(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

WEDNESDAY, 19 MAY 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Budget 2010—Focus

1. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What will Budget 2010 deliver for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Budget tomorrow will focus on delivering a stronger economy. It will include a package of tax reforms to make the system fairer and more sustainable, to support a stronger economy, and to help New Zealanders to get ahead. It will continue with a wide-ranging programme of investment in infrastructure, and it will maintain firm control of the Government’s finances, so that we can return to Budget surpluses sooner and pull back our rising debt.

Amy Adams: Why are those things important for the economy and for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is important that we focus on growing the economy more quickly so that we can create the new jobs that will provide work for those who have lost their jobs, so that we can lift incomes, and so that we can get back to having surpluses. The Government will then have more choices about how to use public money to improve public services. We also need to tilt the economy towards savings, investment, and exports, and away from the excessive consumption, the unsustainable increases in Government spending, and the excessive borrowing that characterised the last 4 or 5 years of the previous Government.

Metiria Turei: Which of the seven deadly sins does he expect Budget 2010 to deliver New Zealanders from: envy or greed?

Mr SPEAKER: I suppose the Minister has responsibility for the Budget.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will express the virtue of earning more than one spends. That will be a new experience. It will be a necessary change for this economy, to undo the years squandered under the previous Government when the country spent more than it earned.

Amy Adams: How will New Zealanders be able to find out how the Budget’s tax package will affect them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: From about 2 p.m. tomorrow New Zealanders will be able to go to the website www.taxguide.govt.nz, where they will be able to put in their own information and assess the impact of the tax changes on their weekly or annual income. But I point out that the tax changes are not just about what people get in their pocket on the day; they are about a long-term need for this economy to focus more on investment, savings, job creation, and exports, and less on excessive consumption, borrowing, and property speculation.

Hon David Cunliffe: When New Zealanders have looked at the website can the Government explain to them why Budget 2010 will deliver nothing for those on the bottom of the income scale, small change for those on $70,000, and a windfall gain of over $300 a week for those on $500,000?

What right does this Government have to lecture New Zealanders about being jealous, when they watch their aspirations going down the toilet?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is wrong. New Zealanders have a right to a Government and a Budget that do not squander the opportunities that this country had when the economy was very good. And they have a right to a Budget that undoes the damage caused by Labour when it was in charge of the economy.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the Financial Stability Report that has just been released, which shows—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. This document is already available to members of the House—[Interruption] I am on my feet, and that is the end of the matter.

Amy Adams: What will the Budget tomorrow not do?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget tomorrow will not increase personal income taxes; it will not fiddle with the GST system, acclaimed as being one of the best in the world; it will not jump back on the treadmill of unsustainable Government spending; it will not unnecessarily increase our debt beyond the ability of this country to service that debt; and it will not pin its hopes on unfunded commitments, such as those left by the previous Government. All those measures are ones followed by the previous Labour Government.

Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a copy of the Budget that gutted KiwiSaver and suspended—

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows that Budget documents are available to all members— [Interruption] Whoever interjected then should desist from doing that. I will not go any further into that. There will be no further interjections while I am on my feet. We will not be going down that track.

Budget 2010—Tax Package

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When he told Kiwis that they should not be envious if the rich get more from the Budget tax package because they were in core and critical categories for the economy, what was he telling middle and low income New Zealanders about their importance to New Zealand?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): What I actually said on Monday was that people paying the top personal rate included skilled professionals like doctors, engineers, scientists, and the like who fit into some core and critical categories in the economy. Those people are in demand all around the world and we need to have their careers here, and for them to be put to work in New Zealand. I did not mention the rich at all, because the rich, by and large, do not pay the top personal rate. Really wealthy people will probably find that they are paying considerably more tax as a result of the Budget tomorrow, not less.

Hon Phil Goff: If the tax switch that the Prime Minister talks about is to be revenue-neutral, as he claims, why is he telling middle and lower income Kiwis struggling to meet rising costs that they should get less, so that higher-income earners can get an even bigger slice of the pie?

Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, even taking all the aspects of the package put together, middle and low income New Zealanders will not be getting less. The good news for them tomorrow is that they will be getting more. The interesting thing is that someone earning $60,000 a year, with no children, who waited 10 years under a Labour Government to get absolutely not a cracker, will be getting more in the Budget tomorrow than he or she might expect.

Hon Phil Goff: Why does the Prime Minister think it is fair that chief executives, who as we saw in the media last week were getting pay increases of more than $1,000 a week last year and getting very handsome tax cuts last year, should get $700 a week more this year under his proposed tax cut, while middle and low income earners, such as families earning under $40,000, got nothing last year and will get very little this year in net terms?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are two things. Firstly, the chief executives the member is talking about had pay increases locked in under his Government, not ours; and, by the way, New Zealanders earning $40,000 who have two children do not pay any tax in this country, because of Working for Families.

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Hon Jim Anderton, but I have no chance of hearing his supplementary question while that amount of noise remains.

Hon Jim Anderton: Is the Prime Minister aware that New Zealand has one of the worst income gaps between rich and poor in the developed world; if so, why is he planning to make that situation even worse, while asking the poorest New Zealanders not to be envious?

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not know how you heard that question, because I am closer to the member and I did not hear it at all over the interjections from the Government benches.

Mr SPEAKER: I did hear the question.

Hon JOHN KEY: All I can say to the member is that if it was something that concerned him so much, why was he part of a Government that for 9 years made it worse?

Hon Jim Anderton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think my question to the Prime Minister was very clear. I know he was talking to the Minister of Finance to try to get some help, but he did not address the question in one single way at all. What he did was abuse the questioner.

Mr SPEAKER: What I will do on this occasion—because members complained that they could not hear the question, and I am not totally surprised by that—is invite the member to repeat his question so that no one can be in any doubt about it.

