Questions for Oral Answer
17 June 2009

Questions for Ministers

1. Budget 2009—Protecting the Vulnerable

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

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by the statement in his Minister of Finance’s Budget speech that “Protecting the most vulnerable is a priority”; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes; a key objective of the Budget was to give people a sense of security in the depths of a recession, so despite declining Government revenue we have preserved national superannuation, benefits, student support, and Working for Families at their current levels.

Hon Phil Goff: Why, then, did the Budget cut $2.5 million in funding for the most vulnerable people in our community, the children in the physically disabled units in schools, with a consequence that those schools and those pupils will now suffer a loss of physiotherapy, speech therapy, and occupational therapy, to the serious detriment of those pupils?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Clearly, the intention of the Government is that a group of students like that have the services they need in order to participate in education. Across the board the Minister of Education and the Government have made a number of decisions about priorities.

Hon Phil Goff: What does the Minister say to the parents and the teachers of those children, who tell me that those children’s safety and well-being will be damaged by the Government’s cuts; and will he front up to schools like the Mount Roskill primary, intermediate, and grammar schools and tell the families who are affected why he has picked on them in order to disadvantage their already disadvantaged children?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The first thing a responsible Minister would do would be to verify the claims made by that member, given his extravagant and misleading public claims in recent months.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just been informed by way of a text message that your television service is showing Mr English as answering on behalf of the Prime Minister. I ask that you investigate that and have it corrected, please.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member, and I am sure that it will be looked into immediately.

Chris Tremain: Will the Government guarantee a range of entitlements in future Budgets?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Maintaining national superannuation entitlements, benefit levels, student support, and Working for Families at their current levels is factored into all the Budget projections of future expenditure.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister deem it to be more important to provide an extra $35 million to private schools, when most of the children at private schools come from advantaged backgrounds, than to take $2.5 million off severely disabled children, who are the least advantaged in our school system and in our community?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Any New Zealand child has the right to a 100 percent free education. The National Party made some commitments prior to the election to make a marginal increase in the subsidy for children who go to private schools.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward. It asked why the Minister decided to spend money on that group rather than on the other group. I do not think the Minister actually addressed that question.

Mr SPEAKER: As I heard the Minister’s answer, he explained why the Government has chosen to allocate the money in the way that it did. The Minister spoke of the commitments in the Government’s election policy programme.

Metiria Turei: Is it acceptable that 150,000 New Zealand children are living in poverty, and will he commit to raising the benefit levels so that these families can live on their benefits without descending into poverty while they are out of work?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is concerning if any child is living in poverty, because that tends to limit his or her life opportunities. The Government will need to make it a priority in the next year or so to deal with the large number of additional people who are coming into the benefit system, and we are getting the Ministry of Social Development, in the Government set-up, to handle that growing volume.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister decide to axe the Enterprising Communities scheme, which was a proven success at helping those who are most vulnerable to unemployment by giving them jobs and skilled training, when both of the Ministers in this area would agree that that scheme was a success and was achieving positive outcomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Any number of schemes that were running in past years had some merit. However, because the fiscal outlook has changed dramatically and the economic outlook has changed dramatically, the Government has had to make a series of decisions to focus on the core priority of supporting people who are losing their jobs and maintaining entitlements for those who are most vulnerable and cannot adjust to the recession.

Hon Phil Goff: Who is telling the truth: the Minister for Social Development and Employment, Paula Bennett, who said she consulted fully with Pita Sharples before deciding to axe the Enterprising Communities scheme, or Pita Sharples, who said he had not been briefed on this at all? Both of them cannot be telling the truth.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That is a bit rich coming from that member, who is losing public support because of his inability to be open with the truth.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You surely cannot accept that as being a valid answer to the question. There are two opposing statements made by two Ministers. I am asking the Minister of Finance which one of those statements is accurate and truthful. That is straightforward.

Mr SPEAKER: I just wish the honourable Leader of the Opposition had asked which one of those statements was accurate. Instead of that, his question implied that an honourable member of this House may not have been telling the truth. He asked which one was telling the truth. The member knows from past rulings in this House that one cannot allege that someone is telling lies or not telling the truth. I allowed the question to go, but, in fact, the way that the Minister answered it was not unexpected, given the allegation that someone was not telling the truth. Had he asked how the Minister accounted for two apparently conflicting statements, then I could have assisted the honourable member more.

Hon Phil Goff: Had my question been out of order, I would have expected you to rule it out of order. My understanding is that it is not outside the Standing Orders to ask the Minister which one of those statements is truthful. That is what I did, but the answer to that was not given.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the Leader of the Opposition needs to listen to the advice that you just gave him, because he is now getting into a different interpretation of things. But in any event Speaker’s Ruling 163/3 makes it very clear that there is now greater scope for the way in which questions can be asked in the House. By the same token there should also be an expectation that there be greater scope in the way in which questions are answered. The way in which the Hon Bill English answered that question was not at all unreasonable, given the way in which the question was answered. That was nowhere near as distinct and precise as the suggestion you made to the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think we need to take more time on this matter. The honourable Leader of the Opposition knows perfectly well that he cannot allege someone is not telling the truth. There is a way of asking that question. I am sure he is perfectly capable of asking the question, and he has further supplementary questions available in which to do that.

