TUESDAY, 26 MAY 2009
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

1. Ministers—Confidence

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

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes; because they are talented people who are working hard for New Zealand.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Transport or, indeed, in himself, given the poor process around briefing people about the Waterview motorway connection—in particular, his MP Melissa Lee, who was clearly ill-briefed, made fundamental errors, and then was hung out to dry by the Prime Minister himself?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have enormous confidence in the Minister of Transport. One of the reasons I have confidence in him is that, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not live in la-la land, which is exactly where one sits when one says—as Labour did—it would have $650 million a year to spend on State highways, but somehow is prepared to spend $3.2 billion on a tunnel through Mount Albert, which is 5 years of spending. It did not happen in the 9 years that Helen Clark was the Prime Minister. It would never have happened under Labour. I have enormous confidence in my Minister of Transport.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in his Minister of Justice, who apparently failed to brief all of his parliamentarians that motorways are not part of his crime prevention strategy and that the people of South Auckland should not be stereotyped as criminals?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have enormous confidence in the Minister of Justice. I was surprised that the Leader of the Opposition did not raise something that is directly related to the justice portfolio. The reason he did not do so is that the Minister of Justice is doing such an outstanding job.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment, who he said failed to fully brief him on the suitability of Christine Rankin’s appointment as Families Commissioner, and can the Prime Minister tell us what the Minister failed to properly brief him about?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do have complete confidence in the Minister for Social Development and Employment, and the reason I do is that the Minister did her own due diligence. In making that appointment to the Families Commission, one thing she knew about families was that they like to eat McDonald’s. I wonder how many families saw Shane Jones and Parekura Horomia ducking out from the hīkoi yesterday to have a Big Mac and fries.

Hon Phil Goff: Gerry is just jealous that he was not there with them! Is it fair for the Prime Minister to blame the debacle around Christine Rankin on Paula Bennett, given that when a major division occurred within Cabinet—and clearly the Minister of Justice was opposed to the appointment—it was the Prime Minister who made the decision that the appointment should go ahead?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, it would not be fair to blame the Minister for Social Development and Employment. That was a decision made by Cabinet and supported by all the members of Cabinet.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister remove Christine Rankin from her appointment as Families Commissioner if public comments made by her in recent weeks are found to be untrue? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Does the honourable Prime Minister wish to answer the question?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can only accept people at their word, and I accept the assurances that Christine Rankin gave to the New Zealand public.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister confident that his Minister of Immigration is fully investigating the allegations made last week in the New Zealand Herald about phoney job offers made to secure jobs, about buying off witnesses who might provide evidence against this practice, and about dubious support for a business partner who, immigration officials believe, is a con man, all of which relate to Mr Bakshi MP; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am supremely confident, and I can assure the member, that the Minister of Immigration followed all of the right steps, including writing to the New Zealand Immigration Service to say it should ensure that the case was handled completely fairly, and it should go to extreme lengths to find the information that was required.

Hon Phil Goff: Does that relate to the allegations made last week?

Hon JOHN KEY: That relates to all of the allegations. As I have said, if the New Zealand Immigration Service feels that it needs to keep investigating, it should continue to do so.

Hon Phil Goff: Do the assurances that the Prime Minister has given the House just now relate to the allegations made last week?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Sue Kedgley: Does he have confidence in his Minister of Agriculture, who told the nation on television last week that he had no idea sow crates were widely used in New Zealand, when in fact he was briefed on the issue of sow crates by representatives from the Campaign Against Factory Farming in 2005, provided with a scientific publication concluding that the severe confinement of sows in crates was unacceptable from a welfare perspective, and received numerous e-cards from members of the public pointing out that thousands of pregnant sows are cruelly confined in sow crates; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY: Notwithstanding that that question went on just about longer than the documentary on Sunday, the answer is yes, I have complete confidence in the Minister of Agriculture.

Sue Kedgley: Further to his comments that he found the images screened on the Sunday programme very, very disturbing, does he find it even more disturbing to discover that this is in fact a legal and normal practice in the pig industry, and will he be advising his Minister of Agriculture to ban sow crates as soon as possible, on the grounds that they are cruel?

