(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2009

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Climate Change Policy—Iwi Leadership Group Proposal

1. JOHN BOSCAWEN (ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Will he table the proposal presented to him yesterday by the iwi leadership group so that it can be open to parliamentary, media, and public scrutiny?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): No. My discussions with the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group and the Māori Party are confidential, in the same way that our discussions with the ACT Party and other parties in Parliament are done on a confidential basis.

No agreement has been reached yet; an appropriate announcement will be made when it is.

Hon Phil Goff: Why the secrecy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I hear the Leader of the Opposition criticising that. I understand that that was exactly the arrangement when the Green Party came to an agreement with Labour on its amendments to the emissions trading scheme.

John Boscawen: Why will only iwi be compensated for their losses, and not all forestry owners?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is not the Government’s intention or the intention of the Māori Party to have specific amendments to the emissions trading scheme that would give any preferential right to Māori-owned or iwi-owned forests to anybody else. There is a very specific issue associated with Ngāi Tahu and four other iwi that were involved in a Treaty settlement; there is a question over whether the Crown made available to them, under the good-faith provisions of that agreement, all the information. That is the issue the Māori Party has put on the agenda, and this Government intends to constructively work with Ngāi Tahu to try to find a solution to that problem.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Is the Minister aware of any agreements between the Government and other parties involving carbon farming on Crown land?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. The Department of Conservation is involved in forest management agreements with businesses that involve their planting trees on public lands and earning carbon credits. The Māori Party has raised with the Government the issue of iwi being involved in such partnerships. Given the huge role that it would play—and, actually, in one of the least-cost ways—in New Zealand’s contribution to climate change, I think it is a good thing that the Government would work with iwi to plant trees on both Māori land and public land, because I think there is potential for all to benefit.

John Boscawen: Is the Minister prepared to tell the House what legal advice he has received regarding any additional compensation that may or may not be required?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. I have taken careful advice from Crown Law and have worked closely with my colleague the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. It is very important I make a point plain, and it is this; Treaty settlements need to be full and final, and Governments need to have the flexibility to respond to new issues like climate change without it reopening Treaty

settlements, but, equally so, this Government is committed to the integrity of Treaty settlements, and if there has been misunderstanding about them, it is proper that the Government seeks to resolve those issues—and not through the courts.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister tell the House what other amendments, besides the Treaty clause that he has already signalled, he will propose without parliamentary, public, or media scrutiny, in his shambolic attempt to scrape together enough parliamentary support to pass his $110 billion taxpayer subsidy for polluters?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can assure the member that the number of amendments in our Supplementary Order Paper on the emissions trading scheme will be a fraction of the number of amendments that David Parker introduced to this House, which were tabled in the morning and passed that night—a fraction of that number. I also say to the member that his claims about billions of dollars is Disneyland stuff, and that the cost to New Zealanders of our modified emissions trading scheme will be less than the cost of Labour’s scheme, because we do not want to impose on New Zealanders the large power price increases that that party opposite wants to impose.

Dr Russel Norman: In his negotiations with the Māori Party over the emissions trading scheme amendments, has he been telling the Māori Party that the $110 billion estimate of the cost to the taxpayer in terms of increased debt of the Government by 2050 is wrong or right?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That number is a fantasyland number. Let me tell the member why.

The member opposite wants to give great credence to what might occur in 2050. It is not rocket science that if, in the assumptions, one doubles the carbon price from $25 to $50, surprise, surprise, the cost goes up. I emphasise that members opposite want to impose huge costs on New Zealand households, farmers, and businesses, and the Māori Party wisely does not want to cripple New Zealand industry in our efforts to do our fair share on climate change.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister stand by his previous railing against “pandering to Māori”, and his statement that “The Treaty and race are irrelevant.”, or do those views apply only when he is trying to pull together a shabby deal to get support for his $110 billion subsidy for polluters?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member very selectively quotes. If the member checked the record, he would find that I was actually one of the Ministers—an Associate Minister in charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations—involved in the Ngāi Tahu settlement along with Sir Douglas Graham. I am a member who is committed long-term to a process of full and final Treaty settlements, and I am delighted that this Government is making damn sight more progress on that than members opposite ever did.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost of Changes

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he still stand by his comment that “I cannot see why the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about our emissions trading scheme” following the revelation from Treasury that the effect of his changes to the emissions trading scheme is to increase Government debt by $110 billion; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, because I do not support that member’s view that the cost of the emissions trading scheme should simply be piled on Kiwi businesses and workers as a money-making scheme for the Government.

