(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)

THURSDAY, 24 JUNE 2010

QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Economy—Reports

1. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Statistics New Zealand today reported that real GDP grew by 0.6 percent in the March quarter. The economy has now grown by 1.9 percent over the past four quarters, following the contraction that began at the start of 2008. The continuing recovery, which is broadly aligned with that of our trading partners, is good news, because it helps to create new jobs and raise New Zealand’s living standards. However, there is significant work to do. The economy has recovered only about half of the fall that it incurred during 2008, and growth is mixed across the sectors. That is why the Government will continue with its policy programme.

Katrina Shanks: What challenges does the economy face?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We need to overcome the effects of the recession and of the mismanagement of the previous Government, which means that we need to rebalance the economy so that it will save more, produce more worthwhile output, and rely less on consumption and debt. We also need to reduce New Zealand’s vulnerability to overseas lenders. As the United Kingdom Budget showed, if these problems are allowed to persist, then major and painful changes will be needed later. There are encouraging signs that the recovery is headed in the right direction, and we welcome those.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the sharp growth in overseas demand for raw logs, seen in today’s statistics, been matched by the closure of timber mills, loss of jobs, and decline of the domestic industry to such an extent that the Timber Industry Federation called it a “rape and run industry”; if so, when will he take action to ensure that our economy is one that produces added value and secures jobs for New Zealanders?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The forest products industry is cyclical; sometimes log prices are up, which makes it harder for domestic sawmills. Actually, for quite a number of years log prices have been down, which has made it easier for domestic sawmills. The good news is that the growth across the economy is coming from the right places. Government consumption is no longer growing rapidly. Export volume growth is the strongest that it has been in 3 years, while, overall, tradable sector output has shown its first signs of sustained growth since 2004.

Katrina Shanks: How is the Government tackling our economic challenges?

Grant Robertson: Not that well.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, that is right—very well. The Government needs to use every tool at its disposal. In the Budget we made changes to the taxation system, to try to assist the rebalancing of the economy. I know that the Government is continuing to focus on the careful use of public

money, to ensure that we do not take any more than we need to from the incoming-earning side of the economy.

Clare Curran: Was he surprised by the drop in the communications sector, or was it expected, given the continual delays in the Government’s broadband plan, which has failed to lay an inch of broadband fibre in 18 months, creating a crisis of confidence in the industry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not make guesses about quarterly growth rates, let alone individual components of them, because they do fluctuate. The broadband plan, as the member will know, is quite complex, and I am pleased to say it is on track, on target, and going very well. We certainly hope that we will lay ultra-fast fibre considerably quicker than, for instance, the Australians.

Katrina Shanks: How does growth in the past year compare with previous growth in the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is little doubt that the economy entered a long-term slow-down over the past 5 years, well before the world was in recession—that is, New Zealand went into recession before the world did. For example, per capita GDP declined between 2005 and 2008, even when the rest of the world was doing well. This is primarily because of the economic mismanagement of the previous Government. Even today, average per capita income remains at only 2004 levels.

Hon David Cunliffe: When he refers to “the economic mismanagement of the previous Government”, does he include the zero net debt achieved under Labour, and does he include the world record - low unemployment rate achieved under Labour; and would he care to speculate on whether today’s results would have been achieved had we taken his advice when he was in Opposition and given unaffordable tax cuts to the wealthy in 2005 and 2006, thereby making debt worse?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the previous Government had taken any amount of sensible advice, it would have done a lot better than it did. For instance, it would not have blown out Government spending from 2004 onwards, it would not have helped to foster a property boom, it would not have put taxes up, and now we would have a faster-growing economy.

Privacy—Minister’s Statement

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social

Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “people do have a right to privacy but they have in my opinion broken privacy deciding to go out there, put their names and faces to it as well in photos in the paper,”; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): I stand by all my actions and statements on this matter to date.

Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the Privacy Commissioner’s findings that there is sufficient substance in the complaint against her for releasing information about a sole parent for the matter to be referred to the Director of Human Rights Proceedings; if so, why?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Whether I agree is irrelevant. That is what the Privacy Commissioner has decided to do, that is the process we are now in, and it is one that I will respect.