Hon Jim Anderton: Is he aware that New Zealand has one of the worst income gaps between rich and poor in the developed world; if so, why is he planning to make it even worse while at the same time asking the poor not to be envious?

Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware that it became worse under the previous Labour Government, and Jim Anderton was a member of that Government. I am also aware—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Prime Minister but members were concerned about the previous answer given. I allowed the questioner to repeat his question. The House showed courtesy in hearing it in virtual silence. The Prime Minister is answering the question, which I heard very clearly, and he should be able to do that without a total barrage of interjections.

Hon JOHN KEY: I am acutely aware that there are low-income New Zealanders who would like to earn better wages, and the fastest way to do that is to have good economic leadership. For 9 years we waited for that and it never came. Tomorrow the bus is arriving here in Parliament.

Hon Phil Goff: How will average wage earners and salary earners be better off when banks are forecasting that with GST increases inflation will rise to, or above, 5 percent over the next year, and when the same forecasters are saying that the average wage will go up probably by less than 3 percent; so how will they be better off?

Hon JOHN KEY: As that member is aware, because he has been in the situation before, if there is to be an increase in GST, then the Reserve Bank looks through that and the economic implications in terms of inflation from that will not have a bearing on interest rates. What I will say, though, is that, if I recall correctly, the last 4 or 5 years of the Labour Government was a time when we saw not only quite high inflation but very high interest rates, and we did not get any answers from that Government at that time.

Hon Phil Goff: How does the Prime Minister intend to stop any increases in property tax simply becoming a rent tax that is passed on and adding to the burden of the 30 percent of New Zealanders who rent their homes?

Hon JOHN KEY: Although I cannot give indications today, for obvious reasons, I can say that the Budget will spell out clearly tomorrow what Treasury’s advice was on that matter. I can advise the member that the effect is negligible.

Hon Phil Goff: How does he explain to Henry Lindsay, who is 84 and suffering from critical illnesses, that he and thousands of other elderly New Zealanders have suffered cuts to their home help because the Minister of Finance regards that as low-quality expenditure, while, apparently, it is high-quality expenditure to make the biggest tax cuts for the wealthiest New Zealanders?

Hon JOHN KEY: I can explain in two ways. Firstly, tomorrow that man will be able to celebrate the fact that we will be spending on health the highest amount ever spent in this country and be spending more on aged care than ever before. Secondly, while he was having a cup of tea this morning hopefully he was reading the Dominion Post headline “How the wealthy dodge tax” and that tomorrow we will be making sure that all New Zealanders, the wealthy included, pay their fair share.

Hon Phil Goff: Can the Prime Minister confirm that the article in the Dominion Post states that the way we close the loophole is we open it up so that everybody can get through it—it is a bit like saying we close a breach in a prison wall to stop one prisoner getting out, and knocking down the wall so everyone can get out?

Hon JOHN KEY: No, actually, but I am aware that that very article in this morning’s Dominion Post states: “Financial author Martin Hawes said he would be surprised if any of the richest Kiwis paid the top income tax rate and, if they did, it would be on only a tiny fraction of their worth.” John Shewan, the highly respected tax partner, and rightfully so, said that trusts were “breeding like rabbits in the South Island”. The Dominion Post has quite rightfully worked out that a lot of highincome earners are not paying the top personal rate, and maybe we should tighten up the tax system so they pay their fair share.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Reports

3. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: What reports has he seen on the introduction of the ETS in the last week?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): In the last week I have read reports from the Opposition that there has been a dramatic increase in the cost to taxpayers from industry allocations. That claim, from Charles Chauvel, is not true. Although more small and medium sized businesses have become eligible for allocations under our fairer model, some larger firms have not. The total allocation to industry remains unchanged at 12 million tonnes.

Nicky Wagner: How can the claim from Charles Chauvel that Nick Smith’s changes to the emissions trading scheme will add an extra 5 percent to the price of power be true, when the Government’s amendments, passed last year, reduced the impacts of the emissions trading scheme on power prices?

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Do I need to explain it? None of that question was the Minister’s responsibility; the whole question was based on how he can explain Charles Chauvel. None of us can do that, and the Minister certainly cannot.

Mr SPEAKER: I guess—[Interruption] I will hear from the Hon Gerry Brownlee in a moment, once I have restored order to the House. It was my fault that that got out of hand.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think it is a perfectly legitimate question because it asks the Minister to comment on Mr Chauvel’s comments about the Minister. In that case, it is perfectly legitimate.

Mr SPEAKER: The interesting thing is that, on the face of it, the question would normally be out of order. One would normally argue that the Minister is not responsible for any comments Mr Chauvel might make. But, as I heard the question, it asked how those comments relate to the actual policy the Government is pursuing. I would have thought, so long as the Minister’s answer confines itself more to how those comments relate to the policy the Government is actually implementing, that it would seem in order. The answer should not focus totally on Mr Chauvel’s comments, as the Minister does not have responsibility for those per se. But how they relate to the Government’s policy, I believe, is within the Minister’s responsibility.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The amendments that the Government made to the emissions trading scheme have more than halved the cost to power consumers. We have done that by halving the obligation and including in our amendments a price cap of $25 per tonne. [Interruption] It is extraordinary that members are shouting out to complain about increases in power prices when they voted against the amendments that more than halved them.

