(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 23 MARCH 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Tax System—Improvements

1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What measures will the Government consider to improve the fairness and integrity of the tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Tax Working Group advised the Government that New Zealand could raise revenue with a mix of taxes that better promotes economic growth, but the system also needs to be fair and have integrity. This is apparently not the case at present. The changes made by the previous Government have led to highly uneven tax rates, both between different types of activity and between taxpayers with similar economic incomes. The Government would like to correct that situation.

Craig Foss: Can the Minister give some examples of situations where the tax system is not working as intended?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The following structuring is fairly typical: self-employed people earning $100,000 a year would nominally pay about $27,000 in income tax. If instead they form a company, perhaps notionally owned by another entity, and pay themselves a salary of $48,000, then their total tax bill falls by $3,000. If they have dependent children, this then makes them eligible to receive a Working for Families payment. In this example, that figure could amount to $8,500 per year. So, in this example of self-employed people earning $100,000, tax structuring would have lowered their tax liability by around $11,000, which is a drop of 40 percent relative to the taxes that are supposed to apply to that level of income and that would apply to someone who earns a wage or salary of that amount.

Craig Foss: How is the position affected if the taxpayer owns an investment property?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the taxpayer in question owns a property investment financed by borrowing that produces taxable losses of $20,000, this further lowers his or her personal taxable income to just $28,000. At that point, tax paid on an income of $100,000 has fallen to below $10,000. In other words, the person’s effective tax rate is actually less than 10 percent, or about one-third of the statutory tax rate. That is without counting any tax-free gains that the person may have made on the housing investment.

Craig Foss: How can the Government improve this situation?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In that situation, the taxpayer would simply be behaving in a way that was implied by the tax structure that the previous Government put in place. But that system lacks fairness and integrity because of the way income is defined and because different tax rates have proliferated. These examples are not uncommon. The Tax Working Group found that there are 10,000 households reporting investment losses while also claiming Working for Families credits. The Government is keen to make the taxation system fairer by closing this type of loophole, so people pay the actual amount of tax that is the statutory tax rate.

David Garrett: Does he believe that New Zealanders’ view of the fairness and integrity of the taxation system depends on Government spending tax money fairly and with integrity; if so, will he call in the Auditor-General to investigate the misappropriation by Mr Paul Morgan and his mates at Tekau Plus of money meant for Māori business, but which instead ended up in Mr Paul Morgan’s pocket?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, taxpayers’ perception of whether paying their taxes is worthwhile is very much dependent on how well that money is spent. That is why the Government has been going through a large-scale, value-for-money exercise right across the State sector to ensure that the around $60 billion of taxes that we collect is spent wisely. In respect of the allegations the member has made, it is my understanding those are being looked into.

New Zealand—Clean, Green Image

2. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Tourism: Does he stand by his statement in the House that “I certainly agree that part of New Zealand’s important brand is the ‘clean, green’ image”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Minister of Tourism): Yes.

Metiria Turei: What advice has the Minister received as to whether the income from tourism will go up or down, as a result of mining in schedule 4 protected lands?

Hon JOHN KEY: I have not received any specific advice but I can probably speak my own advice, which is that when New Zealand’s land mass is just under 27 million hectares, and maybe at the most 7,000 might be taken out of schedule 4, that is unlikely to turn back the Boeing 747s heading to New Zealand.

Metiria Turei: Is the Minister of Tourism telling this House and the New Zealand public that he has not bothered to seek any advice at all on the impact of mining in high-value conservation land on the tourism industry, which is worth more than $20 billion a year to this economy?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes; and the second point I would make is that if this would have such a disastrous impact on the tourism industry in New Zealand, then I ask someone to explain why we had a record number of tourists arriving last year when there were already 82 mines operating on the conservation estate.

