(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
TUESDAY, 19 OCTOBER 2010
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Emissions Trading Scheme—Iwi Advice on Carbon Assessment of Post-1989 Forests
1. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Climate Change
Issues: What advice has he received from iwi over the Government’s proposed new approach for assessing carbon stored in
registered post-1989 forests, and what is the Government doing to action that advice?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues): A key concern for iwi and the Māori Party has been the inherent bias in the carbon storage recognition under the
emissions trading scheme for exotic over indigenous species. This arose because of the very conservative approach taken
to the lookup tables for carbon storage in indigenous forests, and deficiencies in the data. I am pleased to advise that
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry and Ministry for the Environment officials have made very good progress on
addressing this concern, and that the new lookup tables for indigenous carbon sinks provide 2½ times the amount of
carbon sequestration from that previously recognised. This addresses this concern, maintains the integrity of the
scheme, and also provides the inherent biodiversity benefits of having additional areas of native forest.
Rahui Katene: Does he believe that the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group has been engaged with properly; if so, what will he do in
response to claims from Willie Te Aho that the Climate Change Iwi Leadership Group has been reduced by the Ministry of
Agriculture and Forestry to just another stakeholder?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, the engagement has been very constructive, and progress is being made on what are quite complex issues. I remain
in close contact with the chair of the Iwi Leadership Group, Api Māhuika. The latest issue we are consulting on is the
field measurement approach, on which submissions are currently being reviewed.
Rahui Katene: What has been the practical impact of the Treaty clause in the Climate Change Response Act, which specifies how the
Crown must act in order to recognise and respect the Crown’s responsibility to give effect to the principles of the
Treaty of Waitangi?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The practical impact of that clause, which was advocated for very strongly by the Māori Party, has been that in any of
the regulations we have developed for the emissions trading scheme we have had to make extra efforts to consult iwi and
to ensure that their views are reflected in the decisions that the Government makes about making the scheme work as
effectively as possible for New Zealand.
Nicky Wagner: Has the Minister received any reports on how the emissions trading scheme is impacting on confidence within the
forestry sector?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The reports have been very positive. After a record period of deforestation between 2004 and 2008, New Zealand is now
planting significantly more trees than we are harvesting. Following the deforestation of over 30,000 hectares up to
2008, we moved to the
point of having a small credit last year of 500 hectares. This year we are expecting net growth of 4,700 hectares, next
year a net growth of over 5,700 hectares, and in the year following a net growth of 7,700 hectares. Those figures show
that the Government’s modified emissions trading scheme is having the desired result of improving confidence in the
important forestry sector.
Economy—Reports
2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yesterday Statistics New Zealand issued the consumer price index for the year to September 2010. It showed that annual
inflation was just 1.5 percent, which is the lowest annual figure since 1.5 percent inflation in the year to March 2004.
The last time inflation was lower than 1.5 percent was in the year to December 1999. The consumer price index figures
confirm that cost of living increases have generally been low, and we may put those low cost of living increases
alongside relatively low wage increases. In fact, real wages have been gradually increasing, which is the opposite of
what was happening under the previous Government.
Craig Foss: How does the latest inflation data compare with the situation 2 years ago?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the year to September 2008, when the economy was in deep recession, annual inflation was 5.1 percent. The
Government of the day was not proposing any compensation for anybody, and, as a result of 5 percent inflation, real
after-tax wages were falling. In the last 2 years the consumer price index inflation has totalled just 3 percent, which
is less than half of the 7 percent inflation in the 2 years to September 2008.
Craig Foss: What are some examples of trends in consumer prices in the last 2 years, and how do they compare with price movements
in the previous 2 years?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the 2 years to September 2008, overall food prices jumped 15 percent. In the 2 years since then, food prices have
risen, but they have risen by only around 5 percent. In addition to changes in food prices, petrol prices jumped 22
percent in the 2 years to September 2008 and they have actually fallen by 14 percent since then. House rents have
increased 6 percent in the 2 years to September 2008, and the increase in the past 2 years has been about 3 percent. The
general pattern is that up to September 2008 real wages were falling, and since then real wages have been rising.
Hon David Cunliffe: Why is the Minister trumpeting his success in bringing down inflation, when it is a direct result of the worst
recession in 70 years, and if he is picking a year to quote inflation, does this mean he will next be picking 1929?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, no. The issue has come up because the Labour Party has been claiming that the cost of living is out of control—
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you will agree with me that the supplementary question was quite direct
and quite without political epithet. It simply asked about the relationship between his claims to have lowered inflation
and the recessionary conditions. Instead of answering that with facts, he began a tirade about Labour Party policy,
which he is clearly worried about.
Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect correctly, the member in asking his question asked why the Minister was using certain figures, and the
Minister was explaining why. The Speaker cannot assist if the member does not like the Minister’s reasons but he is
certainly at liberty to explain why.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, of course the recession has had some impact on inflation. But the member cannot have it both ways. He cannot
claim it is out of control and then say that it is low because of the recession. But he himself might be able to explain
how he managed under his Government in a deep recession to achieve 5 percent inflation—very high—in 2008.
Craig Foss: How have real and after-tax wage movements also left New Zealanders better off since September 2008, and how do these
figures compare with those for the previous 2 years?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: If one uses the series of numbers that are used to determine national superannuation, which both Governments have used
for some time, one will see that real inflationadjusted gross wages have increased 5 percent in the last 2 years, after
no movement at all in the 2 years to September 2008. If one looks at real after-tax wages, taking into account two
rounds of tax cuts under the National Government, one will see that these have increased 9 percent in the last 2 years.
This compares with the 1 percent fall in the 2 years to 2008 and a meagre 3 percent rise in real after-tax wages from
1999 to 2008.