2. Economy—Reports

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

2. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What reports, if any, has he received on imbalances in the New Zealand economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : I have received a number of reports on this issue. The economy was in recession from the first quarter of 2008, and the global recession has shown up some fundamental imbalances. For instance, the tradable sector of the economy, including manufacturing, the primary sector, and export of services such as tourism, has been in recession for the last 5 years, while the non-tradable sector, which has been about consumption, housing, and Government spending, has grown remarkably fast over those 5 years.

Amy Adams: What were the main causes of these imbalances?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: At least one cause of these imbalances was the previous Government’s policy over the last 5 years to have significant increases in Government spending, but without much focus on its effectiveness. The core Crown expenditure grew by 50 percent over those 5 years. That put upward pressure on interest rates and the exchange rate, and meant that the export sector, which we generally rely on, has been in recession for 5 years.

Hon David Parker: Given the Minister’s criticism of the level of investment in the export sector over the 5 years, which he expressed at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning, does he agree that keeping initiatives such as Labour’s $700 million Fast Forward Fund in agriculture, the research and development tax credit, and improvements to KiwiSaver would have signalled to New Zealanders that the Government really was committed to an export-led recovery?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealanders had an opportunity to look at that programme and they rejected it.

Amy Adams: What plans does the Government have to reverse these trends?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is not a clear and obvious way to reverse these trends quickly. However, we will focus on getting better value from Government spending and in obtaining better and smarter public services for the same or less money, rather than recklessly increasing spending levels as the previous Government did. We will also move to get rid of widespread problems with red tape that hold back business investment.

Hon David Parker: What Treasury reports has the Minister seen about the imbalance resulting from the decade of deferrals to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund in last month’s Budget, given the Secretary to the Treasury’s reported comments on Radio New Zealand National on 10 June: “We’ll have to give something up.”; and why does the Minister not openly admit, what is obvious to others, that future cuts to superannuation are part of the Minister’s long-term plan?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because that is not true.

3. Recession—Statement

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

3. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement that “we are living through a time of serious financial pressure both internationally and domestically”?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : Yes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: So why did he waste more than $100,000 of taxpayer money cancelling a primary health care conference, and was it his embarrassment over that wasted money that caused him to refuse my request for details of the cancellation, until the Ombudsman instructed him to release it?

Hon TONY RYALL: As that member knows, the cancellation of that conference saved the health sector several hundred thousand dollars.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why does the Minister claim to listen to front-line health workers, but then spend over $100,000 on cancelling a great opportunity to listen to front-line health workers?

Hon TONY RYALL: As that member knows, cancellation of that contract saved the public health service several hundred thousand dollars. Many of the people attending the conference would have been flying at the taxpayer’s expense; they were also to have their accommodation paid for. Money is very scarce in the New Zealand public health service, and I would rather put it into more important areas.

Dr Jackie Blue: How is the Government dealing with the serious financial pressures facing the health system?

Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, they are serious financial pressures, made somewhat harder by the fact that the previous Government cut $150 million out of the health budget over 2 years. Half of all new spending over the next 4 years is going to health; this is a reflection of the Government’s priorities. The increase in funding for the district health boards is a record $530 million. Although the district health boards will make their own decisions, any changes to services will not be as a result of a shortage of Government funding.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Did the Minister cancel the conference because he knew that his decision to under-resource the primary health care sector in this year’s Budget would force doctors to raise their fees by 6.5 percent this year?

Hon TONY RYALL: Official documents will make it clear that the Government is in fact investing much more in primary health care, and has increased subsidies for general practitioner visits.

Hon Ruth Dyson: 6.5 percent increase.

Hon TONY RYALL: Well, the 6.5 percent cap should be compared with a 6.1 percent increase approved by the previous Labour Government, but actually the increase in the general practitioner subsidy this year is higher than the increase in that year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Did the Minister cancel the conference because he knows that New Zealanders will be outraged that the lower doctor fees and prescription charges brought in by Labour are now under direct threat, and neither he nor John Key wants to be filmed at any negative event?

Hon TONY RYALL: There are no direct threats to funding for primary health care, unlike the direct threat approved by that member’s benchmate, David Cunliffe, who last year, in the month before the election, cut $17.5 million from primary health organisation income, cut $10 million from the funding pool for people with disabling chronic medical conditions, and cut $20 million—

Hon Ruth Dyson: That is not true. That was an underspend, and you know it.

Hon TONY RYALL: Oh, it was an “underspend”.

Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the evaluation of the cancellation of the primary health care conference, which shows that the total cost incurred by its cancellation is $113,491 of taxpayers’ money.

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.

4. Air Quality—National Environmental Standards

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

4. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for the Environment: What action has he taken in respect of the National Environmental Standards for Air Quality in response to concerns raised at the Job Summit?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) : New Zealand’s air quality problem is actually 90 percent from home heating and vehicles, with less than 10 percent from industry, yet the previous Government’s air quality regulations penalise only industry for non-compliance. Ten towns and cities are unlikely to meet the standards by 2013, and the consequence is that no renewals of new consents for industry would be allowed. This would put tens of thousands of jobs in Canterbury and Auckland at risk for no fault of industry. That is why the Job Summit recommended a rethink and why the Government is doing that.

