was a discussion to be had after that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is the same point of order. It was a very straightforward question: did she, or did she not, indicate to Peter Dunne that Christine Rankin would not be appointed? She did not address that in her answer. She said she had a discussion with him—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need assistance on this occasion. I believe that with that kind of question the member cannot expect an explicit answer. He cannot expect the particular answer he wants to that kind of question. I think the Minister indicated in her answer that she had had a discussion. The member has further supplementary questions with which to pursue the matter.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Would it be reasonable to say that the reinstatement of Christine Rankin to a position in the Government is similar to the reinstatement of Trevor Mallard to Labour’s front bench by Phil Goff following a conviction for assault and a period off the Labour front bench?

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

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called, and I have recognised the honourable Trevor Mallard.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a very simple point of order. The member cannot authenticate that question. The question cannot be authenticated, because I was not convicted of assault.

Mr SPEAKER: We keep going through the same process all the time. The member cannot use the point of order procedure to question the accuracy of the member’s question. The question does not have to be authenticated; it is a supplementary question. I fully understand if the member wishes to make a personal explanation about that; he could certainly seek leave to do so.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption] Well, are we going to have points of order in silence? That does not seem to be the case today. The key thing here—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Darren Hughes: It is their time.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. If he makes that kind of comment during points of order, inevitably there will be responses. A point of order will be terse, to the point, and directed to me as Speaker.

Hon Darren Hughes: And in silence—is that correct?

Mr SPEAKER: The member will please just deliver the point of order.

Hon Darren Hughes: The key thing is around the authentication of a supplementary question. If an assertion that is not true is made that a member of the House has been convicted of something, you cannot just allow that to pass on the basis that it is a debatable matter, not to be raised by way of a point of order. A member has stood and told you that he has not been convicted of that, yet you have allowed that question to go.

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker cannot judge the accuracy of questions. There is merit in the member’s point of order in that unnecessary allegations should not be introduced into a supplementary question. But it seemed to me that the question was making a very particular point, and the matter related to a member’s personal interest. If, in fact, it was offensive to that member’s personal interest, that is why there is a personal explanation procedure: the member can clarify the point and no one can dispute it after that. But we cannot debate the accuracy of answers or questions by way of point of order. It is totally outside the Standing Orders to do so, because it always leads to disorder—it always leads to disorder. Either the member is offended by that allegation because it is wrong, and he therefore wishes to seek leave to make a personal explanation, or he is not.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the matter goes to your role as Speaker and to your responsibilities to protect the minority in this House. You have received my word by way of point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will please resume his seat. The reason I have not received the member’s word by way of point of order is that there is no process for me to do that. The member has said that, but it is not in order. I cannot hear it because it is not in order for me to hear it. If the member is offended by something that is inaccurate—

Hon Trevor Mallard: There has been a long history of doing it by point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: There may be a long history but it is, in fact, totally contrary to the Standing Orders of this Parliament—unless Parliament wants to change its Standing Orders, and I suggest that it does not, because raising debating material under points of order invariably leads to disorder. I think it would be best—if the member does not wish to seek leave to make a personal explanation—if I see whether the Hon Sir Roger Douglas would be prepared to rephrase his question in a way that is, perhaps, less offensive to the member.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Given the exchange that we had in the second question today that related to the activities of a member, surely a natural extension of that would be to protect the Hon Trevor Mallard by ruling the question out, because the Minister, surely, cannot be responsible for the member’s actions or any consequences of his actions.

Mr SPEAKER: Since I have already ruled out one question today I invite the member to ask a supplementary question—

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Excuse me for pursuing the matter, but I would refer you to Speakers’ Rulings and seek your clarification on Speakers’ rulings 44/2 and 44/3. Speaker’s ruling 44/2 states: “It is the right of any member to challenge a statement of another member, especially if there is any suggestion of improper conduct on the part of a member.” Speaker’s ruling 44/3 states: “If a member feels that repeated reference to some matter in the member’s private life is a reflection on the member’s integrity, then the member is entitled to the protection of the Chair, and it is improper for another member to pursue the matter.” Unless there is some reason why those rulings do not apply I would suggest that they apply directly to this matter, that Mr Mallard is entitled to your protection, and that the member should be told to refrain from pursuing that matter.