Hon Annette King: What has been the cost to the taxpayer to date for a 1-year long investigation by the Privacy Commissioner into her alleged breach of privacy, and what further cost will be incurred in legal fees, Crown Law advice, officials’ time, and possibly a payout, if this matter continues unresolved; and will it be more than the $15,000 reportedly sought in compensation several months ago?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am not aware of, or responsible for, any costs incurred by the Privacy Commissioner.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was not asking what the Privacy Commissioner’s costs were; I was asking what costs she has incurred.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that the member’s question was quite as precise as that. I believe that the Minister gave a perfectly fair answer to the question asked.

Hon Annette King: Why does she not immediately apologise for her breach of the Privacy Act over a year ago, and undertake not to commit such a breach in future, if only to minimise the mounting cost to taxpayers, who will have to continue to pick up her bill for this matter, which is now going before the Director of Human Rights Proceedings?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I stand by all my actions to date.

Hon Annette King: Does she regret whipping up, to quote her, a “horrific debate that’s been very personalised and ugly” against beneficiaries who dared to speak out against her cuts to the training incentive allowance, which would have helped to get them back into work; and why not stop the ugliness now by apologising, moving on, and helping those women step up?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It seems to me that the Opposition does not want to have a debate about welfare. I would turn round and say that actually welfare is not a four-letter word; it is something that we do need to address in this country, it is a debate that we will have, and I will be proud to lead it.

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not ask about what she thinks should happen in welfare reform. I quoted what she had said about a “horrific debate that’s been very personalised and ugly”, and I asked her what she would do to get back to work the people whose training incentive allowance was cut by her.

Mr SPEAKER: The—[Interruption] There will not be debate while I am considering this matter. I think, in fairness, the question asked, if I recollect correctly, whether the Minister regrets something that led to something else. The Minister did not really say anything that related to the question. She instead said what the Government’s priorities were around welfare. I think it would be helpful if the Minister were to try to answer the question. I realise there is no precise answer, but if the Minister could attempt to answer the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Certainly, Mr Speaker. The member asked about the training incentive allowance, and she made allegations that it had been cut. It was not cut. What happened was we addressed that funding to the more than 50 percent of people who are on the domestic purposes benefit who have such poor literacy and numeracy skills that they do not even have National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2. That is where we are addressing that money—to where it is absolutely needed the most.

Emissions Trading Scheme—Effectiveness in Reduction of Climate Change

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

Change Issues: What reports has he received on support for emissions trading schemes as an effective measure to reduce climate change?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): Emissions trading schemes are widely accepted as the most efficient way of reducing emissions, with schemes now operating in 29 of the 38 developed Kyoto Protocol countries. As well, many states in the US, and Canada and parts of Asia have adopted such schemes.

Chris Auchinvole: Has the Minister received any reports of parties reversing their position on an emissions trading scheme?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I have. Radio New Zealand reported yesterday that Labour is reconsidering its climate change policy and whether it would have a carbon tax, instead of an emissions trading scheme. I note that such policy U-turns have not been particularly helpful across the Tasman.

Chris Auchinvole: What would be the impact of switching from an emissions trading scheme to a carbon tax?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Such a switch would be hugely destabilising. New Zealand has struggled for over a decade to develop a credible and consistent policy on climate change that puts a

price on carbon emissions, and it has switched twice already between the options of a carbon tax and an emissions trading scheme. My greatest worry is in relation to the forestry sector, which Labour introduced into the emissions trading scheme in 2008, under a scheme that requires stability over the harvest cycle of trees. It is hugely damaging to now contemplate scrapping that scheme, which would potentially risk deforestation and a lack of confidence in that sector. I also note that it would be bad news for consumers, in that the carbon tax policies of the previous Labour Government would cost a lot more in terms of increased power and fuel costs.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware of the analysis contained in The Carbon Challenge by Dr Geoff Bertram and Mr Simon Terry of the Sustainability Council, published yesterday, and in particular of its conclusions that his emissions trading scheme is “technically obsolete” and “beyond rescue” as a sustainable framework for tackling climate change, and that it “completely fails as a mechanism to make today’s polluters meet today’s emissions bill”?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can we take it that the flashing light on Mr Chauvel’s lapel is in fact a distress signal, and do we need to get someone in here to help him?