Hon David Cunliffe: Why would Kiwi families care about the square root of his housing allowance or some other number concoction, when what
they know is that every week they are finding it harder to make ends meet, when median wages dropped by 9 percent in the
last year—$9 a week—and veggie prices, for example, have increased 20 percent?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the last few weeks the Government has implemented its change in tax policy, and many New Zealanders will be finding
that the reduction in income tax is giving them higher wages each week. Those higher wages more than offset the extra
GST, so they are better off. More important, the tax switch will help us build a strong economy with more investment and
more jobs, and in the longer term even higher incomes.
Craig Foss: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s tax changes this month, which have left the vast majority of New
Zealanders better off?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I noted a report from KPMG—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry; I assumed you would interrupt that question. The degree of assertion
in that question—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately—right now. If he had listened to his colleague’s question only a few
moments ago, he would know that it contained more statements asserting facts than were in Craig Foss’ question. If the
member wants me to clamp down on that kind of question, I am very happy to, but at least half of his colleagues’
questions would be ruled out.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I noted a report yesterday by KPMG that set out two things. The first is that New Zealand is unique in the world in
matching higher indirect taxes with income tax cuts. Other countries have been lifting their indirect taxes, but New
Zealand is the only country in the world that has matched it with reductions in personal income tax that will encourage
savings, investment, and exports. I also note that the report stated that New Zealand has the fourth-lowest GST rate in
the OECD. Only Canada, Japan, Switzerland, Australia, and Korea are behind New Zealand. So we have a comprehensive GST,
which raises sufficient revenue to allow us to significantly cut income tax rates.
Overseas Investment Rules—Prime Minister’s Statements
3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “I am concerned about the risk that New Zealanders become tenants in their own
land”; if so, what specific actions will his Government be taking?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes, and I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition used the same statement when he was getting monstered by Guyon
Espiner on Q+A in the weekend, which, from what I could see, had a lot of “Qs” from Guyon Espiner and not many “As” from
Phil Goff—
Mr SPEAKER: I say to Ministers I have just been clamping down on questioners who sought my assistance when some of their questions
were perhaps not totally compliant with the Standing Orders, but this question was a pretty fair question. It asked
whether the Prime Minister stands by his statement, and if so what specific actions the Government will be taking. I am
sure that if the Prime Minister waits, the questioner will not be able to resist putting a political statement into a
supplementary question, which maybe will give the Prime Minister some licence. But this primary question does not have
the licence for him to dump on the questioner.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes; and as the Minister of Finance recently announced, we will be giving Ministers extra flexibility to consider a
wide range of issues, including the large-scale ownership of farmland when assessing overseas investment applications
for sensitive land. In particular, two new measures will be introduced in regulations. Firstly, a new economic interest
test factor will allow Ministers to consider whether New Zealand’s economic interests are adequately safeguarded and
promoted. This will improve ministerial flexibility to respond to both current and future economic concerns about
foreign investment, such as the large-scale ownership of farmland. Secondly, a new mitigating factor will enable
Ministers to consider whether an overseas investment provides opportunities for New Zealand oversight and
involvement—for example, by appointing New Zealand directors, or by establishing a head office in this country.
Hon Phil Goff: Was the review that his Government instituted last year into foreign investment not, in fact, about making it easier
for people from overseas to buy our farmland, not harder?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There were a range of objectives for the review, but what we have found is that the changes to regulations that I have
just outlined are appropriate.
Hon Phil Goff: When the Minister for Land Information admitted to the House last week that not one single application from a
foreigner to buy land under his Government had been declined, why does the Minister then go on to say he could not
promise that the new rules that the Prime Minister outlined would result in any higher rate of decline?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I wonder whether the member could just repeat the question. I am sorry; I did not hear it.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat the question, please.
Hon Phil Goff: When his Minister for Land Information admitted to the House last week that under the National Government, not one
single application from foreigners to buy farmland had been declined, why did his Minister then go on to say he could
not promise that the new rules would result in any higher rate of decline?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Minister advises me that he did not say the last bit, and I accept him at his word. But I do know that he is not a
Minister who has signed off on 680,000 hectares of land being sold. He is not a Minister who has signed off on 380,000
hectares being sold in 1 year. We would rather look at a Government’s track record than at its fake promises.
Chris Tremain: What safeguards currently exist in legislation regarding the sale of New Zealand land to foreigners?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: What an excellent question that is. The Overseas Investment Act lays out that foreign investment in land is acceptable
only if it substantially benefits New Zealand, and this is measured in section 17 of the Act. For example, under this
section Ministers have to consider whether the overseas investment will result in “the creation of new job opportunities
in New Zealand … the introduction into New Zealand of new technology … increased export receipts for New Zealand
exporters … the introduction into New Zealand of additional investment for development purposes”, and “increased
processing in New Zealand of New Zealand’s primary products”. These are precisely the criteria that Mr Goff tried to
announce in the weekend as a brand new policy. All that he did was to read out the Act that he passed in 2005.
Hon Phil Goff: When none of what the Prime Minister has just read out has actually stopped every application under his Government
from foreigners to purchase foreign land being approved, what will he do to guarantee that young couples wanting to buy
a farm of their own are not priced out of the market by wealthy overseas investors seeking to buy up land here?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Deliver to them a highly competitive economy, and tax cuts so they can afford to pay their mortgage.
Chris Tremain: When was the Overseas Investment Act—
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I want to be able to hear. The senior Government whip does have a big voice, but I do want
to be able to hear his question. I ask for a little more reasonableness in the level of the interjections.
Chris Tremain: When was the Overseas Investment Act last reviewed?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is another excellent question. The Overseas Investment Act lays out that foreign investment in land is acceptable
only if it substantially benefits New Zealand, and this is measured in the Act. It was last reviewed in 2005, after a
comprehensive review initiated by the Labour Government. A key purpose of the new Act was to ensure that foreign
investment in land would be permitted only if it made a positive contribution to the economy and advanced New Zealand’s
interests. Under those criteria, in the following year David Parker as the then Minister for Land Information approved
the sale of 380,000 hectares of land.
