Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

I have received advice that the extension of the scheme until 31 December 2011 provides certainty for investors and institutions. The alternative was to allow the scheme to lapse on 12 October 2010, which would have created a high degree of uncertainty and could, in turn, have resulted in a loss of confidence in some parts of the finance sector, thereby undermining financial stability.

💬 David Bennett: How is the extended scheme consistent with new Reserve Bank requirements?

In the commentary on the scheme there has been some confusion about the distinction between the Reserve Bank requirements and the deposit guarantee scheme. Last year this Parliament passed amendments to the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act that require all non-bank institutions with deposits of over $20 million to obtain a credit rating from a recognised agency by 1 March 2010. That is currently the law, regardless of the deposit guarantee scheme. The deposit guarantee scheme extension will simply pick up the credit ratings that institutions already have. If they have a minimum of a BB rating, they will be eligible for the scheme. If they cannot get a credit rating by March 2010, then that is a matter they will have to deal with with the Reserve Bank, regardless of the Government guarantee.

💬 David Bennett: How is the extended scheme fairer to participants and taxpayers?

The original scheme was put in place under duress at the beginning of the financial crisis. We have had the opportunity to refine the scheme when it is extended, by introducing a new pricing system based on the institutions’ risk profiles. It will be fairer to participants, because it is designed to avoid a situation where low-risk institutions are essentially subsidising the activities of higher-risk institutions.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree with sharebroker Chris Lee that there will be “no chance of many of the little finance companies getting a BB credit rating in the next 12 months” and with KPMG partner Godfrey Boyce that “Very small financial institutions are going to struggle to achieve that credit rating.”; if so, does he still feel he has struck the right balance by limiting their eligibility while giving the larger banks an opt-out?

As I explained earlier, already on the books there is a requirement for financial institutions to get a credit rating by 1 March. I understand that if they do not get a credit rating, then they will either be prosecuted or have to negotiate an exemption with the Reserve Bank if they have deposits of over $20 million. That is a requirement that this Parliament passed last year, independent of the deposit guarantee.

Decision Making—Consultation

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his claim that as Prime Minister he is committed to consulting with, and listening to, people prior to making decisions that impact on their lives?

Yes.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister understand why people like Ngāti Whātua spokesperson Ngarimu Blair has described his consultation as a masquerade, and the New Zealand Herald has accused the Prime Minister of ignoring due parliamentary process, when the Government arrogantly goes ahead and makes announcements as to its decisions when the people’s submissions to that select committee have not yet been considered and deliberated upon?

No.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: There is no hope for the Prime Minister. Would bodies like the Auckland Regional Council and the Kaipara District Council and the Rodney District Council today be expressing concerns about “major and secret changes” to the legislation, and “worst possible scenarios” if the consultation process had been adequate and if there were trust in the Government’s good faith in this matter?

The Government has gone through the select committee process on the matter. We are working through the decisions on boundaries, which were part of that select committee process.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: How does the Prime Minister claim to be committed to consultation and to be listening to people on the Auckland City reform bill when, firstly, his announcements after the royal commission reported were made without any process of consultation; secondly, the legislation introduced was rammed through under urgency without any select committee process; and, thirdly, now with this so-called showcase of consultation, without referring to those submissions he has made decisions that even his Minister of Māori Affairs described today as a sham?

The Leader of the Opposition gets consultation confused with agreement. Just because some people advocate a position in a select committee does not mean the Government has to agree with it.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: On another matter, while calling on the Labour Party to support the Government’s decision to send SAS troops to Afghanistan, why did he not, on any occasion, make any effort to consult with Labour or any Opposition party on the reasons why he made that decision, if he expected our support?

It was my opinion that the Opposition had already made up its mind.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: That is a bit rich! Why, as Prime Minister, did he not consult with any Opposition parties either before or after making the decision to cut out pre-funding of New Zealand superannuation, thus ending a period of consensus between political parties on superannuation that gave elderly people certainty in making plans for their retirement?

Two things: firstly, because we exercised the provisions that already existed in the law that the previous Labour Government passed; secondly, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I do not currently live on Mars and presume that the country is not going through an economic recession in which some changes might be necessary.

💬 John Boscawen: Is the Prime Minister prepared to listen to the 87 percent of Kiwis who voted No in the referendum, and support my member’s bill?

