(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 28 APRIL 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mining in Conservation Areas—Prime Minister’s Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What did he mean by his statement that the Government will make significant changes to schedule 4 to allow mining “notwithstanding the public consultation process”?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I think the member should read the full quote. I said it is my expectation that the Government will act on at least some of the recommendations in the discussion document, because new mining on Crown land had the potential to increase economic growth and create jobs. Presumably, that is why the previous Labour Government approved 118 new permits for mining on Crown land, including the Paparoa National Park.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister confirm that none of the land that was approved for mining under Labour was in fact protected land under schedule 4, and can he confirm that the public can have no confidence in the consultation process, because he said he was going to go ahead regardless and because the public know that long before they were brought into this discussion National had made a secret deal with the mining interests to mine in protected areas, even before the election?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can only assume that the Leader of the Opposition is desperate to get on television if he wants to make things up.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Did that answer in any way address anything I asked the Prime Minister about? [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I warn Government front-benchers on this occasion that while a point of order was being heard, they were interjecting loudly, which they know is totally unacceptable. I think, on reflection, that the Leader of the Opposition would realise that his question was fairly provocative, and it provoked a fairly strong response. If the member wants a serious answer, he has to be a bit more constrained in his questions.

Hon Phil Goff: How happy is the Prime Minister with the process for mining in protected areas when the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment has been absolutely scathing about the inadequacy of that process, and said, for example, that the Government document is “vague and rudimentary”, and fails to provide “a coherent argument” for mining protected land?

Hon JOHN KEY: It strikes me that the commissioner was making a very circular argument. The commissioner was saying that we should remove land only where the mineral value outweighs the conservation values. Actually we cannot determine that unless we do remove things from schedule 4.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the Prime Minister’s response to the criticism by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment that National, in watering down the powers of the Minister of Conservation, has both comprised her role and unfairly privileged mining interests?

Hon JOHN KEY: I would reject them.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister intend to open up for mining currently protected land beyond the 7,000 hectares already announced; if so, does that mean that the proposal concerning 467,000 hectares that Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson took to Cabinet on 10 February this year are also vulnerable to mining?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, and I think that the documents the Government released showed how conservative the Government has been, because the officials actually proposed 467,000 hectares. The Government agreed on 7,000 hectares and it is adding a further 12,000. If anything, that shows what a conservative Government we are.

Hon Phil Goff: In light of that answer, who signed the paper? Was it Gerry Brownlee and Kate Wilkinson, or some anonymous official?

Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I guess the one difference between this Government and the previous administration is that we—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question: who signed the paper? That answer does not address the question. It goes off on an irrelevant tangent. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Again, it was Government members interjecting on a point of order. The issues are strongly debated; I accept that absolutely. But the House must treat these matters with some dignity. Government backbenchers will not interject while a point of order is being heard. The honourable Leader of the Opposition asked a question that it would be reasonable to answer. I ask the Prime Minister to do that.

Hon JOHN KEY: The Ministers signed the papers. The difference between this Government and the previous Government is that we take things to Cabinet and have a genuine conversation. Under the previous Government, those members were all a bunch of muppets who just agreed with what the Prime Minister thought. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Chris Tremain: The Muppet Show!

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion I say to the senior Government whip that when the Speaker is on his feet, there will not be any interjection. That kind of comment will not lead to good order in the House, and I think the Prime Minister knows that. I ask him not to go over the top like that. It is unfair. Does the honourable Leader of the Opposition have further questions?

Hon Phil Goff: Well, he has not answered any of the five so far. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: This time it was both front benches. I ask members to please be a little more reasonable and respect the House a little more.

Jacinda Ardern: I seek leave for the Conservation (Requirement for Special Approval for Changes to Schedule 4) Amendment Bill to be introduced and set down for its first reading on 5 May.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Economic Growth—Role of Public Sector

2. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Finance: What role can the State sector play in lifting economic growth?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): State services represent about 25 percent of the New Zealand economy, so the sector has a significant influence over our economic performance. The Government is focused on increasing State sector productivity, because it is beneficial to the wider economy, and because it means that we can deliver more and better public services and provide better value for taxpayers. It is both desirable and necessary as the Government prepares Budget 2010 under difficult fiscal conditions due to the ongoing effects of the global recession and Labour’s reckless spending.

Aaron Gilmore: What steps has the Government taken to ensure that State services remuneration practices reflect the goal of increased productivity?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government’s expectations require State sector pay and conditions to be fiscally sustainable within existing baselines, to demonstrate value for money, and to drive productivity improvements. This follows several years of State sector pay rises that outstripped those in the private sector without a matching increase in productivity. For instance, the most recent labour cost index, for the December quarter of 2009, showed that wages increased by 0.3 percent in that quarter. Against that backdrop, it is not reasonable for some State sector groups to attempt to claim pay rises of up to 4 percent per year, when most taxpayers would be getting either no pay rises or much lower pay rises than that.

Aaron Gilmore: What reports has the Minister seen on State sector pay?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports that, by and large, pay negotiations within the State sector have been reasonable, constructive, and forward-looking. However, some groups received pay rises of 4 percent or more last year, at the height of the global economic crisis. For example, teachers have had a 4 percent pay rise in each of the last 3 years, including last year. Teachers’ overall pay has increased by 50 percent since March 2000. Groups that have experienced increases way beyond those of ordinary New Zealanders in recent years should not expect, for instance, to have a ready reception from the public to another claim for a 4 percent pay rise.

Debt as Percentage of GDP—Current and Past Levels

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What was net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP as at 30 June 2008, and what is the most recent forecast of current levels?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): At 30 June 2008, when the New Zealand economy had already been in recession for 6 months, net core Crown debt was 5.7 percent of GDP, but the signs were very worrying. By the time of the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update in October 2008, before Labour left office, forecasts showed net debt jumping to 26 percent of GDP by 2018-19, plus a decade of deficits. This was before the global financial crisis. By the time of the December 2008 update, the forecast had deteriorated further, with net debt soaring to about 50 percent of GDP, and never falling, as well as permanent deficits. Within a few weeks of taking office, this Government had to deal with a sharply deteriorating fiscal outlook, in the first place because of reckless Labour mismanagement, and, secondly, because of the global recession.