Kelvin Davis: Is the Minister aware that the proposed mine site on Great Barrier Island is adjacent to the airport, and that it will be the first impression that tourists to the island will get and the last impression they see as they leave; if so, how does he believe that that will add value to the tourism industry?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not precisely sure what speed a Boeing 747 goes over Great Barrier Island at, but tourists will have to have tremendous eyesight if they are going to see a mine that will be underground.

Kelvin Davis: What position does he believe guided tours of mines in the conservation estate will take up in the Automobile Association’s list of 101 places in New Zealand to visit?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure, but I recently opened the visitors centre at the Waihī goldmine in the Coromandel. I was interested to note the large building that had been moved and officially opened by the then Prime Minister, the Right Hon Helen Clark, who celebrated that particular site and the tourists it had brought to the Coromandel.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister unaware that underground mining is already allowed in respect of schedule 4 lands, and therefore the removal of Great Barrier Island cannot be about underground mining?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, but you need access to that mine, as was proved with Pike River.

Metiria Turei: Further to the Minister’s answer to my previous question, does he agree with Tim Cossar, chief executive of the Tourism Industry Association, that, taking a long-term view, it may be that tourism is a more valuable and sustainable industry to New Zealand’s economy than mining?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, in this regard: tourists will come to New Zealand for ever; we can mine only a certain amount of minerals.

Metiria Turei: Would it not be better to act smarter and think ahead of Australia, rather than blindly chasing dirty, destructive economic ideas like mining our most treasured conservation places?

Hon JOHN KEY: If it is all so bad, is the member proposing that we close the 82 mines currently on the conservation land; is the member proposing that Labour got it wrong when it approved 74 mines; and is the member herself admitting that she got it wrong when she said “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species”? It was all a bit different when the member was arguing the case.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Prime Minister’s Statement

3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When he said “What I stand by is environmentally sensitive mining”, did he actually mean mining in environmentally sensitive areas?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister confirm that of the much-quoted 84 areas of mining in conservation areas, none of them are actually protected schedule 4 areas?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I can confirm that. Funnily enough, the other thing I can confirm is that back in 2005 a gold and gemstone operation was permitted in the Paparoa National Park by the then Labour Government, and the access agreement was granted by the then Minister of Conservation.

Hon Phil Goff: Are the 2,500 hectares of the most beautiful and most sensitive conservation land in the Coromandel area simply the first of the currently protected conservation land in that area that he intends to open up to mining, and will there be further areas; if so, how many?

Hon JOHN KEY: It is impossible to answer that question at this time. One of the reasons why we are doing an aerial magnetic survey is to get a better understanding of—

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that was published yesterday by Gerry Brownlee that says the Government—

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition should not interrupt a Minister answering a question to seek leave to table a document. I will consider his point of order shortly, but I think the Prime Minister is in the middle of answering a question. Has the honourable Prime Minister finished answering the question? He has.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table a document that was published yesterday by Gerry Brownlee that says that, contrary to what the Prime Minister said, further schedule 4 areas in the Coromandel will be opened up. So how could he say—

Mr SPEAKER: That last bit was totally out of order. However, on the indicator of fairness, I must also alert the Prime Minister that in his answer to the question before last he went on for far longer than the question did. So I will consider it 50:50, or one all. I will put leave. Leave is sought to table that document. There is objection.

Chris Tremain: Is the Prime Minister aware of any mines currently situated in environmentally sensitive areas?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I am aware that the previous Government approved an access agreement for the Pike River mine, which is adjacent to and under the Paparoa National Park. The mine was described by the then Government as being in an area of “high conservation values”.

Hon Phil Goff: Will mining on the Coromandel and on Great Barrier Island be the “surgical incision” that he earlier promised, or will it be more like the Martha Hill mine, a huge open pit with 40 million tonnes of tailings?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can rule out any open-cast mining in those areas.

Mr SPEAKER: I call the honourable Prime—the honourable Leader of the Opposition. [Interruption] The honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Phil Goff: Will the Government override the protection that the Auckland City Council has given Great Barrier Island as an area where, under its district plan, mining is a prohibited activity?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, but anyone can make an application to change the plan.