Mr SPEAKER: Members of the House will know that it is to do with support for the St John Ambulance. One of the member’s own colleagues was wearing one yesterday. I invite Charles Chauvel to ask his question again.

Charles Chauvel: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to support St John Ambulance. Is the Minister aware of the analysis contained in The Carbon Challenge by Dr Geoff Bertram and Mr Simon Terry of the Sustainability Council, published yesterday, and in particular of its conclusions that his emissions trading scheme is “technically obsolete” and “beyond rescue” as a substantive framework for tackling climate change, and that it “completely fails as a mechanism to make today’s polluters meet today’s emissions bill”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not. We have carefully balanced the need for New Zealand to make progress on curbing emissions growth with the need to ensure that the economy grows, as the Minister of Finance outlined with the latest GDP figures. It is a balanced policy approach, and I fear for both climate change policy and the economy with the switch that Labour has made in now favouring a carbon tax. It is an extraordinary flip-flop.

John Boscawen: Does the Minister agree with the conclusions in Geoff Bertram and Simon Terry’s book The Carbon Challenge that the New Zealand electricity industry will make some $566 million of windfall profits from New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme over the next 2½ years; if so, does he think that supporters of New Zealand’s emission trading scheme remotely understand the massive wealth transfer and the massive windfall profits to the New Zealand electricity industry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, I do not. Effectively, Mr Terry and Dr Bertram want the Government to take a far more aggressive policy and a far tougher approach to climate change. Our Government’s policy is one that provides a careful balance—that is, that we make progress in curbing emissions, that we do our fair share on climate change, but also that we need to be cautious of imposing excessive costs on New Zealand businesses, which would simply relocate offshore to do their emissions. That would cost New Zealanders jobs and do nothing for climate change.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware that the authors of The Carbon Challenge conclude that most of the future $5.7 billion bill arising from New Zealand exceeding its Kyoto Protocol target will fall on future taxpayers, making it “a massive intergenerational transfer of liability”, and that because forestry credits must be paid back when trees are harvested in 2020 or afterwards, using these credits to pay the Kyoto bill is like “putting it ‘on the plastic’ for the next generation to pay.”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I note that the Government’s policy around forestry and the emissions trading scheme is unchanged from the legislation that was put through Parliament by David Parker. What I find extraordinary is that that was Labour’s policy only 18 months ago. Charles Chauvel has

now thrown that to the wall and said Labour’ view is now that there should be a carbon tax. Where does Labour stand on this critical issue? Nobody knows that now.

Ministers—Rules for Declaration of Pecuniary Interests

4. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Prime Minister: When he said “there’s always clarification of the rules and they’re not always straightforward” in relation to the Hon Christopher Finlayson on four occasions failing to declare a directorship he held, what did he find “not always straightforward” about the requirement to declare “the name of each company of which the member is a director”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The member was quoting selectively at that point. In the stand-up with journalists the Prime Minister was talking about the pecuniary interests register in general, not Mr Finlayson.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has he discussed this issue with the Attorney-General?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer as to whether the Prime Minister has discussed it with the Attorney-General.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Prime Minister seen the legal advice on this matter referred to by Chris Finlayson?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, I cannot answer that question, but I think I could say to the member that we need to keep these things in perspective. The Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament is available to members to assist them to modify their register if and when information comes to hand or legal advice changes. As members know, the requirements around the register have evolved over recent years.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he seek Cabinet Office advice in relation to the opinion from the lawyer for Mr Finlayson’s friend’s trust on the meaning of whether the requirement that “the name of each company of which the member is a director” means that “the name of each company of which the member is a director” must be so declared; if so, what was that advice?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, I cannot give the member that answer. What I can say is that I am sure the member shares my view that clarification of the rules is often required. For instance, when in the previous Parliament a member did not declare on the register a $100,000 gift, the member opposite was part of a party that voted against a censure motion, when clearly the register’s requirements had not been met.