Hon Phil Goff: If the Prime Minister is saying that nothing that the Labour Party is proposing actually alters the existing rules,
why did he then describe it as being Stalinist—or is it a bit like “communism by stealth”, which he described Working
for Families as being like?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The reason that I described it in that way is that I noticed in the weekend that the Leader of the Opposition likes to
get out there and—
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question, and there was a great deal of
clapping because finally the Labour members were excited. But then the problem was that no one could hear the answer,
because of the barracking.
Mr SPEAKER: I am sure the Prime Minister is probably keen to repeat his answer, but—
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am sorry; I haven’t finished my answer.
Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister had not finished his answer. The question was a very provocative one, and there is nothing that the
Speaker can do. It is a matter of basically letting the sides go when that happens. If the Prime Minister has not
finished his answer I will invite him to finish it, and I ask that the level of interjection be no more than that which
enables people at the back of the House to hear the answer.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is that the Prime Minister had sat down before Rodney Hide
made his point of order. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being considered. I will hear Keith Locke.
Keith Locke: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In your comment just before, you said that when a question is provocative you
let both sides go. That is not very satisfactory to people back at this end of the House, who cannot hear what is going
on because Labour and National may be barracking at each other. I think we deserve to be able to hear what is going on.
Mr SPEAKER: I certainly sympathise with the member. I accept the rebuke to me. I probably should not have allowed the question,
because a question like that is strictly not in order. But the House has to have a bit of fun. The member wanted to ask
the question, and I am sure the Prime Minister is perfectly capable of answering it. It was my impression that he sat
down because the noise level was so high that he realised that no one was hearing anything, and he expected me to do
something about it. I have invited the Prime Minister to finish his answer, perhaps without being any more provocative
than he has to be.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Speaker can trust me; I will not be any more provocative than I need to be. I did not actually call the policy
Stalinist, I simply said the Leader of the Opposition was having a “road to Stalin” experience. The reason why I said
that was that when I looked at all the things that the Leader of the Opposition did in the weekend, I noted to myself
that on foreign land, and on the cost of living, he simply cried Chicken Little.
Mr SPEAKER: Order.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not Chicken Little he needs to worry about—
Mr SPEAKER: Order.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is Andrew Little; that is it. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I say to all members, but mainly to those on the National backbenches, that if some of them do not want to be thrown
out today, when I am on my feet they will stop clapping and they will stop behaving like buffoons. When I am on my feet
even the Prime Minister will sit down. I believe I had allowed him the time to go on long enough about the question.
When I am on my
feet that is the rule, or people will leave this Chamber. I will not tolerate that again today; let me make that very
clear to both sides of the House.
Hon Phil Goff: Since none of the criteria that the Prime Minister read out from section 17 of the Act has stopped his Government
declining even a single foreign application for land, does he support making changes to the overseas investment
framework to ensure that sales of farmland will be declined unless the overseas purchaser also invests in significant
further processing of the primary product, creating significant extra jobs?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I though I made that quite clear in answering the primary question, when I said the National Government, after a
review, has decided to make two changes to regulation in relation to economic interests and mitigating factors. They, by
definition, are evidence that this Government—despite the fact that it has allowed only 30,000 hectares of land to be
sold, as opposed to 680,000 hectares—still thought the law needed to be tightened up.
Hon Phil Goff: Because the existing framework is not stopping sales, does he support making changes to the overseas investment regime
to remove the discretion of the Minister to consent to the sale overseas of any interest of 25 percent or more in
monopoly infrastructure worth over $10 million; if not why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No; because that is a really dumb policy. The reason that it is a really dumb policy is that it would require Infratil
to start selling its overseas shareholding, it would force a New Zealand company that had about 20 percent of its
shareholding overseas, like Fletcher’s, to be unable to borrow overseas, and as Guyon Espiner proved in the weekend on
Q+A, Phil Goff does not understand his own policies.
Hilary Calvert: Has the Attorney-General advised the Prime Minister, following his visit to Taipā Bay in Northland last Friday, that
residents and visitors feel like tenants in their own land because a group purporting to represent Ngāti Kahu have
occupied the beach, declared it to be Māori land, and are physically threatening locals; if so, what is the Government
doing about it?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The question is a little outside the scope of the primary question, but I am happy to help the member as far as I can.
The Attorney-General has not raised the issue with me, but I have had some information from the local MP. He has told me
that any coastal occupation that is taking place is happening under the current legislation. As the Prime Minister, I
expect New Zealanders to abide by the law.
Hilary Calvert: Will the Prime Minister assure all New Zealanders that they are citizens and not tenants, by ensuring that the Taipā
Sailing Club will have support, if necessary from the police, for its race day to take place this Saturday, given that
last weekend’s race had to be cancelled because the community’s safety could not be guaranteed?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is a long way outside the primary question. I do not have any information on that matter, except to say that of
course I expect the law—
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the mistake that we are making in the House is that if we go back to the
primary question, we find it does not mention foreign ownership or the Overseas Investment Act. It specifically talks
about people being tenants in their own land, and that is precisely the report that we are picking up on. The question
is quite within the rules.
Mr SPEAKER: No one has ruled the question out. The Prime Minister is indicating that he had not anticipated that kind of
supplementary question, based on this primary question, and that therefore he does not have the specific information.
That is not an unreasonable position. I invite the Prime Minister to finish his answer.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I do not have a lot of information on that question, but I do always expect the law to be
obeyed and the police to enforce the law where they practically can.
Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree that the kind of economic interest tests or benefit tests that have been applied to
overseas ownership have not protected land from falling into
overseas ownership under the previous Government or the present Government, and hence will he adopt a brightline test
that says any land over 5 hectares must stay in New Zealand’s ownership?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: In terms of the first point, we have recognised that there was a need for change, and that is why, after the review,
changes have been made. In relation to the second point, the answer is no.
