(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

TUESDAY, 18 MAY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Prime Minister—Statements

1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements as Prime Minister; if so, why?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes; because I do.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he stand by his statement to Tūhoe negotiators that handing over ownership of the Ureweras to the tribe was “complex but workable”, which the negotiators are adamant he said to them in his office in March?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, because I have no recollection of saying that.

Hon Phil Goff: I am not sure whether “no recollection” is no—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Phil Goff: Was the hand-over of ownership of the Ureweras the preferred option for settling the Treaty negotiations that was passed by the Cabinet Treaty negotiations committee that he himself chaired; if not, what was the preferred option?

Hon JOHN KEY: No.

Hon Phil Goff: When—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, when they have finished braying I will ask my question.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable Leader of the Opposition should not say that, but the interjections were a little unnecessary.

Hon Phil Goff: When did Tariana Turia indicate to him that she was, in his words, “totally fine” about his decision on the Tūhoe negotiations?

Hon JOHN KEY: When I had a discussion with Tariana Turia on the Sunday night and gave her the decision that we had taken in relation to Tūhoe, she was respectful in the conversation we had. She made it absolutely clear that she was not happy with the decision, but, unlike the case with the Leader of the Opposition, when one has a conversation with Tariana Turia one does not think that a cardiac arrest is about to follow.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he stand by his statement last month on Radio New Zealand National that “The 20 free hours early education policy won’t be changed.”, and his earlier pledge that National would enhance 20 hours early childhood education and keep existing subsidies?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes and yes, and I cannot wait for it all to be unveiled in the Budget on Thursday.

Hon Jim Anderton: Does the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I say to Government backbenchers on this occasion that the Hon Jim Anderton had hardly uttered a word, and interjections were unreasonable at that point.

Hon Jim Anderton: Does the Prime Minister recall saying in a radio interview yesterday that he did not agree with the proposal from the Cabinet Treaty negotiations committee, which he chairs, to gift the Urewera National Park to the Tūhoe iwi; if so, did he approve the item going on the Cabinet agenda, and then, without any further consultation with Treaty committee members, remove it from the Cabinet agenda and unilaterally decide to cancel that recommendation, again without consultation; if so, how would he describe that process for balanced and informed Cabinet decisionmaking?

Hon JOHN KEY: In answer to those four questions: yes, no, no, and no. If the member is to do better in seeking the Christchurch mayoralty, he will have to explain things a bit more simply to the people of Christchurch.

Mr SPEAKER: I call Metiria Turei. [Interruption] I apologise to the honourable member. I say to both sides of the House that I understand that the issue will arouse passion and I am not troubled by that, but I ask for a little respect to the member whom I have called.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement reported today that New Zealanders should not be envious that his tax cuts will deliver much more to the rich than to those who are struggling, and does he not think it is grossly insulting to make an accusation that people who care about a fair society and reducing inequalies are guilty of envy?

Hon JOHN KEY: Absolutely I stand by that statement. I point out a reasonably simple but interesting fact that I think is worthy of being mentioned in this debate: the top 10 percent of income earners pay 44 percent of all personal income tax in New Zealand. Interestingly enough, if Working for Families and other benefits, etc., are taken into account, the 10 percent of taxpayers in New Zealand who are the top earners actually pay 76 percent of all net personal tax.

Hon Phil Goff: Does he stand by promise, and I quote: “National will not be increasing GST.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I do, in relation to the question I was asked at the time.

Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister understand that the top 10 percent of income earners pay only 4 percent of their income in GST, whereas the lowest 10 percent pay 14 percent of their income in GST, making the increase in GST hit the poorest people the hardest; if so, why does he not look at implementing the measures released yesterday by the Green Party in the Mind the Gap package; they are directly focused on reducing inequality, which is New Zealand’s most significant social and economic problem?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure that I can agree with the numbers that the member put forward, but I can simply say that the advice from Treasury is that the progressivity nature of GST is about the same as that of the personal tax system. In other words, those who earn more pay more. The simple facts of life are that those who earn more income consume a lot more, and therefore nominally pay more GST.

Hon Phil Goff: In light of broken promises to Tūhoe and to the public on things like GST, does he stand by this statement of his: “One sure way of only being a one-term Government is by breaking your word, and I have no intention of breaking my word.”?

Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, I like those words. They sounded better out of my mouth than out of the Leader of the Opposition’s, but they are absolutely right. In relation to the question that he asked me, let me quote a question from Sean Plunket of Radio New Zealand National to Tāmati Kruger: “Had the Prime Minister said anything or had his office indicated anything to you that you had got through that process?”. The answer from Tāmati Kruger was “No.” You see, on this side of the House we know our positions; after 30 minutes of the Leader of the Opposition being on Q+A, I did not have a clue what his position was on anything.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I seek leave to save the House’s time by tabling the supplementary questions and answers for question No. 2.

Mr SPEAKER: The member can seek leave for all sorts of courses of action, but I am not sure how that one is possible.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I have been gifted the questions and the Minister’s answers in advance—

Mr SPEAKER: OK, the member has made it clear. [Interruption] I am on my feet, and I say to the Hon Dr Nick Smith that when the Speaker is on his feet there will be no further interjection. The House is being very unruly. A member has sought leave to table certain documents. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection. Question No. 2.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Leave was granted in order that the House may save some time. So we can move on to question No. 3.

