Thursday, 11 November 2010

Questions For Oral Answer

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Police—Numbers

1. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Does she stand by all statements she has made in relation to increasing the number of police; if so, how does she reconcile her statements with police projections that eight out of 12 police districts will have fewer constabulary employees by the end of 2011 than they had at the end of June 2009?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): Yes, I stand by all the statements I have made. This Government is committed to putting 600 extra police officers on the front line throughout New Zealand. We have already reached our goal of putting an extra 300 officers into Counties-Manukau. In relation to the figures raised by the member, in June 2009, 11 of our 12 police districts exceeded their staff target levels. Across the country there were 83 more officers than were funded by the previous Budget. The reason for that is that the number of police officers leaving the force has dropped to its lowest level since World War II. The numbers are now moving to the funded level, and we are on target to put 600 extra police on the front line by the end of next year.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a data table prepared by the New Zealand Police on 16 June 2010, showing that eight out of the 12 police districts will have fewer constabulary staff by the end of 2011 than they had at the end of June 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. If there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hilary Calvert: How does she expect to ever have sufficient police, when the local police force struggled to cope with illegal occupations in Taipā Bay and Papa Aroha, and when Ministers are heightening Māori expectations about the foreshore and seabed, then, in the case of Minister Finlayson, telling the locals that occupations are a criminal matter and that they should call the police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The matter of the Taipā Bay occupation, I understand, was dealt with very well by the police yesterday.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she stand by her statement of 29 October 2010 that “Nothing deters criminals like plenty of Police on the beat.”; if so, does she believe that the fact that the Wellington Police District will have 46 fewer police by the end of next year compared with June 2009 will actually make life easier for criminals, and less so for law-abiding Wellingtonians?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes to the first part of the question; and I can tell that member that when his Government left office in November 2008 the figure in Wellington was 789 police officers. That will be exceeded by the end of next year, in accordance with our promise.

Hilary Calvert: Does the Minister consider it to be acceptable that police resources and numbers are stretched by Ministers declaring that what are clearly political problems, such as the Taipā Bay occupation, are merely policing issues?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The police make their own decisions on matters like Taipā Bay, and certainly I—and Ministers that I am aware of—have made no decisions about that. The police considered this to be a matter that they should be involved with, and I think that they have dealt with it.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she stand by her statement of 20 May 2010 that “Our top priority has been to increase the number of officers on the beat in our neighbourhoods,”; if so, what does she believe that Aucklanders, who will have 32 fewer police at the end of next year than they had at the end of June 2009 in the Auckland police district, will think about the way that she has prioritised their needs?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe Aucklanders will be very pleased that when this Government came to office they had 703 officers, and that at the end of next year they will have 712 officers.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she stand by her statement of 3 July 2009 that “Increasing the numbers of police will not only make police more visible and better able to respond to crime, but will be an opportunity” to model better ways of policing; if so, how does she expect the police in the Southern Police District, which will have 22 fewer police at the end of 2011 than there were in June 2009, to be able to demonstrate better policing methods to people living in that district?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that the people of the southern region will be thrilled to know that under this Government their police will in fact increase from 558 officers to 565 officers. Actually, that is an increase.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does she stand by her statement of 12 December 2008 that “New Zealand police are being stretched too thin,”; if so, how much thinner is she willing to see the Waikato Police District be stretched, considering that papers prepared by her own department show that it will have 18 fewer police at the end of 2011 than there were in June 2009?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am fully aware that Waikato is due, under the commissioner’s decision, to get further police resources. In fact, I note that when this Government came into office Waikato had 573 officers. At the end of next year it will have 598 officers. Even that member should be able to work out that that is an increase.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does she reconcile her statements about increasing resources for the police with the reality reported in the September Police Association newsletter that, for example, in the words of Sergeant Kevin Stewart, the police are “attending fewer jobs due to workload and a lack of staff” and that, in the words of several other police shift supervisors, the police see “a lack of numbers on the beat as compromising safety for frontline officers.”—how does she respond to those front-line officers?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would respond in this way. The previous Government took 4 years to trial the Taser. This Government came into office and got 720 Tasers out there on the front line, keeping our staff safe. I can also say this Government is putting in 600 extra police, and with anyone’s maths that is an increase.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a dataset prepared by the New Zealand Police, which shows that the third tranche of additional police promised and funded by the previous Labour Government came into force by the end of the 2008-09 financial year—the date that we are comparing against.

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

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table page 5 of a paper prepared by the office of the Auditor-General on 16 June 2010, which quotes: “Vote Police was reduced by $20 million in 2009/10 as a result of line by line review of expenditure”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document.

Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is being sought to table a document.

Craig Foss: It is a clarification.

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the member in the interest of progress.

Craig Foss: Is that a select committee document as part of the financial reviews?

Mr SPEAKER: We need to be little careful here. If that was advice to a select committee that has not reported yet, then that would be confidential to the committee.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This advice was noted in the transcript in public session, and it is on the record.