Hon Trevor Mallard: When he said on 17 November 2008 “I expect high standards of my Ministers”, did that include the expectation that his Attorney-General would file false returns, and that the Prime Minister’s response would be “I don’t know, because I don’t ask.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No; as the member knows, the Prime Minister has high standards. He might be a bit confused by that member’s standards. The member seems to regard this as a significant breach of the register that requires censure, but when he was given the opportunity to vote for a censure motion for a former member who did not declare a $100,000 gift, he decided to vote against that censure motion, so I am not sure what the member’s standards are.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is it the Prime Minister’s view that the Attorney-General’s filing of four false declarations is more or less serious than the member for Clutha-Southland declaring to three Speakers that his primary place of residence is Dipton?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is the Prime Minister’s view that he expects a high standard and he expects members to comply with the requirements of Parliament, and that is what his members do.

Community Max—Expansion

5. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What announcements has the Government made on Community Max?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment): Minister Turia and I have added an extra 1,500 Community Max places, taking the total number to over

5,000. This is an additional $17.4 million in Government investment. These additional places will be available in the Bay of Plenty, East Coast, Northland, and Waikato areas.

Hekia Parata: Why have these areas been selected to extend the Community Max programme?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: These regions have been selected as they have high youth unemployment rates under the household labour force survey, some of the highest numbers of young people receiving the unemployment benefit, and high levels of Māori unemployment. They are more rural areas, as well, which find it hard to access Job Ops as there are fewer employers in those areas. We think Community Max will make a big difference.

Hekia Parata: Can the Minister give examples where Community Max is making a real difference?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen many outstanding Community Max programmes, but recently I visited Motuti Marae in the far north, in the Hokianga, where I met a group of young people who were doing everything from bee-keeping to fashion design, carving, real leadership programmes, and business skills with tourism ventures. They were absolutely awesome. They were making a real difference, and they were looking at sustainable employment for them in a very rural area.

Rahui Katene: What are the likely impacts of the announcement today about the extension of Community Max on addressing the high level of Māori unemployment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: More than 50 percent of the uptake of Community Max has been by Māori in really rural areas. I have just described one programme, but many groups—marae-based as well—have picked up these programmes. They are giving real skills to their young people. They are helping them to get drivers’ licences and to learn skills that they will take into the workforce with them. That is leading to more sustainability in those rural areas, as well. I think Community Max will make a big difference, we are already seeing it make a difference, and it is a delight to be able to put extra numbers into those areas.

Jacinda Ardern: What is the Minister doing to find out what has happened to the 39 percent of youth who have completed the Community Max programme but who are not in work, not in training, and are not receiving any form of Government support?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: People have gone to a range of places. It is true that some of those young people have gone overseas. Some of them have stayed on their marae. They are working, they have not gone on a benefit, and they are doing more volunteer work. A number of them are doing different things. What I do know is that 80 percent of those who have completed their Community Max programme have not gone back on a benefit. That is an outstanding result.

Rahui Katene: Have any evaluations been received about the impact of Community Max, and what have been the key findings?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: At the end of May 1,466 people had completed the programme—149 of them in March, nearly 500 in April, and just over 800 in May. Of those people, 72 percent completed the full 6 months. Of those who had completed the full 6 months, 81 percent are not currently receiving a benefit, which means that they have not gone back on to a benefit and have had real results. So at this time the programme is certainly showing something positive. We want to see how it sort of trickles out over time, as well.

Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister tell the House to the nearest thousand how many young people are not receiving Government support but also are not in education, training, or employment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: That number moves around daily, as one can imagine, because young people are in and out and doing a whole lot of different activities. We have been doing an analysis across departments, because, as the member might well understand, it affects education, it affects my portfolio, and it certainly affects tertiary education, as well. Some of our preliminary results show that around 7,000 of the younger ones—16 and 17-year-olds—are not touching any sort of

programme or training. That is a key focus for this Government, particularly around Youth Guarantee.

Foreshore and Seabed Act Review—Northland Coastline in Customary Title

6. Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) to the Attorney-General: Is it Government policy to grant customary title in the entire Northland coast from Mangonui up the cape, and down to the Hokianga Heads?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): No. It is the Government’s policy to determine each application for customary title on its merits, assessing the facts of each case, and applying the tests that will be set out in the statute.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister seen Professor Margaret Mutu’s statement in the New Zealand Herald today, with regard to the coastline pictured in the New Zealand Herald, that “we own it”; if so, what has he done to show the rest of New Zealand that we all own it?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I have not read the article.

Hon Jim Anderton: Will the Northland claimants be making their claim for title to the courts, or to the Government?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: It is a bit early for that.