Cancer—Treatment
4. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: What progress is being made in providing faster cancer treatment to New Zealanders?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): As the House will be aware, reducing waiting times for cancer treatment is one of the Government’s top priorities.
Next year that target wait-time will reduce from 6 weeks to a world-standard 4 weeks. The Government is today investing
almost $4 million extra into the cancer centres to help provide faster treatment for patients. This extra investment
will mean that, for example, patients at the MidCentral District Health Board’s cancer centre are expected to start
their radiation treatment at least 5 days’ sooner, and those at the Waikato centre at least 2 days sooner; the Auckland
centre will be able to see up to five extra patients a day; and the Southern District Health Board centre will see an
extra 10 patients a day.
Dr Paul Hutchison: What other initiatives has the Government established that provide faster cancer treatment for New Zealanders?
Hon TONY RYALL: As part of last year’s election policy, the Government promised to fund 12 months of Herceptin treatment for women
with HER2-positive breast cancer. I can advise the House that the monthly treatment volumes increased from 19 in
December 2008 to 234 in June this year, meaning 400 women received publicly funded Herceptin. The shorter cancer
waiting-times and the increased numbers of women benefiting from Herceptin treatment are further examples of improving
front-line services under this Government.
Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders
5. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “the vast majority” of people will be “better off” as a result of his tax switch
on 1 October 2010?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): Yes. If the member disagrees and thinks people have been made worse off, he will campaign on reversing the tax switch.
I notice he does not want to do that.
Hon Phil Goff: If the vast majority of people are better off, why are the Federation of Family Budgeting Services and every other
social agency reporting that more and more people in debt are coming to see them, and why is the Baycorp Advantage debt
company expecting a massive spike in debt increases by Kiwis by the end of the year?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One reason is that they were allowed to run up a lot of debt because of the policies of the previous Labour
Government—that is actually the reason. Secondly, one would have thought that that member would know after 30 years in
politics that when there is a recession lowincome New Zealanders struggle. But the good news is that those low-income
New Zealanders are being looked after by a National Government.
Jo Goodhew: How easy would it be to reverse the tax switch?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As Mr Carter pointed out on television the other day it would be extremely straightforward to reverse the tax switch.
Hon Member: Your new friend!
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: He was the member’s friend once. But for the most part it would be simply a matter of crossing out the existing tax
rates and putting in the tax rates that applied before 1 October. The reason that Mr Goff does not want to reverse the
tax switch is that alongside
dropping GST he would have to do the following: firstly, he would have to raise income taxes across the board; secondly,
he would immediately have to reduce benefits—
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would have thought that after 2 years in Government the Prime Minister’s
response would be about the policies of his Government, not speculation on the effects of the policies of another party,
which is what he is doing now by going through the initiatives being put forward by the Leader of the Opposition.
[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Members of the House know the rule: points or order are heard in silence. There is just too much noise. I knew that
there would be robust debate today, but members have to be reasonable. The Prime Minister was saying what, in his view,
would have to be done were GST to be brought down, and he was saying what Mr Goff would have to do. That is not saying
that that is Labour’s policy; that is saying what he believes. I do not think I should necessarily rule that out. He
must not allege that a policy is Labour’s unless he is quoting from reports, but I do not think it is unreasonable to
describe what might have to happen, in his view.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me make it quite clear that despite the mobile charade known as “Axe the Tax” going up and down the country, that
is not what is happening—that is exactly the point. He would have to tell beneficiaries that he is reducing their
income. He would have to tell superannuitants that their income was going down. He would have to reduce Working for
Families payments. He would have to increase companies’ taxes—
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Prime Minister that we have heard quite enough.
Hon Phil Goff: After 2 years in Government when will the Prime Minister accept responsibility for what his own Government has done,
particularly when the recovery has stalled, prices are going up faster than wages, and he looks after his rich mates?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I accept responsibility every single day, and I speak for the Government. My president does not speak for the
Government; I speak for the Government. Let us just go to this very helpful chart that was produced—
Hon Darren Hughes: Smile and wave.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —hello, how are you, “Dazza”—by the Minister of Finance yesterday. It shows that in the last 2 years of Labour—
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that you are familiar with the Standing Order about the conciseness of
both questions and answers. We are getting the usual litany of rubbish from the Prime Minister. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] I am on my feet. The Leader of the Opposition may wish to leave the House, and if he is not
careful, he will. His deputy may go with him if she is not careful. I invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to
reflect on the provocative question he asked. It was a very provocative question. He cannot expect me as Speaker to stop
the Prime Minister from giving a pretty political answer. If members want me to clamp down on Ministers’ answers I am
very happy to do that. Members will note that I stopped the Prime Minister earlier on today when he answered in response
to the honourable Leader of the Opposition’s question. It was a perfectly fair primary question, and I did not allow the
Prime Minister to dump on the questioner. But that question was highly provocative, and I cannot, as Speaker, stop a
Minister from responding to a highly provocative question. When the honourable member stopped the Prime Minister he was
not actually saying anything provocative; he was referring to some information in respect of taking responsibility for
his own Government.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is not so much on the substantive point of order as on the comments you made
to the two colleagues on my left while you were ruling. I just remind you, Mr Speaker, that earlier today you warned the
Prime Minister twice about speaking while you were on your feet, without threatening to throw him out.
Mr SPEAKER: I take the honourable member’s reminder in the form in which it was offered. The right honourable Prime Minister was
referring to some information in answer to the last question. I will allow him to continue that.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was referring to this very useful, important document produced by the Minister of Finance. It simply shows that over
the last 2 years the real increase in after-tax wages under a National Government has been 9 percent. I must say that I
was shocked that over the last 2 years of the Labour Government it was minus 1 percent.