Mr SPEAKER: If it is on the record in public—[Interruption] An interesting point has been raised, so I will hear Craig Foss.

Craig Foss: Regardless of the fact that it was mentioned or not in public session, as I understand it, if that document is confidential to the committee, then it is a committee document. It is outside the Standing Orders to refer to it in public anyway, and it seems that the member intends to breach the Standing Orders by breaching the confidence of the committee. Until a report comes to the House about that annual report, then that is a committee document.

Mr SPEAKER: Well, a very interesting issue has arisen. I accept that absolutely. I am little loathe to rule on it without checking further, so probably what I am best advised to do is to take the member’s word and leave it to the wisdom of the House.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can I assist you?

Mr SPEAKER: What I will do, I say to the Hon Clayton Cosgrove, is to put the leave, and leave it—

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I can assist you, seriously. This is not a financial review. This is advice regarding the estimates, which was in public session. The advice was in public session and the quote was noted in public session.

Mr SPEAKER: If the estimates have indeed been reported back to the House, then that seems to resolve that issue. 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.

Economy—Rebalancing Measures

2. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to tilt the economy towards exports and savings and away from borrowing and consumption?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The Government is taking several important steps. Firstly, we have introduced significant tax reforms that reward work, savings, and investment, and that discourage borrowing, consumption, and property speculation. Secondly, we are getting the Government’s own books in order so that the Government, which is the least productive part of the economy, reduces its call on resources from the rest of the economy, and this will help in the long run to keep interest rates lower than they otherwise would be. Thirdly, we are reviewing extensively the regulation that applies to the export sector. Fourthly, we are pursing free-trade agreements that will deliver significant benefits to New Zealand, having recently signed agreements with Malaysia, Hong Kong, and ASEAN, and we are in talks with India, the Gulf States, and the trans-Pacific partnership countries, Korea and Russia.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What progress is being made in tilting the economy towards exports and savings?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are some welcome signs of progress, although there are some headwinds. For example, households are being careful with their money, they are not spending up

significantly, and they are reducing debt. There are signs that the housing market is, at the least, moving sideways and people are not rushing back into property speculation. On the other hand, the high exchange rate against the US dollar is offsetting some of the benefits of the very high commodity prices. I note that the Governor of the Reserve Bank said yesterday that households and businesses are keeping spending low as they reduce debt, and when this is combined with improved export and commodity prices, it is reducing New Zealand’s current account deficit and external indebtedness, which are chronic problems that have built up over the last 10 years under the previous Government.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What challenges does New Zealand face as the economy rebalances towards exports and savings?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think there are a couple of challenges. One is obviously the high exchange rate against the US dollar, although I might say that the exchange rate against the Australian dollar—and Australia is our biggest trading partner—is at its lowest in 15 years, and this is considerably assisting our manufacturing exporters. I think the other big challenge is simply to get government in order. Government represents too big a call on the resources of the economy. Effectively, waste in government is a tax on the export sector, and because such a poor job was done of managing government in the last decade we have a big challenge to sort it out.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What are some of the costs and risks of currency intervention?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There has been some speculation about currency intervention. This Government is continuing the policy of the last Government—that is, it supports the Reserve Bank having authority to intervene. The Reserve Bank has publicly set out the criteria that it thinks should apply before it intervenes. However, we share the view of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that there is little evidence that currency intervention works other than in the short term. For instance, large-scale intervention by the Bank of Japan and the Swiss National Bank in the last few months have had only a transitory effect. Most Governments and central banks share our caution about the considerable risks to taxpayers from extensive currency speculation.

Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen criticism of his rebalancing of the economy by borrowing for tax cuts and increasing Government debt, and why does he deny that he is doing that, given Fran O’Sullivan’s critique, which asks: “is there any point borrowing more to fund tax cuts if taxpayers simply use the extra to retire personal debt?”.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I have seen almost no criticism of the Government’s plan to rebalance the economy, and that is because almost all New Zealanders understand the need for it. They are doing exactly the same things themselves. We are being careful with spending; they are being careful with their spending. They are paying off debt; we are trying to constrain the rise in debt. They are focusing on being able to earn more, and that is exactly what New Zealand as a nation needs to do.

Hon David Parker: Why does the Minister not promote the fact that his rebalancing of the economy through income tax gives 42 percent of those cuts to the top 10 percent of earners, in reality meaning that low and middle income earners pay a higher proportion of total taxes in New Zealand, while high-income earners pay a lower proportion of total taxation.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not promoting that, because it is not correct. In fact, the Government cut tax rates across the board and produced extensive analysis after the Budget to show that the tax cuts were fair in the sense that all income groups got about the same change in their net after-tax income. No one has disagreed with the fundamental push of the tax changes, which are to discourage consumption and excessive debt and housing speculation, and encourage exports, savings, and investment.