Hon Phil Goff: Why has the Prime Minister suddenly decided that Treasury’s estimates of $110 billion are nonsense when he was quite prepared to accept the estimate, from the same officials in Treasury, that the cost of his proposals to the New Zealand taxpayer would be $50 billion; or does he accept Treasury advice only when it suits his own prejudices?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have been consistently of the view that Treasury’s numbers are fundamentally very difficult to predict. For a start, Treasury cannot tell us what the deficit will be in December let alone what the price of carbon will be in 2050, or what the technological changes will be, or what the international obligations will be. But I can say that on this side of the House we do

not want to rip $110 billion out of the guts of Kiwi businesses and consumers and call it a profit, which is what Labour is trying to do.

Hon Phil Goff: Is the consistency that the Prime Minister talks so proudly about the same consistency that led him a couple of years ago in this House to describe climate change as a hoax, and 18 months later to say that he always believed in climate change?

Hon JOHN KEY: If there are any changes in my position, at least they take a few years—unlike the Leader of the Opposition. On Tuesday a couple of weeks ago he was saying that travel perks should be gone, and by Thursday Trevor Mallard was at the airport.

Hon Phil Goff: I think the Prime Minister is on very thin ice—[Interruption] Mr SPEAKER: This is getting very untidy. I ask members to show respect. The Leader of the Opposition has been called to ask a supplementary question.

Hon Phil Goff: What changes does the Prime Minister intend to make to the emissions trading scheme legislation now that he has been advised by his official advisers that the cost to the taxpayer will not be $50 billion but $110 billion, or does he not care about the risk he is imposing on a future generation of New Zealanders?

Hon JOHN KEY: Let us just understand a few things. The difference between the Labour scheme and the one proposed by National, which I am confident will be passed into law, is this: members on that side of the House want to double the cost put on the New Zealand taxpayer.

Members on that side of the House want to overcharge businesses and farmers to the tune of $110 billion. There is no more cost to the taxpayer. The difference is that members on that side of the House care so little about economic growth that they are prepared to gut the New Zealand economy to somehow feather their nest, which, by the way, is completely different from what they were saying when they were in Government. They were saying that they would recycle all the money, so there never was $110 billion.

Hon Phil Goff: Why are ordinary New Zealand taxpayers meeting 84 percent of the cost of carbon emissions and the big polluting industries in agriculture meeting only 2 percent, according to the analysis done by the New Zealand Herald; and how are polluters incentivised to stop polluting when the taxpayer is picking up the tab?

Hon JOHN KEY: I will put to one side the factual inaccuracies in the question lodged by the Leader of the Opposition, except to say—

Hon Member: Blame the media.

Hon JOHN KEY: —and I am proud for them to have this on TV—that on this side of the House we care about jobs, we care about keeping New Zealanders employed, and we care about the country going forward. Members on that side of the House do not, and that is why they are in Opposition and will be there for a very long time.

Mr SPEAKER: I call Jeanette Fitzsimons. [Interruption] I have called Jeanette Fitzsimons, and I ask both sides of the House to come to order. I realise that members have passionately held views.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does the Prime Minister think it is economically efficient to encourage future investment into carbon intensive and polluting industries rather than low-carbon, clean industries by protecting industry from the cost of that carbon, not just for its current emissions but also from the emissions of future plant it has not yet built?

Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to that question is that, firstly, we are trying to send the right messages through the economy. That is the purpose of having an emissions trading scheme. Yes, for the first couple of years there is a cap on the price of carbon, but I think that is important in order to allow the economy to transition into a mechanism for pricing carbon. Secondly, we are strongly in favour of trying to find scientific solutions. That is why we have the Primary Growth Partnership and have also, around the world, been promoting the idea of a global alliance. Thirdly, where we have applied an intensity basis, the reason is that we look at emissions on a global basis. If, for instance, Holcim Cement was to increase its manufacturing here in New Zealand but reduce its

imports from overseas, and do so on a less carbon intensive basis, then that would be good not only for New Zealand but also for the planet.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister accept the advice given to the select committee by its expert adviser Dr Suzi Kerr that the Government was proposing to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars per job in areas where jobs were not even at risk because of the emissions trading scheme?

Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon Phil Goff: Is he still relaxed about the emissions trading scheme that he is proposing when the figures suggest that what he is proposing will load on to each and every New Zealand family a debt of around $92,000, based on the information provided by his official advisers in Treasury?

Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to that question is no, and the reason is that there is no basis to Treasury’s analysis. [Interruption] I am prepared to bet quite sizable amounts of money that most of the people on that side of the House have not read Treasury’s analysis, which, I note for the record, works on the assumption that we overtax the economy to the tune of $50 billion and we invest it and get $60 billion. According to Treasury, that has no impact on the economy—but it is completely inconsistent with every other bit of advice that Treasury people tell us when they come into my office.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Are not many [Interruption]—

Mr SPEAKER: I have called Jeanette Fitzsimons. Again, I say to both sides of the House, please show some courtesy to members at the back.

JEANETTE FITZSIMONS: Are not many of those scientific solutions he says he is looking for to be found in technologies for low carbon production that are known now, which other countries will be adopting and which will pass New Zealand by because we are providing no incentive for people here to invest in low carbon technologies?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, I would not agree with that. I go back to the statements that I made earlier. If the member looks at things like the Primary Growth Partnership, the global alliance, or other areas where we are working on science and research and development solutions she will see that they are all aimed at trying to make sure we can develop technology. And where we can import technology from other countries and apply it, we will. Ultimately, when our industrial sector faces a carbon charge, it will find the cost to be cheaper in some instances to adopt new techniques than to keep emitting.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister guarantee that all forest owners in similar positions will be treated equally under the emissions trading scheme, or, in his desperation to get a deal from the Māori Party, will he give special treatment to forest owners who have iwi affiliations, contrary to the advice of the select committee that said there was no basis for doing so?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can confirm that everyone will be treated equally, but I can also confirm that this Government is facing the same issue that, by the way, the previous Government did, and that was a potential court case or an action through the Waitangi Tribunal from iwi who signed an agreement believing that they had full knowledge and may not have done so. The member knows that, and if he wants me to point him to the advice he got, I am more than happy to do so.

Dr Russel Norman: In respect of the lack of a price on carbon, does the Prime Minister agree, although he may say that it protects carbon intensive producers in New Zealand, that it punishes those who are clean producers by not having a price on carbon, and that it is those clean industries that are the future of the economy of New Zealand, and that that is what we want to direct our economy towards?

Hon JOHN KEY: If the member wants to vote with us on the emissions trading scheme, the price of carbon will be in place in the middle of next year.

Hon Phil Goff: How can the Prime Minister be relaxed about the process that was followed when his select committee chair tried to limit hearings to just one day, when some submitters were given as little as 3 or 4 hours to present to the committee, when Treasury described the process as

inadequate and not commensurate with the significance of what was being proposed, and when even his ACT ally described the process as bizarre and unacceptable?

Hon JOHN KEY: The Leader of the Opposition is right in that there is an urgency to pass the legislation. It is urgent for this reason: if we do not do it, $400 million will be imposed on New Zealand consumers and businesses, starting from 1 January 2010. That includes a 10 percent rise in power prices. On this side of the House we will halve the cost for consumers; on that side of the House, members will double the cost for consumers. This is no different from their policies of the last 9 years. All they want to do is keep taxing people more.

Exporters—Government Assistance

3. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What measures has the Government taken to assist New Zealand exporters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): To assist New Zealand exporters the Government needs to reverse the policies of the last Government, which encouraged consumption and too much borrowing, at the expense of exports and investment. One way the Government is addressing these issues is through a number of free-trade agreements with Asian and Pacific economies that are doing relatively well. These agreements will open up the opportunities for our exporters.

Craig Foss: What free-trade agreements has the Government negotiated as part of this programme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In recent weeks the Government has signed a free-trade agreement with Malaysia, concluded negotiations with Hong Kong and with the Gulf Cooperation Council, and has made progress towards a free-trade deal with the United States through the trans-Pacific partnership of which New Zealand is a member. This follows the ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement, signed in February, and the New Zealand - China Free Trade Agreement, which was signed last year. Together these agreements could deliver many hundreds of millions of dollars of trade opportunities, and most particularly thousands of jobs for New Zealanders.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association that “The real economy will only continue to deteriorate while the dollar remains at these elevated levels.”; if so, why does he insist he can do nothing when even the Reserve Bank is moving towards recognising and taking steps to solve the problem?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: One of the reasons the real economy has been under pressure is the policies his party pursued when in Government, which were reckless growth and Government spending, far too much red tape, and non-tradable inflation, which represented a consistent tax on exporters. We have to undo all that damage.