Nicky Wagner: Has the Minister been able to find any technically sound reason from his officials for punishing only industry over failure to meet air-quality standards when industry is a fraction of the problem; or were the regulations a product of the anti-jobs, anti-industry mindset of the previous administration?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Officials have not been able to give me any sound reason why we would have a regulation that punishes industry only, when 90 percent of the problem is in fact home heating and motor vehicles. The Government does intend to address this problem, and that is one of the reasons we have committed $323 million to insulation and to clean heating technologies.

Brendon Burns: Given that the Government has already stalled the emissions trading scheme, scrapped biofuel obligations, signalled more thermal generation, and a review of drinking-water quality standards, what assurance can the Minister provide about any improvements to air quality in the time frames he envisages?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me illustrate just one of the points that the member has got wrong. Rather than a nanny State regulatory approach to biofuels, this Government is providing a financial incentive to new technology. The difference from the Labour Government’s environmental policies, which were anti-growth and anti-industry, is that this Government is serious about prosperity as well as good environmental policy.

Nicky Wagner: Can the Minister reassure the House that the Government remains absolutely committed to improving air quality, noting its importance to public health and to New Zealand’s “clean, green” brand, as stated in National’s 2006 Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand and its policy at the 2008 election?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, this initiative does meet the commitments that National made in its policy, and in that Bluegreen Vision for New Zealand document. The terms of reference make plain that this Government is serious about clean air in New Zealand, but we want to do it in a practical way that does not put jobs at risk.

Metiria Turei: Can the Minister confirm that car pollution is a major component of Auckland’s air pollution; if so, will he recommend to the Minister of Transport that instead of spending seven times as much on roads and motorways, he instead invest, dollar for dollar, in better buses and trains, and safer cycling and walking?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This is a Government that is investing heavily in cycles, with the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for the cycleway. Today my colleague the Minister of Transport announced a new initiative around supporting clean energy technology in the form of electric cars, one of which I am the proud owner of. I also point out to the member the very significant investment that this Government is making in public transport. But I say to the Greens that congested traffic is awful for pollution and this Government is going to address and improve that.

Nicky Wagner: What response has the Minister received to his announcement of the review?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The review of air quality standards has been strongly and widely supported. I note that the Christchurch Press said that the group appointed to conduct a review is very well qualified and well balanced with strong medical as well as technical and economic skills. I also note the support from many local authorities from the Hawke’s Bay, where I particularly acknowledge Chris Tremain and Craig Foss, who have made representations. Also, in the South Island at least four authorities have indicated their strong support for the review.

5. Adult and Community Education—Cuts

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

5. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: How does she expect cuts in adult and community education to “… ensure that New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens”, as she has stated previously about the Government’s aim in Vote Education?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education) : As I told the member yesterday, the Government remains committed to adult community education and will spend $124 million over the next 4 years on the sector.

Hon Maryan Street: How many people does the Minister expect will benefit from the improved literacy and numeracy skills coming from an additional $35 million that is going into private schools, and how does that compare with the number of people who will suffer from the cuts to adult and community education?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think Labour has to get over its obsession around private schools. Children who go to private schools are New Zealanders who have a right to a 100 percent free education. They are much cheaper for the taxpayer, because we pay only about 35 percent of the cost of their education.

Aaron Gilmore: What reports has the Minister seen on individuals spreading misleading information about adult and community education reprioritisation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports, most of them from the member who asked the primary question, that say adult and community education funding will be cut by $152 million. That is simply wrong. The Government has made changes to $67 million of adult and community education funding, and we have shifted it to other areas of education spending.

Hon Maryan Street: How does the Minister compare the return on the investment of $35 million into private schools with the PricewaterhouseCoopers’ calculation of the return on the investment on adult and community education funding in 2008 of between $54 and $72 for each dollar of funding?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, if we believed PricewaterhouseCoopers’ evaluation, we would spend $10 billion on adult and community education and would have an economy that is twice the size it currently is. That is clearly the kind of nonsense that the previous Government relied on.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā koutou katoa. What reports has the Minister received on the number of people who could lose access to a reintroduction to learning that could possibly lead to jobs other than literacy courses, as a result of the cuts to adult and community education?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot directly answer that question in detail, but I can tell the member that we have seen reports of thousands of people who are losing their jobs and going on the dole. We are doing the best we can to keep them connected to the world of work and to help them to obtain skills for when the economy does turn up—particularly if they are young people, who are a higher priority than others.

Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister understand the concept of embedded literacy and numeracy skills; if so, how does the Minister think Moroccan cooking classes can be completed without acquiring or developing literacy and numeracy skills along the way?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes; and I understand that course is funded by the participants and will not be affected.

Carmel Sepuloni: Does the Minister consider Māori or Samoan language courses, such as those run at Wellington High School, to be hobby courses or to be courses that improve literacy skills?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have said, the Government will be spending $124 million on adult and community education over the next 4 years, and anyone who is offering a course will have the opportunity, under processes set up by the previous Government, to get it funded.

Hon Maryan Street: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was hardly an answer to the question my colleague asked, which was about Māori and Samoan language classes being considered to be hobby courses or to contribute to literacy skills. Does the Minister have a definition of hobby courses?