Mr SPEAKER: The member put down a question on notice that asked for the comparison between net core Crown debt as a percentage of GDP at 30 June 2008 and the most recent forecast of current levels. I let the Minister go on to explain the change in forecasts towards the end of 2008, because it was of relevance to the question. However, he failed to provide the most recent forecast of net core Crown debt, and instead went on to attack the Opposition. That was not in order, but I ask the Minister though to complete answering the question. Since it is a question on notice, I ask him to provide the House with an answer to the second part of the question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It was 13 percent of GDP.

Hon David Cunliffe: Having inherited close to zero net Crown debt on taking office, and having cancelled two rounds of personal tax cuts in Budget 2009, why does the Minister now believe it is fiscally prudent to borrow further to fund tax cuts in Budget 2010?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is just wrong about the situation the Government inherited. The Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update in October 2008 showed net debt jumping to 26 percent of GDP, and 2 months later the forecast showed an increase to 50 percent of GDP.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your assistance so far in this debate. As you pointed out earlier, this is a question on notice and the Opposition worked hard to make it entirely factual and unembellished. The Minister earlier said that net core Crown debt, by his reckoning, was 5 percent, or thereabouts, at the first date specified. The Minister cannot now, in

reply to a supplementary question, extrapolate from that to a number in the 20s and be within the bounds of the primary answer. I ask you to draw him back to his original answer to the question on notice.

Mr SPEAKER: I think that on this occasion the member is drawing quite a fine bow. In terms of the nearly zero net Crown debt inherited, he asked why the Government is doing certain things, and the Minister has challenged that claim of near zero net Crown debt. The Minister has pointed out that the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update established that was not the situation. I think it is within the Minister’s rights to use that relevant information in answering the question. To stop him from using relevant information in answering the question would be unreasonable.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister explain how New Zealanders will be better off when they have to pick up the tab for high-income tax cuts at the same time that he is increasing GST and making all the basics more expensive?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have pointed out to the member, he should wait for the Budget to look at the balance of any proposed increase in GST and any proposed reduction in income tax. The Government has always said the package will be broadly fiscally neutral because we need to correct the mismanagement of his previous Labour Government where property speculation and borrowing got out of control, along with Government spending. This Government is focused on earning the money before we spend it.

David Bennett: What would have happened if the current Government had made no changes to the economic policies it inherited?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: By the time this Government took office it was clear that debt and deficits were spiralling out of control. As I noted in the Budget last year, if there had been no policy change, net Crown debt would have hit 62 percent of GDP, and climbing, by 2023. This would have been disastrous for the economy, resulting in a credit ratings downgrade, higher interest rates for households, businesses, and taxpayers, and would have cost thousands of jobs. So when the Opposition spokesman on finance looks at himself in the mirror every morning, as I am sure he does, how can he honestly claim his party left the economy in good order?

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—Improvements

4. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: What improvements will be made to the National Certificate of Educational Achievement from next year?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): From next year, course endorsements will be available for all National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) levels. Course endorsements will mean that students can aim for Excellence or Merit endorsements in individual courses, if they obtain at least 14 credits at these levels. When we signalled the introduction of course endorsements last year, we said that there would be a staggered roll-out, with the endorsements being available for NCEA level 1 next year, and for higher levels in subsequent years. I am very pleased to say that officials have progressed the work quickly, and that all students at all NCEA levels will be able to obtain course endorsements from next year.

Allan Peachey: Why did the Government provide funding to make these improvements?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We know from principals and teachers that overall certificate endorsement has motivated students to have their certificates endorsed with Merit or Excellence. This Government also wants to motivate students to obtain Merit or Excellence results in individual courses. We want to give students recognition for great results. That is why we put $2.4 million towards developing this measure in Budget 2009.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did she set NCEA level 2 as the benchmark against which her national standards are calibrated?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: That is the minimum qualification that students need to gain Modern Apprenticeships.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When the New Zealand Qualifications Authority this month proposed new literacy and numeracy standards, which NCEA level did it identify as being required for someone to fully participate in work?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have those details in front of me. I am happy to provide them to the member.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Given that the New Zealand Qualifications Authority has said that the literacy and numeracy standards needed for someone to fully participate in work are level 1 standards, why has she said national standards based on NCEA level 2, on the grounds that research showed that NCEA level 2 was what—she said—was required to succeed in work? She said she was backed by research; what is that research?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The evidence is very clear that students leaving school to enter the modern world today need level 2 NCEA as a minimum qualification. That is the entry level required for Modern Apprenticeships. There is much evidence, and I am happy to make it available to the member.

Health Services—Minister’s Statements

5. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health services?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that the changes that that member regularly raises are clearly not the result of this Government reducing its funding of health. We have provided the district health boards with $536 million in extra funding this year, and we will provide a solid increase in the next financial year.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will he guarantee to the people of Taranaki that not one patient-centred, front-line health service will be cut as their district health board goes through a cost-cutting process, or will he break his election promise again?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am concerned about the financial state of several district health boards, including Taranaki District Health Board. Let us be clear that the Government has increased the funding of the Taranaki District Health Board by $11 million in the last Budget and there will be more of an increase in this year’s Budget. None of the changes that the board may be considering can be attributed to a funding cut.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When the Minister of Finance, Bill English, said the Government was cutting low-value spending, which services in health was he referring to: home help for 3,000 Otago and Southland citizens, mental health services in Nelson, 12 nursing positions at Palmerston North Hospital, or the 198 Youth Health Centre in Christchurch, which is closing this week? Which of those services, all of which are being cut, does he say are of low value?

Hon TONY RYALL: I expect that the Minister of Finance was referring to low-quality spending such as that member opposite’s free physiotherapy scheme, which cost the country a quarter of a billion dollars and was proven to be much of a disaster. I would also say, with respect to the member, that many of the changes that she raises in this House are not new. I have received information that shows that in Otago-Southland in the last 3 years of the previous Government, there were reduced home cleaning and support hours for more than 700 people—more than 700 people. I think this is a case of the member suffering from amnesia about the previous 3 years.