Craig Foss: What other steps has the Government taken to support New Zealand exporters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In addition to the programme of free-trade agreements, the Government yesterday announced an extra $200 million in trade guarantees to increase opportunities for exporters. The Export Credit Office has been in place for some time, but because of the recession there is greatly increased demand from exporters, who cannot get trade guarantees in the private sector but who need them to grow their businesses and keep New Zealanders in jobs as we emerge from the recession. The total guarantees offered through the Export Credit Office now amount to three-quarters of a billion dollars.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does it concern the Minister that the Sustainability Council has estimated that under his amended emissions trading scheme, large industry will meet only 1 percent of the costs, with the overall fiscal cost increasing by $110 billion according to his Treasury. Does he not think he is gambling away New Zealand’s clean, green reputation along with the future of our kids?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. We are showing a much a better understanding than his party of the balance between achieving desirable environmental outcomes and providing jobs for New Zealanders. I am surprised that Labour, which used to represent working people, does not seem to be concerned about jobs at all.

Craig Foss: How do the measures announced around the Export Guarantee Office fit within the Government’s wider programme to lift New Zealand’s economic productivity?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In general, the economy can only grow in the next 5 years if we have less excessive consumption and borrowing—which has the been the pattern of the last 10 years—

and more savings and investment in exports. The export credit guarantees provide opportunities for exporters who want to grow into new markets and who have trouble obtaining export credit but can provide more jobs. That is what this is all about.

Accident Compensation—Role of Accident Compensation Corporation

4. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by his statement: “this Government is committed to the core concept of ACC being a 24/7 no-fault insurer for New Zealanders at work, at play, and on the road.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Despite the fact that this Government inherited the accident compensation scheme in a financial mess, yes. The annual accounts signed by Maryan Street—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to resume his seat. If the member looks at the question he has just been asked, he will see it was very simple. It did not ask why he stood by his statement; it just asked: “Does he stand by his statement …”. I do not think the House needs all that. Could the Minister answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The fact is yes, but it is also true that the previous Government left this Government—

Mr SPEAKER: The question did not ask why. If the member had wanted an explanation, he could have asked why in his question. It is a question on notice.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: So we have to—

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. The question on notice simply asks the Minister: “Does he stand by his statement …”. I think the Minister has answered: “Yes”.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister now agree that proposed increases in motorcycle levies are unfair and undermine the no-fault principle behind the accident compensation scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Accident compensation has long been established on different risk ratings for different groups. For instance, in the work account there are over 400 distinct classifications. All employers do not pay the same, but rather pay a different risk rating. In respect of the motor vehicle account, it has long been the practice that there are different levies based on the different risk rating of different vehicles. The fact is that there has been a substantial increase in the number of motorcycle accidents, and the pity is that for the 9 years of the last Labour Government, the number of motorcycle accidents increased every year and Labour did nothing.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister regret exaggerating the accident compensation scheme’s woes, and does he expect gratitude from motorcyclists when he puts up their levies by a lesser amount?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There has been no need to exaggerate the woes of the scheme, because the numbers speak for themselves: a $2.4 billion loss in the annual report signed by Maryan Street and a $4.8 billion loss audited by the Auditor-General for the last year. I think—

Hon Phil Goff: Nobody believes that!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Goff says he does not believe it. I ask the member why Maryan Street signed the annual audited accounts saying the scheme lost $2.4 billion.

Hon David Parker: Which other group will the Minister’s Government target next? For example, has he dropped his plan to charge drivers of older cars higher levies than drivers of newer cars?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government has a very sensible plan to get the accident compensation scheme back to financial sustainability. That will have to involve some levy increases. It will also involve pulling back on some of the entitlements that the previous

Government provided. I am confident, with the changes this Government is advancing to the accident compensation scheme, that we can make some savings and that the scale of the increases proposed by the Accident Compensation Corporation board will not need to be advanced.

Child Welfare and Youth Justice—Whānau First

5. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Social Development

and Employment: Does she agree with American Humane’s statement in 2007 that the Children, Young Persons, and their Families Act 1989 created world-renowned progressive social policy and the opportunity for system transformation in both child welfare and youth justice; if so, why is she challenging the “whānau first” rule as reported in the New Zealand Herald?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Yes, we do have a good overall child welfare and youth justice system. However, New Zealand has one of the highest rates of child homicide in the OECD. In the last year 75 children under 2 were assaulted and admitted to hospital. Almost 1,800 children are re-abused within 6 months. The reasons are complex and contentious, but that does not mean we will ignore those problems.