Roading, State Highway 1—Information Release and Consultation Period

3. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: When will the New Zealand Transport Agency announce a new date for releasing information about the new State Highway 1 through Kapiti, and how long will the consultation period run for?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): I am advised that updated consultation materials for the MacKays to Peka Peka Expressway will be considered by a New Zealand Transport Agency board committee at its regular scheduled meeting on 18 November. Should that consultation material be approved, I understand that an announcement will be made by the New Zealand Transport Agency after that date advising the timetable for consultation, including the period that consultation will be open.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry, but I missed the last sentence of the Minister’s answer, about the length of the consultation.

Mr SPEAKER: I will ask the Minister to assist us, but the member might note that it was his own front-bench colleagues who were making the noise that prevented him from hearing it. Could the Minister please assist us with that.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Absolutely, on the basis that the Opposition will actually listen. The announcement will be made by the New Zealand Transport Agency—actually, I will repeat the full sentence. Should that consultation material be approved, I understand that an announcement will be made by the New Zealand Transport Agency after that date advising the timetable for consultation, including the period that consultation will be open.

Hon Darren Hughes: When he took the unusual step of calling both the chair and the chief executive of the agency on a Saturday to discuss delaying a publicly notified consultation due to start the following week, did any aspect of the conversation touch on when that consultation could start?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I reject at the outset the assertion of that supplementary question that it was an unusual step for me to be working on a Saturday and talking to people involved in my portfolio, which is something that I do all the time.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think that is a flippant answer to my question. I was not being insulting by saying that it was unusual; I would not have thought that contact on a matter like this would take place on a non-business day. There was nothing loaded in the words “unusual step”, and if that is what caused the Minister offence, then I will take them out so that he can get on with the substance of my question. That was not a political attack on him.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has more supplementary questions. The way he shaped the question, it started out: “When the Minister spoke to some people on Saturday …”. I feel that I cannot ask the Minister to answer any differently, because that is not really starting the question. If the member had structured the question the other way round, he might have got further. He has more supplementary questions and I think he should use them.

Hon Darren Hughes: If the further refinements that the New Zealand Transport Agency is working on are not in the Mana electorate, as he asserted yesterday during question time, why then will he not ask the agency to release the part of the route that is in Mana, so that the voters in that area know what to expect before they go to the polls on 20 November?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am confused. On the one hand, the member seems to criticise me for trying to have an involvement in New Zealand Transport Agency decisions, and on the other hand he is asking me to tell it what to do next. He really needs to decide what he expects of the Minister with regard to the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Surely the Minister is responsible for giving an answer to the House, not for questioning what my motives are in asking the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think—[Interruption] I ask whether the Minister is quite finished. I think the questioner on this occasion has a legitimate grievance. Although there are issues over what the Minister can do with regard to the Transport Agency, the question was not unreasonable. I think it

might be appropriate to let the member repeat his question, just to make sure that it has been treated reasonably fairly.

Hon Darren Hughes: If the further refinements that the New Zealand Transport Agency is working on are not in the Mana electorate, as he asserted yesterday during question time, then why, if he has had nothing to do with the original decision, will he not ask the agency to release the part of the route that is in the Mana electorate, so that those voters know what to expect before they go to the polls on 20 November?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I still have trouble with the question. On the one hand the member is insinuating that I am suggesting that there would be some involvement in the political cycle, but now he is suggesting that I get involved because of the political cycle and ask the New Zealand Transport Agency to do something that it is not yet prepared to do. I have a problem with that. I think the agency should get the consultation material together as quickly as possible and provide as much certainty to people as it can, but it should not be cognisant of the political cycle and the Mana by-election.

Hon Darren Hughes: Further to the Minister’s reply that the committee will meet on 18 November and then release information after that for consultation, does he think it is fair that if the standard 6-week consultation period is chosen, that will mean it the consultation runs through the Christmas and new year period, and is it fair that people will have to try to make a submission on such an important matter during the Christmas and new year holiday period?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sure that is a fair point for the member to make, and I am sure the board committee will take into account the timetabling of the consultation relative to the Christmas period.

Hon Darren Hughes: When the New Zealand Transport Agency announced on 2 November that the consultation it had spent $22,000 on inviting people to for 7 November was suspended to “further refine … proposals”, was it only the location of the motorway by the urupā that required refinement, or was it other locations along the road, as well?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My clear understanding is that the focus of the change was on insufficient detail on a section of the road towards the northern end of the alignment, which, if consulted on as it stood, would leave too much uncertainty for local residents.

Economy, Sustainable—Cleantech and Greentech Businesses

4. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree that a more sustainable economy is preferable to a less sustainable economy; if so, what measures has he taken to specifically promote cleantech and greentech businesses in New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I said yesterday, it is important that the economic recovery and new jobs and growth are all sustainable, and not built on unsustainable Government spending and housing speculation, which were the hallmarks of the last decade. It is also important that we balance our economic opportunities with our environmental objectives, and in that context the Government has put in place several measures to promote clean-technology businesses. The most significant is the amended emissions trading scheme, which puts the right incentives in place for all households and businesses that are using carbon-based energy to use clean technology. The Government has also put in place the waste levy, which I understand the member’s party lobbied for when it was in support of the previous Government.