Mr SPEAKER: Is leave sought to move to question No. 3? [Interruption] Unfortunately, I put to the House the request for leave for the documents to be tabled; I had not heard that the member had included in that course of action that the House should move to question No. 3.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Might it assist the House if I were to put the second part of that leave motion again separately for the House’s consideration?

Mr SPEAKER: The member may do that.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I again seek leave for the House, in order to save time, now that we have tabled the answers the Minister was about to give, to move directly to question No. 3.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. I call question No. 2, Craig Foss. [Interruption] I have called Craig Foss, and I would ask this—

Hon David Cunliffe: Thanks, Gerry; thanks, mate.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Hon David Cunliffe realises his crime there, and will not do it again.

Economy—Rebalancing Progress

2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on how the economy is rebalancing towards savings and away from debt?

Hon David Cunliffe: “Adjustment is necessary; it’s starting to happen.”

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Well, we have been trying to help the member, because we are quite worried about his career prospects. The Reserve Bank last week issued data on household financial assets and liabilities for 2009. It showed that households increased their financial assets, excluding housing, by $17 billion last year—the second largest increase in the last 20 years. It also saw the debt increase by just $5 billion, the smallest increase since 2000. I tell the Opposition that this is a sharp turn-round from the deterioration that occurred under the previous Labour Government, when people saved less and borrowed more.

Craig Foss: What trends are evident in household savings and borrowing over the past 10 years; and does the Minister think that members opposite may learn something from that?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the past 10 years, because of the economic mismanagement of that Labour Government, household borrowings in New Zealand went through the roof—

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The last part of Mr Foss’s supplementary question, I suggest to you, was out of order, when he asked the Minister what members opposite could learn from—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. It is up to the Speaker to determine whether the question was in order, and I say there was nothing wrong with the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. What possible responsibility could the Minister of Finance have for what members opposite think of something?

Mr SPEAKER: He was asked for an opinion, and he gets asked for an opinion every sitting day by members of the Opposition.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Clerk passes to you the intended answer to supplementary question No. 3, you will see a continuation there of the trend that has already occurred, where the Minister responds to a question from his backbench by mischaracterising the policies of the Opposition, for which he has no responsibility. You have previously warned him on that point. But it is intriguing to us to find that in direct violation of your previous ruling, not only is the Minister doing that but in fact his own officials have pre-scripted for him a—

Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard sufficient from the member. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s answer, and if he breaches the Standing Orders I will pull him up.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Over the previous 10 years household borrowing increased significantly, and household savings dropped. The reason for that was the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. We intend to turn that round. The Reserve Bank figures produced yesterday are evidence that that turn-round is beginning.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can the Minister take credit for an increase in savings, when he is taking more out of New Zealanders’ pockets through increasing GST, increasing tax on property— which will feed through into higher rents—increasing accident compensation levies, and increasing the tax on student loans?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member should wait for the Budget to see just what is coming in and out of New Zealanders’ pockets. But I have to point out to that member that the tax revenue the Government will collect this year is unlikely to be higher than it was last year. In fact, the total amount of tax collected has been dropping, not rising—in case the member has not noticed that.

Craig Foss: How will the Budget that is to be read this week help to rebalance the economy towards savings, investments, and exports, and away from debt, property speculation, and unsustainable increases in Government spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have explained to the House, the Government intends to do a couple of things in the Budget. One is to change the tax system, in order to undo the damage done by the previous Government; the other is to bring under control the reckless and fast rise in Government spending and debt—a legacy of the previous Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: Why does the Minister still maintain that Thursday’s Budget will make tax fairer, when today’s Dominion Post makes it clear that someone on $70,000 a year will get only 50c of tax back a week, but someone on $500,000 a year will get up to $360 a week back; and has the Dominion Post not got it right in saying this is a Budget gift for the rich?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, the Dominion Post has got it wrong, and I am not surprised at that.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Before the member continues, I ask him to resume his seat, and I say to the Hon Paula Bennett that when a point of order was clearly being heard, for her to make a loud interjection across the House was not good enough for a Minister to do. The Minister should respect the House more than that.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to your earlier ruling, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: The member who interjects is not being helpful, at all. I am sure that the Minister had not realised what she was doing. I have pulled her up in a fairly pointed sort of way, and it is very unhelpful for the member to interject further on the matter. I will leave the matter there, though. I want to hear the point of order from the Hon David Cunliffe—

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

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member.

Hon David Cunliffe: Further to your earlier ruling on this question, Mr Speaker, when you said we should wait for the question before seeking a ruling, I point out that supplementary question No. 3 asks: “What alternative economic approach would jeopardise New Zealand’s prospects”, and the Minister is scripted to respond across half a dozen documents, which he says are the confused policy—

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. This is not a matter of order. I have neither heard this be question asked nor heard the Minister’s answer. The member knows that that is not a point of order.

Craig Foss: What alternative economic approach would jeopardise New Zealand’s prospects of getting on top of its debt problem?