Hon JOHN KEY: As the member will know, the Minister of Agriculture is looking at that issue. It is also important to note that a pig code was established in 2005 and the National Animal Welfare Advisory Committee is considering that issue at the moment. Those who sit on that board include members from the SPCA and Federated Farmers. If the images that were displayed on the Sunday programme are in any way a reflection of the industry in New Zealand, then I will expect changes to be made to that code and to the industry.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a letter from the Campaign Against Factory Farming, where it briefed the current Minister in 2005.

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

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

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table eight emails from members of the public pointing out that thousands of sows are confined in cruel sow stalls.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those eight emails from members of the public. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

2. Budget 2009—Core Crown Expenditure

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

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What factors will make up the change in core Crown expenditure in Budget 2009?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : As set out in the Budget Policy Statement last December, there are three main elements to an increase in Government spending. These are, first, the automatic stabilisers, consisting of increased payments for the increased number of people on benefits, as well as automatic annual adjustments to benefits, New Zealand superannuation, and other income support. The second category is those discretionary decisions that the Government makes around the operating allowance. The third element is the capital expenditure that funds public services and infrastructure. As forecast, the Budget Policy Statement of last December forecast a significant increase in Government spending, based on increases in all these three categories.

Hon Christopher Finlayson: What changes to entitlements is the Government contemplating?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has stated a number of times that entitlements will not be changed. New Zealand superannuation, all income support, including welfare benefits, all student support, and Working for Families programmes will continue at their existing levels, because we believe that it is important in this time of economic downturn that people have a sense of security.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the cost of paying just one of those entitlements—the unemployment benefit—is nearly $800 million a year with unemployment at 7 percent, rising to over a billion dollars a year when unemployment reaches 9 percent, is it not time that he worried as much about the real, human costs of unemployment as he does about pandering to credit rating agencies?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government actually has not talked about the credit rating agencies—hardly at all—since it came to office. [Interruption] I invite the member to examine the public record. The Government is making decisions on the basis of what is good for New Zealand, and those decisions have two objectives. The first is to protect New Zealanders through the worst of the recession, and the second is to change the direction of the last Government and actually focus on a productive economy that will produce sustainable new jobs, because that is the best thing we can do for those who have lost their jobs.

Craig Foss: How has the Government’s operating expenditure been prioritised?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The easiest part of prioritising the Government’s expenditure has been getting rid of the ridiculous and open-ended commitments made by the previous Government, including programmes that just did not work and programmes that were getting under way that were not going to work. As stated in the Budget Policy Statement, the Government has directed new spending, first and foremost, to honouring those commitments on which we were elected.

Craig Foss: What measures will the Budget include to improve New Zealand’s capital stock for future generations?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will have to wait for the Budget to actually have those confirmed, but I can tell him that in the Budget Policy Statement the incoming Government outlined new capital spending of about $7.5 billion over the next 5 years, which is a substantial lift on previous spending. More important than the amount of money is how well it is invested. This Government will be focusing it on long-term investments that open up the bottlenecks in this economy, help our exporters become more competitive, and help make the economy more productive.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister agree that reducing core Crown expenditure on sectors such as health, education, and welfare is sustainable only if it is accompanied by structural changes that increase competition; if so, why does he refuse to do that in the way that he did with the health sector in the 1990s, when he was responsible for large gains in productivity?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member, I think correctly, identifies that there are substantial challenges in the sectors of health and education, where the New Zealand taxpayer has invested very large amounts of new money over the last 10 years without much change in outputs. The health system does not treat many more people, and the educational levels of our young people have not risen in relation to the amount of money spent. This just goes to show that more money does not fix every problem. This Government will have to be thoughtful about how we manage over the next few years with less new money for health and education.

3. Unemployment—Reports

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

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the latest advice on the number of people out of work?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I am advised that for the March quarter 2009 the unemployment rate was 5 percent—115,000 people. Of those, 41,336 were receiving the unemployment benefit in April.

Hon Annette King: Why is the Minister’s ministry calling urgent management meetings in Auckland this week to examine critical staffing shortages at most branch offices, if, as she stated, Work and Income could “cope” on current staffing levels?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: As previously said in this House, we are currently recruiting for further frontline staff. That staff will go predominantly to Auckland offices, and I know that in Waitakere they are looking at taking on another eight frontline staff, for whom they are currently recruiting. We expect about 104 new staff by the end of June, I think.