Nicky Wagner: What improvements in front-line services have happened in Waitakere Hospital?

Hon TONY RYALL: Staff have completed the first-ever hip replacement at Waitakere Hospital this month, elective gynaecology day-stay procedures are now being done at the hospital, and an almost $2 million refurbishment of the hospital’s emergency care centre got under way this month. That will bring full 24/7 emergency care services at Waitakere a big step closer. Under this Government, the emergency department has already extended its hours this year, and this building work means that it will be in a better position to open 24/7 in the middle of this year for children’s

emergencies and for all patients by the end of this year, as targeted. It is something that the party opposite promised while it was previously in Government and never delivered.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Why have more than 50 front-line patient services been cut and thousands of patients left without front-line health services under his watch?

Hon TONY RYALL: Front-line services are improving in New Zealand. The member needs to know that we inherited a situation where, under the previous Government, we had $150 million of unfunded services. We have put an extra $536 million into the district health boards. That is why we have record numbers of elective surgery procedures, faster care in emergency departments, more people getting cancer care, and great developments happening up and down the country.

Events, Major—Government Support

6. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister for Economic Development: What support is the Government giving to attracting major events to New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): The Major Events Development Fund provides Government funding to add value to major events taking place in New Zealand. A great example of what the fund can achieve is seen in the announcement that New Zealand will host a stop-over in the 2011-12 Volvo Ocean Race. The Government is working in partnership with the Auckland City Council to enable this to happen. The Volvo Ocean Race is a high-profile, round-the-world yacht race held ever 3 years and spans a 9-month period, and that includes a number of stop-overs. These stop-overs provide significant economic benefits for host cities, generating millions of dollars of economic activity, and also increasing the global exposure of those countries’ ports and country. It will be a good event for New Zealand.

Melissa Lee: What economic benefits will the Volvo Ocean Race stop-over provide to New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am glad the member asked me that question; it demonstrates that members on this side of the House are keen to know the economic benefits for the nation, when members on the other side clearly are not. The feasibility study prepared by Covec and jointly funded by the Government and the Auckland City Council estimated the direct expenditure benefits of hosting a stop-over at $15.3 million for Auckland and a further $12 million to $13 million in additional GDP nationally. It further estimated that $4 million to $8 million will be spent in the media sector. The benefits are likely to be significantly higher now, because Emirates Team New Zealand has confirmed that it will enter a boat in the campaign. It is sponsored by Camper, the Spanish-based international footwear manufacturer. The stop-over is likely to provide some longterm benefits. It will allow New Zealand to continue showcasing our world-class marine and shipbuilding industry.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims Clinical Pathway Review

7. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): I stated yesterday that from 2000 to 2008 the rejection rate of sensitive claims grew from 5 percent to 41 percent, that 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that there is no record of any Labour member ever raising any concern about this. I have checked this again, and it is correct. I can also confirm that the new clinical guidelines—

Mr SPEAKER: I remind the Minister that the question simply asked: “Does he stand by all his answers to question for oral answer No. 12 yesterday?”. Unless there were some that he does not wish to stand by, I would have thought that the question could easily be answered just by saying “Yes”, rather than going through the great detail of it. Further information may be elicited by way of supplementary questions.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I wanted to clarify that I had checked also that the Hon Steve Maharey had launched the clinical guidelines on—

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How clear does it have to be? You gave very clear advice to the member, but he is persisting. A “Yes” or a “No” will suffice. Let us hear it.

Hon Rodney Hide: With the greatest respect, it is not the Speaker’s job, as you have often explained to us, to direct what a Minister’s answer should be and whether it should be a “Yes” or “No” answer. In fact, when one is asked a question, I think it is quite polite to the House to actually say “Yes” and to explain the answer. That was what I was enjoying.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member—[Interruption] I am on my feet—were to check the Standing Orders he would find that the Standing Orders require that in answering questions Ministers provide the information necessary to answer the question and no more. The Minister does not have to say “Yes” or “No” to every question, but this question does not require a huge explanation, because it asked just whether the Minister stands by all his answers. There will be supplementary questions, I am sure, and the Minister will have the chance to explain further. But I do not believe we need to take up a lot of the time of the House because the information being given is not necessary to answer the question.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He still has not answered “Yes” or “No”.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister indicated in his answer that he was standing by his answers, so I invite the member to ask a supplementary question.

Lynne Pillay: What does he say to the woman who was so traumatised and depressed by the Accident Compensation Corporation’s (ACC) treatment that she was admitted to intensive care, then returned home to find a long-awaited ACC psychiatrist’s report stating that she was in remission from depression?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I say that I heard the primary question, I heard the answer, and I am struggling to see how the supplementary question relates to them.

Hon Trevor Mallard: We’re not responsible for your struggles.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. There have been many offences on the other side of the House, which means I cannot deal with that interjection any more than I dealt with those, but I ask members to be careful not to interject when a point of order is being considered. The supplementary question obviously relates to some of the subject matter of yesterday’s questions, but the Minister’s ability to answer that question will be very constrained because of a lack of a direct relationship to today’s primary question. I did not rule the member’s question out of order because I think the House just has to accept that the Minister’s ability to answer will be very limited because of the nature of the primary question. But I invite the Minister to answer in so far as he can.

Lynne Pillay: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The questions yesterday were very clear. They related to the dramatic drop in—

Mr SPEAKER: We will not have my ruling debated now. I assisted the member in getting an answer to a question. She should not press her luck too far. She asked a very particular primary question about whether the Minister stood by all his answers. I have assisted her in trying to get an answer to that, but to now expect the Minister to have detailed information on a particular case is not reasonable. I have said that the Minister is entitled to answer in so far as he can, but he may not have that information.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that there are thousands of sensitive claims each year. In fact, 2,400 claims were rejected in 2008, and that member did not raise any concern about that. If the member has specific information about a case, I ask her to refer it to the independent clinical review that I announced at the beginning of the week.

Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Minister tell the House yesterday that information in my question— information suggesting that about 300 victims of crime had been approved for sexual abuse counselling in October 2008 and that that figure had fallen to 6 in February this year—was incorrect and untrue when it was directly sourced from his own answers in written questions to the House?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I told the member yesterday and I will tell him again that his numbers are incorrect. Let me—

Hon Darren Hughes: They’re the Minister’s numbers.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: If the members will be silent I will be happy to explain. The answer made plain that the question in respect of February claims was a question in March. In the same way as if he had asked Work and Income to compare the claim numbers for April this year with those of April last year, not all the claims had been processed. In fact, I say to Mr Goff, in that written answer I pointed out that 70 percent of the claims had not been processed. The number six is incorrect. The correct number is more than double that. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given the controversy that exists around the question and the answer, and given your ruling yesterday, and that he said my figures were incorrect, I seek leave of the House to table written question No. 1883 (2009) and written question No. 01711 (2010), which point out that the figures I used were those of the Minister.

Mr SPEAKER: Figures are often disputed because of concern about the time frames from which the figures are taken, and whether apples are being compared with apples. But I do not want us to get into the habit of seeking leave to table answers to written questions when those are available to members. I think there is a chance, with the way of asking questions today, to question the Minister in some detail on how he has answered the questions. The honourable Leader of the Opposition still has many supplementary questions available to him today to do that. I would rather see the House exercise a good period of intense questioning rather than see leave being sought to table material that is already available to the House.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can you appreciate the dilemma of members in this House when they quote figures given to them by a Minister and that same Minister stands up in this House and says the figures are untrue and incorrect?

Mr SPEAKER: One of the things that our style of questioning these days allows is for members to ask further questions to elucidate that.

Hon Phil Goff: My question to the Minister—[Interruption]—if he just pauses and listens—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Please ask the supplementary question.

Hon Phil Goff: Well, I would like him to hear it. He is talking while I am asking it.

Mr SPEAKER: Please ask the supplementary question.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm that in October 2008, in an answer to a written question, he confirmed that 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for help through counselling, that by February 2010 that number had fallen to six, that in the previous month the number was 11, that the month before it was 32, and that in the month before that it was 44, so that there was a consistent downward trend to a situation where almost no people who were victims of sexual crimes were receiving help through ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can confirm that the numbers the member claimed yesterday were different from those I had given in the written answer. The further point I would make very simply to the member is that when someone asks how many claims were lodged for February—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I simply asked the Minister to confirm the accuracy of the figures that I was reading to him and the sources from which they came.

Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point. I say to the Minister that this question was not about yesterday’s answer. This question was asking about specific information that the member has received from the Minister. It would be more appropriate for the Minister to answer the question that was asked by the member.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member’s—[Interruption].

Mr SPEAKER: Before we go any further, I say that the Leader of the Opposition has asked a serious question. I have asked members, instead of seeking leave to table documents, to use question time to question Ministers. The Leader of the Opposition is doing that. I ask his colleagues

to show the respect, then, of listening to the answer, rather than giving just a barrage of interjections when the Minister tries to answer.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reason the member’s numbers are incorrect is that when one asks at the beginning of March for the number of February claims that have been approved, a large—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Oh, for goodness’ sake!

Mr SPEAKER: No—a point of order has been called.

Hon Phil Goff: I have read these figures directly from the Minister’s own answer, and now he is saying that the figures I am reading are incorrect. That cannot possibly be the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: This is a very interesting situation. The Minister, in answering his question, said “the reason the member’s figures are incorrect”. The member asked the Minister about a series of figures relating to one period, and then he went back for several months before that—forgive me, but I cannot recollect the dates or whether he went back about 6 months or 4 months prior to that— and to a pattern in the figures. He asked the Minister whether he could confirm those figures. What I will do to avoid any further confusion is to ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Minister confirm his own figures, provided by written answer to the House of Representatives, that in October of 2008, 312 victims of sexual crime were approved for counselling, yet through the recent months of this year and last year, those figures dropped from 44 in November 2009 to 32 in December 2009, to 11 in January 2010, and to a derisory figure of just six in February 2010?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have the written answer in front of me, and it points out that of the 298 claims in February, at the beginning of March 260 were in the category “awaiting further information” or in the second category “awaiting assessment”. I say to the member that in exactly the same way that one needs to give—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the honourable Leader of the Opposition.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: No, a point of order has been called.

Hon Phil Goff: I asked the Minister to confirm that those were the numbers of people approved in that 4-month period from late last year to this year, compared with 2008. I am hearing a lot of other figures. I am simply asking the Minister to confirm that his own numbers were the numbers of victims of sexual crimes accepted for counselling.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had about four attempts at explaining the numbers, and every time the member opposite interjects with a point of order and stops me from being able to explain the context of the numbers. I simply ask to be given the time to answer the question the member is asking.

Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma we have is that this is question time. The member did not ask the Minister to explain the information; the member asked the Minister to confirm whether the figures were correct. The Standing Orders do not provide for Ministers to answer a different question. If the question asked why there is this pattern in the figures, then the Minister’s answer would be perfectly in order, but that is not the question that was asked. Ministers have to answer the question asked, not the one they might like to answer. I ask the Minister to answer the question asked.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The answer that was given at the beginning of March—that six February claims were approved—was correct at the beginning of March. But, of course, since then a substantially increased number of the February claims have been approved. If members want to compare the situation with the situation in October 2008, that would be the fair comparison.

Hon Annette King: Has he been made aware of the human tragedy that is unfolding for victims of sexual abuse since the change of policy—for example, the 11-year-old raped by her stepfather

2½ months ago, who is still awaiting assessment for counselling, or the 19-year-old raped by one man while being held down by two others 6 months ago, who is still waiting for—

Mr SPEAKER: I have been pretty tough on the Minister in respect of answering the question asked. The question the member is now asking is drawing a pretty long bow from the primary question, which asked the Minister whether he stood by his answers given yesterday. He cannot be expected to have detailed information on those particular cases, and that means that the member is seeking to make a political statement rather than ask a question. I have been tough on the Minister, asking him to answer the question asked. I ask the honourable member—hang on, I am on my feet—to ask a question within the Standing Orders, because I think that question was unfair. I have to make sure that if I am tough on the Minister and ask him to answer the question asked, I do not then allow members to ask questions that are outside the Standing Orders.