Hon Phil Goff: In respect of the responsibility that the Prime Minister said he would accept, is he taking responsibility for the
fact that power companies have charged consumers 15 percent GST on electricity prices for the month of September, before
the increase even came into effect; and who benefits from that: the power companies or his Government?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I take responsibility for the administration of the law. As the member would know if he looked at the rules around the
pricing of GST components, the power companies have probably acted within the law. But my point would be that I think
all of us are a little bit disappointed that they have chosen to act that way. The Minister of Revenue has worked with a
lot of businesses around New Zealand to accommodate them if there was an unusual situation. Had they approached the
Government, I think we would have given them an exemption for that.
Hon Phil Goff: Why should families who in September faced a nearly 20 percent increase in vegetable prices; faced big increases and
premature increases in their power prices; faced, if they live in the Auckland region, a rental bill $23 a week higher
than this time last year; and faced, time and again, Government-imposed increase charges, such as accident compensation,
feel better off?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One needs to look at a number component factors. Firstly, what is the overall inflation rate when taking into
consideration a whole basket of goods across the economy? We know that under a National Government it has been running
at 1.5 percent, and when Labour left office it was 5.1 percent. The second thing one needs to look at is the tax cuts
that have been in place under the two Governments. The answer is that under a National Government they have been
significant. The third thing one needs to look at is whether there have been wage increases. The answer is that under a
National Government there have been but they reflect the cost of living. The reason that family should take some comfort
is that, by and large, large, for the most part, their wages are rising faster than the rate of inflation.
Hon Phil Goff: Can he confirm that families are likely to face an inflation rate of over 4 percent by the end of this year, and of
about 5 percent by mid next year; and why should those families feel better off when most have had little or no wage
increases?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The answer to that question is that, yes, inflation will rise over the next 12 months, and the Reserve Bank will look
through that rise because it is a one-off effect from GST. That same one-off effect took place when the member was in
the Government that brought in GST and raised GST. The issue is not the underlying inflation rate per se; it is the
impact on prices, and that impact is catered for by a tax cut.
Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister telling families who are saying that they are worse off because the price of everything is going
up that they are wrong, and are they, rather than him, out of touch?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let us run through some facts, and then, in the end, I will allow those families to make that decision when they go to
the ballot box next year. Let us run through some quick comparisons for the last 2 years of the Labour Government and
the first 2 years of this National Government.
Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall the question; it was straightforward: “Is the Prime Minister
telling those families that they are better off?”.
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member actually asked: “Is he telling those families that they are out of touch, or is he out of touch?”. The
Prime Minister could have given a highly political answer. Instead, he said he wanted to resort to the facts in
answering the member’s question. That is not unreasonable. I do not I can stop the Prime Minister from answering that
question that way. He wants to give some information that he believes shows that the people are—well, I will leave it up
to him to show what—but he was not being abusive and he was not criticising the Labour Party at all. He was just
referring to some information.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Here are some facts. Let us take the price of bread and the price of cereals. They went up by 18 percent in 2 years
under Labour; they are up 4 percent under National. Milk went up 23 percent under Labour; it is up 7 percent under
National. Cheese prices increased 50 percent under Labour; there has been a 3 percent reduction under National. Let us
take the price of petrol. It went up 22 percent under Labour; there has been a 14 percent reduction under National. Let
us take the price of gas. It was up 22 percent under Labour; it is up 5 percent under National. Let us take housing
rents. They went up 6 percent under Labour; they are up 3 percent under National. This is what mums and dads will look
at, and I think I know the way they will vote.
Young Offenders—Boot Camps
6. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing for young offenders?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Fresh Start legislation is now in place, with the first 10 youth offenders beginning military activity camp last
week. This Government is serious about dealing with this country’s worst young offenders by giving judges access to
tougher sentences and working intensively to address the causes of offending. This is their last chance to avoid a life
behind bars. If we can save a few of these young offenders, it is better than saving none at all, because it means we
are saving victims.
Hekia Parata: How is Child, Youth and Family working to improve data sharing with other Government agencies?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Child, Youth and Family, along with the New Zealand Police, have recently implemented the police Youth Offending Risk
Screening Tool. This means that police information will be electronically attached to Child, Youth and Family records.
It is great to see that after just 2 years in Government we are getting police and Child, Youth and Family to share more
information.
Hekia Parata: What support is there for the community and grassroots providers?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Today I am announcing that this Government is funding 14 new community programmes to tackle youth offending through
the $4.5 million Fresh Start Innovation Fund. We are backing communities to address youth justice issues locally by
finding new, effective ways of dealing with their young offenders.
Benefits—Beneficiary Numbers
7. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social
Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that the growth in benefit numbers is “slowing”?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): I stand by my statement of 12 October that “The growth in the number of people on benefits slowed to 0.6 percent in
September.” The member needs to read the whole press release, rather than relying on headlines.
Hon Annette King: Well, in fact, I did not.
Mr SPEAKER: Order.
Hon Annette King: She made an assertion in her answer.
Mr SPEAKER: Please just ask the supplementary question.
Hon Annette King: Can she confirm there has been no downward trend in total benefit numbers in the last 6 months according to her
official figures and contrary to her claims, and, in fact, benefit numbers have gone up by over 13,000 in that period,
every one of them a person?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes, I can confirm that every person who loses his or her job is a person. I can also confirm that it is the growth in
the numbers that I have been talking about, rather than numbers themselves.
Hon Annette King: If unemployment is the No. 1 priority for this Government as claimed by the Minister in the House last week, why have
unemployment benefit numbers continued to climb over the last 6 months, now reaching 65,281, which is an increase of
41,000 in total since National became the Government and an average of almost 2,000 people a month going on to the
unemployment benefit since it became the Government?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think if that member listened to the Hon David Cunliffe today, she would have heard that he advised the House that
we have been in the toughest recession since the Great Depression in 1929. Quite frankly, what I have been talking about
is that the rate of unemployment benefit increase is slowing. It increased by 5.3 percent in September 2008 when the
previous Government was in office, it increased by 2.6 percent in September 2009, and there was 2.1 percent growth in
September 2010.