Jo Goodhew: How is Work and Income coping with increased numbers of unemployed people?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government has focused resources on frontline services to get people back into work as quickly as possible, and that is working. As of just the last week, within a month of those people coming through the doors of Work and Income to go on a benefit, 30 percent of them had not gone on a benefit, whether or not they had found work. Work and Income is coping. It does need more frontline staff—there are no two ways about it—but we are certainly focused on that.

Hon Annette King: Why, then, are the positions of 31 frontline field officers—whose job it is to work one-on-one with clients to ensure that clients are receiving the financial support they are entitled to—being disestablished, after the assurances the Minister has just given the House, and has given in the past, that no cuts are happening and that resources are going to the frontline?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The chief executive has responsibility for the structure of staffing. He has made those calls, and, certainly, those are calls that I back.

Hon Annette King: How can the 90-day employment trial legislation be “a great example of partnership working for everyone”, as the Minister has stated, when, last week, a citizens advice bureau in South Auckland advised that it is seeing one person a day who has been hired and then fired under that legislation?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: If we looked at the facts, I think we would also see many employees who are getting a chance that they were not getting before this legislation was put in place. I am hearing daily that people who were not getting opportunities are now getting them, that employees are now taking on people whom they would not normally have taken on, and that, actually, the legislation is working out there.

4. Auckland—Land Gifted By Mana Whenua

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

4. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Attorney-General: Has he received any advice on whether constitutional rights and obligations of partnership under the Treaty of Waitangi apply between the Crown and the mana whenua who gifted land on which Auckland city is built; if so, what was that advice?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : No, I have not received any such advice. However, I note that the principle of partnership was first identified explicitly in the Waitangi Tribunal’s Manukau reportin 1985, when the tribunal emphasised the obligation on both parties to act reasonably, honourably, and in good faith.

Te Ururoa Flavell: How is the Government giving effect to those rights and responsibilities in the legislation to enable the new Auckland city governance arrangements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The first thing that the Government has done is to support the establishment of a special select committee, which will consider the Auckland governance legislation. Everyone will have an opportunity to make submissions to it. There is also ongoing dialogue between the co-leaders of the Māori Party and the Government on this issue. The Prime Minister recently stated that nothing is off the table until the final legislation is drafted. This reflects the Government’s commitment to acting reasonably, honourably, and in good faith.

Hon Shane Jones: How is it a matter of good faith not to have sought advice about such an important Treaty principle as partnership?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The issues are tolerably clear, as a result of all the reports on partnership that have been given by the Waitangi Tribunal over the years, including the 2007 report, which castigated that member’s Government for the sloppy way in which it had approached negotiations with Auckland iwi.

Hon Shane Jones: In terms of local government reform and the application of the Treaty of Waitangi, where does the change in Auckland governance derive its legitimacy from—constitutional law or democracy?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: That is virtually a non-question. The answer is that the legitimacy of local government comes from this House, in that the Local Government Act was passed by this House.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was not the question. The question was in terms of the application of the principles of the Treaty to local government reform. Invite the Attorney-General to skite again and give us a decent answer!

Mr SPEAKER: Points of order should not be made in that way. I believe that the Minister did answer the question.

David Garrett: What level of representation on the Auckland Council, if any, does he believe the descendants of John Logan Campbell are entitled to by virtue of their ancestor’s gifts of land to the city in the past?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: My understanding is that those lands were the subject of a bequest by John Logan Campbell. I am not exactly certain of the details of the bequest, but I have a feeling that they are somewhat different from the circumstances surrounding transactions involving Ngāti Whātua.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Is the Government willing to establish a forum, to be facilitated by the transition committee, for the Crown and Auckland rohe rangatira to have dialogue on Auckland city governance, based on the partnership principle of the Treaty of Waitangi; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government encourages dialogue between all parties, and the select committee process is an example of that dialogue. I suppose yesterday’s hīkoi was another form of dialogue between Māori and the Crown, although I note that the Hon Shane Jones and the Hon Parekura Horomia chose to conduct their dialogue over the counter at McDonald’s.