Firstly, we are listening to the 87 percent of people, and that is why we are in a position—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: To issue guidelines and set up a committee!

You can be on it; it would give you something to do because you have not got much else to do!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is not going to be on the committee.

I am sure they will let you out of primary school early to do that. Anyway—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is on his feet. There will be silence. Could the honourable member be a little more courteous. I might advise the Prime Minister that the Speaker left primary school quite a while ago, sadly, with advancing years. He must not refer to the Speaker in answering the questions. I think we have heard enough of that answer.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have not begun to hear the answer yet.

Firstly, the Government is listening to the 87 percent of New Zealanders. The way that we are doing that is that we asked both Child, Youth and Family and the police to look at the process that we are working through. In direct answer to the member’s question about whether National will be supporting the bill through to select committee, I say that is a decision I will be announcing at about 4 o’clock this afternoon.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Will the Prime Minister now commit to working constructively with Opposition parties in order to ensure that a credible emissions trading scheme is developed to protect our trade opportunities, to allow us to meet international obligations, and to ensure that we can give the forestry industry certainty to start planting trees and dealing with the problems surrounding climate change?

Unless I am missing something, the Government has been working constructively with the Opposition. It is true that the Leader of the Opposition has written a letter to me expressing come concerns about the direction in which the emissions trading scheme negotiations are going. Like all letters I get from the Leader of the Opposition, as expected, it was delivered to the media at the same time as it was delivered to me. It would be a little more useful, if the Leader of the Opposition wanted to have a constructive relationship with me, if he could learn to deal with me as a grown-up and not through the media.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: Does the Prime Minister agree with the following statement, made by John Key in April 2007, which is backed by 87 percent of New Zealanders: “… if the reality is that no one is ever going to be prosecuted for lightly smacking their child, then don’t make it illegal. Don’t make it a crime. It’s poor law-making to write a very strict law and then trust the police and the courts not to enforce it strongly”; if not, what has changed?

Well, very simply, what has changed is that an amendment was put up. The amendment basically ensured, I believe, that the police had quite clear guidelines in the way the law would be administered, and at this point we have to say that the evidence strongly supports that the law is being administered the way the amendment was designed.

💬 Hone Harawira: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou katoa e te Whare. Does the Prime Minister stand by his speech from the throne when he promised to see Māori standing strong, economically independent, and fulfilling the complete promise of their potential, and how does he reconcile Cabinet’s recent failure to address the significant under-representation of Māori within local government with that earlier promise?

Yes, I do stand by that statement. It has been my view that an advisory participation committee is the best way of representing mana whenua. I draw the member’s attention to a huge number of gains that have been made in the very short time that National has been working with the Māori Party. Those gains have included a review of the foreshore and seabed legislation, an accelerated process of Treaty settlements, and substantial work being undertaken around Whānau Ora. They have included the policy that I announced this afternoon, which will see thousands and thousands of young Māori given the opportunity to participate in holiday programmes, and the like. Although I can fully understand the frustration of the Māori Party when it comes to the Auckland seats, what I do know is that we have achieved more in 9 months than Labour achieved in 9 long years.

Question No. 3 to Minister

I call question No. 3, Kevin Hague. [Interruption] I have called Kevin Hague. [Interruption] I say to the Labour front bench—because no one else was interjecting then—that I have called Kevin Hague and they should show him some courtesy.

Healthy Eating Projects—Funding

3. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by his statement in the House last week that “The Government has not slashed the budget for healthy eating projects.”?

The member’s quote is selective. What I said was “The Government has not slashed the budget for healthy eating projects. What the Government has done is sought more balance in the approach between physical activity and nutrition.”

💬 Kevin Hague: Does he accept that ordinary Kiwis might think the $31.6 million cut to the Healthy Eating - Healthy Action fund was a slashing?

I am completely unaware of a $31.6 million reduction in the healthy eating fund, and I invite the member to table the information he has that suggests that there has been such a reduction.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: What new initiatives has the Government recently announced to help address unhealthy weight or obesity?

The Prime Minister recently launched the KiwiSport initiative, which will provide $20 million a year to schools and regional sports trusts to have more opportunities for sports and other physical activity. This will certainly provide more balance to the message that New Zealanders need good nutrition and physical exercise.