Hon Annette King: Is she aware that she has blamed the increase in the number of those receiving the unemployment benefit on seasonal
factors for the last 6 months, and could she outline to the House which months do not have a seasonal factor?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can advise that member that I have never once blamed sun, moons, or weather, like some people in the previous Labour
Government. I can tell the member that she might want to talk about the weather and the seasons, but, frankly, I am not
going to.
Hon Annette King: Can she confirm that when she told the House last week that 5,890 people had cancelled their benefits because they had
found work, she failed to inform the House that 7,769 people went on to the benefit that month, and with that sort of
manipulation of figures, why should New Zealanders have any confidence that the Government is serious about reducing
unemployment or any benefit numbers?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I think it is very important to remember that for people coming on to the benefit, it is very bad for them. However,
the fact is jobs are being created and other people are moving off the benefit. I am sure that that member would
actually appreciate the fact that it is good for people to be getting back into work.
Todd McClay: Can the Minister detail to the House an example where benefit numbers are slowing?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. Auckland is a good example where we can be cautiously optimistic that we have turned a corner.
Carmel Sepuloni: Ha, ha!
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well that Labour member may laugh, but I do not think it is funny. So far this year the number of Aucklanders on the
unemployment benefit has fallen from 26,375 in January to 22,636 in September. During the same period, the number of
Aucklanders on all main benefits dropped from 110,227 to 108,370. It is cautiously optimistic news.
Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Number of Retrofitted Houses
8. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many houses have been retrofitted through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) on behalf of the Minister of Energy
and Resources: The Warm Up—
Chris Hipkins: Desperate for patsies today!
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: They do not like it when we are doing good stuff.
Mr SPEAKER: I realise that when members interject, Ministers are at some liberty to respond, but today has got just unnecessarily
disorderly, and I am not at all happy with the way questions are being answered. I must make that very clear. I ask the
Minister, please, to answer the question.
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Warm Up New Zealand scheme started only on 1 July 2009, but in 15 months over 76,000 houses have been made warmer,
dryer, and healthier under the scheme. Fifty-five percent of those 76,000 houses are those of low-income families, and I
think it shows that this practical Government is helping low-income families to reduce their power bills, make their
homes safer, and reduce their emissions. It is making them healthier as well as reducing their power bills.
Nikki Kaye: How does the Warm Up New Zealand scheme compare with the previous Government’s home insulation scheme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The rate at which houses are being insulated for families is five times the rate that was achieved under the previous
Government—
Hon Tony Ryall: How much?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Five times. Rather than having 76,000 homes insulated, if we had continued at the very slow rate under the previous
Government, we would have achieved only onefifth of that number. I think that just shows how committed this Government
is to practical measures that will help low-income families and reduce emissions, and it also shows the very balanced
approach of the Government to helping both the economy and the environment.
Economic Performance—Minister’s Statement
9. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement: “we came into office with a very sound plan to lift New Zealand’s economic
performance”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I certainly do. If there was anything we underestimated, it was the size of the mess left by the previous
Government. We probably were not quite aware of just how much damage 9 years of economic mismanagement had done to the
productive capacity of this economy.
Hon David Cunliffe: Does his “very sound plan” include putting 50,000 more people out of work, cutting real wages by $9 a week at the
median, leaving most Kiwis worse off after the tax switch, and now trumpeting that he is “controlling inflation” because
households have nothing left to spend?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The plan includes getting this economy restructured to fix the damage done by the previous Government, which was
exacerbated by a worldwide recession, so that we can get through while protecting people from the sharp edges of the
recession, and raising our long-term economic performance. I am pleased to say that the Government’s plan is on track,
with extensive infrastructure investment, extensive review of the regulatory settings, lifting the productivity of the
public sector, increasing support for business and innovation, and reforming the tax system.
Hon David Cunliffe: Does taking the sharp edges off recession include putting up power, rent, and food prices by 1.1 percent in a quarter,
then introducing GST increases to push inflation up over 5 percent, and leaving working families worse off, with wages
going down and prices going up?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I know it does not suit the member’s leadership campaign, but in fact real wages are rising. Wages are going up faster
than prices.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Coming from someone who got 20 percent in the polls, that is a bit rough.
Mr SPEAKER: I say to both sides of the House that questions today have been mostly out of order, and maybe I should have ruled
them all out. That would have saved an awful lot of timewasting. Answers have been absolutely unnecessarily gratuitous
at times, especially the first answer to the primary question. I did not stop the Minister, but I was very close to
stopping him. The primary question was dead-simple. It asked whether the Minister stood by a statement. We did not need
all the gratuitous comments that came in the answer. How could I stop, then, the Hon David Cunliffe when he put a whole
lot of unnecessary statements in his following question? We can see how question time just goes from bad to worse. Maybe
I will have to start getting tougher, stopping
gratuitous answers when they are unnecessary, and ruling out questions that are totally out of order. I would rather not
interfere like that, but today has been totally unsatisfactory. But then points of order should not be raised in that
manner either, I say to the honourable member. I think we have heard enough of that.
Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Greens very much appreciate your attempts to keep order in the House. When
you say “both sides of the House”, I just make the point that the ACT Party, the Māori Party, and the Greens have done
our best to maintain order in the House, because we want to hear the questions and the answers.
Mr SPEAKER: I rebuke myself, because the honourable member is quite right. I have not had problems at all with the Green Party,
the Māori Party, or the ACT Party today. I must say it is National and Labour that have been very noisy today. What
troubles me is the quality of the questions and the answers. I do not mind the House being, at times, robust, but to me
the quality of questions and answers has deteriorated significantly, and I am contemplating doing something about that,
because I cannot stop Ministers giving highly political answers when questions are highly political, and when they
contain mostly political statement. But where there are straight questions, as there were today, I regret that I should
have stopped some Ministers in their tracks before I did, because some of the answers were unnecessarily gratuitous.