Dr Russel Norman: When he announced in his Budget $321 million worth of expenditure in research and development, why did he not target even a fraction of that spend on greentech and cleantech industries such as renewable energies, sustainable agriculture, greentech manufacturing, and energy efficiency?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is right that the Government process has the opportunity to do that. The matter of the priorities is determined largely by the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology, and it is my general understanding that there are significant

projects across the science community that are focused on those things. But now that the member raises the issue, I will have a chat to my colleague the Minister of Research, Science and Technology just to get more detailed information.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Interpreting the Minister’s response to the primary question, that he believes a more or less sustainable economy is preferable, why did he cut funding to the Organic Advisory Programme and the Sustainable Business Network, which are two organisations that are leading in their own fields the greentech, cleantech economic shift?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We take a general approach rather than highly specific interventions and funding arrangements that can easily be the subject of political fashion. We have put in place the amended emissions trading system, which has a blanket impact across the whole economy, and in my experience it is leading to everybody, from aluminium smelters to tomato growers, trying to work out how to run more efficient production systems. We have gone for an impact across the whole economy rather than highly selective ones.

Dr Kennedy Graham: Does he then accept that by introducing through blanket impact a full carbon price on electricity we will encourage the production of low-carbon electricity such as wind, geothermal, and potentially tidal; if so, will he commit to ensuring that the electricity sector pays a full price on carbon, with protection for low-income households?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has set out a path for the carbon price and we believe it is a sensible one, particularly given the significant recession the economy has had. I think the member raises a reasonable issue that one of the constraints on moving to a full carbon price would be the impact on low-income households. I might say that there are signs of success. The mix of energy has moved significantly in favour of new renewable energy sources, whereas under the previous Government, for all its good intent, the non-renewable proportion of energy rose quite dramatically.

Dr Russel Norman: Does the Minister agree with business leaders, such as Rob Fenwick, Rob Fyfe, Jeremy Moon, Sir George Fistonich, Sir Stephen Tindall, Phillip Mills, and Geoff Ross, who see clean technology as an economic opportunity for New Zealand, rather than seeing it as a cost?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the answer to that is probably yes. I have been involved in discussion with a number of those individuals as, I think, a number of other Ministers have. I think we need to be a bit careful not to “sloganise” this next-generation environmental fashion. The fact is that the emissions trading system, which I know the member supports, will have a pretty significant impact on the pressure for all businesses and households to work out more efficient ways of using non-renewable energy and swing more to cheaper, renewable energy sources.

Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the list of business leaders I gave earlier, does he agree that clean technology is an opportunity to achieve the kind of knowledge-led economy about which there has been enormous talk over many years while at the same time improving our environment and enhancing our clean, green image, and does he agree that that requires more focused attention than a broad price signal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think I would probably agree with the member’s first statement. In respect of his second statement, I would not say that we need more focus than a broad price signal. I think there is a broad price signal out there, which we all agree is the right kind of signal, although we probably disagree on how strong that signal should be at the moment. But these kinds of discussions would be in addition to that broad price signal, not a replacement for it. We are interested in hearing about any entrepreneurial or innovative ideas people have, particularly about the use of public resources to achieve those ends.

Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that the economy to some extent has been based on the premise of simply mining more, farming more, and consuming more, that we need to make the transition to a greentech, high-tech solution, both for economic and environmental reasons, and that although the beginnings of a price signal around the emissions trading scheme is a start, it will require more effort from the Government to make that transition?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with the member’s first statement. I do not agree with the analysis that New Zealand’s economic growth has all been based on the unsustainable exploitation of resources. Our fundamental resource is soil and its productive capacity, and the New Zealand farming industry has shown an extraordinary capacity to sustain the productive capacity of our soils, our grasses, and our forests over 150 years. So I think we already know a lot about sustainable production systems, but, of course, technology can help us add to its productive capacity.

Minerals, Nationalised—Mining on Maori-owned Land

5. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Energy and

Resources: Did he give an undertaking to the Iwi Leadership Group that he would revisit Government policy on nationalised minerals if Māori considered granting consent to mining on Māori-owned land?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister of Energy and

Resources: No.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Why has the Minister engaged with the Iwi Leadership Group on mining interests on Māori land but not consulted in good faith with iwi leaders on petroleum exploration permits like those for Raukūmara and Reinga, or is consultation something he engages in only when iwi have something he wants?