Rahui Katene: Does the Minister agree that the child has a right to its family and that the whānau—family—has the right to and the responsibility for its children, and, in the knowledge that children are also abused in placements with strangers, why is she not compelling her department to go through the tribal authorities to identify suitable families to take care of their own?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I am doing is being very careful about making any assumptions about what is the best care for those children once they are placed with families. I have asked officials to go back to investigate what the results have been for those children. At the moment, through the family group conference process, whānau and families are heavily involved. I support that wholeheartedly. We should have a conversation to check that we are getting it right as much as we possibly can.

Rahui Katene: How will this policy turnabout affect the whānau ora policy, which is a flagship policy of this Government?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It will be taken into consideration in any changes that may be proposed, but that is a long way down the track.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Long-term Fiscal Costs

6. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Is he confident he is fully informed about the long-term fiscal costs of his changes to the emissions trading scheme; if so, why?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Yes. I have always said that figures out beyond a decade are very uncertain. For instance, whether one chooses a carbon price of $25, $50, or $100 has an enormous impact on the numbers. I also believe that projections about what the international agreements might be in 10 or 20 years’ time and what the growth of industry might be have huge uncertainty, which has always been acknowledged by Treasury.

Charles Chauvel: Why did Treasury fail to use up-to-date assumptions around the price of carbon when modelling the long-term fiscal costs of the Minister’s changes to the emissions trading scheme, as was done with other climate change policy initiatives, or is the figure that he originally included in his Cabinet paper just another example of his selective and manipulative use of different prices for carbon to justify whatever policy he is peddling on the day?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I assume members of the House would have sufficient common sense to work out that for costs based on a $25 price for carbon, if $50 is put in instead, the price will be double, and if $100 is put in, the price will be four times more. If members opposite cannot work that out for themselves, heaven forbid that they ever appear again on the Treasury benches.

Charles Chauvel: Does he stand by his disparaging remarks about the evidence of Dr Christina Hood that he took his advice “from sources that are far more reliable.”, given that it turns out that

Dr Hood did a better job of modelling the costs of his changes to the emissions trading scheme than Treasury, and that Treasury’s subsequent advice on the emissions trading scheme confirms Dr Hood’s original advice?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Quite the opposite. Anybody who thinks that Labour’s existing emissions trading scheme, which is the most aggressive emissions trading scheme in the world, in phasing out industry support at 8 percent per year—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the Minister but he is simply not addressing the question I asked. I asked him whether he stood by criticisms he had made of a previous analyst and he launched into an attack on the existing emissions trading scheme. The matter is simply not being addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any assistance on this. I invite Charles Chauvel to reflect on the questions he has been asking. They are absolutely marginal in terms of Standing Orders but I have allowed them to go through. He has made unnecessary assertions about what the Government’s motives may or may not be. I allowed his questions to go through, but for him to then seek my assistance to try to get a more precise answer is not on, at all. If he wants precise answers, he should get the assertions out of the questions, and I will help him to get precise answers.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is very important to put on the record that all these numbers are being talked about on the assumption of the most aggressive emissions trading scheme proposed anywhere in the world.

Hon David Cunliffe: That is rubbish!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member opposite, Mr Cunliffe, says that that is not true. The reality is that the 8 percent phase-out rate—[Interruption] Members opposite said that the 8 percent phase-out rate in their legislation was a figure they never expected to apply. The numbers are completely different if industry support is not phased out at 8 percent per year.

Amy Adams: Has there been any change in Treasury’s estimates of costs of the emissions trading scheme for the first decade of the scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, there has not, because it is possible in the first decade of the scheme to provide quite accurate data. Members opposite went out and said that the data were true.

Despite the scrutiny of the select committee process, the data were found to be the best possible estimate, albeit—and I emphasise this again—there is significant uncertainty into the future around any costings of an emissions trading scheme when there are elements like a carbon price and the fact that the international framework around it is not yet resolved.

Charles Chauvel: Why does he continue to pursue harmonisation with Australia when that country has just announced that agriculture, our highest-emitting sector, will not be included in its emissions trading scheme, and when more significant changes to the Australian scheme are possible? Does this not demonstrate one of the major failings of his harmonisation policy, which is that it is all one-way in favour of the Australians?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: That sort of silly trans-Tasman parochialism is underwhelming on an issue as important as climate change. If there is any issue on which New Zealand and Australia should work closely together, it is the issue of climate change. I say to members opposite, now that they want to somehow separate off from Australia, that they are undermining the very real interests of the New Zealand economy, and the future of our country.