Hon David Cunliffe: How can he maintain that his tax switch leaves the vast bulk of New Zealanders better off, when those figures show
that they have already faced a 2.4 percent increase in the price of food, a 4.4 percent increase in local rates, and a
2.8 percent increase in power prices, with the prospect of further Government-imposed price increases yet to come?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Because it is correct. On 1 October people on national superannuation, on benefits, and on Working for Families all
had their rates adjusted to compensate for the increase in GST. Those in the workforce have had tax reductions, income
tax cuts that are larger than the increase in GST, and those are matters of fact, not speculation.
Simon Bridges: What steps has the Government taken to pull the economy out of the recession that started in early 2008, and put it on
the road to recovery?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the first place, this National Government has supported the economy through recession by running fiscal deficits,
and this year the cash deficit will be $13 billion. That is money we are borrowing overseas to pump into infrastructure
projects that support jobs, and to maintain and improve public services that were run down under the previous Labour
Government. We have also reformed the tax system with across-the-board personal tax cuts, we have taken steps to lower
the future debt track, we have reprioritised $4 billion of low-quality spending from back office and bureaucracy into
front-line services such as education, health, and law and order, plus a whole range of other initiatives, which would
take me too long to outline.
Simon Bridges: What alternative approaches has he seen that would threaten the economic recovery and leave New Zealanders worse off?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have heard of one approach that was out of step with economic policy right across the developed world, and that is
the New Zealand Opposition promising borrow and spend. Everywhere else in the world they are doing the opposite.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister might tell me why I should not ask him to leave the Chamber right now. I was on my feet and the Minister
made no attempt to resume his seat. [Interruption] The Minister has indicated that he did not see me. Ministers
answering questions should actually address the Speaker, and then they would see the Speaker when the Speaker gets to
his feet. It would be unfair today, because of the shambles that question time has been, to pick on one Minister, but I
warn Ministers that I will not tolerate this further. I will not tolerate patsy questions being used to attack the
Opposition. [Interruption] If the member in the backbenches there does not want to leave the chamber, then they had
better be very careful. Today has just been a total waste of time in terms of question time. In my view it has been very
unsatisfactory. I want members to reflect on it, because I am certainly not going to tolerate it as Speaker. I intend to
make sure that this does not
happen again. I make it very clear to Ministers that I will sit a Minister down immediately if they attack the
questioner or the questioner’s party on a straight primary question. Where supplementary questions contain political
comment, there is obviously licence to inject political comment in the answer. I will not stop Ministers doing that,
because I want the discipline then to be on the questioner to ask decent questions in order to hold Ministers to
account, instead of making stupid political statements. But I mean what I say, and I do not want to see today repeated.
Aged Residential Care—Use of Taxpayer Funding
10. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Health: How does the Government ensure that all taxpayer funding for aged care is spent on the provision of care for
subsidised aged-care residents, and not for other purposes?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): In the last 2 years the Government has put an extra $88 million into improving the quality of nursing supervision in
rest homes and increasing agedcare subsidies. Government funding for aged care is delivered by contracting rest homes
and others to provide this care, the details of which are specified in their contracts. The district health boards audit
the rest homes and others to ensure that they are providing appropriate care.
Sue Kedgley: In the absence of any financial monitoring of how the $800 million - odd of taxpayer funding for aged care is spent,
how can the Government be sure that funding that is intended to be spent on the provision of care for residents is not
siphoned off by some providers into profits for shareholders?
Hon TONY RYALL: The district health boards and the Ministry of Health audit rest homes and others to ensure that they are providing
appropriate care as per their contracts.
Sue Kedgley: Is he concerned that according to the Nurses Organisation many aged-care providers do not pass on funding they receive
for wage increases to staff working in the sector, but instead use that funding to fund capital development projects,
such as building new facilities, and to increase shareholder payouts and bottom-line profits; if not, why not?
Hon TONY RYALL: I am not concerned if aged residential care providers are also investing in providing more aged residential care beds.
A major review released by the Government has indicated there will be a significant need for investment in this sector
over the next few years, if we are to keep up with our aging population.
Sue Kedgley: Will he agree to initiate an inquiry into how taxpayer funding of aged care is spent, just as he initiated an inquiry
into the primary health organisations to ensure that taxpayer dollars got to patients and front-line staff, as he said
at the time; if not, why not?
Hon TONY RYALL: The Ministry of Health and the district health boards are regularly auditing rest homes and others to ensure that they
are providing appropriate care against their contracts. I agree with the Auditor-General, who released a report last
year that said that the monitoring of rest homes under the previous Labour-Green Government was appalling.
Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We would have wished that there was a Labour-Green Government, but there was not
a Labour-Green Government, and I would appreciate accuracy—
Mr SPEAKER: The member has supplementary questions with which to challenge a Minister’s answer, but she cannot by way of point of
order challenge the accuracy of a Minister’s answer.
Sue Kedgley: Can he confirm that there is no financial monitoring of how taxpayer funding of aged care is spent, and why, when the
aged-care sector receives about $820 million of taxpayer money, is the Government—a Government that campaigned on being
accountable to the taxpayer— not willing to investigate and track where money for the aged-care sector goes?
Hon TONY RYALL: The district health boards and the Ministry of Health contract rest homes to provide a certain standard of service for
our older New Zealanders—it is a priority for taxpayers. They audit the performance of the providers against their
contracts, and it is our expectation that those service specifications should be met.
Sue Kedgley: Does it concern him that some of the biggest providers of aged care are earning handsome returns of 14 to 16 percent
every year, with one reporting a profit of $61 million last year, yet wages for caregivers are amongst the lowest in New
Zealand; if this does concern him, will he begin an investigation into how aged-care funding is spent?