Nicky Wagner: Has the Minister seen any reports of differing views on the $1.6 billion worth of carbon credits from post-1990 forest owners?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have. I have seen a report that states that post-1990 forest credits are a property right, that they belong to the forest owners, and that they must not be confiscated by the Government. I have also seen a statement that described the same credits as a subsidy, and said it would be criminal of the Government to allocate them to the foresters. The first statement is from Rodney Hide; the second is from John Boscawen. Those dramatically opposed positions tell us why we cannot take ACT’s policy on the emissions trading scheme seriously.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister endorse the views expressed in Christchurch on Friday at the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ annual conference: “I have always been fairly sceptical, actually, that Kyoto is the right way to go.”, and “From New Zealand’s point of view, we’re really trying to have a gentle glide path that takes us into a logical way of addressing that.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It certainly is the view of this Government that we need to take a steady and consistent approach to climate change. We campaigned on a policy of pulling back on the very ambitious emissions trading scheme that the previous Government put in place, which would have had a very high impact on power prices and on consumers. I think New Zealanders support the very moderate approach that this Government is taking to this important issue.

Charles Chauvel: When the Prime Minister said that he had “always been fairly sceptical, actually, that Kyoto is the right way to go.”, did he seek any advice from the Minister prior to making that statement?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Prime Minister is very much on top of the balanced approach that this Government is taking towards climate change. The part that I am particularly proud of is that we do not have a Prime Minister going around the world and saying that we are going to be the first carbon-neutral country in the world, at the same time that our emissions are going up at a faster rate than those of any other country.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a transcript of the Prime Minister’s comments on Friday at the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ annual conference.

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

Hon Gerry Brownlee: As long as it’s the whole document. It’s a great speech.

Mr SPEAKER: I take it there is no objection so long as it is the whole document. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Rodney Hide: Has the Minister seen any reports of the National Party’s central North Island conference, in which over 300 members unanimously passed a remit demanding that the National-led Government defer the introduction of the emissions trading scheme; and is this not an example of the pragmatic, honest, hard-working grassroots members of the National Party simply wanting National to stick to its promise of not leading the world on climate change?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: National campaigned on a policy of in 2009 amending the emissions trading scheme, and of in 2010 proceeding with an emissions trading scheme. That is exactly what we are doing. I was privileged to give a speech to the conference of the central North Island members, and I was very well received by delegates; the member’s report is not correct.

Hon Rodney Hide: Who is right: the Minister, who says that New Zealand should stick to its emissions trading scheme, no matter the facts and no matter what the rest of the world does; or National Party members up and down this country, who say that National should stick to its promise, tuck in beside Australia, and not run ahead of the rest of the world?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Firstly, I say that the member should reflect on his promise to foresters, in which he said that they belong—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister was asked a question that did not involve the Hon Rodney Hide, at all, yet his answer is saying what the questioner should do. I do not think that that is a fair attempt to answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The policy that National is progressing on the emissions trading scheme is exactly what we said when we campaigned in 2008, which was to proceed with a moderated emissions trading scheme. The member makes the claim—

David Garrett: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question, although not a yes or no answer, was a very simple: “Who is correct: A or B?”. This is a disquisition on something completely different; it is about National’s policy. It is still not an attempt to address the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member who asked the question made the claim that National was not following policy, and I was setting out exactly what the policy was and the way in which the Government was implementing it.

David Garrett: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need endless points of order on the question. The fact is that the Minister has spoken to the point of order and believes that the questioner asked something that I did not actually hear in the question. I will invite the Hon Rodney Hide to repeat his question.

Hon Rodney Hide: Who is right: the Minister, who says that the Government should stick to its emissions trading scheme, no matter the facts and no matter what the rest of the world does; or hard-working, ordinary National Party members up and down this country, who say that New Zealand should actually stick to its promise and tuck in beside Australia, rather than heading off and leading the rest of the world?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are two points. The first is that New Zealand is not way out ahead of the world. There are 38 countries with Kyoto commitments, and 29 of those countries have emissions trading schemes. The second important point is that Australia’s Budget announced $5.1 billion of subsidies for renewable energy, and that is a cost on Australian taxpayers and businesses. It is this Government’s view that our approach of an emissions trading scheme is more efficient and will better serve New Zealand’s interests of reducing emissions at least cost.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek the leave of the House to table an excerpt from the OECD report of 2008 entitled Growing Unequal? Income Distribution and Poverty in OECD Countries—

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

Hon Phil Goff: —which totally contradicts the Prime Minister’s statement.

Mr SPEAKER: The member should not do that. The member normally does not abuse the privileges of the House, and therefore I will overlook that. He knows the House has given leave to table a document and there should be no further comment on it. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Question Time

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to bring up this matter at this point, but today at least two questions have had to be repeated because you were unable to hear them, and a number of other members have expressed the view that they could not hear them. That again points to the problems with the sound system in this House. We had a discussion about this matter a couple of weeks ago. I wonder what information you might be able to report about improving it, because it does seem to be an ongoing difficulty.

Mr SPEAKER: Indeed, the matter is being addressed. The designers of the sound system have been called back to look again at the performance of the sound system to see what can be done to make it work better. It is my view, actually, that this week the sound system has been working a

little better. I have to say, in honesty, that I feel that some of the difficulties today have been caused by just the amount of noise in the House. There is a danger that the more we turn the sound system up, the louder members will be in their interjections, and we will progress towards bedlam. Although I accept absolutely that we should try to ensure that the sound system performs better, there is an induction loop system available in the Chamber. I am aware that, in particular, some members at the back of the House who sit under the gallery find it very difficult to hear. They can pick up a receiver from the Serjeant-at-Arms, and I understand that it can be plugged in and members can use it to hear. But I do not consider that to be an adequate long-term solution, at all, and that is why I am taking steps to make sure the sound system performs better. But I stress that I think the problem today has in large part been caused by members making a lot of noise.

Budget 2010—Tax Loopholes Used by High-income Earners

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: What are the most significant ways in which the wealthy avoid tax, and will these loopholes be closed in Budget 2010?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The taxation system has been allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. Some areas are under-taxed. There has been a proliferation of tax rates and incomplete measures of income, and this has meant that many hard-working salary earners, such as doctors, scientists, and engineers, are paying a higher rate of tax than wealthy property speculators. We do not think that is fair, and tomorrow the Budget will address those issues.