David Garrett: Would the granting of customary title over all or part of Ninety Mile Beach enable the Māori owners to prevent four-wheel driving and tour buses on what would then be Māori-owned foreshore and seabed?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I would not have thought so.

Hon Jim Anderton: If the Minister cannot tell the House at this point in time who will be making the decision on any claim to ownership, how can he rule out in any way at all that the claimant might get title to the whole coastline?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, no one will be making any claim as at this time, because the law has not been passed yet. When the law is passed, there will be an opportunity for interested parties—be they iwi or, in some cases, hapū—to enter into negotiations with the Crown or to exercise the court option that was taken away from them by the Government of which that member was a senior Cabinet Minister in 2004.

Hon Jim Anderton: As the Minister is blaming the previous Government for this, how will he resolve the new Treaty agreements that will be created when people form an expectation that they own the coastline, as stated in the New Zealand Herald today, because he refuses to rule out their title to it, while he is reassuring other New Zealanders that “title” in this case does not mean “title”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In my previous answer I did not blame the previous Government. I set out the facts of the situation. The facts are that when the law has been passed, we can then deal with negotiations and court applications if there are any, and they can be determined on their facts.

Hon Jim Anderton: I seek leave to table the definition of title in the Oxford Dictionary, which states that it is a right or claim to the ownership of property.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [Interruption] Did I hear objection? There is no objection.

State Highways—Safety Ratings

7. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Transport: What reports has he received on the safety ratings of New Zealand’s State highways?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I am pleased that this morning I had the opportunity to release, in conjunction with the Automobile Association, the KiwiRAP star rating report. For the first time New Zealanders have access to a comprehensive star-based rating system that shows the relative levels of safety built into our State highways. The report provides a regional breakdown of the prevalence of key safety features found on our State highways, and shows that

roughly 68 percent of vehicle kilometres travelled are on 3 or 4-star roads, with about 33 percent on 2-star highways.

Nikki Kaye: What is the Government doing to improve the safety of State highways?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is taking a number of steps to improve the safety of State highways, including the major step of progressing the work on the roads of national significance. Upgrading this roading infrastructure will include retrofitting safety improvements and installing separate carriageways through our busiest high-volume rural highways. These seven roads carry high levels of traffic, including freight, and it is important that they are safe to use. Upgrading them will not only raise their star rating but help save lives and reduce injuries.

Nikki Kaye: How can drivers use this information to protect themselves on the road?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Improving the safety of New Zealand’s roads and encouraging safer driving are key parts of the Government’s Safer Journeys strategy. Drivers should use the ratings to educate themselves about the relative safety of the roads they drive on, and adjust their driving behaviour accordingly. We all need to take responsibility by being aware of conditions and adjusting our driving and our speeds. KiwiRAP can help drivers make the right choices to stay safe on our roads.

Housing—Access to Appropriate and Affordable Housing

8. MOANA MACKEY (Labour) to the Minister of Housing: Does he believe that all New Zealanders should have access to appropriate and affordable housing?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): As I have stated repeatedly in the House, this Government is committed to assisting New Zealanders who are most in need.

Moana Mackey: Is it now Government policy that if someone legally challenges a Housing New Zealand Corporation tenancy termination for antisocial behaviour, all maintenance work on State houses in that community will stop until the legal action is resolved?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No.

Moana Mackey: If the answer to my first question is no, why is there one rule for the Pōmare community and another for every other community?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have made no secret of the fact that when we came into Government we were faced with an Auditor-General’s report that said that $2 billion worth of maintenance and upgrades needed to be done to State houses, and that they were in a state of serious disrepair. Unfortunately, Pōmare not only has the problem of houses in a state of serious disrepair; it had an antisocial behaviour problem because the previous Government had tolerated antisocial behaviour in those houses—serious antisocial behaviour by gangs. We will not tolerate it.

Moana Mackey: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I deliberately made my question very specific. I asked why he was applying one rule to Pōmare and one rule to every single other community, and he did not address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully because the member’s question was commendably to the point, but I confess that I believe that the Minister answered in terms of the difference: the difference was, he argues—I believe—that in Pōmare an extensive degree of refurbishment is required. I took it that that was the difference he was telling the House about.