5. Street Racers—Deterrents

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

5. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister of Police: What steps is the Government taking to deter illegal street racers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) : Two comprehensive bills that give police and local authorities greater powers to clamp down on illegal street racers and as a last resort crush their vehicles have been introduced today. The Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill and the Land Transport (Enforcement Powers) Amendment Bill are designed to work in unison to address the problem of illegal street racing in New Zealand.

Nicky Wagner: Has the Minister received any feedback on the Government’s proposals?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. Police have welcomed the new bills, which will help close the current loopholes and provide a comprehensive suite of powers for police and local authorities to tackle this issue. Police agree with the Government that when public safety is at risk appropriate law enforcement is required, and reports I have seen suggest that there is political consensus that the existing law needs to be strengthened.

Nicky Wagner: What are the loopholes in the current law?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Illegal street racers are currently able to commit an offence in another person’s car and avoid the full force of the law. Illegal street racers have been known to sell their car to a friend for a nominal amount in order to avoid penalties and/or confiscation. Other loopholes include illegal street racers accruing and failing to pay fines, and switching cars in order to avoid being penalised. These bills will help close the loopholes in the existing law.

Hon Darren Hughes: What guarantee can the Minister give the House that this new legislation will lead to any more boy racers losing their cars than do so currently, considering that although courts can already confiscate on a first offence, this happens in less than 2 percent of cases?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think that when the member reads the bills he will see that there are very strong provisions; it is very difficult to sell or race a car that has been crushed.

6. Economy—Reports

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

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : I have received a number of reports from a number of people.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with rating agencies such as Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s who make clear that closing our external deficit and building a more diversified and innovative economy is a greater challenge than reducing New Zealand’s relatively low Government debt; if so, why has he gutted KiwiSaver, research and development tax cuts, and the Fast Forward programme, which were critical to reducing the savings gap and getting our economy moving?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first task of the Government has been to get expenditure and debt under control, because they were out of control when the previous Government left office and the global recession made that worse.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with commentator Rod Oram, who said: “Two very big dangers arise from the government’s focus on its debt … First, it will deliver an excessively conservative budget in order to make its books look good.”—and make the recession worse—“Second, it will seriously under-invest in economic transformation,”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What reports has he seen on alternative plans for managing the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen very few reports—in fact, I do not think I have seen any reports—on alternative plans for managing the economy. Mr Oram just says we should transform it, and the Labour Party just says we should spend more and run up more debt.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek clarification from the Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot use a point of order to seek clarification. He can ask a further supplementary question, should he wish.

7. Maternity Services—Government Announcements

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

7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Health: What announcements has the Government made with respect to maternity services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : Last week the Government announced that it will spend an extra $103.5 million over 4 years—

Hon Member: How much?

Hon TONY RYALL:—$103.5 million over 4 years—to boost maternity services for new parents. This announcement of financial support includes over $38 million for new mothers to have the option to stay longer in birthing facilities if they need extra support, and around $10 million for additional visits to general practitioners and lead maternity carers for at-risk mothers during pregnancy.

Katrina Shanks: How difficult was it to find the resources to fulfil these important election promises?

Hon TONY RYALL: Finding resources to boost health services is a significant challenge in the worsening international and domestic situation. However, making matters much worse is the fact that the new Government inherited around $160 million of burgeoning hospital deficits, and largely unfunded capital demands of over $600 million. I want to acknowledge the support of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance in giving us, in the public health service, the resources to improve maternity care in this country.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Does the Minister agree with the director of women’s health at Capital and Coast District Health Board, who said, in relation to the length of stay for new mothers in birthing facilities, “It’s always been an issue when we’ve been short-staffed. It has never been a financial issue. It’s because the resource has not been available in terms of human resource.”; and if the Minister does agree with her, why did he not do anything about it?

Hon TONY RYALL: This Government has introduced a voluntary bonding scheme to help keep midwives in the country. The scheme funds incentives for midwives in rural areas, and the intake into midwifery education has increased. Speaking of that woman from Capital Coast District Health Board, I wonder whether she explained why that district health board under the previous Government was going to pay women $100 Pak ’N Save vouchers to get out of the maternity ward in less than 6 hours. Where is the explanation for that?