Hon David Cunliffe: Will the Budget address the $2.3 billion in tax losses claimed by loss attributing qualifying companies in 2008?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will have to wait and see. I am surprised that when that member was in Government, that Government allowed these situations to arise. People were provided with proliferating opportunities to avoid paying higher income tax rates, so why is he crying crocodile tears about fairness now?

Hon David Cunliffe: If the abuse of trusts costs the Government $300 million in tax revenue, as highlighted by the Tax Working Group, why will the Budget make this loss larger by reducing every top tax ratepayer to the current trust rate?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a principle of good taxation policy that if one allows obvious opportunities for people to avoid tax rates, it undermines trust in the whole system. So the question for that member is why he allowed high-income earners to avoid the top tax rate in such straightforward ways. There are legitimate reasons for trusts; we want to make sure that there are not tax reasons for them.

Aaron Gilmore: How will the Budget make the taxation system fairer?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We will make the taxation system fairer by applying the principles of a broad base and a low rate. In particular, we want to make sure that sources of income for higherincome earners, who are now subject to quite low effective tax rates, are taxed in a manner that is more fair. That means extending the tax base beyond simply the current definition of income.

Hon David Cunliffe: When the Minister said it was unfair that half of those on the rich list avoided paying the top tax rate, why is he intent on dropping the top tax rate to allow all of those on the rich list to claim the same benefit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, the point of the tax package is to move this economy in favour of saving, investing, exporting, and creating jobs. That is really important, because under the previous Government, the growth of this economy was characterised by consuming too much and borrowing too much, in a country that spent more than it earned. We have to change that.

Stuart Nash: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that Kiwis will be envious of the tax cuts in tomorrow’s Budget; if so, why does he not deliver a Budget that fairly distributes tax cuts to all?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister did not say what the member said he did. The Budget is aimed to ensure that New Zealand is competitive with Australia. We know that in a

number of areas—in fact, unions are making exactly this claim right now—our doctors, teachers, and engineers need to be paid more so that they will stay in New Zealand. The member should talk to the Council of Trade Unions about it.

Stuart Nash: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think that any of the unions are making the contention that tax cuts—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot make that argument by way of a point of order. He can raise—

Hon John Key: Oh, privately, they do.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable Prime Minister must cease doing that. There have been problems on both sides of the House, but I would ask members, please, when points of order are being raised, to hear them in silence. However, members should not abuse the point of order system.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to Speaker’s ruling 167/7 with regard to the Prime Minister’s earlier reply and the document that has been tabled in the House. I ask, seeing as there will be no opportunity tomorrow, as there will be no question time, for the Prime Minister to make his correction—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have just made it clear that members cannot abuse the point of order system. It seems to me that the member is seeking to relitigate the answer to a question.

Hon Members: No.

Mr SPEAKER: That is what I heard the member doing. He was implying, I believe, that there was something wrong with the Prime Minister’s answer in this case. If I am wrong in the way that I have interpreted what the member was saying, then I apologise for that, but the member must not abuse the point of order system. If it is a matter of order, then I will hear it. If it is relitigating an answer given by a Minister or the Prime Minister, then it is out of order.

Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I understand what you are saying, but this is a very clear case. I am not relitigating, and I am not suggesting that the Prime Minister was deliberately in error, but it is now clear from documents—

Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member will resume his seat. The Speaker’s ruling that the member has referred to is that where a Minister becomes aware of an error in an oral answer, he or she normally takes the earliest opportunity to correct it. It is not an opportunity for another member of this House to relitigate an answer. That is very clear. This is not a valid point of order.

Investors, Small—Promotion of Confidence in Financial Markets

5. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Commerce: What is he doing to promote “mum and dad” investor confidence in financial markets?

Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce): Among other things, the Government has decided to create a new consolidated regulator for our capital markets, to be known as the Financial Markets Authority, or FMA. The Financial Markets Authority will consolidate functions currently fragmented across the Securities Commission, the Ministry of Economic Development—including the Government Actuary—and NZX. The authority will have a clear focus on surveillance and enforcement designed to help rebuild mum and dad investor confidence in our financial markets.

Michael Woodhouse: When does he expect to make further announcements on the proposed Financial Markets Authority?

Hon SIMON POWER: I intend to introduce legislation to establish the Financial Markets Authority later this year, to enable the new authority to be up and running early in the new year. In the meantime, I expect that I will be in a position to make further announcements regarding the establishment board very soon.

Offenders, Supervised Release—Maka Renata

6. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Corrections: Does she stand by her statement in November last year about convicted rapist Māka Rēnata that “an intensive plan has been put in place to manage this offender’s reintegration, which involves police. Agencies will be taking every step possible under the law to ensure the safety of the public.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections): Yes.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: On both occasions when the rapist Māka Rēnata absconded this year, on what dates was she first advised that he was on the run?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot say the exact dates on which I was advised, but I can say that I was advised in due time. I can also remind that member that it is not permissible under the law for the Minister of Corrections to instruct any department in relation to an offender, but I have absolute confidence that the department has acted completely within the law and responsibly.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise two points with you. Firstly, given that this question was on notice, and it contained a quote specific to the case in question, the Minister had a number of hours to perceive that she might be asked about the detail of the case. Secondly, my supplementary question did not have the word “instructions” in it. It simply asked— and I am happy to repeat it—on what dates she was first advised that the rapist had absconded. She has had a number of hours to prepare; it was a specific question.