Hon Annette King: How does the Minister explain the delay in terms of the cases I have just given the House, and the human tragedy that is unfolding because of that delay?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I point out that in 2008, under the member’s Government, 2,400 sensitive claims for counselling and support were declined by ACC. I have been hesitant to interfere—[Interruption] I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not possible for me to answer questions when there is that sort of berating from the Opposition benches.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister makes—

Hon Shane Jones: Chuck him out.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Shane Jones to be careful. I was clearly on my feet when he made that loud interjection. I think members should be reasonable. I fully accept that this is a tense issue. It is a very serious and sensitive issue. The Minister is doing his best to answer questions sincerely, and I ask for some respect to be shown to the Minister when he is answering.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have been very hesitant to interfere in clinical decisions in respect of sensitive claims, but I did announce on Monday an independent clinical review. If members opposite have cases where they are not satisfied with the clinical care, I invite them to refer them to that review.

Hon David Parker: Why will not the Minister admit that he and his Government have badly let down the victims of sexual crime; that he has failed to heed the consistent warnings from the Opposition, from the professional associations of psychotherapists and psychologists, and from Christian counsellors, social workers, rape crisis workers, and Massey University; that it is a matter of political responsibility; and that it could be fixed by reinstating the prior practice?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I again point out to that member that 2,400 claims were declined, and that during the term of the previous Government there was an eight-fold increase in the number of claims that were declined. I also draw to the member’s attention the statement from the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners that strongly supports the clinical pathway that was adopted by ACC.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without revisiting the issue—and you will be aware that I discussed this matter with you off-line at some point—could I ask you to consider this matter in respect of your ruling about the tabling of documents, which I respect. It is simply that we have had quite an interchange over allegations of accuracy of information, or whatever. I ask you to consider—not here—that there may be a case for tabling, narrowly, when a member calls into question the accuracy or otherwise of, for instance, data contained within written or oral questions, even though the data are available readily to members who do research. The interchange that we have had today about accuracy, or lack of it, could be truncated somewhat if you, Mr Speaker, at your discretion, were to rule that the documents could indeed be tabled. Then they would sit on the Table in the House for everybody to see, and the issue might well be resolved.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the member makes, and I appreciate that it is being made in good faith. Why I did not do so today is that where figures relate to different time periods, and there is debate about the figures, allowing these things to be tabled implies that someone is proving the

other person wrong. The beauty of it being pursued through questions is that the questioner can pursue his or her concern about the figures, and the Minister has the chance to answer. That is what question time is all about. I think it was a very tense period of questioning, and that is what this House is all about.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not challenging that, because that is your interpretation. The only difficulty—and, Mr Speaker, you have said it repeatedly through question time, and you are right—is that an Opposition does indeed have further supplementary questions, but those supplementary questions are then chewed up in order to deal with a point that, again, could quite easily be dealt with. If the questioner is not relaying the facts accurately, he or she would be rather stupid to table documents that did not back up what he or she was saying. So that issue could be dealt with. The Opposition is left in the position where its members have to chew up their ammunition to verify a fact that could be tabled quite easily for the House to then further debate.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point, and I do not rule out that possibility. The member will recollect, in fact, that I did allow someone to table a press release recently.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Some things never change, though, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Mining in Conservation Areas—Inclusion of Parts of National Parks

8. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Did he, on 10 February 2010, sign off a proposal to Cabinet to consult on the removal from schedule 4 of parts of Kahurangi, Mount Aspiring, Rakiura, and Paparoa national parks for mining purposes?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Some time before that I signed out a document that went to a Cabinet committee on that date, so the answer, theoretically, is yes. The member knows that, because all of that information is now publicly available on the Ministry of Economic Development website. We have been very open about the fact that officials from the Ministry of Economic Development and the Department of Conservation initially, in answer to the stocktake, said there was a large amount of land that contained mineral deposits, and that might be considered for removal from schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. Ministers discussed those proposals and rejected them, and I made that very clear on the day that I released the discussion document. The discussion paper that we did settle on, in fact, had an addition of some 5,000 hectares to schedule 4.

Metiria Turei: Which of the statements made in the Minister’s name on 22 March was true: that Mount Aspiring National Park is not under further investigation and will remain protected in schedule 4, or that Mount Aspiring National Park would be considered for competitive tender for mineral exploration?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not know which two quotes are being referred to, but I do know that Cabinet has decided there will be no further mineral exploration in Mount Aspiring National Park, Kahurangi National Park, or any other national park, other than the investigation of the mineral potential in Rakiura National Park. We are very, very open about that and have put all that information on the Ministry of Economic Development’s website. We are hiding nothing, and as long as the member likes to tilt at the windmill she can be sure that it will not fall over.

Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is page 5 of Maximising our Mineral Potential: Stocktake of schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act and beyond, which states that the Government is not further investigating the potential of Kahurangi or Mount Aspiring national parks, which remain protected in schedule 4.

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

Metiria Turei: The second document is a notice of land closure, which was released on the same day—

Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of this document?

Metiria Turei: It is from the Crown Minerals office in the Ministry of Economic Development and states that it is the Minister’s intention to consider these areas of land for competitive tender allocations for mineral exploration. The document includes an associated schedule and map.

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

Hon David Parker: Why has the Minister withheld paragraphs 50, 51, 79, 80, and 81 from the 10 February Cabinet paper, which was released under the Official Information Act; and are those withheld details even more embarrassing than the reality that until a month ago, the Minister of Energy, Mr Brownlee, along with Ms Wilkinson was signing off on the removal of 400,000 hectares of national parks from schedule 4?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: None of the facts mentioned in that question is correct. I cannot respond to them if they are not correct.