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Coincidentally, those are exactly the words that I have just read out. I am very happy if you wish to wait to hear the Minister’s version of the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat immediately, and there will be no noise while I am dealing with this point of order. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the supplementary question asked by Craig Foss. I want to hear the Minister’s answer. The member has not raised an issue of order, at all.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a range of propositions that are an alternative to what the Government will be proposing in the Budget: to put up personal taxes, to fiddle with the GST system, to borrow more and more money, to increase Government spending rapidly, and to meddle with the Reserve Bank’s tool kit for controlling inflation. As it happens, all of these suggestions have come from the Opposition.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has, with a little paraphrasing, essentially given the answer that he was expected to give. As you have previously ruled, Mr Speaker, he has absolutely no responsibility for the Opposition, let alone the fact that these are not the Opposition’s policies. I ask that for once and for all, faced with absolutely incontrovertible evidence, you clearly rule that the Minister, retrospectively at least, was out of order in his previous answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member is saying by way of his point of order, but the interesting thing is that the Minister, in his answer, did not say those were the policies of the Opposition; he said they were all suggestions that had been made by the Opposition. He has not made the allegation that they are the Labour Party’s policies or anything like that, at all. I think that is a very—[Interruption] I am on my feet. That is a somewhat different issue, and I do not see that that was out of order.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Standing Order 377(2) requires that the Minister’s answers be limited to statements of fact that are strictly necessary to answer the question, and, as we have traversed on a previous day, Speaker’s ruling 145/7 makes it very clear that the Minister can have no responsibility for the Opposition, at all, whether he speaks of policies, ideas, conceptions, whims, or any other adjective. That is ruled out by Speaker’s ruling 145/7, and, I might add, by about a dozen other Speakers’ rulings that I have raised with you previously. I would not wish to venture that one was trying to find loopholes through which the Minister could evade your ruling, but it would appear that trying to change one word and then regurgitating his misconception of the Opposition’s views is completely outside—

Mr SPEAKER: I think that the House has been sufficiently patient in listening to the point of order. The member has quoted the Standing Order strictly, but if he had listened to half of the questions asked in this House so far today, he would know that most of them did not comply with the Standing Orders. As Speaker, I cannot intervene—

Hon Members: What?

Mr SPEAKER: Some members look as though they are surprised. They need only to go back, look at the Hansard, and check some of the questions that were asked. Those questions did not comply with the Standing Orders, at all. They inserted all sorts of opinion, and I heard one question that went on with about four parts to it. But I do not intervene, because I want the House to be able to flow reasonably freely. The Minister was asked about alternative policies. He identified a range of alternative policy stances, and he then said as a throwaway line that he had heard some of those policies being suggested by the Opposition. If I were to pull up Ministers all the time when they

made that kind of answer, then the House would become pretty sterile. This is, after all, a political debating chamber. If members, in asking questions, cannot cope with dealing with that kind of situation, then I think that the remedy is in their hands. I have tried to encourage members to ask very clear, concise questions. If members want to minimise the risk of having Ministers become political in their answers, then they should keep the questions clear and precise.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a fresh point of order. I understand your ruling, which is that a bit of give and take is part of the business of the House, and of course we all make jests both ways across the Chamber. But this is a more serious situation. This is Budget week. This is the middle year of a 3-year triennium, where we are expecting a substantive Budget, and the Opposition’s alternative economic policies are as much in debate as the Government’s view is. I would submit to you that a mischaracterisation by the Government of the Opposition’s policy intent in Budget week is a relatively serious matter, and that it should be treated seriously—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Oh, come on! It happens every day.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon David Cunliffe: —under the Standing Orders, as provided for in the Speakers’ rulings and in keeping with your ruling. It is not a matter of whether or not the Labour Opposition has a sense of humour; those policies simply are not our policies, and it is simply not within the Minister’s rights to describe to the—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now litigating the substance of the issue. I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer. In response to the question, he identified a number of issues that he believed would put at risk the strategy that he had identified previously. I cannot now remember all four or so of the items that he mentioned, but he then said he had heard some of them being suggested by the Opposition. I do not believe that he alleged that they are Opposition policies; he did not say the finance spokesperson had made those statements. I believe that it would be a bit unreasonable if I was to try to prevent Ministers from making that kind of comment.

ACC, Minister—Recent Statements

3. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by all his recent statements on ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): Yes.

Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his claim on 6 May in Parliament that the College of Psychiatrists had issued a statement strongly in support of the changes that the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) had made to the sensitive claims guidelines; if so, is the College of Psychiatrists not telling the truth in a letter it released on 10 May, stating that the college had not supported the new ACC pathway, and that, indeed, it had declined to release a press release in support of it? Will he now address this little inconsistency in his answer to Parliament?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I said that the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners had issued a statement that “ACC’s practice guidelines for sexual abuse and mental injury will strengthen these results still further. All the clinical evidence suggests the new approach ACC is adopting will be in the interests of the patient.” The advice I received from ACC was that the College of Psychiatrists had made statements to ACC in support of the guidelines and the change.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you do not wish to have Hansard tabled in this House. I based my question on the Minister’s answer on 6 May, in which he named the College of Psychiatrists as having issued a statement.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No.