Accident Compensation—Claims for Motorcycle Accidents

7. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister for ACC: How many accident compensation claims have been made for motorcycle accidents in the last full year and how does this compare with a decade ago?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): There were 5,044 accident compensation claims for motorcycle accidents in 2008. This compares with 871 in 1998. This is an almost fivefold

increase, it is the single greatest increase in claims for accident compensation, and it cannot be ignored.

David Bennett: What data does the Minister have—noting the large increase in motorcycle accident claims—on the number of fatal accidents today and historically?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In 2008, 46 motorcyclists, or almost 1 motorcyclist per week, were killed on New Zealand roads. This was the highest number in the last decade, over which there had been a steady increase of 21 percent. I note that over the same period there had been a 27 percent decline in the overall road toll.

David Bennett: Why is the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) board proposing that the levies differentiate by motorcycle size?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There has been a significant social shift in motorcycle ownership in recent years. Ownership of small, or 125cc-type, bikes has declined, and the number of injuries and fatalities amongst young people has been in decline. There has been a massive increase in large bikes owned by an older age group of riders. This is reflected in the accident data and in the costs of those accidents.

Hon David Parker: Why does the Minister persist in misrepresenting accident figures for motorcyclists by quoting the number of accidents rather than the rate of accidents per 10,000 onroad motorcyclists?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Motorcycle numbers have increase by 60 percent over the last decade, from 60,000 to 97,000, but that is insufficient to explain a fivefold increase in the number of accident compensation claims. To put it another way for the member, in 1998 there was one claim per 69 bikes registered; last year there was one claim per 19 bikes registered.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that the section of an ACC report headed “Motorcycle Casualties and Crashes” states that crashes have decreased from 511 per 10,000 on-road motorcycles in 1973, to 142 crashes per 10,000 on-road motorcycles in 2008, a decrease of more than two-thirds?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is true that in the 1970s there were horrific numbers of both motorcycle and car accidents, and it is also true that, in terms of the number of car accidents, we have consistently been able to improve road safety and reduce the road toll. But the fact is that over the last decade the number of motorcycle fatalities increased each and every single year that members opposite were in Government, and they did nothing.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that in respect of the latest period— the difference between 2007 and 2008—the number of accidents per 10,000 on-road motorcycles decreased from 152 per 10,000 to 142 per 10,000?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In 2006 there were 4,265 accident compensation claims and 38 fatalities; last year there were 5,044 claims and 46 fatalities. I say again that more people died in motorcycle accidents in 2008 than in any of the last 10 years, and that should concern every member of this House.

Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table section 4 of the Accident Compensation Corporation’s own report, which is headed “Motorcycle Casualties and Crashes”; it shows that the rate of motorcycle accidents has decreased quite markedly.

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.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave to table motorcycle accident statistics for 1998-2008, which list the number of claims made by motorcyclists and the number of fatal injuries over the last decade.

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.

Local Government, Minister—Statements

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): Yes, when taken in context.

Phil Twyford: Does the 19 October Cabinet decision to endorse his proposal to “allow the new Auckland Council to determine”—from 2015—“the governance arrangements and asset ownership for the delivery of water services” still stand; and, if not, when and how was this decision overturned?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes.

Phil Twyford: Was he referring to the Cabinet’s 19 October decision to allow the new Auckland Council to privatise its water assets, when he told ACT supporters that at Cabinet “you set the agenda”, because “you turn up with your papers”, and “they are too busy with their own stuff they’re not bothered”, and was he disappointed when they woke up and decided to veto his plan to allow all local government water assets to be privatised?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I have never been disappointed in working with this Government, getting on and doing the business, and as that member quite rightly observed, the Labour Government spent 9 years on it and did nothing. There are no plans to privatise water assets in Auckland.

Phil Twyford: Does he stand by his statement that privatisation of local government assets is a pretend debate, in light of the Government’s decision to allow private ownership of water infrastructure for periods of up to 35 years?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Let me explain this, one more time, for that member: there are no proposals to privatise water in Auckland. The decision is simply this: to take what the Labour Government had in place for many years, which was that one could enter a public-private partnership for 15 years, and to shift it to 35 years to reflect the proper economic life of the Government. If this Government was privatising water, what then was the Labour Government doing with its 15-years proposal?