Hon Ruth Dyson: Has the Minister seen reports from Southland saying that his announcement will not lead to longer stays for new mothers in Southland Hospital; and is he prepared to admit that his announcement will not even keep up with the baby boom that we are currently experiencing?

Hon TONY RYALL: On the issue of Southland District Health Board, I have read the comments reported in the newspaper, and it is quite clear that the chairman of the district health board is saying that there are opportunities to improve services in primary birthing facilities in Southland. On the issue of keeping up with the birth rate, the member may have not been in a position to note that the $40 million extra over the next 4 years will help New Zealand keep up with the growing birth rate.

8. Economy and Environment—Government Strategies

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

8. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Prime Minister: Is it Government policy to tackle the economic and environmental crises at the same time; if so, how?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : The Government’s policy is to maximise New Zealand’s economic opportunities while meeting our environmental responsibilities. Our response to the global economic downturn includes policies that are good for our economy while also being good for the environment. These policies include our $50 million commitment to the development of a national cycleway, a new $36 million grants programme for bio-diesel production, and other environmentally friendly initiatives, which will be detailed in the Budget on Thursday.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree that by investing $600 million over the next 3 years in protecting our waterways, as laid out in the Green Party’s Green New Deal stimulus package, he would create 4,500 jobs, restore water quality, and protect our “clean, green” reputation, thereby dealing with both the economic and environmental crises at the same time?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen the specific policy from the Greens, but I can confirm that enhancing the quality of our waterways is important to the Government, and we are working on ways to make sure we achieve it on a number of fronts, including a good structure for co-management of the Waikato River.

Chris Auchinvole: Are there any initiatives in the upcoming Budget that have environmental and economic benefits; if so, what are they?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, there are. One initiative I am particularly excited about is the Government’s home insulation programme, which the Minister of Energy and Resources has developed in conjunction with Jeanette Fitzsimons of the Greens. The Government’s scheme will help many more New Zealanders make their homes warmer, drier, and healthier. The economy will benefit from increased employment in the building and construction industry, and the environment will benefit from increased energy efficiency. I look forward to the announcements in the Budget. When I see them I will know that they will be funded—unlike the ones promised by the previous Labour Government, which were not.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree that, by investing $2billion over the next 3 years in new State housing, as laid out in the Green Party’s Green New Deal stimulus package, he could create 28,000 new jobs and improve the lot of families in desperate need of affordable housing, thereby dealing with economic, social, and environmental issues at the same time?

Hon JOHN KEY: That may or may not be correct. What I can confirm is that the Government is investing, albeit modestly, in building more State houses. But, more important, it is actually spending a lot of money on renovating State houses. That work has begun already. All I can say is that the aim of the Government is to no longer be a slum landlord, which is the positionwe inherited from the Labour Government.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree that by shifting $1 billion of investment from new motorways to more sustainable transport options, like better buses and trains and safer walking and cycling, he could create 40 percent more jobs, lower overall transport costs, and reduce our oil import bill, thereby dealing with the economic and environmental crises at the same time?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not necessarily agree with that. I can confirm that the National Government will spend $1.6 billion to upgrade Auckland’s commuter rail infrastructure, and that in 2009-10 we will spend $201 million on subsidising public transport services nationally—the highest level ever. The Government has shown a real appetite for building more State highways. We are spending $1 billion a year on it. I think it is an important measure, because when cars are sitting idle on State highways that do not work—that are not properly connected—they add very negatively to New Zealand’s environmental output.

Dr Russel Norman: In light of his answers, does he disagree with his finance Minister, the Hon Bill English, who said: “one crisis at a time might just do most Governments.”, and will he be talking with his finance Minister about the advantages of joined-up thinking—of dealing with the economic and environmental crises at the same time?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I always agree with the Minister of Finance. Secondly, I know that New Zealand is very lucky that he will be the Minister of Finance reading the Budget on Thursday. New Zealanders will be grateful on Thursday, when they hear the Budget being read out, that they are not looking at a picture of Michael Cullen on their TV screens; he knew how to spend money, but he certainly could not run a Government efficiently.