Mr SPEAKER: I will certainly look at the matter the member has raised, to make sure that I take full cognisance of that, but I think the best way to resolve the matter may be if the honourable member is prepared to rephrase his question in a way that does not cause offence. I think it might help the House.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: I will try not to cause offence; I am happy to withdraw those words “conviction for assault” if they are incorrect. I repeat the question. Would it be reasonable to say that the reinstatement of Christine Rankin to a position in the Government is similar to the reinstatement of Mr Mallard to the front bench of the Labour Party by Phil Goff? As I found myself on one or two occasions when I was removed from the front bench, time heals most things.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Christine Rankin has not been appointed to any position in the Government.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the question is of such questionable relevance that we should, in fact, rule it out and move on.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister satisfied that Christine Rankin has left behind her culture of extravagance and her other bizarre behaviour; if so, how did she become satisfied of that?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Christine Rankin will not decide how a budget is spent at the Families Commission. She is one of seven commissioners; they will be making agreements together around a table.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister reconsider her decision in light of the resignation of the highly respected Druis Barrett—

Hon Member: Who?

Hon Trevor Mallard: —the highly respected Druis Barrett—someone recognised right around the House—from the Families Commission advisory group because of the appointment of Christine Rankin and, in particular, her attitude to Māori?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I repeat that Christine Rankin is one of seven commissioners. I will not be revisiting that decision.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Which comment is accurate: that of Mrs Turia that she had not been consulted, or that of her colleague, who reported that Mrs Turia was present at the Cabinet appointments and honours committee and did not express opposition to the appointment of Christine Rankin?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I cannot comment on what Minister Turia said. I have not heard her comments on whether or not—

Hon Tariana Turia: It’s true.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think they are both true.

5. Hospitals—Buildings

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

5. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister of Health: What decisions have been made by the Government in relation to hospital building developments?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : In 2008 the previous Government approved the redevelopment of Hutt Hospital campus—under consistent and highly effective political pressure, I remind those members—subject to final ministerial approval of the preliminary design. Today the National Government can announce that further approval and Hutt Valley District Health Board can now progress the $82 million redevelopment of Hutt Hospital’s emergency department and theatres. This approval includes a $62 million contribution from central government, and we funded this commitment despite the fact that we inherited over $600 million of capital requests from district health boards with only a small amount of money to pay for them.

Paul Quinn: When will the people of the Hutt Valley area see the benefits of this necessary and important investment?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is well recognised that the Hutt Valley emergency department is inadequate and access to elective surgery there needs to be improved. The full project is expected to be completed and operational in 2012. In the meantime the district health board has built its own temporary and innovative “theatre pods”, as it calls them, to provide more elective surgery for Hutt Valley people.

Paul Quinn: What other decisions has the Government made in relation to hospital services for people in the Hutt Valley and Wellington region?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have advised the House before that the new Government inherited a health sector on track to financial crisis with over $600 million of capital demands for regional projects. Capital and Coast District Health Board, with an underlying deficit of around $70 million, is a significant issue and it is clear to me that the previous Government did not sufficiently factor in the interest and capital charges associated with the enormous borrowings required for the regional hospital. I can today advise that the Government has agreed to pump a total of $53 million of health cash into Capital and Coast District Health Board as deficit support for the current financial year. This will ensure the ongoing viability of important hospital services in Wellington as we work to tidy up yet another mess inherited from the previous Government.

Mr SPEAKER: Order! That answer was too long.