Metiria Turei: How can the Minister reconcile the fact that in his 22 March document he was telling the public that the Mount Aspiring National Park is to be protected from mineral exploration but that through the notice of land closure released on that same day, he was telling the mineral industry that the Mount Aspiring National Park will be opened up for mineral exploration?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: One of the interesting anomalies in all of this is that right now anybody can theoretically go and get a permit to prospect on schedule 4 lands. There are three permit categories: prospecting, exploring, and mining. Mining is prohibited, exploring is prohibited, but prospecting is not. People can get a prospecting permit for those lands and can go out there and dig to their heart’s content. What is more, it is on a “first come, first served” basis that future applications are considered. I thought it was prudent, while we are asking the public to consider the wider interests, to put a prohibition on vast blocks of land across New Zealand. For reasons of simplicity, the maps are very, very general, but there will be specific parts of that map where land could be open to this sort of activity. We were trying to avoid exactly what the Greens fear: a Klondike-type rush on high-value conservation land.

Hon Maryan Street: I seek leave to table, under the land closure notice referred to previously by Metiria Turei, the map attaching to it, which covers the east Nelson reserve land, including the Grampians and Mount Richmond Forest Park.

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

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One cannot speak to a point of order that seeks such leave, but I ask the House’s indulgence. All of that is available on the Ministry of Economic Development’s website. Nothing is hidden.

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order, but I will ignore that for the time being.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Has he read the 2005 version of the General Policy for National Parks document, which was produced by the Department of Conservation for the New Zealand Conservation Authority?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I have. The member may be interested to know that in policy 10.8(b) of that document it states: “Proposed access arrangements to prospect, explore or mine in national parks will be considered on a case-by-case basis”. It is very interesting to note that in 2005 the previous Labour Government approved exactly the policy that the National-led Government is advocating now—that is, considering the mining of conservation land on a case by case basis. It seems that for the Green Party it was OK if Labour did it, but it is not OK if National does it.

Metiria Turei: If the Minister truly has no intention of mining in these national parks, will he now commit to withdrawing the notice of land closure for all areas of national parks included in it and allow the schedule 4 protection to remain?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That would prejudice against any possibility of the Government’s preventing either prospecting or exploring opportunities in those areas. It would be fundamentally absurd to do what the member suggests.

Metiria Turei: Which of the statements made in his name on 22 March was true: that Mount Aspiring National Park will remain protected in schedule 4, or that Mount Aspiring National Park will be surveyed for mineral exploration, using the $4 million subsidy he is currently consulting the public about?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I want to deal with this in two parts. The first statement made by me is absolutely correct. The second one is a truthful statement, because when a plane flies over the top doing the aerial magnetic survey, it does not suddenly turn itself off as it goes across a national park boundary. That may be hard for the Greens to understand, but it is the fact of the science.

Metiria Turei: When the Minister stated in this House that “the consultation process will be very, very public”, why did he not tell the public of his intention to open Mount Aspiring National Park to “competitive tender for mineral exploration”?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I do not know where the member got that from, but that is simply not the case.

Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Government backbenchers are skating on thin ice, because a point of order was clearly called and then there was just a loud barrage of interjections. I think that those members are probably protected by their sheer numbers, but I do not want that to become a practice. I ask them to desist from doing that.

Metiria Turei: I am not sure how to proceed, given that the Minister has just granted me permission to table his document, which states it is the Minister’s intention to consider these areas for competitive tender for—

Mr SPEAKER: My problem now is that having just asked the House to be quiet while the member makes her point of order, I have no idea what the issue of order is. The member has the chance to ask a further supplementary question. If she did not understand the Minister’s answer, then she can deal with that further by way of a supplementary question.

Metiria Turei: How—[Interruption] Well, this is a serious one. [Interruption] The barraging— [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I do not know what was in the water this morning, but it is not good. I ask Government members to please show a little more respect to another member. A member is entitled to ask questions, and she will not be treated like that. That was very discourteous.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my colleague, but I take the opportunity to say this. We support your ruling, but it is not all Government backbenchers who are interjecting. Mr Paul Quinn, in particular, makes a regular feature of barracking and yelling at Metiria Turei on nearly every occasion that she stands up to speak. I think it would be good order for the co-leader of the third-largest party in Parliament to be able to make her points here. To be fair, not all Government backbenchers are responsible for this; it is one particular member who screams his head off at the co-leader of the Green Party.

Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate—[Interruption] I advise Government backbenchers to take this matter seriously, because it discourteous. It is discourteous to this House. It is not about me; I do not matter. It is this House that matters. The point raised by the Hon Darren Hughes is a serious point. I will not tolerate a member being treated with discourtesy. Every member has the right to ask questions. Some members may not like other members’ questions. They have the right to interject, but not to treat a member discourteously.

Metiria Turei: How can the public have any confidence in this Minister and in his statements on mining in our national parks, when he will say one thing to his Cabinet colleagues and to the mining industry, and on the same day he will say something completely different from that to the New Zealand public? How can they have confidence in anything that he says?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am sure that anybody who goes to the Ministry of Economic Development website, who digs out all the bits of paper, who understands the process, and who is interested in making an intelligent submission on the proposals made by the Government will be quite confident that his or her voice will be heard.