Moana Mackey: Has everyone on the waiting list turned down an offer from the Housing New Zealand Corporation to live in one of the Pōmare properties; if not, where did he get his information when he said on TV on Tuesday night that Pōmare’s bad reputation means that no one wants to live in these properties?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: As the member opposite has pointed out, there are 10,000 people on the waiting list, and we have not offered them all a place in Pōmare.

Mr SPEAKER: I gave the Minister the benefit of the doubt on the previous answer to a very straightforward question, and I believe that this question was straightforward, too. A little more helpful answer would, I think, have been helpful. I invite Moana Mackey to ask her question again.

Moana Mackey: I will help the Minister by asking it again. Has everyone on the waiting list in the Wellington region turned down an offer from the Housing New Zealand Corporation to live in one of the Pōmare properties; if not, where did he get his information when he said on TV on Tuesday night that Pōmare’s bad reputation means that no one wants to live in these properties?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It is my understanding that houses in Pōmare have been offered 84 times to various tenants, and have been turned down 84 times. That tells us that it has a name for serious antisocial behaviour.

Todd McClay: What reports has the Minister seen—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. I say to, on this occasion, the Labour front bench that the level of interjection means I cannot hear. The member may not be particularly happy with an answer, but he should not just yell endlessly. There will be a further chance to question the Minister, if he is not happy with the answer.

Todd McClay: What reports has the Minister seen in the media today about community redevelopment projects?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have here the front page of the North Shore Times, which features an article “Happy in New Zealand homes”. It says that my announcement last week drew cheers from tenants who attended the official opening of 44 new units in Northcote. The quote is: “Mr Heatley did it amidst cheers from residents.”

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is the Minister prepared to have the Housing New Zealand Corporation offer houses in Pōmare that are currently vacant to all persons currently on the Lower Hutt or Upper Hutt waiting lists?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Eleven of the houses in the area that the member mentions are available for letting. Not everyone in the area who is on the waiting list wants the houses, because they do not have the right number of bedrooms. But they are available for letting. My understanding is that those houses have been offered for letting 84 times, and have been declined 84 times. That is because no one wants to live in the neighbourhood, generally speaking, because for the last 9 years no one did anything about the serious antisocial behaviour there.

Uranium—Shipped Through New Zealand Ports and Exclusive Economic Zone

9. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister for the Environment: When did the Government become aware that radioactive uranium ore was being shipped through New Zealand ports and the exclusive economic zone for later use in nuclear reactors?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): I am advised that Government officials have been aware since the 1970s of the trans-shipment of yellowcake uranium ore through New Zealand ports. I was advised in March this year that the Environmental Risk Management Authority had issued a permit for trans-shipping yellowcake through the Ports of Auckland. I note that the yellowcake poses little health or environmental risk, and that the Australian Government ensures that its ore is used only for peaceful purposes—that is, non-military use.

Gareth Hughes: Can the Minister confirm that this is a radioactive nuclear material?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, I can. I note though that uranium is naturally occurring. It is a very weak radioactive element, which is widely distributed throughout the Earth’s crust in rocks, soils, stream sediments, rivers, and oceans. I am also advised by the National Radiation Laboratory that uranium is common in foods and also exists in our human bodies. Uranium contributes to natural background radiation—and perhaps that might explain why Mr Charles Chauvel keeps flashing.

Gareth Hughes: Does not the shipping of radioactive uranium undermine New Zealand’s proud, nuclear-free history, and the blood, sweat, and tears of hundreds of thousands of Kiwis who in the 1980s fought to entrench our nuclear-free status, which is just so important to our valuable “clean, green” brand?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No; in fact, if we took that sort of silly position on radioactive substances we would destine hundreds of New Zealanders to a painful death, because many of those radioactive imports are used to treat cancer.

Gareth Hughes: When will the Government act to ensure that New Zealand is not part of the nuclear chain, in supporting nuclear generation and possibly nuclear weapons?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have already made plain that the Australian Government has strict criteria that it will allow the export of uranium ore only for peaceful purposes. Furthermore, my colleague Georgina Te Heuheu has just this week been part of a conference that is to establish very clear reporting requirements to ensure that such radioactive substances are used only for peaceful purposes. The key point I make to the Green Party is to differentiate between the very fair position, and a position strongly held by this Government, of opposition to nuclear weapons, and a view about the overall use of nuclear technology in which it is important not just for health services but for energy generation in a number of other countries.