Mr SPEAKER: Did the Minister hear the whole question? I must confess I did not hear the start of the question. But if the Minister heard it—

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Now that the Speaker has interrupted the flow, I have forgotten the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I am sorry. I asked the member because I missed the start of the question because of interjections on my left.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Why has the Minister engaged with the Iwi Leadership Group on mining interests on Māori land but not consulted in good faith with iwi leaders on petroleum exploration permits like those for Raukūmara and Reinga, or is consultation something he engages in only when iwi have something he wants?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Iwi leaders, in our experience, have the same interests around mining as every other New Zealander. Some of them would like to proceed with mining because they are landowners or they want new jobs. Others are opposed to it because they believe it has a negative environmental impact. In respect of the second statement, the Minister, I understand, is heading to the East Coast to consult about the permits the member referred to. Of course he will consult with them.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Given that response, did the Minister give an undertaking to the Iwi Leadership Group to amend the existing Ministry of Economic Development consultation process with Māori on mining applications, in order to prevent a repeat of the Raukūmara and Reinga basins consultation debacle?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot answer specifically about whether he has made an undertaking. But, certainly, it is the Government’s intent to follow the same kind of process with iwi as with any other New Zealanders, and that is to be transparent about where the Government is headed and to make sure their views are heard and taken into account.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Did the Minister give an undertaking to the Iwi Leadership Group that he would amend Government policy or the Crown Minerals Act to make certain the nature and the extent of Māori interests in new, non-nationalised mineral resources?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, I cannot answer specifically about what the Minister may have said, but the Government does have an interest in ensuring that for all participants in the resources stake there is certainty about rights, obligations, and processes. Iwi have as much interest in that certainty as every other New Zealander.

Rahui Katene: Has he seen the comments on mining from Mark Solomon, chair of both Ngāi Tahu and the Iwi Leadership Group, that it is about getting all the best information one can and acting responsibly as kaitiaki for protecting the land, and what processes has he established to ensure iwi will be informed about Government policy on Crown minerals, moving into the future?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have seen those comments from Mr Solomon. I think he is probably still a wee bit focused on having no mining whatsoever, whereas I think there are possibilities in the Ngāi Tahu rohe that would be quite positive, including providing jobs for members of Ngāi Tahu. The Government is talking with iwi leadership about the best process to ensure iwi are well informed about Government policy on minerals and resources and can take iwi views into account. I do not think this will be difficult, because it is a process that we put in place for a whole range of issues that we discuss with iwi from week to week in the same way as we do with every other New Zealander.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm that the Iwi Leadership Group was interested in mining opportunities only if it were not at the expense of the environment or contrary to the aspirations of its tribal members?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I certainly would not want to represent iwi leaders’ views; that is fundamentally their role. But in my experience they are, as owners and managers of significant land and natural resource in New Zealand, well informed and well aware of the trade-offs between environmental protection, and the creation of wealth and jobs—which, after all, is of as much interest to iwi in general as it is to the Government.

Police—Public Satisfaction with Services

6. KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) to the Minister of Police: What reports has she received on the level of public satisfaction with the services provided by the New Zealand Police?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police): I am very pleased to report that the latest Citizens’ Satisfaction Survey shows a high level of public trust and confidence in the New Zealand Police. The ratings show the percentage of people who have full or quite a lot of trust and confidence in the police has increased over the last 2 years from 69 percent to 75 percent. In addition, the rating of overall satisfaction with service delivery remains high; 79 percent of people who had contact with the police were satisfied or very satisfied with the quality of the service they received.

Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: What does the survey indicate about people’s perception of safety in their communities?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: People’s perception of safety in their neighbourhood, city, or town centre has improved since 2008. The rating for safety in the neighbourhood after dark has increased from 65 percent to 70 percent. There has also been an increase in the proportion of people feeling safe or very safe in their city or town centre after dark, from 42 percent to 48 percent. The results of the survey reflect the ongoing effort and commitment of police staff around the country to provide the best possible service to their communities.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why should not the public of New Zealand believe Sergeant Sean Judd of Westport, a front-line officer, who said publicly in September of this year: “We just don’t have the numbers and unfortunately the public have noticed and are not happy. They want to know why we are not out on the beat, and the fact is we would like nothing more, but because we are so under resourced it is just not happening.”?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: It is very difficult when the member comes to the House and quotes a serving officer and names him like that. Quite frankly, that sergeant can know that this Government will put 600 extra police on the front line by the end of next year.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the September edition—No. 8, Volume 43—of Police News from which that quote came.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Public document.

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Silly woman.

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being dealt with—the member’s own point of order. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Education, National Standards—Dismissal of Trustee Boards

7. Hon CHRIS CARTER (Independent—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her assurance to the House on 9 November 2010 that it was never her intention to dismiss boards of trustees of primary and intermediate schools who refuse to implement her national standards policy?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Education: Yes. A formal process is in place to ensure that schools have the support they need to implement national standards, and that is before any consideration is given to possible further steps.

Hon Chris Carter: If it was never her intention to dismiss non-complying boards, as she told my very good friend and former colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on Tuesday—

Hon Members: Oh, oh!

Hon Chris Carter: One of my 17 friends—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Sometimes the Speaker has to admit that the Speaker has lost it, and I have sure lost that one. I think members have had their fun. Please, treat the questioner with respect.