Schools—Operational Funding

9. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Education: What decisions has she made on schools’ operational funding?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): The primary decision I have made on schools’ operational funding was to provide an additional $80.1 million over 4 years into schools’ operational grants in Budget 2009. I have also told the ministry to stop the previous Government’s practice of wasting money on “Wassup!” badges and anti-bullying word finds that sit unused in the corner of classrooms, so that we can get more money out to schools.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did she decide to give new wharekura base operational funding of $50,000 compared with the $130,000 base funding that a Pākehā school with the same number of students will get?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would refer that question to the Minister of Māori Affairs, who is the Associate Minister of Education and has responsibility for wharekura. But if the member cares to put it down in writing, then I will ensure that he will get an answer.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have in my hand the decisions signed by that Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that it is up to Ministers to determine who is responsible for certain matters that I cannot determine as Speaker. The member has supplementary questions, so if he thinks that the Minister’s answer is wrong, then he can easily frame a question that can make that a very sharp issue.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you know that the Opposition has a limited number of questions. For a Minister to say in an answer something that is patently untrue, because she—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member must not use a point of order to allege that a Minister has said something that is untrue. Question time does not always flow exactly as members might expect it to flow. Supplementary questions that are asked should relate to the answers given. The Minister has given an answer that appears to the member to be pretty controversial. He can now, therefore, test that answer further with supplementary questions. That is what question time is all about.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did her Associate Minister Pita Sharples agree to her discriminatory funding decision, which values white children’s education more highly than that of brown children?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I find that comment highly offensive. This Government is working very closely with the Māori Party and with my Associate Minister of Education to ensure that all Māori children, whether they are in mainstream schools or in wharekura, are given an excellent education. I have made the offer to that member. If he cares to put his question down in writing, then I will ensure that he gets an answer to it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did she, on 27 January this year, make a decision to fund wharekura $50,000 for base funding when a white kids’ school would get $130,000?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have that piece of paper in front of me. I do not have the details of the decision that was made. If the member had wished to get specific answers, then he should have put that down in the primary question so that I could have brought the information to the House with me.

Louise Upston: What other decisions has the Government made that have increased operational funding for schools?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: In August 2009 the Prime Minister launched Kiwisport, delivering on this Government’s promise to put money directly into the front line to help more New Zealand

children participate in organised sport. Kiwisport will provide $45 million in operational funding directly to schools over the next 4 years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the document entitled Education Report: Change of Class Applications, which is signed, I think, about nine times by the Minister of Education.

Mr SPEAKER: The member mentions the document’s name. What is it?

Hon Trevor Mallard: It is a Ministry of Education document approved by the Minister of Education. She has signed it about nine or 10 times.

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.

Te Ururoa Flavell: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have listened to the comments made by the Hon Trevor Mallard in respect of brown schools and white schools. The context of the discussion indicated that kura kaupapa Māori wharekura are only for Māori children.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. Does the member want me to intervene? Is the member personally offended by a statement? I apologise to the member, but he needs to make it more clear what his point of order is.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Against that background, I do find the member’s comment offensive and I ask that he withdraw and apologise. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being considered. It would be reasonable for me as Speaker to ask the member to desist from that. To ask him to withdraw and apologise for something that does not directly relate—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: There has been a Speaker’s ruling on this matter once before. It related to a small skirmish between myself and Mr Tamihere. I most willingly made a withdrawal and apology on that occasion. I think it is appropriate for Mr Mallard to withdraw and apologise.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable Te Ururoa Flavell first, and then I will rule on the matter.

Te Ururoa Flavell: The point I am making is that kura kaupapa Māori have open entry to the tamariki, to the children, of this country—Māori, Pākehā, or others. The inference was that they are only for Māori children.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is introducing debating material into a matter where he has claimed that he took personal offence to what the Hon Trevor Mallard said. But I have a dilemma in that I do not believe that I can ask the member to withdraw and apologise for his language during the asking of the question, because I do not believe he was making a personal reflection on anyone. I have to be careful not to simply rule out things willy-nilly. I ask Mr Mallard to be careful in describing situations in the future.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There were words used by Mr Mallard that I can understand Mr Flavell taking exception to, most notably the suggestion that it was discriminatory. I think that if someone has taken offence, it is not unreasonable in matters particularly of this sensitivity that there is a withdrawal and an apology.

Mr SPEAKER: I will not waste further time—well, I should not use that language; it is a matter that has created some concern in the House. The member has expressed concern that the Hon Trevor Mallard reflected on kura kaupapa Māori incorrectly, that kura kaupapa Māori, as the member points out, are available to all New Zealanders. This is a debating issue. It is not really an issue of personal offence. There has been no personal reflection on anyone. The member may have made a mistake in implying that kura kaupapa Māori were available only to New Zealanders of a certain ethnic background, and I would ask him to be more careful in the future. But he was not making a personal reflection on any member of this House. That is why I do not believe I can ask him to withdraw and apologise. I have to be careful not to make this place too precious. But had it been a personal reflection on the honourable member, it would have been a totally different matter.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Benefits

10. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Climate

Change Issues: What benefits are there for New Zealand in proceeding with the moderated emissions trading scheme on 1 July 2010?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): The emissions trading scheme has three main benefits: firstly, it provides a clear financial incentive to plant trees and not deforest, and given the trend of recent years, that is critical for New Zealand’s long-term future; secondly, it provides an incentive for investment in renewable generation after a decade of a declining proportion of renewable power; and, thirdly, it provides the right environment for business and industry to invest in new, energy-efficient technologies that will be critical to New Zealand’s longterm competitiveness. Without the emissions trading scheme, New Zealand would not meet its Kyoto Protocol target, and that would come at a cost to all New Zealand taxpayers.

Chris Auchinvole: Are claims correct that New Zealand is the first in the world to have an emissions trading scheme, and that it is just a tax for revenue purposes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, 38 countries have commitments under the Kyoto Protocol, and 29 of them, or three-quarters, already have an emissions trading scheme. Nor is the scheme a tax. Although consumers and businesses will pay $350 million in the first year of the scheme for their emissions, foresters will receive $1,100 million in carbon credits for post-1989 forests. Far from providing net revenue to the Government, the scheme is actually a cost to the Crown. There are 12,000 New Zealanders who, in good faith, planted trees on the assurances of both National and Labour Governments that they would receive carbon credits for those post-1989 forests. The emissions trading scheme honours that commitment.

John Boscawen: Does he agree with the statement: “… New Zealanders will be the only people in the world paying it. It will drive up the costs of living and undermine the competitiveness of New Zealand business for negligible environmental gain. … Ministers may take pride in being toasted at international Climate conferences for being so bold and brave, but there is no justification for New Zealand going out in the cold by itself on this issue.”; if not, what part of the honourable member for Nelson’s statement in November 2005 does he disagree with?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member very conveniently ignored that in that quote was reference to Labour’s carbon tax. National has been absolutely consistent in opposing a carbon tax. An emissions trading scheme is significantly different, in that next year it will provide over $1,100 million of credits to foresters, and it does not produce a net revenue gain for the Crown.