Mr SPEAKER: As I heard the answer, the Minister acknowledged that organisations that are running these kinds of courses will apply for funding for the courses to continue. The impression I got from the answer was that the Minister cannot predetermine which courses will be funded. I do not believe that a further, more precise answer to that question can be given at this stage.

6. Citizens Initiated Referenda—Parental Correction Referendum

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

6. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that it “might make sense” for new rules to be drafted governing the questions that can be asked in citizens initiated referenda; if so, is it Government policy to change these rules?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : The answer is, yes, I stand by the statement.

Sue Bradford: Has the Prime Minister been advised that today the Green Party put forward a member’s bill aimed at improving the rules on referenda, so that questions are clear and people know for certain what they are voting for; if so, does he support our bill?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I am aware of the bill, although I have not seen it; and, yes, the Government caucus may consider supporting the legislation. We agree that it is important that referendum questions are clear, and we believe that the one that will be before the New Zealand public in a few weeks’ time is quite ambiguous.

Sue Bradford: Is the Prime Minister concerned that our country is spending around $9 million on a referendum that is so confusing that even MPs from parties across Parliament say they will not be voting, because they do not think the question makes any sense?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I am concerned about spending $9 million, but I think it is important to acknowledge that we operate in a democracy. A legal process triggered that citizens initiated referendum, and on that basis we will be following through with the cost.

Sue Bradford: If the bill I am putting forward is not drawn from the ballot this week, or if there is not a ballot this week, will his Government consider adopting it as a Government bill in order to ensure that future referenda will not be loaded with ambiguous, complex, leading, or misleading questions?

Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot comment on that option until we have had an opportunity to see the bill, but it is possible. I have received some advice in relation to the current legislation, particularly section 10(1), under which the Clerk of the House is responsible for determining the wording of questions. She is, we believe, in a difficult position of trying to refine the question to make it more easily understood, while not being seen to change the intent of the question, and she has to do so with the goodwill of the promoter. The member raises an interesting point, I think it is worthy of consideration, and the Government will take a good look at the bill.

7. Vehicles, Electric—Incentives for Uptake

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

7. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What steps is the Government taking to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : The Government is announcing today that we will be exempting light electric vehicles from road-user charges for an initial period of 4 years. This is to encourage the uptake of electric vehicles as commercialisation of this technology progresses. The policy will come into effect on 1 October this year, and will apply until 2013, when we will reassess the initiative.

David Bennett: How will increasing the number of electric vehicles in our fleet help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The combination of highly efficient electric motors with our competitive advantage in renewable electricity generation will reduce the greenhouse gases produced by the transport sector, as well as the harmful emissions that affect air quality. Electric cars can also decrease our reliance on imported fossil fuels. The Government sees private vehicles as continuing to be the most significant method of transportation for most New Zealanders. It is important that we encourage the use of affordable fuel technologies in order to help meet our environmental obligations over time.

8. Queen’s Wharf, Auckland—Auckland Regional Council Joint Purchase

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

8. Hon GEORGE HAWKINS (Labour—Manurewa) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he consider that the Auckland Regional Council’s decision to jointly purchase the Queen’s Wharf fits within his definition of a “core service”; if not, does he think that a referendum would be suitable?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: The Royal Commission on Auckland Governance identified the development of Queen’s Wharf as critical to the future of Auckland and New Zealand. The member should be aware that the definition of a “core service” is a work in progress.

Hon George Hawkins: How can the Minister continue to maintain his view that councils should be required to hold referenda on major decisions, when the first major decision made in the Auckland region will be sent to the Government’s hand-picked committee for approval without the people of Auckland having a say?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The matter of core services and referenda are a work in progress.

Hon George Hawkins: Will the Minister explain to the House how he reconciles his view that he would not expect local councils to be involved in property development with his council’s support of the Auckland Regional Council’s $20 million involvement in the purchase of Queen’s Wharf without the issue being put to the public by a referendum?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The matter of Queen’s Wharf was referred to by, and in, the royal commission’s report, but the matter of core services and the definition thereof are a work in progress.

Hon George Hawkins: How does he respond to the concerns of Local Government New Zealand that this is yet another example of the Government saying to councils, “Do as I say, not as I do.”; or is it the case that even his colleagues are so concerned about his radical plans to strip back local government that they are getting these decisions made before his reforms are introduced?

Hon JOHN CARTER: The simple answer to that is that the local government sector is being and will continue to be consulted on this issue as we develop it and define the matters of core services and referenda.

Hon George Hawkins: Is he concerned that these actions by John Key and Murray McCully have undermined his proposals in the same way that Judith Collins is undermining his super-city proposals by suggesting that the local boards are nothing more than “tea and scone clubs”?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Unlike the member opposite and his party, this Government actually takes seriously the reorganisation of governance in Auckland. We are consulting the public of Auckland. We intend to continue consulting the public of Auckland. The public of Auckland will have an opportunity to make submissions in regard to the present bill and the third bill, and to the Local Government Commission. Of course, the Minister of Local Government will continue to hold public meetings across Auckland, along with John Carter, the Associate Minister of Local Government, to ensure that there is proper consultation.

9. Citizens Initiated Referenda—Parental Correction Referendum

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

9. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the wording of the referendum “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” is “a bit ambiguous”; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes; because I think it is.