Hon Annette King: Yes, Mr Speaker. I have the Hansard. The Minister is saying no, but I seek leave to table the Hansard.

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

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the statement issued by the Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners dated 2 November 2009.

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.

Lynne Pillay: Why, in the face of overwhelming opposition throughout New Zealand to the ACC-imposed clinical pathways introduced under his watch, does he not simply reinstate the previous process? Even visiting American sexual abuse expert Dr Mike Lew says that ACC’s new criteria is a “real tragedy that would cause tremendous suffering,”.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I understand that that statement was made in respect of the requirement that for a person to receive accident compensation support, he or she is required to have a diagnosed mental injury. It is a requirement of the law that Labour put in place in 2001.

Melissa Lee: Are claims that there has been a dramatic decrease in the amount ACC is spending on sensitive claims since the new guidelines came into effect correct?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, such claims are grossly misleading. The amount ACC has spent on sensitive claims for the year to date is $45.7 million, which compares with $46.7 million for the exact same period last year. The amount spent on counselling per month has been consistent over the last 3 years at $900,000. The average amount spent on sensitive claims counselling is $905,000 per month over the last 3 months.

Lynne Pillay: Does he agree that when a young woman is held at knifepoint for 15 hours and repeatedly raped it is outrageous that she should wait weeks before earnings-related accident compensation can be paid, which is what his colleague Chris Tremain told the media in 2006? How does he reconcile Mr Tremain’s outrage then with the fact that rape victims are now waiting months or indefinitely just for counselling to be approved by ACC?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The average time for processing sensitive claims at the moment, I understand, is about 20 days. That is unacceptably long. It is one of the reasons that I have established a clinical review of management of sensitive claims. I want ACC to work with clinicians and professionals to ensure that the best possible counselling support within the law is provided to those claimants.

Hon Annette King: Why did he tell the House on 6 May when I asked him whether he had heard of a group of survivors of sexual assault called Courageous Women, who are challenging the changes to accident compensation guidelines, that “I’ve heard of the group only through the newspaper” when at that point during question time he had full knowledge of the group, he had had a phone call with its spokesperson Louise Nicholas 3 days earlier, and he had had time to arrange staff members to listen in on that conversation with Ms Nicholas and make records of that conservation? Would he now like to address that little inconsistency in his answer to Parliament?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. What I take to be a serious question has been asked of the Minister; if the Opposition members wish to hear an answer they should respect the Minister.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When I had advised the House that I knew of the group, Courageous Women, through the media, I was stating a fact. Louise Nicholas had a conversation with me as a formal advocate for victims of sexual abuse. I did not know that she was formally connected to that group, and, quite frankly, I do not think there is any big deal about how I might have found out that this particular group, called Courageous Women, exists.

Hon Annette King: Does he recall these words on 6 May in answer to a question from me: “the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists and the College of General Practitioners have issued statements strongly supportive of the changes that ACC has made.”, and would he know like to apologise to the House for saying he did not say those words in this House?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each time the member has used the quote she has quoted the words slightly differently. I will be very clear for the member—

Hon Trevor Mallard: But it’s your Hansard.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, previously the member opposite used a different set of words. For the member’s benefit I will be very clear. The College of General Practitioners issued a written statement. I was advised by ACC—and I would be happy to table the report from ACC—that the College of Psychiatrists formally advised ACC that it supported the guidelines.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member offered to table a document. I make clear and put on the record that if that is the case, the Opposition wants to see it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that it is up to the Minister to table a document, unless he was quoting from an official document, which appears not to have been the case.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table the Hansard of 6 May, in which the Minister claimed that he had a statement from the College of Psychiatrists in support of his changes. The college has denied that it ever issued such a statement.

Mr SPEAKER: Because of the controversy, I will put that leave to the House. 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 Urewera National Park—Proposal to Vest Ownership in Tūhoe

4. HONE HARAWIRA (Māori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) to the Minister for Treaty of

Waitangi Negotiations: He aha ngā reta, aha atu rānei, mai i a Tūwharetoa, Taranaki, Whanganui, Ngāi Tahu kua whiwhi i a ia e mea ana, ko te awhero a ngā iwi nei kia rite anō te hua o ō rātou whiriwhiringa whakataunga mō te Tiriti pēnā i whakaae te Kāwanatanga ki te tuku i te tino rangatiratanga katoa o Te Urewera ki a Ngāi Tūhoe? [What correspondence, if any, has he received from Tūwharetoa, Taranaki, Whanganui, and Ngāi Tahu to suggest that these iwi would have expected the same outcome in their Treaty negotiations settlement, had the Government agreed to fully vest the park in Tūhoe ownership?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): I have not received correspondence from those iwi, but I meet with iwi on a regular basis, and some iwi have raised informally these issues with me. I expect these issues will be raised more formally by some iwi as Treaty negotiations progress.

Hone Harawira: Is it not true, when the Prime Minister says he is concerned about the return of Te Urewera setting precedents, that such precedents have in fact already been established in Treaty settlements to date, such as the top-up clauses that apply in the Tainui and Ngāi Tahu settlements; and how does the Government intend to address this new policy direction on how to deal with settlements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Government does not have a new policy direction on precedent.