Hon Chris Carter: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It reminds me of when I was a teacher during the last period on Fridays. If it was never her intention to dismiss non-complying boards, as she told my good friend and former colleague the Hon Trevor Mallard on Tuesday, why did she respond to a reporter’s question in February of this year by saying that dismissing boards who do not comply was an option?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Minister’s comments in February reflected what the law actually provided for, and that law, of course, was passed under a previous Labour Government. As the Minister has made clear, there is an escalation process, which has a number of decision points and opportunities for assisting boards of trustees to implement national standards. This process would contrast with the Labour Party escalation process when it has a problem, which is basically to go from hero to zero.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Perhaps you could help me. It seems to me that the answer—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I say to National Party members, on this occasion, that it is a point of order. Although they may not be impressed, they should treat the House with respect.

Hon Chris Carter: It seems to me that my primary question was quite simple. I asked whether dismissal of non-complying boards was an option. I was told initially that it was not. I have quite good eyesight and the chart the—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot litigate an answer by way of a point of order. The Minister gave a perfectly clear answer to the question, and the member cannot litigate it by way of point of order.

Hon Chris Carter: Does she agree with Liz Horgan, principal of St Joseph’s School Ōtāhuhu, who wrote last week that the actions of more than 200 boards of trustees last week in opposition to the national standards policy demonstrated a growing number of boards who recognise that using guesswork and hopelessly crude methodologies are not a desirable way to run schools or assess pupils; or, indeed, with Professor John Hattie, who said earlier this year that the Minister’s national standards were a hopelessly crude way of raising student achievement? Does she agree with those statements; if not, why not?

Hon TONY RYALL: No, the Minister does not agree with those statements. I am very disappointed that some boards have taken the action that the member refers to. I note that the New Zealand Herald today reports that up to one-third of those schools are actually getting on with implementing national standards. It is disappointing that these schools are participating in a uniondriven agenda affecting children’s education.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.

Hon Chris Carter: I seek leave to table a copy of the press conference where Mrs Tolley said that dismissal was an option.

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a press statement?

Hon Chris Carter: No, it is a transcript from her interview.

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

Hon Chris Carter: I seek leave to table a letter from Liz Horgan, principal of St Joseph’s School Ōtāhuhu, outlining her concerns about national standards.

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.

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

Mr SPEAKER: Is this seeking leave to table another document?

Hon Chris Carter: It is.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to just list the documents he wishes to table and give the House—

Hon Chris Carter: I would be happy to do that. I thought that you wanted them individually. I seek leave to table a document from Mr John Hattie, professor of education from Waikato University, outlining his concerns about national standards.

Mr SPEAKER: I take it that it is a letter.

Hon Chris Carter: It is an outline from the New Zealand Herald on his assessment.

Mr SPEAKER: No, we will not be seeking leave to table that document.

Waste, Electronic—Recycling

8. NICKY WAGNER (National) to the Minister for the Environment: How much electronic waste was collected last Saturday with the eDay initiative and what longer-term plan does the Government have for improving recycling of electronic waste?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment): Last Saturday, eDay, funded by the Government, was very successful. It collected a record 900 tonnes, or 77,000 items, of electronic waste at 53 drop-off points around the country. I particularly want to acknowledge the thousands of volunteers around New Zealand who assisted with this massive recycling effort. The Government wants to progress from eDay to a year-round culture of recycling electronic waste. We are investing in a programme next year to establish in partnership with community recycling facilities 20 permanent recycling points as well as recycling facilities in Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch.

Nicky Wagner: What are the implications of the Government decision to phase out analogue television services in the switch to digital transmission, and has thought been put into dealing with the large volume of old televisions that will be added to the waste stream as a consequence?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes, this is an issue. Although people will be able to get a digital decoder for older televisions to work, we expect a surge of about 500,000 older TVs being added to the waste stream and they will contain about a thousand tonnes of lead. The Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Economic Development have been asked by Cabinet to work on

solutions to this issue in parallel with the broader programme of improving New Zealand’s management of electronic waste. A key issue is the capital cost of the equipment to extract the lead from the glass. I have had discussions on this issue with Australian Ministers and we are exploring the possibility of a joint initiative to achieve this recycling at least cost.

Nicky Wagner: How much has this Government committed to improving the management of electronic waste, and how does this compare with the previous Government?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government has invested approximately $2.3 million in improving the management of e-waste in 2009 and 2010 as part of our strategy of focusing on those solid wastes that pose the greatest harm. The total amount spent in the previous 9 years was $247,000, or about a tenth of what National has invested in just 2 years.

Charles Chauvel: Can the Minister update the House on the status of the 966 tonnes of e-waste collected on eDay last year, which, when he last advised the House, was sitting on a wharf in Korea, and which he could not give any undertakings would be recycled?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There was a problem in both 2008 and in 2009 with some of the waste that was collected by eDay. Some of that remains, and the Government is letting a contract for the recycling of about 200 tonnes—I do not have the exact figures, but I would be happy to provide the exact tonnage to the member. Effectively, the previous Government grossly underfunded eDay, which meant there were not the funds to be able to professionally deal with the waste. I am pleased that this Government has shown some environmental responsibility and made sure that the job is being done properly.