John Boscawen: Why does the Prime Minister continue to support legislation that makes a smack for the purposes of correction a criminal offence, thus making good parents into criminals; and how can New Zealanders have any respect for the rule of law when the Government has told the police not to enforce it?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think that when the Parliament voted on this matter some years back, it actually sought to reach a compromise. That compromise was to send a strong message to the police that we did not want good parents to be criminalised for lightly smacking a child. It is my belief that the police are carrying out the wishes of that Parliament—and indeed, I think, those carried forward into this Parliament. On that basis, I think that good New Zealand parents have nothing to fear.

John Boscawen: Does the Prime Minister accept that my member’s bill that is going into the ballot tomorrow and is based on the amendment from Chester Borrows will not take us back to the situation that we had before, in which parents could, in certain narrow circumstances, hit their children with a riding crop, for example; if so, will his Government be supporting my common-sense legislation when it comes up for its first reading?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, let me answer those questions in reverse order. I say that the previous National Party caucus had an agreed position. That agreed position was reflected in the law that was passed. I cannot tell the member whether we would support his bill, because our caucus has not had an opportunity to discuss that matter. We will not consider that matter unless or until the member’s bill is drawn from the ballot. I say that in my view the current law is working. I have given New Zealand parents a commitment that if the law did not work, I would change it. I stand by that commitment. But I have seen no evidence to date that the law is not working.

9. Citizens Initiated Referenda—Parental Correction Referendum

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

9. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that the wording of the referendum “Should a smack as part of good parental correction be a criminal offence in New Zealand?” is “a bit ambiguous”; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : Yes; because I think it is.

John Boscawen: Why does the Prime Minister continue to support legislation that makes a smack for the purposes of correction a criminal offence, thus making good parents into criminals; and how can New Zealanders have any respect for the rule of law when the Government has told the police not to enforce it?

Hon JOHN KEY: I think that when the Parliament voted on this matter some years back, it actually sought to reach a compromise. That compromise was to send a strong message to the police that we did not want good parents to be criminalised for lightly smacking a child. It is my belief that the police are carrying out the wishes of that Parliament—and indeed, I think, those carried forward into this Parliament. On that basis, I think that good New Zealand parents have nothing to fear.

John Boscawen: Does the Prime Minister accept that my member’s bill that is going into the ballot tomorrow and is based on the amendment from Chester Borrows will not take us back to the situation that we had before, in which parents could, in certain narrow circumstances, hit their children with a riding crop, for example; if so, will his Government be supporting my common-sense legislation when it comes up for its first reading?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, let me answer those questions in reverse order. I say that the previous National Party caucus had an agreed position. That agreed position was reflected in the law that was passed. I cannot tell the member whether we would support his bill, because our caucus has not had an opportunity to discuss that matter. We will not consider that matter unless or until the member’s bill is drawn from the ballot. I say that in my view the current law is working. I have given New Zealand parents a commitment that if the law did not work, I would change it. I stand by that commitment. But I have seen no evidence to date that the law is not working.

10. Dr Richard Worth—Confidence

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

10. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) : I refer the member to my response to question No. 12 yesterday.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Did the Prime Minister decide to not go into specifics yesterday because he judged it not in the public interest to do so, as allowed for under Standing Order 377(1)?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Prime Minister judge it not in the public interest because it may hamper some police inquiry?

Hon JOHN KEY: That is possible, but also on a wider basis I do not consider it in the public interest.

Hon Pete Hodgson: If it is possible that the reason that the Prime Minister would not go into specifics yesterday was that it may hamper some police inquiry, why did he tell journalists on Monday that it was “nothing of a legal nature.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: Because that was the correct answer.

Hon Pete Hodgson: How can it be that on the one hand a possible reason for the Prime Minister’s not disclosing the reason for his decision to sack Dr Richard Worth as Minister was that it may hamper some police inquiry, and on the other hand he said to the assembled press gallery that the reason was “nothing of a legal nature.”? If it was nothing of a legal nature, how could it possibly hamper the police?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are a number of factors, and I made that clear at the press conference on Monday. I urge the member to go and read the full transcript.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Given that the Prime Minister advised the House yesterday that he had told his Cabinet in “broad outline,” of his reasons for losing confidence in Dr Richard Worth, has he told his Cabinet anything substantive that he has not made public?

Hon JOHN KEY: I repeat the comment I made yesterday. I went into a broad description, but not specifics.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise it under Standing Order 377(1). Here is a little reminder as to what that Standing Order says. It says: “An answer that seeks to address the question asked must be given if it can be given consistently with the public interest.” My question was whether the Prime Minister, having briefed his Cabinet on the reasons for dismissing or losing confidence in Dr Richard Worth, had told his Cabinet anything substantive that he had not made public. You should note, Mr Speaker, that I did not ask what he had told his Cabinet, simply whether he had told his Cabinet anything substantive that was not yet public. I put it to you that he has not sought to address that question, and because of the wording of the question has no public interest reason to deny addressing it.