💬 Kevin Hague: Does he accept that ordinary Kiwis might think the $24 million cut from the “Get Checked” Diabetes Aotearoa programme was a slashing, the $1.2 million cut from the Diabetes New Zealand obesity programme was a slashing, and the $3 million cut from men’s health initiatives constituted a slashing, or does he think Kiwis might prefer to use a “chainsaw massacre” metaphor?

I think the member needs to realise that he should see this matter within the context of the fact that the Government is moving resources around the health sector. We inherited $160 million of unfunded services from the previous Government, and we are seeking to move resources within Vote Health to meet those demands.

💬 Kevin Hague: What reports did he receive providing evidence that the programmes were not working, and will he table them in the House?

There were a number of situations where those various expenditures were reviewed. The Government must make it very clear that we have moved resources within the health sector in order to meet new areas of spending and requirement. This Government has put an extra $750 million into the health sector this year. Half of all new spending is in Vote Health, and New Zealanders are very pleased with that.

💬 Kevin Hague: Is it not the case that his decision to take the axe to the programmes was driven purely by ideology, or was it driven by the fact that the benefits of the programmes, in terms of reducing health-care need, will not be felt until the future, when he is most unlikely still to be Minister?

The member may not realise that we are in the worst recession since the 1930s and resources need to be moved. But I am interested that that member’s party has not criticised the party opposite for cutting $24 million from public health programmes, cutting $17.5 million from primary health organisations, and cutting another $20 million from the programme to immunise against the human papilloma virus, and other immunisations. Let us see the member be fair in his criticism.

💬 Kevin Hague: I seek leave to table a document entitled “Budget 2009 and line by line review of Vote Health”, the author of which is the Hon Tony Ryall, which sets out the adjustments in funding that I have referred to.

💬 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.

Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme—Opting Out

4. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Why is he allowing banks to opt out of the retail banking guarantee scheme?

Participation was voluntary under the current scheme, and it remains so under the extension I announced yesterday.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: What are the consequences for the average level of risk borne by the taxpayer if major banks opt out, but small and less creditworthy finance companies stay in?

The consequences for the taxpayer are that the more institutions they guarantee, the more risk there is. At the moment the contingent liability is around $120 billion, and a big part of that is in bank deposits. Banks have operated in New Zealand for around 150 years without Government guarantees, and it is possible that they will be able to do so in the future. As I said before, participation was voluntary in the current scheme, and it will remain so in the future scheme.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I submit that the Minister has not addressed the question. The question was very specific and asked what the consequences would be for the average level of risk. He attempted first to talk about the total level of risk, which was irrelevant, and then talked about the voluntary nature of the scheme, which was also irrelevant. He has not addressed the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member still has further supplementary questions available to him. It is a fine line to draw on the matter. I invite the member to pursue it through further supplementary questions. I will give him that chance right now.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Have the same major banks further reduced short-term interest rates in line with recent cuts to the official cash rate; if not, what does the Minister propose to do about that?

That issue has been discussed extensively in the House, and I maintain the same position as previously. If bank customers do not like the margin that the banks are charging on floating rates, then they can opt for the 6-month rate for mortgages, which happens to be lower. The Government’s priority is, and has always been, that banks should keep lending, because when they stop lending, people lose jobs.

💬 Amy Adams: Is the wholesale guarantee scheme altered by yesterday’s announcement?

No, the wholesale guarantee is not affected by yesterday’s announcement. The two schemes are largely independent. Under the wholesale scheme, bank issuers are charged a fee of between 70 and 200 basis points, which is considerably more than is charged for the retail scheme. There are recent indications in the market that banks will be able to borrow money without the Government guarantee, as a number of their parent Australian banks are doing now.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Having given the banks a free pass on the retail guarantee scheme and also on the interest rate pass-through issue, when will the Minister start to stand up for the interests of hard-pressed Kiwi businesses and households, or will he continue to just roll over in the face of pressure from the big end of town?

That is a pretty silly question. The banks do not get a free pass. If they want to have the guarantee, they will pay for it. The comments they have made on how much they have to pay for it indicates that they do not like it. If they do not have the guarantee, then they do not pay for it. That seems an entirely logical position. It would be pretty odd if we imposed the guarantee on them.

Youth, Support—Fresh Start and Break Away

5. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support young people?

Today we announced our Fresh Start programme for youth offenders, and our school holidays Break Away programme for young people. These two programmes together will support New Zealanders aged between 11 and 17 years with both preventive programmes and programmes to help them when they are in trouble.