6. Waterview Connection—Community Impact

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

6. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What are his concerns about the impact on the community affected by the decision not to proceed with the previously announced tunnel option for the Waterview Connection?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I am very concerned about the impact of this proposed project on the community. In this case, there are no easy options. Even the twin two-lane tunnels proposed by the previous Government would affect 140 or so houses. It is my job as Minister of Transport to balance the concerns of the local community with the impact on taxpayers across the country. I believe that some of the concerns will be mitigated by the announcement from the New Zealand Transport Agency between 3 p.m and 4 p.m this afternoon.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why did he say in his media release yesterday that there will be consultation about today’s decision, when he has just ignored the previous consultation with exactly the same people?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The problem with the previous proposal was that it was completely unfunded and was, therefore, a wish—and, in fact, quite a cruel hoax on the community, because there was no plan to fund that project.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The use of the term “unfunded” has already been decided by you and the Clerk’s Office to be inappropriate in this context. It was—

Mr SPEAKER: I saw nothing wrong with the answer given by the Minister.

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has the Minister seen on funding methods for a $2.77 billion tunnel for the Waterview Connection?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have seen a wide range of possible options on how such an expensive roading project could be funded. They have included increased Crown debt, with a large interest bill, plus substantial tolls; a 20c per litre fuel tax; or a 35-year regional property tax of around $460 per household in Auckland per year. I have not ever seen which one of those options Labour prefers, or any indication at all as to how Labour would propose to pay for such a tunnel. I think that meets the definition of unfunded.

Hon Darren Hughes: Will he compensate landowners whose homes are not demolished but who now face a motorway of up to six lanes eventually running by their homes, when such a motorway will affect their property values?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think it is appropriate, as I said before, to wait for the New Zealand Transport Agency to announce this afternoon its preferred proposal for the project, before responding to that question.

Hon Darren Hughes: Does National understand what Sheelah Chalklen and her neighbours mean when they say that “These are not houses, as the Minister refers to them, but homes.”?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Absolutely, yes.

Hon Darren Hughes: Did he or his office have any influence at all over the timing of today’s announcement by the New Zealand Transport Agency about the Waterview Connection—an announcement scheduled to occur after question time has been held?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Not at all. The New Zealand Transport Agency met yesterday to make its decision as to the proposed alignment, and then it told me that it needed 24 hours to have the first opportunity to contact affected residents in the community. The decision as to the timing of the release this afternoon is the agency’s.

7. Budget 2009—Oil and Gas Exploration

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

7. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Will Budget 2009 contain any measures to encourage oil and gas exploration in New Zealand waters; if so, what are those measures?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : Yes; I am obliged to the Minister of Revenue, who supported Budget 2009 making provision for a 5-year continuation of the exemption for non-resident operators of offshore rigs and seismic vessels. The exemption is known as the 183-day tax rule. The exemption has had a positive effect on oil and gas exploration. The number of non-resident offshore rigs operating in New Zealand has more than doubled in the last 5 years, the number of offshore wells has increased fivefold, and the offshore gas reserves have also increased.

Chris Auchinvole: How does the exemption to the 183-day tax rule work to encourage oil and gas exploration?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: New Zealand is distant from other countries with petroleum programmes; the cost of sending rigs and seismic vessels to New Zealand is high. Prior to the exemption, non-resident offshore rig operators and seismic vessels had tended to stay in New Zealand for a period of less than 183 days, even if further exploration had been desirable beyond the 183-day window. Different rigs were then required to be brought back into New Zealand to complete the work, causing extra mobilisation and demobilisation costs. This disrupted sensible exploration and development programmes.

Chris Auchinvole: Will the Budget contain any other measures to assist our natural resources sector?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, the Budget will also contain, as previously announced, the $20 million injection into the acquisition of seismic data by the Government that is then made available to explorers. This step, along with the continuation of the 183-day rule, indicates the Government’s strong commitment to the natural resource sector in New Zealand and its contributions to New Zealand’s future economic prosperity.