Chester Borrows: What level of radiation exposure do yellowcake containers transiting New Zealand pose?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am advised by the National Radiation Laboratory that the radiation exposure is very low. If a person stood right next to a drum for 130 hours he or she would have the same level of exposure as someone would naturally have over the course of a year. The Environmental Risk Management Authority actually advises me that the high level of risk is from the toxicity, not the radiation, and then it is a risk only if someone ingests—that is, eats—large quantities. Given that the substance is only to be in the hulls of ships, I do not think the risk of that is high.

Gareth Hughes: Was the Government notified that in May of this year the Pacific Pintail and the Pacific Heron, carrying radioactive, mixed oxide plutonium en route to Japan via the Tasman Sea, possibly passed through New Zealand’s exclusive economic zone?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have received advice only in respect of uranium and the use of yellowcake. I am advised that that poses no significant risk to New Zealanders’ health or our environment.

Gareth Hughes: Is it acceptable that successive Governments did not even know that radioactive uranium and plutonium had been passing through our waters?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Governments have been aware, but unlike the sort of attitude where the mere mention of the word “uranium” makes the party breathless, most parties take a rational view of risk, and expect officials to advise us of issues where there are significant risks to the public health or the environment. All of the science advice is that there are very low levels of risk. I note that any New Zealanders holidaying in Australia, in any one of the national parks where there are extensive uranium deposits, would be exposed to a greater degree of radiation through their holiday than they would be by these shipments.

Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister now take a stand and make clear that as a nuclear-free country it is not OK to have nuclear shipments going towards the nuclear energy and possibly nuclear weapons industry?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No. It is as if the member has a paranoia about anything that relates to radioactivity or uranium. I remind the member that uranium is prevalent right through our environment, including in our own bodies. Although it is right to have a strong position against nuclear weapons, the peaceful use of nuclear technology is part of a modern society.

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table two documents, the first being an editorial from the Taipei Times, which shows that uranium from Australia is used in Chinese warheads and power stations in lieu of the uranium that goes into Chinese warheads.

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

Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table the energy science report Nuclear Safeguards, which illustrates that our actions enable countries to have the capacity to develop both nuclear energy and nuclear warheads.

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.

Early Childhood Education—Minister’s Responsibility for Centres

10. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her recent statement to the House that she has no responsibility for decisions that early childhood education services make as a result of her removal of the subsidy for 80 to 100 percent qualified staff?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education): Yes. The decisions that services make in response to this reprioritisation are their own responsibility, and they have a number of options available to them. I take responsibility for the decision to reprioritise the funding from the two highest teacher-led early childhood subsidy bands towards raising participation, because those groups were failed by the previous Government.

Sue Moroney: Who is responsible, then, for the $2.7 million funding cut for ABC Learning Centres throughout New Zealand, affecting 8,000 children and their families?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I just said in the previous answer, I take responsibility for the decision to reprioritise the funding away from those two top teacher-led bands and into increasing participation for children who are not currently attending early childhood education. The Opposition fails to grasp that the spending on early childhood education has more than trebled in the last 10 years, yet participation has not grown commensurately.

Su'a William Sio: Is she responsible for the $95,000 per annum funding cut for the Māngere Living and Learning Family Centre, which affects 113 children, 98 percent of whom are Māori and Pasifika?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Yes, I have said that I am responsible for changing the funding for the top two bands in teacher-led services, but those services have a range of choices that they can make. Those choices include meeting this Government’s 80 percent requirement for qualified teachers, changing the services they deliver, or changing the hours of their services. They have a range of decisions, and that is their responsibility.

Louise Upston: What has the reprioritisation of the funding for the 80 to 100 percent qualified staff in early childhood education services allowed the Government to do?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have to do more to increase participation in early childhood education. Despite the spending growing by 300 percent, the previous Government increased the numbers of children attending education before they go to school by less than 1 percentage point— 300 percent more for less than 1 percentage point. Reprioritising those two top funding bands has allowed us to invest an extra $91.8 million over 4 years for a package to boost participation among groups that are currently missing out.