Hon Phil Goff: Why was the plan to open up formerly protected schedule 4 land to mining announced by Mr Brownlee only in August last year and not before the 2008 election, when discussions had taken place with mining lobby groups before the election?

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, there are always ongoing discussions with all sorts of sectors and areas over a long period of time, but I would—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Brown envelopes.

Hon JOHN KEY: I find that a bit offensive, actually, to be perfectly honest.

Mr SPEAKER: I call John Boscawen.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not believe that the Prime Minister had completed his answer.

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister had answered as far as he saw fit, given the question and given the interjections. John Boscawen, supplementary question.

John Boscawen: Mr—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Senior members know that they cannot make that kind of allegation and they should cease.

John Boscawen: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the proposals outlined in the document Maximising our Mineral Potential are primarily about finding out for New Zealanders what potential wealth exists; and does he agree that, aside from eco-fundamentalists and Phil Goff, no rational person should be opposed to the establishment of those simple matters of fact?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes. I can also confirm that the last Government aerial magnetic survey was undertaken in the 1980s, and I can also confirm that the reason for the delay in releasing the report for the last few months is that we have been trying to find quotes of Phil Goff standing up in Cabinet and rejecting the 74 applications for mines that his Labour Government approved. We could not find a single one.

Hon Phil Goff: Was the Prime Minister intending to further subsidise the exploration costs of overseas mining companies by $4 million, when they already have a special concessionary tax regime, which means that they pay practically no tax—if any tax at all—during their exploration and development phases, and when their royalties can be as little as 1 percent of the total value of their production?

Hon JOHN KEY: No. The reason for doing that is to try to get a stocktake of New Zealand’s wealth—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The answer cannot be “No.” when the question asked why he was spending that amount of subsidy.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Prime Minister—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Poor old chap!

Mr SPEAKER: That is not particularly helpful, I must say to the honourable Leader of House, when a point of order is being considered. Given the question that the Leader of the Opposition asked, I ask the Prime Minister to start his answer again and to reflect on the question asked.

Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, it is the same regime for oil and gas exploration that operated under the previous Labour Government. Secondly, it is a successful regime in that it led to the Kupe oil and gas field, which I launched officially last week. It is why we found out exactly what was there, and we will find out what is there in the future.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Minerals Stocktake

4. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: What were the findings of the Government stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): The stocktake confirmed that New Zealand is a mineral-rich country. Our mineral resources, even excluding coal and other hydrocarbon-based minerals, are estimated to be in the zone of some $194 billion. The stocktake leads to the conclusion that the environmentally responsible development of even a small amount of these resources could have a positive impact on the New Zealand economy. The stocktake also found that the mineral potential of schedule 4 lands could be developed with only a very small proportion of that land being directly impacted.

Chris Auchinvole: What is the Government proposing, as a result of the stocktake?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government is proposing removing 7,058 hectares of land from schedule 4, including some areas of the Coromandel Peninsula and a sector of the Paparoa National Park. The land that is being removed represents just 0.2 percent of the total of schedule 4 land. However, the mineral wealth of that land is assessed as being very high. We are also proposing to add 12,000 hectares to schedule 4, for a net gain to the schedule of some 5,342 hectares. These proposals strike a rational and sensible balance between taking advantage of our economic opportunities and our environmental responsibilities.

Chris Auchinvole: How will the environment be protected as a result of these proposals?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Removing land from schedule 4 does not mean that mining automatically takes place. All it means is that mining applications are considered, on a case by case basis, as they are for all other areas of the country. For schedule 4 land, the environmental test that would be applied would obviously be much tougher. All mines are subject, of course, to the Resource Management Act and to a consenting process. It is worth noting that the Government is also establishing a conservation fund, which would be drawn from royalties from mining on those lands.