8. Recession—International Economic Developments

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

8. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received on international economic developments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The member will know that there are an endless number of reports on international economic developments.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister, for example, seen reports that the Australian Budget includes measures that will protect up to 210,000 jobs? Can New Zealanders expect his Budget to address their fears about rising unemployment, and the loss of their jobs, homes, and dignity, by delivering significant job-saving measures?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: What I can confirm is that Australian unemployment is consistently higher than New Zealand’s, and its Budget deficit forecasts are higher than recent forecasts I have seen from New Zealand. So whatever we are doing, it seems to be working better than what Australia is doing.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to the work of the previous Labour Government, does the Minister agree with the Australian Treasurer’s moves to invest the $5.7 billion being spent on education and innovation to help those who have lost their jobs, and to help the country grow out of recession? Is this not exactly the sort of investment New Zealanders can expect to see from him in his Budget?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, our investments are going to be better targeted, and that will show up in lower unemployment in New Zealand. I can assure the member that, despite his anxiety, the Government will be continuing investment in education, innovation, and infrastructure on a larger scale, and with much better focus, than his Government ever achieved.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: How does the New Zealand response to these developments compare with other major economies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are responding actively and assertively to global economic developments, but we start with some disadvantages; New Zealand was in a recession before the global crisis struck. None the less, there are some encouraging signs. The lift in the unemployment rate to date has been modest, and remains well below that of most Western countries, and certainly remains well below that projected for Australia in yesterday’s Australian Budget. As I said to the Opposition before, whatever Australia says it is doing, we seem to be doing it better, because our unemployment is lower.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Minister confirm that he intends to follow the lead set by the Australian Budget, and deliver bold steps to increase investment in clean energy initiatives, research and development, and infrastructure; and does he agree that now is the time to be investing in New Zealand and in New Zealand’s future?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that, with typical Kiwi understatement, we will probably use less extravagant terms than the Australians, and we will achieve better results.

9. Dairy Industry—Reports

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

9. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Agriculture: What recent reports has he received on the New Zealand dairy industry?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : Last week, the Prime Minister and I launched the Strategy for New Zealand Dairy Farming 2009/2020. This comprehensive document sets out the direction for the vital dairy industry over the next 10 years. It outlines the way in which the industry will increase the profitability, sustainability, and competitiveness of New Zealand dairy farmers. This is a first for the primary sector, and it is something that I think we need to see more of. I commend it to the House.

Colin King: What has been the Government’s reaction to the dairy industry strategy?

Hon DAVID CARTER: As I said, the Government has welcomed the strategy, and it strongly endorses its five key goals. However, as both the Prime Minister and I made clear at the launch of the document, it is important that the dairy industry takes greater ownership of its environmental performance and sees it not as a compliance issue but as an integral part of future business success. The vast majority of dairy farmers are already doing this well. Unfortunately, a small number refuse to do so, and this is unacceptable to me.

10. Social Development, Ministry—Role

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

10. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she believe that it is her department’s responsibility to carry out Government policy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : Yes.

Grant Robertson: Why, then, given the Government policy to cap but not cut the Public Service, did she not tell her chief executive that sacking 200 people was contrary to Government policy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is this Government’s policy to let chief executives to do their jobs and manage their departments.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister accept that the result of yesterday’s announcement is a net loss of 200 jobs, and that it means that rather than shifting resources to the front line, she is, in fact, cutting the resources of a ministry that is facing an increased workload?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: No cuts are happening; what is happening is that the chief executive is making decisions for his department. We certainly support his making decisions like that.

Louise Upston: What plans has the Government put in place to support public sector staff made redundant as a result of the focus on front-line services?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have taken immediate steps to assist those people being made redundant in the public sector. Yesterday my colleague the Hon Tony Ryall announced a redeployment package to help match public sector staff who are made redundant with other jobs in the State services. This redeployment option has been developed in conjunction with the Public Service Association, and will give people the option of entering the redeployment pool during a notice period.

Grant Robertson: Why did she not raise with the Minister any concerns about the impact of cutting staff of the ministry at a time when the ministry is facing an increased workload?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sorry but the member asked why I had not raised concerns with the Minister, and I am not sure which Minister he was talking about.

Grant Robertson: Can I rephrase that question so that the Minister can understand it?

Mr SPEAKER: I guess the member was raising a point of order. I believe that he asked a question. The Minister said she could not understand the question. I believe that is a fair answer.

Grant Robertson: How does the Minister reconcile John Key’s statement on 11 March—“I believe it is important to save as many jobs as we can, while we can.”—with over 200 jobs being cut at the Ministry of Social Development, or is she telling the staff of her ministry that she sees them as second-class workers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Not at all. There is no one silver bullet to save jobs, but this Government will continue to focus on putting jobs first. Money is tight for everyone, and we have to prioritise our resources where they are needed, which is at the front line.