Hon TONY RYALL: I am unable to confirm the figures that the member has given. It is important to realise that a number of these
providers are also retirement village providers, and often it is the significant profits that come from the provision of
retirement village services that produce the figures she is seeing. It is quite clear from the aged residential care
review that significant investment is still required in this area, and that matter certainly has the Government’s
attention.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Why did he agree to the plan of the Capital and Coast District Health Board to cut home help for a further 500 older
New Zealanders from 1 December this year?
Hon TONY RYALL: I suspect the member is referring to an announcement made by the Capital and Coast District Health Board that it would
start means testing the provision of some services. That is the policy of every other district health board, including
when she was an Associate Minister of Health.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Given his recent call for better support for people with Alzheimer’s, why did he agree to the closure of the
psychogeriatric hospital in Richmond, which caters for the highestneed elderly people, who have serious dementia and
mental illness?
Hon TONY RYALL: The district health board is considering doing that because it has clinical advice that says care could be provided in
much better settings than it currently is at that service. The Government is more interested in providing quality
services than that member is.
Housing New Zealand Corporation—Tenants’ Behaviour
11. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Housing: What is Housing New Zealand Corporation doing to identify and address fraudulent behaviour by some tenants?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing): The overwhelming majority of Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants appreciate their home and abide by the rules.
However, there is a small minority who access homes and subsidies under false pretences. Over the last 2 years, the
Housing New Zealand Corporation has built a highly effective team of expert investigators. The team has identified $6.3
million worth of subsidised rent that tenants were not entitled to. In fact, 166 Housing New Zealand Corporation
tenancies were ended following investigations of more than 130 cases of tenant-related fraud that have been before the
courts. That is a tenfold increase in investigations and cases before the courts compared with 2 years ago.
Tim Macindoe: What kinds of activities have some Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants been undertaking that have led to action
being taken against them?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: There are two examples that the previous Government would have allowed. One example is that an Auckland man failed to
declare that he was running a large motor vehicle repair business. He also owned three rental properties and was living
with a partner. He has been sentenced to 5 months’ home detention and 100 hours of community work, and a debt of $68,000
is now against his name. Here is something else that the previous Government would have tolerated: an Auckland woman,
who had lived in her State house for 6 years, deliberately disguised her employment by using numerous false identities.
During her tenancy she also purchased six taxis and two investment properties, and got married, none of which was
declared. She has been prosecuted for fraud and she paid $50,000 at the time of sentencing to avoid prison.
Tim Macindoe: Why has the Housing New Zealand Corporation increased its investigation resources and activities over the last 2
years?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: There is no secret that the demand for Housing New Zealand Corporation property outstrips supply. Currently, we have
over 4,000 people on the waiting list who have been classified as high priority to be housed. In our view, we would
rather provide State
houses to people who have genuine need than turn a blind eye to it, as happened under the previous Government.
Overseas Investment Act—Changes to Act
12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for Land Information: When Rt Hon John Key said on Breakfast TV yesterday “we’ve changed the Overseas Investment Act to include 19 different
criteria”, had he advised the Prime Minister that 17 of those criteria were inherited from the last Government and two
new criteria have not yet taken effect?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Land Information): When the National Government made the decision to review the overseas ownership rules under the Overseas Investment
Act, it was decided that the criteria in place under the Labour Government and set in the 2005 Act were not
satisfactory. The Government made a decision to add two new criteria—the economic interest and the mitigating factor—and
not only did the Prime Minister not need to be briefed on that but he played an active part in the decision to introduce
the two.
Hon David Parker: Given that following the review the Government left the 17 criteria and added two, does the Minister think his
Government was coherent or incoherent when, having embarked upon a review of the overseas investment rules with the
stated ambition of simplifying and liberalising the rules, after 18 months of polling-induced indecision it announced
neither?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think it is fair to say that when we did the review we found that it would be impossible to liberalise the rules any
more than they already had been under Labour. So we went about the changes, and added two new criteria, which we think
will have an impact.
Hon David Parker: Was the Government coherent or incoherent when at the start of that review the Deputy Prime Minister said he wanted to
get rid of the strategic asset test because “I do not understand it.”; if so, was that same person being incoherent in
keeping that same test at the end of the 18-month review?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think everything the Government has done in this field has been very coherent.
Hon David Parker: Was the Minister for Land Information being coherent or incoherent last week when, in answer to a question on notice
that asked: “Will the changes to overseas investment rules mean he will decline more overseas purchases of New Zealand
farm land?”, he replied that he could not say, given that he later admitted he had not declined even one farm sale under
existing rules?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: In answering that question last week I made it clear to the member that it was not possible to answer a hypothetical
question. He had asked how many applications would be declined in the future, and until we know how many we get, and
then until we know how many do not meet the new criteria that we have put in place, it would be absolutely misleading
the House for me to make out I knew the answer.
Hon David Parker: Did the Minister advise the Prime Minister to put out the media release yesterday afternoon accusing others of an
incoherent overseas investment policy; if so, was that to highlight the incoherent nature of the Government’s own
statements and policy, or was that poor release hastily made on the advice of the Prime Minister’s own head spin doctor,
whom Gerry Brownlee and others in the Beehive describe as “Captain Panic Pants”?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I think we need to get the coherent position strapped down. Labour put the rules in place in 2005, and since those
rules have been put in place huge tracts of farmland have been sold to foreigners. So the National Government decided to
add extra criteria to the Overseas Investment Act to give Ministers a better chance to make that determination.
Mr SPEAKER: That brings to a close questions for oral answer. I must say that the very last question of the day hardly helped in
terms of good order. But today is today; tomorrow will be another day. Beware, the Speaker will be keen to see a rather
different question time.
ENDS