Hon David Parker: How can the Minister expect to have the “rational discussion” he said on Radio New Zealand National today that he wants to have about mining in conservation areas, when in that same interview he first dismissed fears about mining in national parks, yet later in the same interview described steps being taken to advance mining in Paparoa National Park and Rakiura National Park?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am very pleased that the member is listening to my messages around this particular issue, which I am happy to give. It is extremely simple: the question is in two parts. We have said we will look at getting more information about the specific location of those minerals. The proposal before New Zealanders today has 3,500 hectares out of a nearly 4 million hectare estate going out of the Paparoa National Park. The rest of it is not national park.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Great Barrier Island

5. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: Me pēhea te whakatau a te Kāwanatanga i ngā kōrero a te mema pāremata, a Nikki Kaye mō te maina i ngā moutere o Great Barrier me te mea nei, kāore i pai ki te taringa, arā, tāna i kī rā “when environmental and economic factors are taken into account, and given the island’s status in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park”; ā, he aha te wāhi kei a Ngāti Rehua ki te whakatutuki whakataunga? [How will the Government resolve the comments by Nikki Kaye MP, about the plans to open up Great Barrier Island to mining, reported as this does not stack up “when environmental and economic factors are taken into account, and given the island’s status in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park”; and what role will Ngāti Rehua play in achieving any resolution?]

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): I have already talked to the Hon Tariana Turia and the Hon Pita Sharples, the co-leaders of the Māori Party, and assured them that I will personally be consulting Ngāti Rehua in the course of the next few weeks as the discussion document is out for public consultation. They will, of course, have a great deal of influence on the Government’s final decision on the 705 hectares proposed for removal from schedule 4 on Great Barrier Island.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He mana anō tō ngā iwi whānui ki te whakatau i ngā mahi kēri i roto i ō rātou ake takiwā, ā, he aha hoki tāna kia noho ōrite ngā wawata ki te tiaki i te taiao me ngā wawata ōhanga? [The public at large have a role in determining mining operations in their own regions; what assurance can he give in terms of keeping the balance desired between the preservation of the environment and the economy?]

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the experience in New Zealand to date has been that where iwi are consulted on these matters they are very, very attuned to where the balance point lies between the economic advantage, the cultural value, and the environmental value. I have given the undertaking to the Māori Party co-leaders that I will personally meet with Ngāti Rehua to sort out their position. The Hon Chris Finlayson has agreed to accompany me on a formal visit to that part of New Zealand.

Jacinda Ardern: Has the Minister received any representations from the member for Auckland Central regarding the proposed mining in the Coromandel?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have had extensive discussions with the member for Auckland Central, and the result of those is clear for everyone to see.

Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that the removal of national parks, or any other conservation land, from schedule 4 will not require a legislative change, and therefore any grandstanding by National MPs will go untested in this House.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The only grandstanding that is going on in this House is coming from the other side of the House. I well remember the Labour Party, at the start of last year, going back to its roots in Blackball on the West Coast—a mining town—and celebrating the fact that its party was born out of the mining industry. So those members should not tell us that there is any grandstanding going on on this side of the House.

Te Ururoa Flavell: E ai ki te mea o Murihiku, a Frana Cardno, ko Rakiura tētahi o ngā tino wāhi whakaharahara whakamutunga o te ao; nō reira, he tika tā te Minita kōwhiri ki te kēri i te moutere o Rakiura; ā, ka pēhea rā te huna i ngā mahi kēri e kōrerohia nei, kia kore e takakinotia te wāriu o Rakiura National Park hei wāhi tāpoi, hei wāhi tiaki taiao hoki? [According to the mayor of Southland District, Frana Cardno, Stewart Island is one of the last paradises left in the world; so has the Minister got it right in choosing to carry out mining operations in Stewart Island, and how will the mining be disguised so that it does not detract from the value of Rakiura National Park being a place for tourism where the environment is protected?]