9. Auckland Council—Māori Representation

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

9. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: What is the Government’s position on Māori representation for the new Auckland Council?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) : On 6 April 2009 Cabinet agreed, as noted in Cabinet minute 0912/7, that Māori representation should not be provided for within the new Auckland governance structure.

Hon Shane Jones: When you took forward to Cabinet your recommendation to scrap the royal commission’s recommendations for Māori representation, who else did you ask other than Pita Sharples, who agrees that Māori representation should be scrapped?

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the honourable member to restate his question because the Speaker did not actually do any of those alleged things.

Hon Shane Jones: When did the Cabinet submission that was made by you, Mr Hide, to scrap Māori—apologies. Mr Hide, when the Minister—[Interruption] Order!

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat while I am on my feet. I thank the honourable member. Colleagues, I ask for a little decorum, please. I call the Hon Shane Jones, and I ask him to please concentrate.

Hon Shane Jones: Did the Minister seek the views of any Māori other than the Minister of Māori Affairs when deciding whether to ditch the royal commission’s recommendation for Māori representation?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes, we did consult, but the decision was made on the basis of a commitment to the democratic principle of one person, one vote, and also on the basis of the views of Dr Pita Sharples, who felt the royal commission had not gone far enough. He said that the proposals, as explained in the royal commission’s report, would perpetuate the failure of existing Māori representation. He felt that the proposed mana whenua councillor was unachievable, so we felt that there was more work to do in achieving proper iwi engagement.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I had great difficulty hearing the Minister, and I wonder if he could please repeat his last comments.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that it was perfectly audible compared with the sound levels in previous exchanges.

Hon Shane Jones: Why does the Minister have confidence in the select committee process and encourage Māori to make submissions to the select committee when he has summarily dismissed their submissions—over 100 went to the royal commission—on this vexed topic of Māori representation?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I have faith in parliamentary democracy and the select committee process. I have made it plain what my views are, but ultimately the decision will be made by Parliament.

Hon Parekura Horomia: It’s a jack-up!

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Perhaps if Mr Shane Jones and the Hon Parekura Horomia spent less time eating McDonald’s—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

10. Biofuels—Industry Incentives

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

10. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What is the Government doing to encourage the bio-diesel industry in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : The Budget will contain funding of $36 million over the next 3 years for grants to bio-diesel producers at a maximum rate of 42.5c per litre of bio-diesel. The initiative fulfils the Government’s pre-election promise of providing an equivalent incentive for bio-diesel to that which is enjoyed by bio-ethanol.

Jonathan Young: What reports has the Minister received about the Government’s announcement of bio-diesel grants?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen a report from the Bioenergy Association of New Zealand, whose spokesperson said that the grants scheme looks like great news for bio-diesel producers in New Zealand and will give the sector the confidence it needs to continue to grow and to secure future investment. Clearly, on this matter the Labour Party is, as usual, quite confused in that both its energy spokespersons Mr Hipkins and Mr Chauvel—I note it now takes two to mark this portfolio—described the grants scheme as a bit of a joke. But that was Labour’s previous policy.

Jonathan Young: What reports has the Minsiter received about the impact on employment of bio-diesel grants?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have seen a report from the Bioenergy Association of New Zealand stating that the prompt action by the Minister has provided immediate security for 40 direct jobs and 200 indirect jobs, and that the implementation of the investment plans will provide a further 100 jobs in the first year of the scheme with the expectation that the industry will grow to provide at least 55 direct jobs in 3 years. Although the focus of the grants scheme is to support new and fledgling industry in New Zealand, the employment effects are also very pleasing; so too will be the reduction in New Zealand’s greenhouse gasses that will result from increased use of bio-diesel produced in New Zealand.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister accept that his grants scheme is too little too late, for the development of projects such as the Argent Energy 60 million litre bio-diesel plant in the Bay of Plenty, and the plants of BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd in Auckland and Waharoa, which have been cancelled or put on hold because of the uncertainty created by his short-sighted repeal of the biofuels obligation; and can he tell the House how many jobs his stop-start policies in the biofuels area have cost New Zealand in the last 6 months?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Most of what the member asserts is a load of rubbish. I note that the bio-diesel industry of New Zealand has greeted this grants programme with a great deal of enthusiasm. As I have said, there will be developments that see the industry grow here. The member fails to tell the public that it was the previous Government’s intention to import 60 million litres of unsustainably produced bio-diesel just so it could feel good about New Zealand’s carbon emissions, but having little regard for the actual worldwide position.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a news report confirming that Argent Energy’s 60 million litre bio-diesel plant in the Bay of Plenty and the plants of BioDiesel Oils (NZ) Ltd in Auckland and Waharoa have been cancelled or put on hold as a result of the repeal of the biofuels legislation.