💬 Chester Borrows: Can the Minister give more detail on what activities will be offered in the school holiday Break Away programme?

The Break Away package will provide activities and programmes for young people who normally do not have access to such activities. In excess of 30,000 young people will benefit from the package, through holiday programmes for 11 to 17-year-olds whose families cannot afford holidays; the Prime Minister’s Youth Programme, which will reward 100 young people who have made positive life changes; and, a personal favourite of mine, residential respite camps, which will give 500 places to children and young people who are cared for by foster parents or by grandparents raising grandchildren, to give the parents a break. Those camps will be run by children’s health camps to start with.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Why is the Minister trialling the first military-style activity camps as early as next month, well before the public and the select committee have the opportunity to report back on her youth justice proposals; is this yet another example of a Government that refuses to listen to submitters, especially when the vast majority of them are opposed to its ideas?

These young people are ticking time bombs that are about to go off. They deserve our attention. They deserve our putting everything we can behind them to try to turn their lives round. Quite frankly, all that happened under the previous Government was that they ended up in adult prisons really quickly and really easily. We are going to do something about it.

💬 Chester Borrows: Can the Minister give the House more details on the Fresh Start programme for young offenders? [Interruption]

I know that members opposite do not like to hear about the action that is going on under this Government, and the difference that we are making, but Fresh Start will target New Zealand’s most serious youth offenders. It also has a focus on turning round the lives of young people before they get into the youth justice system. We are bolstering the court orders available to judges, and investing more in supervision programmes. We are combining those measures with police and community-based diversion, mentoring, and drug and alcohol programmes, amongst many other programmes. This is a $59 million investment, and it means that nearly 3,000 Fresh Start places will be available.

Telecom New Zealand—Employment Contract Advice

6. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister of Labour: Has she or any Department of Labour official analysed the contract being offered to workers currently employed on behalf of Telecom; if so, what advice has been given to those workers or their representatives?

on behalf of the Minister of Labour: No. Neither the Minister nor the Department of Labour gets involved in contractual disputes between private sector companies and their workers.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Has the Minister or her officials read the emails received in her office on this subject over the last month?

I am not in possession of that information myself, but it would be extraordinary if a Minister did not read emails. I am sure that she would have read the emails, or her staff would have.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Does she agree with her colleague John Carter that the contracts are “a crock” and workers should not sign them?

Of course, Mr Carter is acting on behalf of his constituents in his capacity as the member of Parliament for Northland. He is well known for representing their concerns, and that is precisely why he has such a large majority and continues to be voted in by his constituents.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister then explain why the contracts are a crock in Northland but are supposedly acceptable around the rest of the country?

If the member had listened more carefully, he would appreciate that the member for Northland was acting on behalf of his constituents. Like all members of Parliament, we hear the views of our constituents. That is the normal role and activity of a member of Parliament; it is not a matter of ministerial responsibility.

💬 Sue Bradford: Why is the Minister refusing to meet with the National Distribution Union executive this week because, according to the Minister’s office, the Telecom workers who belong to the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union, another union, are on strike; and will she be applying the same principle by, for example, refusing to meet with any business representatives this week because Telecom is involved in an industrial dispute?

I am advised that the Minister was unable to meet the National Distribution Union because of a clash of commitments.

💬 Darien Fenton: Does the Minister agree that there is an inherent issue of employment fairness at stake when the chief executive of Telecom gets $5 million, or more, while the Telecom lines engineers are facing redundancy with no compensation; and will she be considering any measures to help to rectify this awful situation?

I would remind that member that these issues are all resolved under the Employment Relations Act, which was passed in the year 2000 by the then Labour Government.

💬 Sue Bradford: I seek leave to table a statement from the National Distribution Union saying it was advised by the Minister’s office that the risks are too great for her to come to the meeting, and she cannot meet with the union because Telecom workers are on strike.

💬 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 Trevor Mallard: In light of the Minister’s response to my second supplementary question, is he prepared to deny in this House that the contract being offered to workers formerly employed on behalf of Telecom is a crock?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I ask the Minister to respond to that, I say the Minister is not actually responsible for an employment contract that is being offered by a private company like Telecom. Although I did permit the Minister to give his opinion on the comment made by his ministerial colleague, once we get too far down the track on matters that are properly private matters of the company, it becomes a bit difficult.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a relatively simple one. This is a matter that has been referred on a number of occasions to the responsible Minister’s office. It is something that I am sure the Minister has looked at. She may want to say that she does not want to comment on it, but I think the matter is properly before the House.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member. I invite the Hon Dr Wayne Mapp to answer the question.