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: First, there is no proposal to mine in Rakiura National Park. There is a clear commitment to do some aerial magnetic surveying to see exactly what might be there. The information that we have is that there are significant deposits of rare-earth elements in that part of the country. The geology tells us that. It may or may not be true, so an aerial magnetic survey will tell us that. It will take a long time. As the Prime Minister said, the last time that was done was in the early 1980s. Clearly, there would be a lot of discussion before there was any activity like mining activity on Rakiura.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Ministerial Decision Making

6. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: Why does she think it proper to cede control of mining in conservation areas by allowing the Minister of Energy and Resources to be a co-decision-maker in these decisions?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): The member is making an assertion that is quite wrong. I am not ceding control. Without the Minister of Conservation’s signature, access to the conservation estate cannot occur now and will not occur in the future.

Hon David Parker: Does the Minister not understand that her power as Minister of Conservation to stop mining in conservation areas under her stewardship is being severely eroded, and that conservation areas being opened up to mining in the Coromandel include the habitat of the endangered North Island brown kiwi; and is she proud of these two achievements?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I understand very well what my responsibilities are. This Government and I are committed to protecting public conservation land, but as we have said all along, we intend to balance economic opportunities with environmental responsibilities. As that member knows, every application will be considered on a case by case basis, bearing in mind the need for that balance, and bearing in mind the need to protect our iconic conservation estate.

Louise Upston: Is she aware of any other examples of joint decision-making in the conservation portfolio?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes, there are several other decision-making contexts involving more than one Minister. For example, decisions on whether areas should be listed on schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act are made jointly between the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Conservation. Decisions to establish marine reserves are made with the concurrence of the Minister of Fisheries. Section 71 of the Wildlife Act requires the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and Resources to determine whether to allow Solid Energy to remove snails from the Stockton plateau. This was required in February 2006 under the then Labour Government to approve a permit for the translocation of a small number of snails, and in April 2006, under that Labour Government, to vary the permit.

Hon David Parker: Why did the Minister bother attending the press conference she held with the Hon Gerry Brownlee yesterday, given that she said very little at it, leaving the media with the impression that Mr Brownlee is running her portfolio?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I attended that press conference because I take my responsibilities as the Minister of Conservation very seriously, as does this Government. The conference was not staged, and I did not have any control over what questions were asked by the media.

Hon David Parker: Does not this week’s announcement illustrate the likely outcome of her review of the advocacy role of the Department of Conservation, and why does she not just agree now to her department being merged into Mr Brownlee’s ministry?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I do not agree with the member’s assertion at all.

Hon David Parker: Given that about one-third of New Zealanders live in Auckland, with no mainland national parks, does she not understand that it is all the more important that she as the Minister of Conservation does her duty to protect conservation areas in Coromandel and Great Barrier Island?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: We have said on numerous occasions that each application will be considered on a case by case basis. When I have that case in front of me I shall look at it carefully; I shall take my responsibilities as Minister of Conservation very seriously. We are committed to protecting public conservation land, but we also appreciate that there is a balance that can be achieved.

Public Transport, Auckland—Trains for Electric Rail System

7. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the procurement of electric trains for Auckland’s commuter rail network?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I am pleased to confirm that KiwiRail has begun the tender process to procure approximately 114 electric trains for Auckland. This is a $500 million investment, signed off by Cabinet in November, to upgrade Auckland’s commuter rail system. It will provide a modern, world-class rail system that commuters will want to use. KiwiRail

has issued an industry-engagement document, and a preferred supplier will be identified by the end of the year. The first electric trains will be delivered in 2013.

Dr Jackie Blue: How does this fit into the overall upgrade of Auckland’s commuter rail network?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very well. The purchase of a new fleet of electric rolling stock is the final piece in the overall $1.6 billion project to greatly improve the capacity and reliability of Auckland’s rail network. The $600 million upgrade is progressing well. In addition, the $500 million electrification of the rail network infrastructure is also progressing well. The necessary new signalling is already being installed on parts of the network, and the first masts should begin appearing later this year.