Mr SPEAKER: One has to be reasonable. The Minister obviously does not have that information. If she had that information, I am sure she would have told the House. She made it clear that she did not have it. I was listening carefully. Had she gone on to add any criticism of the Opposition, I would have been concerned, but she did not. She went on to simply explain the Minister’s position in all of this.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Simon Power on this occasion—he is normally very good in complying with the Standing Orders—that I am on my feet. We have got into a bit of a mess there because of an unnecessary interjection from the Hon Shane Jones. The House needs to be—

David Bennett: How is his poll rating?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House needs to be a little more reasonable. We know that the sound system is making it hard for members to hear. That kind of interjection makes it impossible.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The same member who earlier called you childish when you were on your feet called out “Out! Out! Out!” while you were on your feet again. I have a feeling that if someone over here, including myself, had said “Out! Out! Out!” in those circumstances, when you were on your feet, we might have been gone

Mr SPEAKER: The House needs to settle down a bit. The member who is raising a point about what might have happened on the other side will remember that I was sufficiently courteous to him to allow him to repeat what he had claimed was a point of order when I was pretty certain it was not. I presume that the member is referring to the very loud voice at the back of the House. I ask the owner of that very large voice at the back of the House, who is looking everywhere else but at himself at the moment—I refer to Mr Quinn—to please be a little more respectful to the House. He has a large voice and should not interject when the Speaker is on his feet.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: On each occasion when the rapist Māka Rēnata absconded, how long was it before his victims were advised that he was on the run?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I cannot answer that question, but I can say this to the member: if he expects me, every time an offender escapes or goes on the run, to strap on my little Taser and go charging after him or her, I can tell him that I have far more faith in New Zealand police than he clearly has.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is similar to the last point of order. This question was on notice. It is clear from the primary question that the Minister was being asked whether she stood by her statement regarding the case of Māka Rēnata, a man who has been

on the run for 3 weeks. She had ample time to prepare an answer. Are we going to waste further supplementary questions by asking very specific questions to which the Minister says that she does not know, because she has not prepared and has not done her job?

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point of order, but he is really questioning the quality of the Minister’s answer. The Minister answered the question. She said that she does not have the information the member was seeking. The quality of the answer may be something for the questioner and the public to judge, but, in respect of the Standing Orders, the Minister has answered the question.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I will try again. On each occasion when the rapist—[Interruption] Well, you might laugh but—

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Leader of the House now—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Well, c’mon.

Mr SPEAKER: That is unacceptable, and the Leader of the House should not set a bad example like that. I ask both sides to settle down or someone will be taking an early shower. We cannot allow that kind of disrespect to the House.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: On each occasion when the rapist Māka Rēnata absconded, what action, if any, did she take or request of agencies to ensure the safety of the public?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I asked the agencies to make sure they were taking every action that they could. I remind that member that the offender whom he is referring to has finished his sentence. In addition to that—[Interruption] Does the Opposition want the answer or not?

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to resume her seat. I say to members on both sides of the House that the solution to this noise problem is in their own hands. When the Hon Clayton Cosgrove was seeking to ask his supplementary question there was a barrage of loud interjections from the Government benches. I am looking right now at the member who was particularly involved; she knows who she is. When the Minister is answering, the Government cannot expect the Opposition to be silent when the Government was very noisy during the asking of the question. Ultimately, the standards in this House are for the members to set. If members want me to start applying the Standing Orders, a few people may be leaving the House pretty pronto. I do not want to do that.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I will continue, for the Opposition’s benefit. An extended supervision order was applied for in November, when the offender was still in prison. It has not yet been granted by a court. The member should know that all that the Department of Corrections can do is apply for such an order; it does not grant it. It is before the court, and that member should respect the court process.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did she wash her hands of this issue, palming it off as an operational matter and refusing any further comment about Rēnata’s most recent disappearance when she was asked for comment by the Herald on Sunday, given the fact that she was very willing to publicly comment about this prisoner following his release in November last year?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That member might not realise it but there is an ongoing police investigation right now. I think we should support the New Zealand police to get on with their job. That member might want to be the puppet of the Herald on Sunday but I am not.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I request a considered ruling from you on a matter. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Ministers should know that they do not interject when a point of order is being heard. I say to the Hon Judith Collins that it is not good enough for a senior Minister to treat this House with contempt.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I request a considered ruling, because I do not want to waste the time of the House. It is simply this, and I am not challenging your ruling. If the benchmark is that Ministers answering questions on notice can come down here and say that they do not know, if that is your considered ruling, then those are the rules of the game. But I would have thought, given

other rulings that you have made—very fair ones—that questions on notice require a level of detail. To come down to the House and say that one does not know the answer and to not offer even to provide—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is now verging into criticising the Minister’s answers. Had the member wanted detail around the dates he has referred to in his supplementary questions, he could have put that in his primary question. His primary question just asked whether the Minister stood by a certain quote. The remedy is in members’ hands, if they want precise answers. The Minister clearly did not have the information that the member was seeking in his subsequent supplementary questions. In his final supplementary question, the member made an unnecessary allegation about the Minister’s actions, and got a pretty political response from the Minister. Again, that was in the member’s hands—that he asked that kind of question. If the member had put down on notice a question about those dates, I would have made sure that he got the answer, but he did not, and that limits my ability. We cannot judge the quality of an answer in this House, but I will do my best to make sure that the member gets an answer to questions when they are put down.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During the last answer of the Minister—and I have waited till after my colleague had raised his point of order—there was a reference by the Minister to my colleague being the agent of a particular news organisation, and it was not a nice description, either. Mr Speaker, I thought that in the end you were going to rule that out of order, and I think it should be. I think it was offensive, and I ask for it to be withdrawn and apologised for.