Mr SPEAKER: I respect the honourable member’s important point of order, but I come back to the point that only the Minister—or in this case, the Prime Minister—can judge the issue of public interest. That is why the Standing Order is written that way. My assessment was that the Prime Minister answered the question, given the constraints of his judgment around the public interest issue. I believe I cannot ask him to do more than that under the Standing Orders.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like you to examine your ruling and previous rulings with regard to the question of public interest. My understanding from the, I think, two occasions that I have seen that Standing Order applied by Ministers in the past is that they have, in fact, elected not to give an answer, or to give an answer that says that they cannot give that answer because it is not in the public interest. I have never seen that Standing Order used before to judge whether an answer addressed a question. It goes to whether an answer is to be given, and whether that is in the public interest, not to the quality of the answer or whether it addresses the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think that if we were to turn to Speaker’s ruling 165/6, then the situation becomes a little clearer. The Prime Minister gave an answer to the question. This is a Speaker’s ruling from the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt. It states: “The Speaker does not judge whether ministerial replies are adequate or make political judgments on how well Ministers have responded to the House, or, indeed, how well other members are performing. Those are matters for members themselves, the press, and the public generally.” The Prime Minister has made it clear. He has given an answer to Mr Hodgson as far as he can. It would seem to me that by relying on this particular Speaker’s ruling we would see an end to the matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think it would be advantageous to give a couple of examples of where my understanding of this Standing Order is designed to be applied. One example would be in the area of foreign affairs or defence, where there is a point of conflict and New Zealand interests would be at risk, either in a trade sense or a defence sense. The other occasions, in the examples that we have been briefed on, have been in police cases where an active police operation is occurring and it would not be appropriate for a Minister to give an answer. That Minister could not give an answer that was truthful in any of those examples where it would be in the interests of the country. Those are the sorts of areas that, in my opinion, and certainly in the briefings that we have had from the previous Clerks, are covered by the Standing Order. It does not extend to a judgment partway through a question that answering the question properly is not in the public interest; it relates to whether the question is answered at all.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, I think that anyone observing this would know that this is a question that comes down to the issue of political exchange. If we look at Speaker’s ruling 163/6, also a ruling by the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt, he acknowledges within that ruling that there are questions that are matters of political exchange. It makes it very, very clear that the Speaker cannot be put in a position of judging the adequacy of either the question or the answer. The Prime Minister has given an answer in so far as he can and is prepared to, and that should be acceptable to the House.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I simply want to remind the Speaker that I have raised a point of order on a very narrow issue, not to do with Speaker’s ruling 165/6 which is to do with the adequacy of the reply, but with whether the Minister addressed the question. It is a narrow issue. He must seek to address the question unless there is a public interest reason for not doing so. Similarly, Speaker’s ruling 163/6 is irrelevant to the point of order that I have raised. The Hon Trevor Mallard makes a very good point, which is that if it is not in the public interest to give an answer, then that is what we would expect to be told. In fact, the Prime Minister has said in his answer to my primary question that it is not in the public interest for him to give further detail. So I changed my questioning to ask who else had that detail, but I did not ask for the detail itself—because it is apparently not in the public interest. At that point I think, the Minister must seek to address my question.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members, because this is an issue that I accept is not absolutely black and white. But, in fact, when the Hon Trevor Mallard was recounting Speakers’ rulings or briefings on the matter, he overlooked the one by Speaker Wilson just last year, which is Speaker’s ruling 162/4. It actually gets into the issue of matters of public interest versus privacy as well, and there are issues to be covered there. Let me come back to the fundamental issue that the Hon Trevor Mallard raised first about whether the public interest question should be something that prevents a Minister from answering at all, or whether it can actually constrain how much of an answer the Minister gives. I think, in fairness, it is not an all-or-nothing thing. Whether an answer is in the public interest is not a matter where either no answer is given at all or an answer is given. It is not a zero-game situation. If a Minister wishes to be helpful, a Minister can answer a question in so far as he or she believes he or she can do so consistent with the public interest. I believe that on this occasion, the Prime Minister—instead of saying that he was not going to answer the honourable member’s question because it is not in the public interest—gave an answer that went as far as he believed was acceptable in his opinion, consistent with the public interest. I believe as Speaker, that that is inconsistent with Standing Order 377(1) and also very much consistent with previous Speakers’ rulings, in particular Speaker’s ruling 162/4.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth, was he in possession, or not in possession, of substantive information that is not yet public?

Hon JOHN KEY: I was in possession of information that meant I no longer had confidence in Dr Worth, and at that point I believed he was not fit to be a Minister.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that neither the spirit nor the letter of Standing Order 377(1) has been met by the Prime Minister’s answer to that question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. Both those senior Labour members know they cannot interject like that during a point of order. This is a difficult issue, and I believe that I owe the House the courtesy and the respect of taking it seriously. I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Numerous Speakers in the past have ruled that although an answer can be sought, the answer that is given may not be adequate for the purpose of satisfying the questioner’s inquiry but is perfectly adequate in terms of the Standing Orders. Numerous examples from Speaker Wilson back make that abundantly clear. I do not think we are in a different situation here. The question was asked, an answer was given, and that answer related to the topic. The fact that the answer was not as specific as the member wanted it to be does not mean it is in any way a breach of the Standing Orders.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I offered the Prime Minister the opportunity to tell us whether he had, or did not have, substantive information that was not in the public arena. If he did not have it, then it seems to me that the Prime Minister is entitled to tell the House that. If he did have substantive information, but he did not want to tell us what it was, because it was not in the pubic interest to do so, he is absolutely entitled—absolutely entitled—to say that to the House. The truth of the matter is that he took neither of those options, and I assert, therefore, that he did not seek, endeavour, try, or attempt to address the question, and he ought to do so.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, if you think back, you will recall that the Prime Minister said he had sufficient information to lead him to have a loss of confidence in the former Minister. How more specific would he be required to be, given that he had been within the Standing Orders in answering the previous lines of questioning?