Hone Harawira: Is the Minister aware that the Crown Law Office, Treasury, and the Department of Conservation had already worked through all of the legal issues in respect of the Tūhoe settlement; if so, can he please tell the House what the additional information was about the impact on settlements that caused the abrupt cancellation of the Tūhoe deal at the last minute?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No.

Hon Shane Jones: Why does the Minister think that misleading and mocking Tūhoe is evidence of Crown good-faith claims negotiations?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No Minister has adopted that attitude at all. Negotiations have been conducted over a substantial period and in good faith with Tūhoe. This Government remains very keen to secure a just and a durable settlement with that tribe.

Leaky Homes—Financial Assistance

5. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What recent announcements has the Government made regarding providing financial assistance to owners of leaky homes?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Yesterday the Government announced its financial assistance package to help people get their leaky homes fixed faster. The package will see the Government contribute 25 percent to homeowners’ agreed repair costs. Upon receipt of work done, local authorities will contribute 25 percent, with the homeowners funding the remaining 50 percent, backed by a Government-guaranteed loan. The package is expected to cost the Government around $1 billion over 5 years. It will help the many thousands of New Zealanders and their families who are stuck living in leaking, damp, and mouldy homes that are rotting around them. We want to see more homeowners get their homes fixed faster so that they can move on with their lives.

Dr Cam Calder: When will the financial assistance package be available for owners of leaky homes?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: There a lot of complex details that need to be worked through with the parties involved, such as the banks and local authorities, but the Government aims to have the entire financial assistance package up and running fully early next year. In the meantime, affected homeowners can apply to the Department of Building and Housing to make a weathertightness claim. If their claim is accepted, then the clock will stop running on the 10-year limitation of claims at the date on which their application was received. If I may, I will make a plug and say that www.dbh.govt.nz is the website, and 0800 116 926 is the phone number, if anybody is interested in any further information.

Dr Cam Calder: Why has the Government not extended the 10-year liability limit?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: The 10-year liability limit is well established in law. It puts a necessary boundary around claims. The issue is that with the more time that passes, the harder it is to identify the cause of damage to a house—what is normal wear and tear and normal depreciation, and what is damage done by the egress of water. This package announced by the Government will be a financial lifeline to the estimated 23,500 eligible households, and it will help them get their homes fixed faster.

Tobacco Excise—Allocation to Prevention, Support, and Treatment Programmes

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How much of the increased—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Just table it.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: I would be grateful—

Mr SPEAKER: The member does not need to take any notice of that kind of interjection when he is asking his question.

Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE: How much of the increased tobacco excise arising from the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco Products) Amendment Bill will be allocated to addiction prevention and treatment?

Mr SPEAKER: I have a slightly different wording of the question in front of me, but it is near enough, I think. Let me check with the Clerk for a moment to make sure that the question I have in front of me is the current question. To make sure that the question is heard properly, I ask the Hon David Cunliffe to re-ask his question.

Tobacco Excise—Allocation to Prevention, Support, and Treatment Programmes

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: How much of the increased tobacco excise arising from the Excise and Excise-equivalent Duties Table (Tobacco

Products) Amendment Act 2010 will be allocated to tobacco addiction prevention and smoking cessation support and treatment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government will continue the practice of past Governments; that is, not to ring-fence the proceeds of the excise tax for any particular use. I note that the Government spent $57 million in this financial year on tobacco control and smoking cessation.

Hon David Cunliffe: In the absence of formal ring-fencing, as the Minister described, will all of the extra revenue be used for health spending; if not, what percentage will go to health spending?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the absence of formal ring-fencing, it is a bit hard to say which bit of any tax collected is used for any particular purpose. For instance, we would not necessarily say that we are using some of that member’s PAYE to teach people how to read questions properly. We do not allocate taxation in that way.

Hon David Cunliffe: Following on from the Minister’s line of logic, can he at least guarantee that the revenue from tobacco excise will not be used to fund tax cuts for high-income earners?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Opposition is alleging that all sorts of things are being used to reduce taxes for high-income earners. I can say to the member that the tobacco excise revenue is part of a Budget that has the broad intent of lifting the performance of this economy because we need to undo the damage done by the previous Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Minister follow Labour’s example and put some of the additional revenue into smoking cessation programmes like Quitline; if so, exactly what proportion will be provided to Quitline, if any?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot think of too much in the way of policy examples from Labour that we would follow, although I notice that Labour is probably following the example of National in Opposition. That means that Labour is in for a pretty rough time.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a statement from the excellent former Minister of Health Annette King, dated 15 June 2000, in which she makes clear that revenue from tobacco excise will be sent towards—

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.

National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research—Annual Temperature Data

7. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister of Research, Science and

Technology: Has he seen Hon Barry Brill’s article Crisis in New Zealand climatology raising questions regarding the integrity of NIWA’s “seven-station” series, published on Quadrant Online and picked up by Anthony Watts’ science news site, and what action, if any, has he taken since becoming Minister to ensure that NIWA maintains reputable scientific standards?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): Yes, I have read the article that the member refers to. I have also discussed the climate research done by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) with the chair, the chief executive, and the chief climate scientist of NIWA, Dr Wratt. I have confidence that NIWA maintains reputable scientific standards.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does he have concerns about NIWA when Dr Jim Salinger, who manufactured The NIWA ‘Seven-Station’ Temperature Series for New Zealand without any supporting documentation, was sacked from NIWA for inappropriate behaviour and now figures prominently in the email loop of the discredited and demonstrably dishonest climate scientists exposed in “climate-gate”; if not, why not?