Hon Darren Hughes: What steps will the Government be taking to ensure that all or a substantial number of these units are built or assembled here in New Zealand, either at the Hillside railway workshops in Dunedin or at Woburn in the Hutt Valley?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This will be a competitive tender process, and, of course, KiwiRail will have the opportunity to bid for that process. The most important thing, however, is getting the right value for money for taxpayers in developing the trains and ensuring that we can obtain the trains within the $500 million budget that has been set.

Health Personnel—Engagement

8. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement “This failure to engage the very people with the right expertise—doctors and nurses who know the patients’ needs best—is seriously eroding our ability to provide patients with the care they need.”?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes—certainly as a criticism of the previous Government.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why, when the Minister repeatedly says that he is putting clinicians at the centre of his health planning, is Dr Geoff Buckett, a Christchurch psychiatrist and general practitioner, packing his bags for Australia, citing lack of consultation with clinicians as a major problem?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am unaware of the specific situation to which the member refers. But if she is referring to a situation that is happening at the Canterbury District Health Board, I think in the eating disorder service, I can tell the member that, yes, the clinical head of the service is leaving, but changes are being made to the service to improve services, and these are all being led by clinicians.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why has he agreed to the closure of the palliative care ward at Gisborne Hospital, against the wishes of the doctors and nurses in Tai Rāwhiti who are the specialists in this area?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Gisborne Hospital, in relation to which I must say we inherited some very significant problems when we became the Government, has decided that it can provide an equally effective service by bringing together two wards in that area. Gisborne Hospital is doing a good job of providing more service to the people of the Tai Rāwhiti district.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has the Minister seen about improvements in the public health service’s ability to provide patients with the care they need?

Hon TONY RYALL: We have inherited some very big challenges from the previous Government. I have seen a press release from the Hutt Valley District Health Board announcing that it will finally resume breast reconstruction operations for the many women who were dumped off the referral list under the previous Government in 2006. Members will recall that up to 30,000 New Zealanders were dumped off hospital waiting lists by the previous Government. I am advised that Hutt Valley District Health Board will provide 300 breast reconstruction surgeries over the next 3 years.

Hon Ruth Dyson: How does his statement fit with the views of doctors on the West Coast who have said that they hold grave concerns for the future of Grey Base Hospital and who warn that their patients could die if services continue to decline?

Hon TONY RYALL: As that member will know, there have been very longstanding problems in the West Coast District Health Board. That member will know that hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent by the previous Government to fly over anaesthetists from South Africa to provide services at that hospital. I can tell the member that the West Coast District Health Board is currently consulting on ways that we can secure the services for the people of the West Coast. I am not prepared to tolerate a situation where those people have a service that they cannot have any certainty about.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Minister’s Statement

9. CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement that “I have made it clear that the Government has no intention of mining high-value conservation land.”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Yes. In relation to the Coromandel, the Government is proposing to release 2,574 hectares from schedule 4, which is 3.7 percent of public conservation land on the peninsular, because in those nominated areas it assessed that the mineral value could outweigh the conservation value. The actual area of land affected would be considerably less than 2,500 hectares.

Catherine Delahunty: Does he agree that the Parakiwai and Otahu reserves on the Coromandel, which include critically endangered species, have high conservation values?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can tell the House that, regardless of what I think, those seven locations on the Coromandel are in the document because it was agreed by the two departments that came up with the document that they were suitable for inclusion. On that basis, they are out for public consultation. These matters, clearly, will come to the fore.

Hon David Parker: How did the Minister of Energy and Resources manage to convince the Minister of Conservation that the conservation areas in the Coromandel to be removed from schedule 4 are not high-value conservation lands?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I suspect that when the Minister of Conservation read some of the reports on the areas, which included statements about the noxious weed population polluting some of those areas, the conclusion might have been reached to accept the advice that these areas were suitable for removal from schedule 4.