11. Electricity—Investment in National Grid

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

11. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the Government doing to strengthen the national electricity grid?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : On Friday last week I released a revised Government policy statement for electricity. The new policy statement introduces a streamlined, simplified process for transmission investments under $20 million in value. This will save Transpower time and cost and will speed up important grid upgrades. Events in recent months—indeed, in recent weeks—demonstrate the critical need to ensure that investment in the grid is not delayed but, rather, accelerated.

Aaron Gilmore: Is the Government doing anything else to ensure reliable transmission of electricity; if so, what?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes; the Government believes that disentangling the regulatory overlap between the Electricity Commission, Transpower, and the Commerce Commission is important. I have launched a ministerial review into the electricity market, which will consider those very issues. The Government is taking the interim step of amending the Government policy statement to ensure that transmission investment can happen more quickly.

12. Auckland, Local Government Reform—Rates

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

12. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: What reports has he received on the financial effect on ratepayers of the Government’s decisions on Auckland governance?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) : The most significant report is that of the royal commission. Although its costs the proposal differently in some ways from the Government’s decisions, the model is still broadly comparable. The commission expected that these changes would bring savings with a net present value of between $277 million and $574 million. My officials have also carried out some very preliminary and high-level costings on the Government’s proposal for local representation, which themselves were reviewed by Treasury. The cost of implementing the Government’s proposal will not be significantly greater than the cost estimated by the royal commission.

Phil Twyford: What response does the Minister have to families in the North Shore, Manukau, and Waitakere, given that their annual water bills are likely to go up by 70 percent, from around $900 a year to around $1,600 a year, as a direct result of the Government’s decision to force volumetric charging for water on Aucklanders?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: My response is quite simple: ratepayers should not respond to the scaremongering of those who oppose better governance for Auckland. I could do no better than to point to the royal commission, which the previous Government set up and spent $4 million on. The commission showed that there will be gains in net present value of some hundreds of millions of dollars.

Rahui Katene: Has he been advised that the regional Pacific fono held in Manukau on Monday night decided that Pacific peoples would support the hīkoi for Māori seats on the super-city; and what arrangements have been made to meet with Auckland ratepayers to specifically respond to the concerns about the Māori seats?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes, I have been advised of that. The Prime Minister, I, and the Hon John Carter have a significant programme of meetings in the Auckland region to discuss the future of Auckland governance, and it is certainly true that the issue of Māori representation often comes up. Also, the Minister of Māori Affairs sits on the Auckland governance reform Cabinet committee.

Rahui Katene: What response will the Minister make to Te Tiriti o Waitangi Committee o Manukau City Council, which has recommended that the royal commission’s proposals for Māori representation should be reinstated and strengthened, and that Māori representation should be included on the establishment board?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Certainly the question of the establishment board and who is on it is an issue still before the Government, and it is true that the Government did not agree with the royal commission’s proposal for Māori representation. However, it is also clear that proper engagement with local iwi and the new Auckland Council will be crucial for the new council to succeed, and the Government is continuing to work on this issue.

Phil Twyford: Why will not the Minister legislate to ensure that Greater Auckland’s water supply cannot be sold or contracted out to the private sector, when he is perfectly willing to legislate to tell the Auckland Council how to charge Auckland families for water?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Unlike the previous Government, this Government is not about making local decisions here in Parliament. This Government is about responding to the issues raised by the royal commission, providing leadership on the issue of Auckland governance, setting out a timetable, and doing something else that the previous Government did not do, and that is provide a mechanism by which Aucklanders and others with an interest can have their say, through the special select committee that will be set up today.

Phil Twyford: Does the Minister agree that Auckland ratepayers have a right to know how much the implementation of the Government’s decisions on Auckland governance will cost them in their rates bill?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No, they do not have a right to that, but they should know, and they will know.