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was disturbed to hear that question, because the member appeared to be impugning the integrity, on the record, of a member of the

public. From my understanding, the matter to which the member referred has been before the courts as an employment matter and bore no relation whatsoever to the data the Minister referred to. So he is impugning, incorrectly, a member of the public.

Mr SPEAKER: It was difficult for me to hear exactly what the member was saying, which happens when the House is noisy. But I picked up that the member’s question included some unnecessary comments about individuals; comments that were not essential to the question he was asking. I ask him to reword his question to avoid allegations that are not essential to the question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does he have concerns about NIWA when Dr Jim Salinger, who manufactured the “seven-station” temperature series for New Zealand without any supporting documentation, was sacked from NIWA for misconduct and, we now learn, figures prominently in the email loop of the discredited and demonstrably dishonest climate scientists exposed in “climategate”; if not, why not?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question is fine to the point where there is a description of those whose evidence the question is relying on. I think you would need to rule that at least part of the question is out of order.

Mr SPEAKER: It would seem to me that the point the Hon Gerry Brownlee makes is reasonable. I do not believe it is necessary in that question to allege that anyone is dishonest. The question can be asked without that unnecessary description, which is an opinion of certain evidence. We have heard the question, and I rule that part—where he alleged that certain scientists have been dishonest—out of order.

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: No.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Barry Brill in his article for Quadrant Online when he concludes that the “seven-station” series is: “irretrievably tainted by self-interest, personal bias, and abuse of trust – and is wholly illegitimate”; if not, why does he not agree with that description?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: NIWA are the scientists; Barry Brill is not.

Health Minister—Recent Statements

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

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, including the statement that one of the major reasons that individual district health boards are looking carefully at their service priorities is that the previous Government set them on a track to delivering towards $200 million of unfunded services. This Government has delivered record levels of funding and front-line services.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What does he say to Henry, an 84-year-old Invercargill man whose issue of home support cuts has already been raised in this House—but nothing was done about it by the Minister—and who was subsequently admitted unconscious to Invercargill hospital as a result of overexertion and not eating properly, an incident that makes a mockery of the Minister’s commitment to ensuring that older people are safe and well, despite his home support cuts?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would have to receive full information from the member on that case; then I would look into it.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he told a conference in February of this year that Vote Health would not get an increase of the size it got last year, why did he not tell the conference that this year’s health budget will not allow existing health services to even stand still—and that is before any GST increase is taken into account?

Hon TONY RYALL: Of course, one would have to wait until the Budget is tabled on Thursday. But I note that the member opposite has predicted that district health boards will get $330 million.

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has he seen on improving front-line services?

Hon TONY RYALL: Just last week I saw a couple of reports on improving front-line cancer treatment services in New Zealand. I had the privilege of attending the opening of the new

brachytherapy bunker at Wellington Hospital and announcing the approval of funding for a replacement linear accelerator machine. Later in the same week I was at Christchurch Hospital to mark the opening of its new linear accelerator. Both of these events are part of the Government’s drive to have every patient commencing radiation cancer treatment within 6 weeks, a goal that we are committed to reducing further to 4 weeks.

Hon Ruth Dyson: When he said that the cancellation of one shift of the current 24-hour-a-day, 7-day-a-week district nursing service in the MidCentral District Health Board region would not see a reduction in nursing cover, what did he mean?

Hon TONY RYALL: What I was talking about was that the relevant district health board is ensuring that arrangements are in place to deal with that issue, and that includes providing services to patients. With the MidCentral District Health Board we are providing more elective surgery, faster cancer treatment, and good emergency department waiting-times.

Business Research and Development—Improvements

9. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Research, Science and

Technology: What actions has the Government taken to improve business research and development?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): Last week the Prime Minister announced a $321 million package of spending on research, science, and technology. Of that funding, $234 million is for the business sector; it will boost research-intensive firms and provide new opportunities for smaller firms through a voucher scheme. It will also lead to better linkages between Crown research institutes, universities, and businesses. It will also provide postdoctoral fellowships, bring in international talent, and provide research infrastructure.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has the Minister seen on the Government’s research and development initiatives announced last week?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I have seen many positive reports on the Government’s science package. Business New Zealand praised the initiative, stating that “the potential for high-tech manufacturing and services in New Zealand would be boosted.” NZBio said the initiatives were “positive and practical steps”. And the Royal Society said the announcements were “hugely empowering for scientists”. Even the Green Party said it was “a step in the right direction”.

David Shearer: Given that Australia’s 25 percent increase in research and development spending and its 40 percent tax credit for innovative companies are much greater than the Minister’s announcement, how does he expect we will be able to catch Australia, particularly when his announced funding is half of what Labour already had in place?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: Labour’s package meant that New Zealand had to go into a huge deficit, and every week has to borrow $250 million. The National Government’s package is targeted, is focused on research and development firms, and, frankly, will be more effective.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What has the Government done to support small businesses?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The Government has increased the level of support for small businesses. For instance, we have the voucher scheme. But, in addition to that, we already have the existing TechNZ system, which is worth $55 million a year. Many, many small businesses have found it hugely helpful to their growth.