Charles Chauvel: When, if ever, will the Minister just get on and approve a product stewardship scheme for e-waste at point of purchase to reduce the 80,000 tonnes of e-waste that are currently deposited every year in landfills by New Zealanders, and why does he not just get on and do that so that every day can be eDay?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am quite open-minded about a stewardship scheme for electronic waste, and it is one of the things that we need to explore.

Hon Steve Chadwick: Oh!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member laughs, but I alert her to the fact that after 9 years in Government, Labour did absolutely nothing about electronic waste. We ran the most successful eDay ever and have a programme for providing 20 recycling depots around the country. The reality is that this Government has made more progress on e-waste in 2 years than Labour made in 9 years.

Employment Relations—Minister’s Confidence in Changes

9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Does she have confidence in all of the changes to employment relations legislation and policy that she has introduced or proposed since becoming the Minister of Labour?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Labour: Yes.

Carol Beaumont: How can the Minister be confident that the changes to the Employment Relations Act and the Holidays Act will help to improve productivity, when the Department of Labour told the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee in its financial review hearing this morning that lots of the changes would be very hard to link directly to improving productivity?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is quite clear when we look at the bill that there are a large number of actions that will help improve the productivity of the New Zealand workforce in their collective interest. I am quite confident about that.

Carol Beaumont: How can anyone have confidence in the Minister’s commitment to improving skills in the workplace, given that there is not a single mention of the skills forum in the Department of Labour’s 2010 annual report, that she has not held a single meeting of the skills forum this year, despite indicating that there would be five, and that the department confirmed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee that the decision to hold no skills forum meetings has been entirely hers?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is quite clear in the labour portfolio that this Government is focused on actions, rather than endless meetings, strategies, action plans—

Hon Simon Power: Task forces.

Hon TONY RYALL: —task forces, pilots, and groups. This Government is focused on action, and, certainly, the Hon Kate Wilkinson is an action woman.

Darien Fenton: How can she be confident that her 90-day trial period scheme will improve productivity and skills, given that we have heard of yet another example today, where a skilled chef was fired under the scheme for using too much sauce and aioli?

Hon TONY RYALL: Quite easily.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear the supplementary question, and the level of background noise is too high.

Darien Fenton: Given that the Department of Labour confirmed to the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee this morning that she is proposing changes to the Minimum Wage Act, can she guarantee that those changes will not disadvantage any minimum wage earner, or result in any workers being entitled to even less pay than they currently earn?

Hon TONY RYALL: I am sure the member will become aware of that matter when it is appropriate to make the member aware. I can say that the Minister is focused on providing employees with more choice, and is focused on how we can create more jobs in this economy for the future of New Zealand.

Broadband, Wireless—Roll-out to Regional New Zealand

10. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Communications and Information

Technology: What action has the Government taken to help the roll-out of wireless broadband in regional New Zealand?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Further applications were invited on 9 November for access to the Managed Spectrum Park in the 2.5 gigahertz band on a “first come, first served” basis. This follows a previous application process in 2009. This spectrum allocation will improve broadband services to rural New Zealand, which is a priority for the Government. An emerging consensus on the importance of wireless broadband services in rural areas means we will play a vital part in rolling out broadband in those areas where fixed broadband infrastructure can be less economic to deploy and insufficiently flexible—for example, in the farming environment.

Katrina Shanks: What progress is the Government making on the Rural Broadband Initiative?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Tenders close tomorrow for companies to submit their bids for the Rural Broadband Initiative. I am confident we will achieve our target of 80 percent of rural households and businesses having access to broadband services of 5 megabits per second or better, and the remaining 20 percent on speeds of 1 megabit per second or better, within the 6-year period. I expect the first agreement on providing fast rural broadband to be signed by the end of this year. Rural broadband will greatly help economic development and growth in rural areas, as people in those areas tap into the same Internet speeds currently enjoyed by their urban counterparts.

Rahui Katene: What action has the Government taken to ensure Māori involvement in the broadband roll-out in the regions?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Expectations of community consultation, including with iwi, was part of the request for proposals of the Rural Broadband Initiative. The request for proposal notes that indications of community support, including from iwi, will be one of the criteria used in assessing partners that the Government will choose. Māori can choose to approach commercial bidders about becoming partners, but, at the very least, Māori are informed about the broadband developments that will provide better services to their communities. Officials have also liaised with iwi groups, including through face-to-face meetings where appropriate.

Broadband, Ultra-fast—Tendering Process

11. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Minister for Communications and

Information Technology: Is he satisfied that the process for awarding the ultra-fast broadband tender is appropriate; if so, why?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology): Yes; because the Government and Crown Fibre Holdings have followed the utmost standards of probity. I note that the process involved Crown Fibre Holdings analysing and negotiating commercial offers before providing recommendations to shareholding Ministers, which is a process in many ways not dissimilar to that developed by the previous Government to approve bids to its Broadband Investment Fund, which were also signed off by Ministers. In order to be helpful, I also note that the Opposition has made a mistake on its blog. I am actually not a shareholding Minister in Crown Fibre Holdings; that honour belongs to my colleagues the Ministers English and Power.