Mr SPEAKER: The particular question on this occasion was whether the Prime Minister had information that was not in the public arena at the time he made his decision. It is absolutely the Prime Minister’s right to determine whether it is within the public interest to answer the question, but I believe that it is not acceptable for him to ignore that question. I invite the honourable member to repeat his question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When the Prime Minister came to the view that he had lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth, was he in possession, or not in possession, of substantive information that is not yet public?

Hon JOHN KEY: I was in possession of information that meant I no longer had confidence in Dr Worth.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I go “ibid.” in terms of the previous point of order, which my colleague Pete Hodgson raised. That answer no more addressed the question than the previous answer did. In fact, it was very close to being a repeat of the original answer, which you ruled did not address the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I gave the honourable member the chance to repeat his question. What has been made clear is that, in the Prime Minister’s judgment, it is not in the public interest to give further information on it. He has given as much information in his answer as he believes is consistent with the public interest, and I cannot insist on any more than that. I gave the honourable member the chance to repeat his question, he has made his point, and the Prime Minister has answered as far as he believes he can consistent with the public interest. I think that is as far as the House can take that matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the problem we are getting to now is that you are providing an answer for the Prime Minister that he himself is not prepared to give. What you have done in your ruling is indicate that it is the Prime Minister’s view that it is not in the public interest to give further information. If that is his view, then it is incumbent on him to say so. It is not incumbent on you to interpret—in fact, you should not interpret—that the Prime Minister is saying that, because it could well come out later that that is not the fact, and, effectively, the Prime Minister will be hung by your ruling.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is an unacceptable attack on the integrity of the Chair and I do not think it should pass lightly. In any event, let us turn to Speakers’ ruling 162/6, a ruling by Speaker Harrison that was later repeated by Speaker Arthur. It is a long-standing ruling. It has survived many, many Parliaments since those two gentlemen occupied the seat in the late 1970s and early 1980s. The ruling states: The Speaker cannot force a Minister to give an answer to a question and has no responsibility for the quality of the answer that is given nor its content.” Mr Speaker, the Opposition is asking you to overturn that ruling and, in fact, to become the adjudicator in the case of those rulings, which would mean that subsequent ruling 163/6 and numerous rulings on page 165 would also be overturned. I assert again that the question we are dealing with is in the nature of a political exchange, as described in Speaker’s ruling 163/6. I think it is unfortunate that the Opposition is asking you to be put in a position where you are judging the quality of the answer, when, in fact, previous Speakers have strenuously attempted to stay away from that particular position. The Prime Minister has given an answer, it is a reasonable answer in all the circumstances, and I think this case being in the nature of a political exchange does override any other consideration.

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard quite sufficient on the matter. The member asked a perfectly fair and reasonable question, and was concerned about the answer. I accepted that his question had been a pretty straight question and had not been directly answered; that was why I allowed the member to repeat it. However, when he repeated the question he got a further answer from the Prime Minister that clearly indicated the limits to which the Prime Minister felt he was able to go within the public interest. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee has pointed out, I cannot then judge the quality of that answer. The member asked his question, it was a straight question, he got the answer, and he can draw his own conclusions about it. But there is no way that I as Speaker can take it a step further and start adjudicating on whether an answer was adequate. I believe that the Prime Minister gave an answer as far as he believed was consistent with the public interest, and that is where the matter for today must lie.

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

Mr SPEAKER: I would ask him to be sure he is not questioning my ruling. I have just ruled on the matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Not at all, but I think the matter could be easily cleared up by the Prime Minister indicating that that was, in fact, what he meant.

Mr SPEAKER: There was absolutely no necessity for that whatsoever.

11. Land, Public Works—Return to Former Owners

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

11. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Land Information: Has any land no longer required for public works been offered back to its former owners; if so, at what increase of value?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information) : Yes; in accordance with the Public Works Act 1981, land is offered back to the former owners at the current market value.

Rahui Katene: Why has there been such little progress made since the last round of consultation reviewing the Public Works Act in 2001, and when can New Zealanders expect to see the prompt return of any such land as soon as it is no longer required for a public work?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: There has been a reasonably long litany of deferrals here as the member quite rightly points out. The Public Works Act was actually reviewed, the review was conducted in 2001, the Cabinet then considered a review of that and the proposed legislative changes in 2003, but then that review and those changes were deferred. A further paper considering policy proposals was considered in February 2005 but consideration of that was further deferred. A review of the Public Works Act and the Land Act 1948 was put before the Cabinet in 2008 and a legislative programme bid was made for the Land (Acquisition, Management, and Disposal) Bill, but that again was deferred and not put through. So there has been a long history from 2001 of proposals and reviews but nothing happening from them. I can assure that member that all land that qualifies to be sold back to the original owner is indeed sold back.