David Shearer: Given that he has cut $96 million from current research, science, and technology spending on other areas, which areas of science and innovation does he consider do not require funding?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: There has been some reprioritisation; the details, of course, will be in the Budget. That is because this Government is focused on economic growth. The tradable sector, under the previous Government, had been flat since 2005. This Government was elected to turn that round.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): The Prime Minister has obviously been called recently from the Chamber on urgent public business. Accordingly, I seek leave for this question to be deferred until tomorrow.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the question to be deferred until tomorrow. Is there any objection? There is objection. [Interruption] I say to honourable members, I have been unhappy about the unruliness in the House today. I do not like intruding too much but it is becoming very untidy. I would like members to show a little more respect to this place during the last part of question time.

Environment Canterbury—Declaration of Conflict of Interest

10. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: During Cabinet or Cabinet committee consideration of the policy and legislation concerning Environment Canterbury did his Minister for the Environment declare any conflict of interest regarding his family; if so, what did he declare?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister is satisfied that Ministers are aware of the guidance in the Cabinet Manual about conflicts of interest and he would expect them to declare an interest in an issue where a conflict actually exists. No Ministers declared a conflict during Cabinet or Cabinet committee consideration of the legislation concerning Environment Canterbury.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did he allow Dr Smith to stay in the room when the Government’s approach to Environment Canterbury was being discussed, given that his brother was charged by Environment Canterbury on 21 counts arising from a police-accompanied inspection of his premises last June?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I understand it, the facts of the matter are that the Government was making decisions around the performance of Environment Canterbury relating to governance, performance, and water management, and nothing to do with the conduct of the council’s day-today regulatory and enforcement responsibilities, so there was no possibility that Dr Smith, or his brother, could derive any kind of personal interest from decisions or actions taken by the Government.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can he confirm for the House that he, the Prime Minister, diligently upholds paragraph 2.60 of the Cabinet Manual for all Ministers—himself included—where it states: “A conflict of interest may be … non-pecuniary (concerning, for example, a member of the Minister’s family).”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Absolutely, yes.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Prime Minister believe that he takes the same degree of care over conflict of interest issues as did earlier National Prime Ministers such as Prime Minister Bolger or Prime Minister Shipley?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister ensures that Ministers are familiar with the Cabinet Manual. As the member will know from his own experience as a Minister, declarations of conflict are a matter for Ministers to raise. These matters are regularly raised with the Cabinet Office, often because Ministers think there could be a conflict. Sometimes they are advised there is not; sometimes they are advised there is.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a relatively simple question, which related to the comparison of the practice of previous National Prime Ministers and whether “the same degree of care”, I think were the words used, was taken by this Prime Minister. That was the core of the question and was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I think any reasonable person listening would allow that the Minister answered in a way that made sense to him as a Minister. Maybe the Minister had not made such direct

comparisons, so the Minister responded in a way that said how this Prime Minister sees the Cabinet Manual and the requirements of it, which seemed to me to be a reasonable answer to the question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why, as reported in a 2001 edition of North and South, is Dr Smith on record as saying that he had to step aside if a project in his area of responsibility involved one of his brothers—citing back then the Ōtira viaduct as an example—but in this Government the same Minister’s rather obvious conflicts of interests go unaddressed?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The way Dr Smith has handled conflicts over a number of years has been very thorough because he has a number of siblings involved in projects on which Government policy may have some impact. In this case—where the member is trying to smear the Minister and the Government’s process, as he usually does—there was no impact of Government decisions on what was a regulatory process.

Freight—Movement in New Zealand

11. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he received on future freight movement in New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I have received a number of reports on a turnround plan for freight services for KiwiRail, and, together with the Prime Minister, I was pleased to announce this morning the investment of $250 million, with a commitment in principle to a further half a billion dollars, to support this plan. A stronger, self-sufficient KiwiRail will help to increase New Zealand’s economic productivity and assist us on the path to faster growth. The Government’s investment reflects the fact that the amount of freight that is moved on New Zealand’s transport network will double by 2040. All transport modes will need to become more efficient in order to meet this demand.

David Bennett: Why is the Government committing money to KiwiRail?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: KiwiRail is committed to a turn-round plan that is designed to see the rail freight business become financially sustainable within a decade, by getting it to a point where it can fund its renewal and infrastructure investment costs solely from customer revenue. In fact, the lion’s share of the turn-round plan will come from within the business itself. The Government intends to invest a total of three-quarters of a billion dollars, with final decisions being subject to individual business cases submitted over the next 3 years.