Clare Curran: Why does he believe there is no conflict of interest with Murray Milner, who carried out consultancy work for Chinese company Huawei Technologies, a potential bidder to supply services and equipment for the broadband roll-out, being at the same time a Crown Fibre Holdings board member who was approving decisions about the tendering process for services and equipment suppliers for that very same equipment and infrastructure?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Firstly, I point out to the member that Huawei Technologies is not a bidder in the process that the Crown Fibre Holdings board is considering. It is potentially a technology supplier to one or more of the bidders, but it is not actually involved in the bidding. In relation to Mr Milner and any of the other directors, I understand Crown Fibre Holdings has an interest register and a conflict of interest policy, which it adheres to.

Clare Curran: Was he aware that Murray Milner carried out consultancy work for Huawei Technologies from June to October 2010 while holding a position on the board of Crown Fibre Holdings; if so, why does he still think there is no conflict of interest?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I was recently made aware that Mr Milner had done some work for Huawei Technologies, but the remainder of my answer is the same as the answer to the previous supplementary question.

Clare Curran: Will Crown Fibre Holdings be providing coordination assistance and commercial and technical advice to the ultra-fast broadband selected partners when electing the equipment suppliers for passive infrastructure and layer 2 equipment for ultra-fast broadband; if so, why is Crown Fibre Holdings pushing for there to be common suppliers and for all subsequent respondents to use the same suppliers as stated in a document written on 14 October 2010, which was sent by Crown Fibre Holdings to three selected respondents?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That was quite a long question, and I am not quite sure which bit to focus on. Crown Fibre Holdings does have a very clear policy, as I said, regarding interest, and I cannot for the life of me think where the member is coming from on this. Crown Fibre Holdings has a clear interest register, and any conflicts are managed.

Clare Curran: How does he reconcile his public statement about Huawei Technologies’ relationship with the Government that “It’s one step removed from government. They are not a bidder in their own right, they’re a technology partner. It’s not like there’s going to be any screwing the scrum in a particular way.” with John Key’s singling out the firm as a potential participant in the fibre scheme and the firm’s clearly bidding to be an equipment provider?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are a couple of things. Firstly, it is not bidding with Crown Fibre Holdings at all, so the last part of the member’s question is completely incorrect, and, secondly, I think it is entirely right for the Prime Minister to point out that it could be a potential partner. A number of people could be potential partners. There is no harm in that.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table four documents, if you want to take them individually—

Mr SPEAKER: Let us see if we can take them in one bunch.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a PowerPoint presentation by Murray Milner of Milner Consulting Ltd titled “UFB impact on New Zealand Transport Capability” delivered at Huawei Technologies’ ultra-fast broadband technology summit on 27 September 2010.

Mr SPEAKER: Let us deal with that. Leave is sought. Is there any objection that? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a transcript of John Key’s interview with Guyon Espiner on Television New Zealand’s Q+A programme.

Mr SPEAKER: No, we are not going to do that. Let us have the next one.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a letter sent by Crown Fibre Holdings to selected respondents on 14 October 2010, which outlines the process for selecting passive infrastructure and layer 2 equipment suppliers.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Clare Curran: I seek leave to table an article in the Dominion Post—

Mr SPEAKER: No, we are not going to do that.

Fisheries, Ministry—Compliance Operations

12. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: What has been the result of recent enforcement activities undertaken by the Ministry of Fisheries?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture): Over the last year there has been an increase in effective policing in the Ministry of Fisheries, just as we have seen effective policing with the Ministry of Justice. Nearly 400 criminal prosecutions have been undertaken between August of last year and this year—280 offences related to recreational fishing, 74 offences were poaching and black market offences, 38 offences were inshore commercial offences, and 3 offences were deep-water commercial offences. Our fisheries are one of our nation’s most valuable assets and it is very important that the Ministry of Fisheries team have been able to nail these offenders.

John Hayes: What has been the result of legal action taken against commercial fishers in the last year?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Commercial operators are regularly inspected, and as result of targeted action 41 commercial operators are facing prosecution. This year the ministry undertook one of its most significant prosecutions—misreporting by companies and crew associated with the vessel Tomi Maru 87. In July all of those charged pleaded guilty and acknowledged misreporting. Sentencing is yet to be carried out but $636,000 in sale proceeds has been forfeited to the Crown, and $1.1 million has been paid to the Crown by the owner of the Tomi Maru 87 in order to redeem it from seizure.

Hon Shane Jones: Can the Minister explain to the House how the enforcement obligations of the Crown to tangata whenua, and sections 7A and 7B in clause 53 of the Aquaculture Legislation Amendment Bill (No 3), will enable tangata whenua to progress in aquaculture?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: When that bill hits the select committee, we hope to hear back from tangata whenua as to how they see it operating and whether it will satisfy their needs. I look forward to their submissions.

Hon Shane Jones: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have directed the Minister’s attention to clause 53; he is obviously is not aware what—

Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot do that.

ENDS

© Scoop Media