Health Care—Policy

9. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes. The Government inherited significant financial challenges but, just as important, we are dealing with a public health service that has some clinically vulnerable services. We have previously announced plans for shared board appointments to enhance cooperation and collaboration between neighbouring health boards, in order to improve financial and, more important, clinical viability. Today the Government is announcing that from the beginning of next year Dr David Warburton, currently the deputy chair of the Whanganui District Health Board, will also serve on the MidCentral District Health Board; and that Mr Sunderland, currently a member of the Midcentral District Health Board, will also serve on the Whanganui District Health Board.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What other cross-board appointments is the Government making to deal with the substantial challenges that the Minister outlined?

Hon TONY RYALL: The two district health boards in Wellington, the Capital and Coast District Health Board and the Hutt Valley District Health Board, also face significant challenges, and they are highly dependent on each other. For example, the Capital and Coast District Health Board does around 40 percent of elective surgery for Hutt Valley residents, so both need to work well together to be successful. Mr Keith Hindle, a member of the Hutt Valley District Health Board since 2003, has been appointed to the Capital and Coast District Health Board, and Mrs Debbie

Chin, a Wellington resident and a former deputy director-general of health, has been appointed as a member of the Hutt Valley District Health Board and a Crown monitor on the Capital and Coast District Health Board. The two appointees will work with the district health boards to accelerate collaboration.

Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Timetable

10. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements relating to the House timetable for the second reading and subsequent stages of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): As the member will know, the House timetable has always been subject to change. I note that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill was introduced on 13 May, was reported back by the select committee on 4 September, and had its Committee stage and third reading on 15 September.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Prime Minister tell New Zealand that this bill had to be rushed through under urgency because the Minister of Local Government had to go overseas, when it has been revealed that the timing of the Minister’s trip was organised around a personal engagement rather than any formal requirements to be overseas, and does he believe that it was appropriate to put the House into urgency at a huge cost to taxpayers to facilitate a trip to suit a Minister’s girlfriend?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, it was important that the Minister was here when the bill was going through the House so that he could correct the misleading statements that the Opposition so often puts up. Secondly, the member will know that the Minister had a very busy time when he was overseas, but one thing I can confirm is that he was not at Twickenham watching football matches.

Hon Annette King: Did Mr Hide tell the Prime Minister about whether any of his meetings in London, Portland, Toronto, and Los Angeles were time-sensitive, including his trip to a Los Angeles theme park, or was the timing of his girlfriend’s family wedding the only reason the trip was undertaken at that time?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. The Minister told me in writing that he had a vast array of meetings that were pertinent to his portfolio. I can tell the member that I have read the Minister’s report, and it was extremely thorough. I can absolutely confirm that I was not aware that he was going to any football matches, unlike members on the other side of the House. He did not go to any, as far as I am aware.

Hon Annette King: Which statement is correct: the statement by Rodney Hide, who said “I didn’t go into this trip lightly. I thought long and hard about it and knew I would have to justify it.”, or the Prime Minister’s comments that Mr Hide’s going at the same time as a family wedding was simply “a happy coincidence”, and that Mr Hide did not have enough time to plan such a thing?

Hon JOHN KEY: Both of them are.

Methamphetamine—Police Operations

11. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Police: Have there been any successful operations recently in the fight by this Government against the scourge of methamphetamine?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes, I am very pleased to advise that Operation Rapid, a joint operation between the New Zealand Police and the New Zealand Customs Service, last week resulted in the interception of a shipment of methamphetamine worth up to $6 million on the street. That interception sends a strong signal to crime bosses who want to bring drugs into New Zealand that we will be working very hard to put them out of business.

Chester Borrows: What effect would those drugs have had on our communities if it were not for the determined efforts of those two agencies, the Police and the Customs Service, and their working so successfully together?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The effect on our community would have been devastating. Not only does methamphetamine ruin the lives of those who use it and their families, but also there are many disturbing downstream effects, which include identity theft, corruption, violence, and drug-related property crime. The methamphetamine trade also pumps millions of dollars into the pockets of organised crime. Police expect that this seizure and the subsequent arrests will have a major impact on the supply of P across New Zealand.