Mr SPEAKER: The difficulty I have as Speaker is that with the noise going on I did not hear what the Minister said. I cannot rule if I cannot hear. [Interruption] Look, the House is wearing my patience today. We will not waste further time, at all. If the member is as sensitive as that, the Opposition will be quieter so that I can hear what Ministers are saying—and that applies to the other side, as well. I am a little tired of the disrespect to the House from both sides.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have a real problem. If an offensive remark is made—if I have to write it down and show you what it was, I will—you cannot hear it, and the Minister gets away with it—

Mr SPEAKER: We will not waste further time on this. I ask the member to sit down. I ask the Hon Judith Collins whether she made an offensive remark—I just want her to tell the House.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think it was offensive.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister does not think it was offensive?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No, and anyway—

Mr SPEAKER: That is sufficient. I have asked the Minister whether she made an offensive remark. She does not believe she made an offensive remark, the member involved did not appear to have taken offence, I as Speaker did not hear it, and that is where the matter lies.

Hon John Key: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member opposite may well make a very genuine point: if offence is taken, of course a member should apologise. I would make just one point, though, and it is that constantly on this side of the House, when either I or other members near me are answering questions, we are subjected to Mr Mallard making comments constantly, using, for instance, the word “liar”. He did that on numerous occasions through questions Nos 1, 2, and 3 today. If Mr Mallard is such a sensitive little daffodil as he is proposing he is, that is totally fine, but I would ask him to be consistent with his own comments.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: No, I do not need to hear further on this. The member will resume his seat right now. I apologise to the House that as Speaker I allowed that situation to go on. What the Prime Minister said was absolutely correct, and it is intolerable. I have tolerated that from the Hon Trevor Mallard day after day, and I do not intend to do that anymore. I want this matter now to be treated as both sides of the House having been offended, and I will not take any further points of order on this issue. I remind members, though, that henceforth, if I hear members alleging the other side of

the House to be lying or liars—[Interruption] If the member is disputing that, I can absolutely assure him. If he is not aware of what he is saying, then let us deal with that separately, but I will not consider this matter any further.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I warn the member. I have ruled on this matter, and the member risks—

Hon Simon Power: An overseas trip?

Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been raised.

Hon Chris Carter: I am concerned about my colleague’s reputation. I have to confess that it was I who said it and not Mr Mallard, and I withdraw—

Mr SPEAKER: I have heard the Hon Trevor Mallard make those accusations across the House day after day, on several questions a day. I have tolerated it, and that is my fault, and I apologise to the House. I believe that it perhaps is what has led to more disorder. It is my fault, as Speaker, and I will clamp down on it. Now we will be moving on.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I am going to leave the House now, but I refuse to accept that I called the Prime Minister a liar today, because I did not.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will be leaving the House right now, because he has disputed my ruling, and he will leave.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I have.

Mr SPEAKER: And he will not comment as he goes, or I will be naming the member. Hon Trevor Mallard withdrew from the Chamber.

Question No. 2 to Prime Minister

Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition): I seek leave to table a document showing that inequality decreased for the only time in 25 years in the last term of the Labour Government.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has not given the source of that document.

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is the Social Report from 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: The social report of—

Hon PHIL GOFF: It is the Social Report, a New Zealand publication from, I think, the Ministry of Social Development.

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.

Question No. 7 to Minister

KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National): My question is to the Minister of—

Mr SPEAKER: I have said to the House that members are treating this place with absolute contempt at the moment. I called Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi and we just had a barrage of noise from the Opposition benches. I require a little more discipline on both sides of the House. I made it clear that it has been my fault. I am blaming myself as Speaker that this situation has developed. But we will, from now on, show more respect for this place.

Question No. 2 to Minister

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): I seek leave to table a document from the OECD handed to me by the Deputy Prime Minister, which shows that from 2000 to 2008 poverty had actually risen in New Zealand.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table—[Interruption] This will stop. Leave has been sought to table a document. It seems to me to be a legitimate document. Leave is sought. Is there any objection?

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I just inform you, Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The member is keen, before I put this—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, you cannot do that. The Standing Orders are very clear.

Mr SPEAKER: Both members will resume their seats immediately. We are getting into a problem. Leave is sought to table a document that has been identified. I will put that leave. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I had been given the opportunity to explain to you, I would have said that it is the same document that we tabled 5 minutes ago—and you accepted it.

Mr SPEAKER: The House did not give any objection to it being tabled.

Methamphetamine Precursors—Border Seizures

7. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Customs: What reports has he received on seizures of methamphetamine precursor at the border?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): For the first 4 months of this year, the New Zealand Customs Service reports that it has seized more than half a tonne of methamphetamine or P precursor at the border. This amount of precursor would produce up to 151 kilograms of P with a street value of up to $227 million and would cause around $61 million worth of harm to the community. This means that the Customs Service is on track to better last year’s already big record haul of 1.2 tonnes of precursor intercepted, strangling the supply to those who would peddle this disgraceful product in our community.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What further action is the Government taking in its fight against P and the illicit drugs trade?

Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Budget 2010 provides $5.9 million of capital funding to the Customs Service over the next 2 years to fight the illicit drug trade through enhanced tracking and surveillance equipment. This funding will give the Customs Service technology not previously available to any agency in New Zealand, and will allow it to move into the digital age with new, more advanced tools to detect the activities of drug criminals. Budget 2010 also provides additional operating funding of $1.2 million, rising to $1.7 million per year over the next 4 years, to fight the illicit drug trade.

Te Urewera National Park—Proposal to Vest Ownership in Tūhoe

8. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he agree with the Prime Minister’s comment reported by Tāmati Kruger that Tūhoe ownership of Te Urewera National Park was “complex but workable”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): The Prime Minister does not recall making that statement and I am not going to speculate on this issue on the basis of hearsay.

Hon Maryan Street: Who decided to abandon that line of negotiation, if it were one, the day before the paper was expected by Tūhoe to go to Cabinet: the Prime Minister, Steven Joyce, or the Minister himself?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Prime Minister has explained the sequence of events and the circumstances giving rise to the paper being withdrawn from Cabinet. It is actually quite offensive to make that kind of comment about Mr Joyce, who is a very good Cabinet Minister.