Moana Mackey: Is she saying that the Gisborne YMCA should be grateful that as a best-case scenario it will lose $186,000 per annum in funding, and that the Papamoa East community should be grateful that a kindergarten for 50 families that was planning to go ahead is no longer happening, because of her funding cuts?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am saying to those services that they have 8 months before the changes are made, and they have a range of options to meet those funding changes. They can make those decisions; I suggest they talk to the parents who use their services. I would be really disappointed if the first thing they did was increase their charges.

Sue Moroney: Does she accept responsibility for the fact that a kindergarten planned for Papamoa East will now not go ahead, because of her funding cuts? Will she apologise to the 50 families who want to enrol their children at that kindergarten?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, I do not take responsibility for decisions that that kindergarten association has made. I have taken responsibility for reprioritising the funding; the kindergarten must take responsibility, with its parents, for the decisions that it makes.

Moana Mackey: I seek leave to table an article titled “Funding cuts see kindergarten proposal dead in the water”.

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry, I did not hear the source of the document.

Moana Mackey: It is from the Tauranga Region Kindergarten and Home-based ECE News.

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.

Game Animal Council—Progress on Establishment

11. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Conservation: What progress has been made regarding establishing the Game Animal Council?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): I have received the final recommendations on the process for setting up the New Zealand Game Animal Council from the Game Animal Council Establishment Committee. I am very pleased to see that the hunting sector is working together to improve hunting opportunities, and I acknowledge the assistance of the Hon Peter Dunne on this matter, which forms part of the Government’s confidence and supply agreement with United Future. The Government will consider very carefully the recommendations and their effects on all interested people before making a formal response in the next few months.

John Hayes: What are the recommendations in terms of the groups that should be represented on the council?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: The report recommends that the council include an independent chair together with representatives of recreational hunters, commercial operators, iwi, farmers, and the Government.

Hon Peter Dunne: Does the Minister agree with the President of the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association that the Game Animal Council will “foster improved communication and collaboration between government, commercial interests and recreational hunters.”; if so, can she point to situations where that type of cooperation and collaboration is already happening, perhaps on a smaller, more local scale?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes. I believe this process has already led to greater collaboration and communication amongst the hunting sector; there are some great community initiatives—for example, the wapiti programme in Fiordland and Stewart Island. Indeed, the Department of Conservation has employed a hunting adviser to improve its services to hunters.

Transport Systems—Concerns

12. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What recent reports has he received about concerns with transport systems?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I receive many, many reports in the transport area, some of which highlight ways in which our transport systems can be improved. For example, in response to an earlier question I referred to the KiwiRAP report, which I launched this morning. Another example is the briefing that I received yesterday from the Civil Aviation Authority in regard to a television story showing security issues with airline electronic checking procedures. I am pleased to report to the House that the airlines are taking immediate steps to rectify those

problems, and the Civil Aviation Authority is currently following that up to ensure it is satisfied with those corrective actions.

Darien Fenton: Does the Minister have concerns about the Civil Aviation Authority statement that having someone check in bags without boarding the plane in the TV3 sting was the most worrying aspect of the incident, and why was the Minister not aware of this potential security breach?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think it is safe to say that just about everybody who uses the transport system was unaware of this potential security breach. My role has been to ensure that the breach, once recognised, was acted on very quickly, and I have ensured that that is the case. The Civil Aviation Authority is responsible for improving the security arrangements with airlines, and it has been working with the airlines since this issue came to light in the last couple of days. My understanding is that a corrective action will be in place very soon.

Darien Fenton: Can the Minister confirm to the House that the journalist who checked herself in using his name referred to herself as Joyce Stephen; if so, has he encountered this sort of confusion before?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If I refer back to primary school, I think, yes, it has occurred from time to time. Also, it is fair to say I have checked in at times and people have gone looking for Mrs Joyce, instead of Mr S Joyce.

Question No. 5 to Minister

Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour): I seek leave to table one page from Budget 2009 and one page from Budget 2010 regarding Vote Social Development, and showing that the training incentive allowance has been cut from $29 million under the previous Labour Government to $17 million in the latest Budget and is estimated to be as low as $13 million by 2013—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has made a statement, but she knows that all members have the Budget documents. There is absolutely no need to table them.

ENDS

© Scoop Media