International Non-aggression Measures—Government

12. Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does the Government plan to support the incorporation of aggression as a justiciable crime in the International Criminal Court, as envisaged in article 5 of the 1998 Rome Statute, at the review conference of the States parties in Kampala next May; if not, why not?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs): New Zealand has been participating in negotiations among the affected parties on this matter. These are ongoing, with further discussions to be held during the meeting of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court taking place in The Hague over the coming week. Before the 2010 review conference in Kampala, the Government will review progress in order to decide on a negotiating mandate for the delegation.

Dr Kennedy Graham: In light of that half-hearted indication of intent to support—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member will sit down. Although I do not insist on members starting a question with a question word, to make an allegation like that is simply totally unacceptable. The member will start his supplementary question again.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In light of the Minister’s response, which indicates a tentative intent to support the crime of aggression being a justiciable crime, will the Minister confirm that the policy he envisages will be consistent with the Prime Minister’s statement to the United Nations in September that “It is a fundamental tenet of our domestic legal systems that wrong doers must be brought to justice. The ICC is the mechanism for applying that same principle to persons accused of the most serious international crimes.”?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: It might assist the member if I was to explain that I understand that, in the negotiations I referred to, good progress has been made in dealing with the question of a definition of “aggression” as a justiciable crime, but not such good progress in dealing with the interface between the work of the International Criminal Court and the United Nations Security Council. That is where those discussions are centring at the moment. With regard to the latter part of the question, the Government always acts to give effect to the Prime Minister’s wise words.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does the Minister, in light of the policy that his colleague the Minister of Defence indicated during his speech on the first reading of the International Non-Aggression and Lawful Use of Force Bill in September, believe that the concept of responsibility to protect, cited by the Minister of Defence as the reason to oppose aggression being a criminal offence—at least, in domestic law—allows all permanent members of the Security Council, including Russia and China, to use force when the Security Council is paralysed by a veto?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am not familiar with that tract of the speech from the Minister of Defence; I normally would have read it slavishly, which I am pleased to see that member has done.

I undertake to rectify that matter immediately after I leave the Chamber. What I will say, in relation to the responsibility to protect, is that it is a concept that the Government does support. We have been engaged in discussions in various agencies and forums about how we might advance that concept, and I am interested to hear of any comments or contributions that that member, and others, would wish to make in that respect.

QUESTIONS TO MEMBERS

Healthy Food Guidelines—Petition

1. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Has the Education and Science Committee received the petition of Sue Kedgley and the 15,683 New Zealanders who have asked for the reinstatement of healthy food guidelines?

ALLAN PEACHEY (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee): Yes.

Sue Moroney: Why did he agree to hear submissions on this petition, but refuse to give the same consideration to the 15,808 signatories of the pay equity petition?

Mr SPEAKER: With questions to members, supplementary questions must relate very specifically to the primary question. The member has just asked about a totally different issue. I will give her a chance to ask another supplementary question, should she wish, but I must warn her that the supplementary questions available on this question are very limited.

Sue Moroney: Why did he agree to hear submissions on this petition, which had fewer signatories than another petition that he did not wish to hear submissions on?

Mr SPEAKER: I do not see how that supplementary question is in order, at all. I do not see how that is a decision of the chairperson, at all. I am afraid I must ask the member to go on to question to member No. 2.

Healthy Food Guidelines—Petition

2. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Has the committee scheduled hearings for Sue Kedgley’s petition of 15,683 New Zealanders who have asked to reinstate healthy food guidelines?

ALLAN PEACHEY (Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee): As this petition is still before the committee for consideration, all matters relating to it are confidential committee proceedings at this stage.

Sue Moroney: Why does he want to hear about healthy food guidelines but not about fair pay for school support staff and others?

Mr SPEAKER: That concludes questions for oral answer.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice. This goes to the heart of our democratic processes within this Parliament. I am seeking an answer from representatives of the Government about why they shut down the voice of nearly 16,000—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat immediately. She cannot use a point of order to litigate that kind of issue. She sought to ask, under Standing Orders, a question of the chair of a committee. The Standing Orders provide very limited bounds around supplementary questions that can be asked in such circumstances. The information the member sought to elicit by way of a supplementary question was not within the Standing Orders provisions. If the member wishes to get that information, she should put down a question to a Minister, but while the matter is still under the consideration of the committee, it is hard to imagine an appropriate question to the chair of the committee.

Sue Moroney: I seek leave of the House to table a letter from me to the chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, asking for an official response to a petition on pay equity from me and 15,808 other people, because the select committee has yet to—

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

ENDS

© Scoop Media