Rahui Katene: What response can be made to the submissions to the 2001 review that suggested that compensation provisions for the offer back of land were deficient in that they did not take into account spiritual, cultural, and social values associated with land?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I am told—and given I have been in the portfolio for only 24 hours I am struggling with some of this—that as part of phase 2 of the reforms to the Resource Management Act this Government is investigating whether compensation for landowners under the Public Works Act 1981 needs to be more generous. Similarly the Government is keen to streamline and better integrate the process under the Public Works Act and other legislation such as the Resource Management Act. That work is currently going on.

12. Youth—Initiatives

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

12. SIMON BRIDGES (National—Tauranga) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: What is the Government doing to help build partnerships between young people in communities around New Zealand?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) : Last week we announced a new round of funding from the Youth Development Partnership Fund, which will help to support a variety of projects to benefit youth at a local level. More than $700,000 will be provided to 11 councils for projects such as youth mentoring and upskilling.

Simon Bridges: Can the Minister give us an example of one local authority that has received funding and the project it plans to implement?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly can. The Wairoa District Council will be working in partnership with the Wairoa Community Development Trust on the YROA YNOT! project. This project will assist young people to develop safe activities, create safe places to gather, develop leadership and mentoring projects for young people, and encourage young people to engage with education and training.

Jacinda Ardern: How does the Minister think that the cuts in Budget 2009 to skills training, to the scholarship schemes that help low-income young people to attend university, and to the Enterprising Communities fund, which schemes like the Ōtorohanga youth apprenticeship support programme depended on, will help young people in communities around New Zealand, when these cuts represent a loss of over $160 million?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, that figure is not correct. I am proud that this Government has a real focus on youth: youth in jobs and youth in training. I think the Youth Guarantee will make a huge difference to those young people being able to continue through the spectrum to training and upskilling.

Simon Bridges: How does the Government plan to address the rising rate of youth unemployment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Youth unemployment is increasing, and that is very serious. The Youth Guarantee is just one step in a number of Government measures that are currently under way to address that issue. As I said, the Youth Guarantee will make a fundamental difference to those young people as they stay in training and education, and that will lead them to take further steps. The Mayors Task Force for Jobs has been doing good work around some of the job summits, which means that those youth will stay in work. This is important and it is something this Government is concentrating on.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave to table the Budget 2009 documents that demonstrate that the schemes I just listed do tally up to over $160 million in cuts.

Mr SPEAKER: Can I just check this. Is the honourable member seeking leave to table the Budget documents, which have already been tabled?

Jacinda Ardern: Yes.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Is it a document, a series of documents, or something that is going to be tabled later?

Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to establish what on earth the member is seeking leave to table. Is it a single document out of a set of Budget documents, or which Budget document is she is seeking to table?

Jacinda Ardern: I am happy to do a consolidated short list, if that is easier—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat. Is the member now making it clear there is no document she is seeking to table, and it is a set of information that she wishes to table?

Jacinda Ardern: I am seeking leave to table the Budget documents, because the Minister questioned my figures, which came directly from her Government’s Budget. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: We will not have this. The Budget documents are all in the public domain. I invite the honourable member just to reflect on the time of the House she is wasting. [Interruption] I have been very tolerant today in terms of putting leave for press statements and radio transcripts, but there is a limit—[Interruption] Both sides of the House will be quiet. There is a limit to how much time we waste on point-scoring, when the procedure under the Standing Orders for leave that is being sought to table documents is there to provide information for the House that it does not otherwise have access to. Clearly, the House has access to the information in the Budget documents. I invite the honourable member to reflect on how she is contributing to the good order of the House by seeking leave to do this. Does she still wish to proceed?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This point is one that I have brought up before, and it is a question about whether members do have the right to seek leave. At the moment, under the Standing Orders they have the right to seek leave to do anything. I would make two points. The first is that I actually agree with you; I think the Standing Orders need a change. But the second is that until the Standing Orders have that change made, I think we would be losing more time by your interventions than we would have lost by the leave just being put and turned down.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept that—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: It is members’ day, I guess!

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is true that members do have a right to seek leave for anything that the House might consider to be outside the Standing Orders’ prescription. However, in the case of leave being sought to table a document, the House has a right to know what is proposed. In this case the document does not exist. That member has also changed her position from, at one point, saying she was prepared to collate some information for the House and table that, to then saying she would table the page out of the Budget documents, etc. The Budget documents have been tabled; they sit on the Table. So it was important that we bored down to find out the actual fact that what was being asked for was something that does not exist.

Mr SPEAKER: We are in a curious situation. I accept the point the Hon Trevor Mallard has made, absolutely. Although I am trying to discourage the seeking of leave to table documents that contain information the House already has in its possession, the Hon Trevor Mallard is quite correct that, as Speaker, I am obliged to put the leave when it is sought. But also I am obliged to make sure it is clear that it is a document and not something that the member proposes to collate subsequently. If the document already sits on the Table, then really I do question the ability of a member to seek leave to table a document that is already sitting on the Table in the House. I will come back to the member once more. Is the document she is seeking leave to table already sitting on the Table, and is it a clear document? I give her the chance to answer those questions and describe the document clearly.

Jacinda Ardern: To be clear, it is from a tabled document. I would take excerpts from the Budget, for the ease of the Minister’s reference, to demonstrate the figure that I have mentioned.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to re-table parts of the Budget documents. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is.

ENDS

© Scoop Media