Jonathan Young: Has the Minister seen any reports that advocate balancing economic concerns with conservation concerns?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. The member may be interested to know that the Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei advocates that as a policy. As was suggested by the Prime Minister before, I suggest that the comment made by Miss Turei is a perfect example of where we should be going. She said: “This case clearly shows that it is possible to balance the economic concerns of miners and the conservation concerns of protecting endangered species in such a way that all parties are happy,”. That comment indicates acceptance in this House that the two competing goals of environmental sensitivity and economic development can be complementary.

Catherine Delahunty: How is mining kiwi habitat on the Coromandel in the national interest?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think that the member needs to read the whole document and make a submission on it. Quite clearly—[Interruption] Oh, she is not going to make a submission. That is probably what will happen. There will be just a whole lot of political tub-thumping and then nothing of any great substance.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member asked a pretty simple question about how a particular proposal was in the national interest. In response, she was told to

read some document and then was accused of political bluster, while we were being subjected to quite an example of it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is starting to part a little from his point of order. He may recollect that the Minister responded to some interjections from the member’s own party, which Ministers are perfectly entitled to do. If the member goes back to the supplementary question asked, he will see that a question like that will get any range of answers. The answer to a question asking how the Minister can do something could be: “Easily.” The Minister was probably being a bit more helpful. I think we have heard a reasonable answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There are 300,000 hectares on the Coromandel Peninsula. Some 2,500 hectares, 3.7 percent of the protected land, is proposed for removal from schedule 4. I am sure that kiwi populations live throughout those 300,000 hectares and not exclusively in small parts of the 2,500 hectares that are proposed for removal. If the member knows better, she should send in a submission for consideration.

Tertiary Education—Funding Linked to Student Pass Rates

10. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What responses has he received to his proposal to link a proportion of university funding to students’ pass rates?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): Firstly, the policy is not just about universities but about all tertiary institutions. Secondly, there has been a generally positive reaction from the public, students, and tertiary providers to the Government’s proposal to improve the value for money of its investment in tertiary education by focusing institutions on students’ results and not just on enrolments. We will continue to work with the sector as we continue to finalise this policy. Naturally, it is important that the approach be balanced. In the final design we want to avoid any perverse incentives that could arise.

Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister acknowledge that such a policy risks pressuring institutions to lower their standards in order to guarantee funding, or encouraging institutions to avoid enrolling Māori, Pasifika, or second-chance students, thus narrowing the base of tertiary enrolments and depriving New Zealanders of access to tertiary education?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No. Firstly, nobody said that we would be expecting 100 percent pass rates for all levels of education. There are a couple of reasons why that would not be the case, including the fact that institutions would be expected to operate in the norms that their sector and sub-sector operates in and the levels of education they are providing.

Allan Peachey: Why is the Minister making changes to the way that tertiary institutions are funded?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We need to know that the money that we are spending on tertiary education is being well used and is giving young people the skills that employers demand and that will lead to productive and meaningful employment. Students also invest their time and money in tertiary education and want to know that they will be supported to complete their qualification. Educational performance will be measured using indicators like qualification completion, course completion, and student progression to further study.

Hon Maryan Street: Is he aware that a student who enrols in one discipline for a year and fails all or most papers, re-enrols in another discipline for a brief time, and then changes to a third discipline, which he or she finally pursues to completion is registered in a university as having done at least two if not three incomplete courses; if so, how will such a student’s eventual successful experience be allowed or permitted under his newly announced policy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I actually have personal experience of that situation, which is good, because the personal experience that I think the member is alluding to is a little bit different from what she suggests. In my case, for example, I passed all my papers in my first 3 years at university, rather than what she is suggesting both in the House and on her blog site. Certainly, my latter

years—year 4, year 5, and my attempt at year 6—were less exciting and, frankly, I should have been shuffled out of university by then, anyway.

Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister recognise that students such as the one described— whose experience is, as he says, very like his own—can go on to be fully contributing members of society? How will such students be given opportunities if under this new policy they are to be discouraged from re-enrolling, which will clearly be one of the outcomes?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said, I think it is quite reasonable—and, certainly, I would endorse it from my experience—for taxpayers to expect some form of academic progress during somebody’s time at university if that person is to borrow with student loans. I am quite comfortable measuring my academic record in that respect.

Hon Maryan Street: Institutions wouldn’t re-enrol you again, Mr Joyce.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Well, yes, I think that they would, but I say to Ms Street I do not think we should personalise it about just me. I am happy to table my academic record if that would help the member with her assertions, as she is simply incorrect. I seek leave to table my academic record in order to help Ms Street. I point out that my C+ in vertebrate zoology in the second year was disappointing, as was the invertebrate zoology mark of only C. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: This is actually a point of order. 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.

Environmental Protection Authority—Resource Consent Applications

11. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for the Environment: Has the Environmental Protection Authority received any resource consent applications under the new national consenting process provided for in the 2009 amendments to the Resource Management Act?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Yes. The first application has been received, from Contact Energy for its Touhara 2 240-megawatt geothermal power plant. The proposal is nationally significant and would provide power for 180,000 homes, or the equivalent of a city the size of Wellington. The application has been referred to a board of inquiry to be chaired by Environment Court judge Gordon Whiting and to include four other commissioners with relevant skills in geology, geothermal power, the environment, and tikanga Māori.

Nicky Wagner: What are the key differences in the process for considering that project as compared with the process prior to the Government’s amendments?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first difference is that the application was made directly to the new Environmental Protection Agency, rather than it going to a regional or territorial authority and being called in. Secondly, the application must be dealt with in a timely way, so that decisions are made within 9 months of the public notification. The third key change is that with the board of inquiry process the appeal rights are quite limited. The Government’s objective is to do these major projects once and to do them properly, rather than seeing the years of litigation that have been so typical of major projects of this sort.

Nicky Wagner: What other steps is the Government taking to encourage the development of renewable energy?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is an objective of this Government to reverse the trend of the last decade in seeing a reduction in the proportion of renewable electricity. The changes we made to the Resource Management Act last year are part of that strategy, and this year we will also be advancing a national policy statement on renewable electricity, to facilitate sensible, viable developments.

Mining in Conservation Areas—Investigation into Leaks

12. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister of State Services: Does he stand by his statement that he ordered the inquiries into the leaking of information about the stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and changes to the structure of the public sector?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services): Yes. These inquiries were instigated by the State Services Commissioner following a direction from me pursuant to section 8 of the State Sector Act.

Grant Robertson: Given that answer, is the Minister suggesting that the Prime Minister misled the public when he said on Thursday that the State Services Commissioner, Iain Rennie, and not the Government had instigated the investigations into this area?

Hon TONY RYALL: No.

Grant Robertson: Did the Minister discuss the issue of an inquiry into those leaks with the Prime Minister at a Cabinet or Cabinet committee meeting last week?

Hon TONY RYALL: There have been a number of discussions within Cabinet on those matters.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think the member addressed the question that I asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I am just reflecting on the question asked. The question asked whether the Minister discussed the matter with the Prime Minister. The Minister did not answer that; the Minister answered a different question. So I invite the Minister to answer the question.

Hon TONY RYALL: As the member may one day find out, discussions in Cabinet are confidential.

Grant Robertson: Why has the Minister not widened the scope of the inquiries to investigate the leaking of Budget-sensitive information to the Sunday Star-Times?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am advised that the story used information based on the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s estimates. No decisions have been taken on the final shape of any tax cut packages to be announced in Budget 2010.

Grant Robertson: I seek leave to table an email from the Minister’s office that states that the Minister of State Services, Tony Ryall, confirms that he asked the State Services Commission to inquire into the leaks.

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.

ENDS

© Scoop Media