Hon Maryan Street: Should we assume the Cabinet decision was influenced by focus groups conducted on the North Shore during the week or weekend prior to the paper going to Cabinet, as reported by the Whakatane Beacon today?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: My advice to the honourable member is not to rely on tittle-tattle in local rags. I think the important thing is that this Government is committed to a— [Interruption] They do not want the answer. This Government is committed to a just and durable

settlement with Tūhoe that serves the interests of both parties, and we are determined to achieve that.

Hone Harawira: What feedback has he received from other iwi about whether the Prime Minister’s recent Tūhoe outburst has had any effect on their ability to negotiate their own Treaty settlements?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The feedback I have received is the feedback I always receive: iwi are keen to settle just and durable settlements with the Crown and they are very pleased that this Government has applied additional resources to the task and is enthusiastic about getting on with the job, in comparison with the previous administration, which achieved 1.6 settlements per year.

Hon Maryan Street: Given the disquiet that a number of iwi leaders have expressed about the collapse of the negotiation with Tūhoe, does the Minister expect to use focus groups to determine negotiating parameters in Treaty settlements in the future, or does he intend to take a more principled position in negotiations?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No. We are getting on with something that the member’s Government singularly failed to do, which is to get just and durable settlements. The evidence for that—[Interruption] They do not like the truth. The evidence for that is that in the first 8 months of this year we are running at 133 percent of target when it comes to achieving agreements in principle.

Rahui Katene: What is the precedent for the use of reversionary interest within a settlement, as suggested in this morning’s New Zealand Herald as a possible mechanism for the Tūhoe settlement?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have an idea that the New Zealand Herald could have been referring to a similar sort of reversionary arrangement in the Ngāti Ruanui settlement over the Makino Scenic Reserve, but I do not know the detail of that arrangement, because I was not involved in that settlement. It was one of those very rare occasions when the other lot actually did a settlement.

Immigration—Silver Fern Visa

9. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Immigration: What interest has there been in the Government’s recently introduced Silver Fern visa?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration): There has been phenomenal interest. The three hundred places were filled within 30 minutes of applications opening. It is a clear indication that the Government has the right policy settings to attract skilled young people to New Zealand.

John Hayes: How does the Silver Fern visa work?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The Silver Fern visa provides applicants with a 9-month job-search permit. Once they find skilled employment, they can stay for a further 2 years while they apply for residence. This provides employers with the security of knowing that their employee can remain here long term.

John Hayes: Whom does the visa target?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The visa is specifically targeted at people aged between 20 and 35, with a bachelor’s degree or a trade qualification and 2 years’ work experience. The visa is designed so that people who meet the requirements upfront will be likely candidates for residence under the skilled migrant category. It is a great policy, which will help to provide the skills that our economy needs.

John Hayes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Because of the noise, it was impossible to hear the answer to the question. I wonder whether the Minister might repeat it. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised. I think the House has wasted sufficient time today.

Auckland, Local Government Reform—Minister’s Statements

10. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his statement regarding his Auckland reforms that “in my view all aspects of the reform process are progressing well …”?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government): Yes. In fact, the full quote was: “all aspects of the reform process are progressing well, considering the size and complexity of the task.” I would like to say today that the reform process is going extremely well, and I am particularly looking forward to the report back of the Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Bill on Monday.

Phil Twyford: Does he think that the nearly 60 percent of Aucklanders who, according to the New Zealand Herald’s recent poll, are against his handing over three-quarters of council business to unelected council-controlled organisations will agree that the reforms are progressing well?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I think that a lot of the concerns that Aucklanders have expressed have been heard loudly and clearly by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee when hearing submissions, and I think that Aucklanders will be pleased with the results of the select committee’s deliberations, which will be announced on Monday.

Phil Twyford: Does he consider it to be good progress that well over half of Aucklanders believe that his super-city will be a worse place to live in?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: What I can say is that a comment—

Hon Shane Jones: Answer the question.

Hon RODNEY HIDE: In commenting about Aucklanders, one Aucklander said the reforms were well overdue and that the previous Government had done nothing. That commentator was Phil Twyford, and I am actually very pleased that Aucklanders are on board. There are some concerns about the change that is occurring, and I am sure that those concerns will be addressed, firstly, on Monday, and then, as the changes are progressively announced, through to 1 November.

Phil Twyford: When he thinks he has made good progress, but well over half of Aucklanders, as reported in the New Zealand Herald, believe that he has made a mess of the changes, which viewpoint is more credible?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: We are concentrating on getting a good result. I have to say that for that member, who cannot actually get a seat from his own colleagues in which to stand in Auckland, to suggest—[Interruption] I am pointing out that if Mr Twyford could get just half of his party’s members in Auckland to support him, he could have a seat.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I point out that that kind of answer is quite unnecessary and leads to disorder.

Mr SPEAKER: I have to point out that that kind of answer will lead to disorder. I say to members who are asking questions that when they frame their questions by asking what the Ministers thinks about certain things or what he believes about certain things, it is very difficult to stop a Minister from saying what he or she thinks or believes, especially if it is a fairly broad question. That is the dilemma that members need to think about when asking questions. If they invite Ministers to say what they think about something, they may not like what a Minister says. That said, I think the Minister’s answer was unnecessarily gratuitous and unhelpful.

Government Borrowing—Priorities

11. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his position that the Government should not borrow in order to make contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund; if so, will the Government have to borrow to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, new motorways that may have no financial return, and for subsidies to greenhouse polluters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I stand by that position; I note to the member that the Government is borrowing money to invest in a range of infrastructure, including

modes of transport favoured by the Greens. We have a significant investment programme in roads. We announced major investment, the day before yesterday, in KiwiRail. We have also been investing in cycleways around New Zealand. So that pretty much covers the field.