David Bennett: What will be required to make the KiwiRail turn-round plan successful?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Achieving this turn-round will be a challenging process requiring the combined support of, firstly, the Government as shareholders on behalf of taxpayers, and, secondly, every KiwiRail customer, the management and staff, the unions, and the regional councils, in terms of their involvement with metropolitan commuter rail services. KiwiRail will need to focus on the areas where it can increase revenue, improve its price to customers, become more efficient, and carry more freight, particularly bulk and long-distance freight.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why is there such an imbalance in the Government’s policies to address the efficiency of moving freight around the country, with his roads of national significance receiving $11 billion and rail getting only up to $750 million under the package announced today, when the doubling of the freight task that he talks about will be largely in bulk commodities— something for which rail is ideally suited?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member is incorrect. The plan actually calls for a total of $4.6 billion to be invested over 10 years, most of which comes from within KiwiRail. That compares favourably, in fact, with the $10.7 billion for roading over 10 years, when one considers that roads currently carry 70 percent of freight. I say, for the benefit of the member, that the major point of difference is that road freight—and this investment in roading—is paid for by road users. The purpose of this plan is to get rail freight to the same point as road freight, where it can pay for its own capital and its own maintenance costs.

Question No. 12 to Minister

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): I seek leave to table a press release in which the Minister for the Environment announced Government policy that doubled the fines for people who have minor breaches of consents.

Mr SPEAKER: What is the date of the press release?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not have the date.

Mr SPEAKER: I have made a pretty longstanding ruling of not allowing the seeking of leave to table press releases. I did make an exception to that today, where there was a matter of direct controversy across the House, but I do not want to go back to a situation where press releases are tabled.

Question No. 3 to Minister

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC): In reference to an earlier question, I seek leave to table excerpts from a report from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) that dealt with the questions raised by Annette King in respect of—[Interruption] I seek leave to table excerpts of the report from ACC that deal with the issue of a statement by the College of Psychiatrists and General Practitioners that was provided to me in October 2009.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): The Opposition will object for two reasons: first, because they are excerpts and not the whole report; second, because the member asking the questions quoted from Hansard—that member’s Hansard.

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now getting into debating, and I apologise to the House for letting this situation arise. [Interruption] I am on my feet, and all around the House there will be silence. I do not know what has happened today. After a week off, members lose their discipline. The member has sought leave to table excerpts from an ACC document. Leave is sought for that. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Question No. 10 to Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is one point of order back from that attempt. We had an assurance earlier that Dr Nick Smith was not involved in regulatory matters. We have just had it from the Minister of Finance that he is involved in regulatory matters—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon TREVOR MALLARD: —to do with the environment—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. I take a very dim view of that point of order, because the member knows it is nothing to do with the order of the House, at all. An experienced member would know that, and I do not want this trifling with the House to carry on.

Taxation—Capital Gains Tax

12. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the advice from Treasury in 2009 that “capital assets are owned—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to Dr Russel Norman, but the carry-on across the House in front of me will cease. I do not want to hear any more of it.

Dr RUSSEL NORMAN: Does he agree with the advice from Treasury in 2009 that “capital assets are owned disproportionately by higher income families … Taxing capital gains would increase the progressivity of the tax system.”; and does he support a more progressive tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I agree with the statement, and the current system is progressive. The top 10 percent of taxpayers pay 74 percent of net income taxation.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with comments by Auckland University Professor Craig Elliffe, where he says that under New Zealand’s present tax system it is wrong that a salary earner

pays more than $30,000 tax on a $100,000 salary, while, if a person receives an income of $100,000 from capital gains, he or she pays no tax; how can that be a progressive or fair tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, that is not quite correct. A number of people pay taxation on capital gains, and the member may find that he wants to support the Budget, because in the Budget we intend to make some moves to ensure that the effective tax rates on property are increased. As the member has pointed out, property tends to be disproportionately owned by higherincome families, and that is why higher-income groups will find that tax reductions may be offset by changes in the taxation of their property assets.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with pretty much most of the Treasury paper, and many of the tax experts, on this issue, that if we want to target the capital income being earned by the top 10 percent of New Zealand households, then the simplest and best way to target that is a capital gains tax excluding the family home, and that that would actually achieve a much more progressive and fair tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As was evident from the Tax Working Group and the Treasury advice, that is an arguable proposition. The Government made the decision not to proceed with a capital gains tax for a number of pretty pragmatic reasons, and in the Budget we will announce what measures we will proceed with.

Dr Russel Norman: With reference to the Budget, will increasing the rate of GST to 15 percent and dropping the tax rate to 33 percent make our tax system more or less progressive?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will just have to wait for the Budget to see. I say that all tax measures should be taken as a whole. Just one or two measures cannot be taken as an indication of whether progressivity has increased or decreased. In the Government’s view, the tax package that will be presented is fair.

Dr Russel Norman: Is John Walley from the Manufacturers and Exporters Association not right when he says that it is difficult to see why a capital gains tax is so politically untenable in New Zealand when it would both make housing more affordable and help create jobs and real wealth? Is Mr Walley not right, and why does the Government not embrace this very sensible measure which is missing from our tax system?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, the Government is putting together a package of measures designed to increase the performance of our economy, because that is how we get growing incomes, more jobs, and more investment. That is the focus of the tax package. As I said before, there are plenty of arguable propositions about how to tax capital in New Zealand. We do not have a comprehensive or tidy system for doing it. The Government has made some pragmatic decisions about what we will do, and they will be announced on Thursday.

ENDS

© Scoop Media