Chris Auchinvole: What steps has the Government taken to reduce the cost of the emissions trading scheme for households and businesses, and to ensure that New Zealand’s international competitiveness is not adversely affected?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government has more than halved the cost of the emissions trading scheme for households and businesses by providing for only a half-obligation from 1 July. Most countries in the Kyoto Protocol have a full obligation on their energy and industrial sectors. We have introduced a price cap of $25, and we have addressed the international competitive issues by taking an intensity-based approach to allocations. This Government is very cognisant of international developments, which is why the legislation provides for a review in 2011. I have signalled that we would not proceed with a full obligation or the entry of further sectors unless progress was made by New Zealand’s significant trading partners.

John Boscawen: Why has the Government abandoned its policy of harmonising our emissions trading scheme with Australia’s, and why will the Government not follow the decision of the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, to put Australia’s emissions trading scheme on hold until 2013?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Over lunch I spoke with the Hon Penny Wong, the Australian Minister for Climate Change and Water. She reinforced to me that the Australian Government’s preference remains an emissions trading scheme or carbon pollution reduction scheme, but it has been unable

to secure the numbers within its Parliament to progress it. I remain of the view that the changes this Government made to the emissions trading scheme last year were in New Zealand’s best interests, and that is why we passed them into law. I would much rather be in the position that New Zealand is of having settled emissions trading scheme legislation than have the uncertainty that exists in Australia and the United States in this important area of public policy.

Charles Chauvel: Does he recall Treasury’s warning to Cabinet last September over the risks to the “overall credibility and effectiveness of the New Zealand emissions trading scheme” from “harmonising with an overseas scheme that has not yet been finalised”; and does not yesterday’s suspension by Australia of its emissions trading scheme confirm the wisdom of that advice and his folly in ignoring it?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is quite the opposite. The changes that we made to the emissions trading scheme halved the cost for consumers, and halved the cost for businesses to ensure that there was not a disincentive for businesses to grow, despite the fact that all last year Labour criticised those changes. I think that what has occurred in Australia confirms that the changes we made to soften and delay the emissions trading scheme were exactly the right approach. I find it particularly ironic that Labour members are complaining about the cost of living but are proposing an emissions trading scheme that would be twice as expensive for consumers.

Early Childhood Education—Priority for Government

11. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she still stand by her statement to the House on 1 April 2009 that “Quality early childhood education and care is a high priority for the Government.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes.

Sue Moroney: Does she stand by her July 2008 promise, with reference to Labour’s 20 hours free policy, when she said “We will retain all the existing subsidies and fee controls”, and will she repeat that promise now?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: During the election campaign we promised to retain the 20 hours’ free early childhood education and we will not be breaking that promise.

Sue Moroney: What did she mean, then, when she told the Early Education Federation on 25 March that she “wants to work more on targeting the grant”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have always been very clear with the early childhood sector that we need to do better with the very large and growing amount of funding that is going into early childhood education. I have shared with the sector on a number of occasions that we are examining closely the cost drivers. The cost of early childhood education has almost trebled over the last 5 years—almost trebled. We are not necessarily getting the participation from the groups that would benefit the most.

Sue Moroney: How did she allow early childhood education to slip from being a high priority for her Government to now being included in the Minister of Finance’s definition of low-quality spending and up for Budget cuts?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not believe the Minister of Finance has ever said that. In fact, if members look at the six priorities for this Government, they will see that quality early childhood education is part of that. I heard the Minister of Finance talking just today about how much this Government values quality early childhood education.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does she agree with her statement to the New Zealand Herald on 29 January 2010 that evidence suggests that at least 20 hours of early childhood education per week from the age of 3 years provides the best support for future educational achievement; if so, how would the Government justify any changes to fee increases for parents?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am not aware of the context of that statement; I do not have it in front of me. But this Government is committed to ensuring that early childhood education remains affordable and accessible.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with Te Puni Kōkiri’s paper on mātauranga kōhungahunga Māori that participation in early childhood education can benefit children’s school readiness, result in improved learning, reduce antisocial behaviours, and possibly even improve health; if so, will the Government maintain its commitment that from 1 July 2010 all kōhanga reo and playcentres will also be eligible to offer 20 hours free early childhood education?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The National Party campaigned on the promise that we would make parent-led centres also eligible for 20 hours of free early childhood education, and we intend to honour that promise, as the member stated, from 1 July this year.

Rugby World Cup—Initiatives Benefiting New Zealand Businesses

12. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister for Economic

Development: What initiatives has the Government undertaken to ensure that New Zealand businesses can create economic benefits from the 2011 Rugby World Cup?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development): Last night I launched the New Zealand 2011 Business Club, an online platform to connect overseas business people who are interested in attending the Rugby World Cup with their Kiwi counterparts. The club will enable regions—

Hon Trevor Mallard: What an insult to Colin Meads.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The club will enable regions and businesses throughout the country to get information on the visitors coming to their area, including their businesses and social interests, so they can offer to host them at events and, as a result, learn more about how they operate in their own markets. The club will create a lasting legacy and strong international connections. It is free to join and it can be found at www.nz2011.govt.nz. Might I say that it took a National Government to put the title “Sir” on Sir Colin Meads.

Jonathan Young: How is the Government promoting the business opportunities from the Rugby World Cup?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has an office called New Zealand 2011 and it has been working closely with Business New Zealand, regional economic development agencies, and chambers of commerce to develop its business engagement programme. In addition, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise has developed a guide to opportunities in 2011, as well as a website to make procurement opportunities easy and accessible for local businesses. Our 2011 ambassadors have been successful in promoting New Zealand in overseas markets through the vehicle of the Rugby World Cup. Regions are putting events into the Festival 2011, which will help showcase the capacity of New Zealand business. We will soon be undertaking a regional roadshow to promote the business club and encourage New Zealand businesses to get involved. The tickets are on sale, the stadiums are going up, and there are only 499 days to go.

ENDS

© Scoop Media