Mr SPEAKER: When the member says it is a news report, what is it from?

Charles Chauvel: It is from Radio New Zealand Newswire, summarising comments from those organisations.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a document from Newswire service. Is there any objection? There is.

11. Interest Rates—Prime Minister’s Statement

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

11. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with John Key’s statement about lenders charging interest rates of 21 or 22 percent that “it is very high, you can’t help but feel that they are taking advantage of their customers and I have made that clear to them personally and directly”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes, I do agree with the Prime Minister’s statement.

Charles Chauvel: Does he agree that if lenders charging 22 percent interest per annum are “taking advantage of their customers”, then pay-day lenders charging rates of 8 or 9 percent per month, compounding to over 2,000 percent per annum, are in need of even great scrutiny?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have thought that the member asking the question would be aware of that problem. Under the previous Government there was an inquiry into loan sharks. We are still trying to find out whether anything was done as a result of it.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked the Minister about his responsibilities, not about the record of the previous Government. I would appreciate an answer on that point.

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot be too specific with a question like that. We heard from the Minister that an inquiry had been done and that he is trying to find out the outcome of it.

Amy Adams: What is the current average floating mortgage rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The average floating mortgage rate as stated by the Reserve Bank is 6.41 percent, which is 4.5 percent lower than it was in June last year, when floating mortgage rates peaked at 10 percent. I do not recall hearing complaints from members opposite then, when interest rates were much higher for ordinary New Zealanders than they are today.

Charles Chauvel: When the Minister’s colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs says she “is not in favour of imposing controls, as they may cause fringe lenders to exit the market, and thereby deny some consumers the only source of credit available to them”, and that “some lenders have become more flexible in their willingness to help those suffering from indebtedness”, is she speaking on behalf of the Government, or will his Government follow most other OECD jurisdictions and introduce legislation that prevents the charging of usurious interest rates by so-called pay-day lenders; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If there was a simple answer to the problem, then I am sure that the previous Government, which looked into it in some detail, would have implemented that simple answer. As I understand it, the Minister of Consumer Affairs is currently undertaking a review of the Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act. A discussion paper will come out in a few months, and there will be an opportunity to put forward those proposals.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister of Consumer Affairs containing the statements I referred to in my supplementary question.

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

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

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a bill that will be put forward for the next members’ bills ballot. It seeks to impose a maximum interest rate on loan sharks.

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

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

12. Electoral Finance Reform—Input

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

12. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: Does he stand by his statement that all political parties and interested members of the public will have an opportunity to have input at more than one stage on the process of electoral finance reform; if so, what progress has been made to date?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : Yes; an issues paper was released last Friday, after consultation with all parliamentary parties. Members of the public have 5 weeks to make written submissions on the issues paper. There are also three public meetings, to be held in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch, where the public can make their views known. We are seeking a wide range of views in order to create a fair and enduring replacement for the Electoral Finance Act.

Chester Borrows: What is the next stage of the review, and will the public have further opportunities for input?

Hon SIMON POWER: Yes, once the Government has received submissions on the issues paper, we will use them to develop a proposal document. All parliamentary parties will be consulted again before we release that document for further public consultation. Submissions on that document will assist us in drafting a bill to reform electoral finance law. Once the bill is before Parliament, the public will also have a further opportunity to make a submission on the bill during the select committee process.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that at the last election the National Party and its candidates disclosed the source of only 15 percent of their $4 million of election spending, and does he agree that transparency with regard to donations to political parties is a cornerstone of maintaining public confidence in our democracy?

Hon SIMON POWER: No, and yes, I believe that the issues surrounding donations will be well canvassed during this process.

ENDS

© Scoop Media