Hon Tony Ryall: What about skateboards?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have not invested in skateboards!

Dr Russel Norman: At a time when the Government is borrowing heavily is it fiscally responsible to borrow further to pay for pet motorway projects such as Steven Joyce’s “holiday highway” north of Auckland, which the Government’s own figures show will lose the country money?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have not actually got to the motorway north of Auckland, but the Government does stand by its extensive investment in roads. We need to complete the Auckland motorway network. We need to deal with the bottlenecks and traffic risks in the Auckland – Hamilton – Tauranga triangle, and with other bottlenecks around the country, so that we can have efficient delivery of our export products to our ports, and this country can earn more than it spends, for a change.

Dr Russel Norman: At a time when the Government is borrowing heavily is it fiscally responsible to borrow further to pay for free allocation credits, otherwise known as subsidies, to greenhouse gas polluters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has a pretty balanced fiscal strategy, where we are borrowing money to absorb the shock effects of the global recession and the mismanagement of the previous Government. That will help us through tougher times. At the same time we are investing in the future, and investing in infrastructure and skills, in order to lift the growth performance of this economy.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was about greenhouse gas subsidies. I wonder whether the Minister could address why that is a priority for his spending.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that that was the only aspect of the member’s question. There was more to it than that, and the Minister, as I recollect, correctly answered the first part of the question.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a one-legged question, so to speak, which asked why the Government was borrowing to pay for free allocation credits. It was a one-part question.

Mr SPEAKER: I will allow Dr Russel Norman to repeat his question, without penalty.

Dr Russel Norman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. At a time when the Government is borrowing heavily is it fiscally responsible—

Mr SPEAKER: That was what I thought. The member made a statement at the start of the question. If a member makes a statement at the start of a question, the Minister is just as likely to pick up on that statement and respond to it. If the member wanted to ask a question, he could have asked why the Government was borrowing for certain things, and I would have backed him. He may ask his next supplementary question.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it fiscally responsible to borrow further to pay for free allocation credits, otherwise known as subsidies, to greenhouse gas polluters?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As is often the case with this Government, we have about the right pragmatic balance in the case of greenhouse gas emissions, where we have obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The Government is picking up some of those obligations, and some of them will be spread through the economy through the emissions trading scheme. So the Government is doing its bit and the rest of the community will do its bit. It is about the right balance. It is a better balance, in our view, than the previous Government’s emissions trading scheme, which would have imposed very significant costs on all New Zealand households and businesses.

Dr Russel Norman: Is it fiscally responsible to borrow further to pay for tax cuts for those at the top?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member will have to wait and see what is announced in the Budget tomorrow in respect of that matter. We have said for some time that any tax package the Government puts together will be broadly fiscally neutral. It cannot be a lolly scramble, because for every dollar the Government gives out, it has to take in a dollar from somewhere else.

Dr Russel Norman: Will he assist Opposition MPs to understand how borrowing for tax cuts is fiscally responsible by pushing Treasury to allow economic analysts from the Parliamentary Service to attend the full media Budget lock-up tomorrow?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Judging by the statements made by various Opposition parties, I do not think we will ever be able to persuade them that irresponsible borrowing is bad for New Zealand.

Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table photographs from the 2008 Budget lock-up, which show that even National Party blogger David Farrar was let into the full media lock-up.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those documents. Is there any objection?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: He’s a legitimate journalist!

Mr SPEAKER: There is no objection, I take it. Documents, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Ministers—Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest

12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Prime Minister: Does he believe that his Government should be transparent in all matters where conflicts of interest or perceived conflicts of interest may occur between his Ministers’ personal interests and matters before his Government?

Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Details regarding conflicts of interest and advice sought in relation to them are not generally disclosed, in order to ensure the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings, to maintain the effective conduct of public affairs, and, in some cases, to protect personal privacy. That has been the approach of successive administrations, including the previous administration of the questioner, and I do not intend to depart from it.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why does such non-disclosure enhance the public’s confidence that all is above board?

Hon JOHN KEY: There are a variety of reasons why that approach has been adopted by successive Governments, including the one that the member was a Minister in for 9 years. As I said, I do not intend to depart from it.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why is he much happier to disclose publicly assertions that there are no real or perceived conflicts of interest, as, for example, in the case of the Hon Dr Nick Smith, the Hon David Carter, or, indeed, himself, but so reluctant to advise the public whenever there is a real or perceived conflict of interest?

Hon JOHN KEY: There is a long-standing set of guidelines and procedures in the Cabinet Manual on how Ministers should approach conflicts of interest. They are well understood by Ministers, and, in my view, followed. From time to time, members will get up in this House and wrongfully assert that there has been a breach of conflict of interest—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: As the member just did.

Hon JOHN KEY: —as the member often does, for scurrilous reasons, and not for accurate reasons. When that happens, in the interests of protecting the Minister, I often go to seek an opinion from the Cabinet Office, and if that opinion is given, I release it. That is on the basis of protecting a Minister upon whose name aspersions would otherwise be cast by the sorts of accusations cast by that member, who spends a lot of time thinking—

Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister should not be going down that track.

Hon Pete Hodgson: On roughly how many occasions has he, as Prime Minister, dealt with actual or perceived conflicts of interest involving one of his Ministers, over whatever time frame he chooses—1 month, 3 months, 1 year, or since the election—a rough numerical estimate?

Hon JOHN KEY: In that last 24 hours, the answer to that is nil.

Hon Pete Hodgson: On roughly how many occasions has he, as Prime Minister, dealt with actual or perceived conflicts of interest involving himself since the last election?

Hon JOHN KEY: I do not know the answer to that question.

ENDS

© Scoop Media