Phil Twyford: Has the Minister consulted the Minister for Regulatory Reform on the two local government Auckland bills, and is he satisfied that a thorough analysis of the regulatory impact of these bills has been undertaken and they will not produce any adverse financial effects for Auckland ratepayers?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes, most days that consultation takes place. This is a very inclusive Government, where Ministers regularly talk and discuss matters. Also, we are absolutely convinced that this is the best outcome for Auckland, and so are the majority of Aucklanders. It is just a shame that Opposition members cannot make up their minds on the position for Auckland’s governance.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understand we have come to the end of question time now?

Mr SPEAKER: No. There are questions to members.

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, before that.

Mr SPEAKER: There is one more supplementary question from Paul Twyford.

Phil Twyford: Does the Minister stand by his comments to a local government conference in February that when one is planning a spend-up it is always a good idea to get the consent of those who are paying the bill?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Absolutely.

* Question time interrupted.

Questions to Members

1. Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill—Consideration

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

1. Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: Can he confirm that the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill is currently being considered by the committee?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) : Yes.

Hon George Hawkins: How many more submissions are to be heard on the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: From correspondence this morning, I understand that one submitter, whom we tried to contact by telephone but were unable to, is, I believe, being offered a further opportunity to be heard. Beyond that, I think that all submitters have been heard.

2. Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill—Report Back

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

2. Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: What is the report-back date for the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee) : The report-back date for this bill is 19 June 2009.

Hon George Hawkins: Can the chairperson confirm that once the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill has been disposed of by the committee, the committee will have an extremely light workload; if not, why not?

CHRIS AUCHINVOLE: The Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Bill incorporates the biggest changes to the Resource Management Act in 20 years. The work on that bill will be completed by the committee, and considerable work is under way on processing the consideration of the bill. At the conclusion of that, we are conscious that we have a bill on phase 2 of the amendment of the Resource Management Act coming forward. The committee has one member’s bill, one private bill, and one local bill before it.

3. Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill—Status

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

3. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill: What is the current status of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill?

DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill): The bill is currently before the Committee of the whole House, where the National Party is fighting tooth and nail to try to prevent all New Zealanders from having the right to a minimum remuneration.

Mr SPEAKER: That was totally outside the Standing Orders, for an answer of a member in charge of a bill—and she will not do that again.

Carol Beaumont: What further processes is the member expecting the bill to go through?

DARIEN FENTON: The bill needs to go through a third reading to be enacted. However, I understand that there will be difficulties in getting to that stage.

4. Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill—S.O.P. 13

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

4. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill: Why did she introduce Supplementary Order Paper 13 on this bill?

DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill): That Supplementary Order Paper amends the Minimum Wage and Remuneration Amendment Bill to provide for a schedule listing which political parties represented in Parliament support the Act. These provisions follow those in sections 72 and 73 of the New Zealand Superannuation and Retirement Income Act 2001. The amendments also require the Minister, on introduction into the House of Representatives of a Government bill that proposes an amendment to the Minimum Wage Act, to bring to the attention of the House the consultation process that was followed in the formulation of the proposed bill.

Carol Beaumont: Why was it necessary to introduce Supplementary Order Paper 13, on this bill?

DARIEN FENTON: Because in the past, former Governments have proved to have had no commitment to the minimum wage, and an action so far from Government parties shows that they still do not.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You pulled up the member earlier for straying well beyond what is reasonable in answering questions to members. I think that the member has breached again, quite considerably, and should be terminated as an answerer.

5. Regulatory Responsibility Bill—Regulatory Impact Assessment Process

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

5. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill: Does his bill increase the rigour of the regulatory impact assessment process that is conducted before Government legislation is introduced to the House?

Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (Member in charge of the Regulatory Responsibility Bill): Yes.

Hon Shane Jones: Under the provisions in the member’s bill, would it be acceptable for a Government to introduce legislation where the Treasury regulatory impact analysis team has been unable to assess the regulatory impact statement, because it has been prepared after rather than before Cabinet made its decisions—as is the case with both the local government bills the Government wants to ram through the House this afternoon?

Mr SPEAKER: No, no—we will not have this sort of wasting of the House’s time.

ENDS

© Scoop Media