As is well known, Ministers do not get involved in private disputes between private companies and their employees. That is exactly how the Employment Relations Act is supposed to work.

Auckland, Transport Planning and Delivery—Auckland Transport Agency

7. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Transport: What steps is the Government taking to improve Auckland transport planning and delivery?

Yesterday I confirmed, as part of the Auckland governance reforms, the establishment of a new Auckland Transport Agency to focus on delivering transport projects and services across Auckland. The single Auckland Transport Agency will replace the nine separate entities that currently govern Auckland transport, and will be responsible for all local authority transport delivery functions in Auckland, including local roads and public transport. The new agency will be responsible for an annual budget in excess of $1 billion.

💬 Nikki Kaye: How will the new Auckland Transport Agency improve transport for the people of Auckland?

Rolling the multiple current entities into one transport agency will provide the focus and continuity of decision making required to deliver a transport network that supports Auckland’s growth and economic success into the future. The Auckland Transport Agency and the new Auckland Council will work closely on urban and transport planning, meaning that they will identify areas of population growth in the city and design improvements to transport infrastructure to support those growth areas in an integrated way.

💬 Nikki Kaye: How will the new Auckland Transport Agency be structured?

It will be structured as a quality delivery agency, to be overseen by the new Auckland Council. The Auckland Council will set the strategic direction, appoint the board—which will include up to two councillors—provide planning and guidance, and determine the levels of regionally sourced funding. The new agency will undertake the sequencing of projects, tendering, and the procurement of operational decisions. It will work closely with, and be partly modelled on, the New Zealand Transport Agency, which operates at a national level.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Why on earth do we need a new agency in Auckland, given that the Minister is so brilliant that the last plan for Auckland, which would have delivered rail-track electrification, electric railcars and rolling stock, integrated ticketing, and the very important Penlink road, was disregarded by the Minister, even though all the projects had been costed and funded? Now, thanks to him, all those projects are delayed. That is his brilliance at work!

If the member looks, he will find that all those projects are going ahead. It is, of course, possible and, indeed, perhaps necessary for a Government to do more than one thing at once, and that includes developing the projects and organising the governance. The important thing for the member to understand is that, going forward, we need to have a strong, integrated process between the council and transport in Auckland. It is not enough for local body people in Auckland simply to announce they want a project here and a project there, without any consideration of the overall plan to develop the big city.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: To the Minister—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I say to members on both front benches that I have called Jeanette Fitzsimons.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: Are there any Auckland motorway projects that he has announced must keep within their initial budget allocation, even if that means they cannot be completed; if not, why has he imposed that condition on Auckland’s rail electrification and the railcars to run on it?

Absolutely we expect motorway projects in Auckland to come in within budget. In fact, we have taken the step of halving the amount to be spent on the Waterview Connection, to ensure value for money. That goes for all transport projects.

Auckland, Local Government Reform—Northern Boundary of Super-city

8. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “for all intents and purposes” the decision on the northern boundary of the super-city has been made?

It is my observation that the Prime Minister is invariably right, although sometimes not as centre-right as I myself would prefer. Cabinet has decided the governance position on the northern boundary of Auckland, but the final decision on the northern boundary will be made by the House when it considers the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill.

💬 Phil Twyford: What other issues have been decided by Cabinet in advance of the select committee recommendations, given that Māori representation and the boundaries have been predetermined?

Let me inform the member that it is a standard part of the legislative process that when a department is preparing its report for a select committee, it ensures that its departmental report reflects the Government’s position. Cabinet is the forum where the Government confirms or decides its position. I am sure that the select committee, which the member is a part of, will consider the departmental advice along with all other submissions that have been put to it, and in the end the committee will decide on the form of the bill to be reported back to the House. That is the process that the Government and the House will follow, and I look forward to the member studying it and getting the hang of it eventually.

💬 Phil Twyford: What does he say to the mayors of Kaipara and Rodney and the Auckland Regional Council chairman, all of whom are opposed to Cabinet’s decision to override the select committee and the Local Government Commission and set the northern boundary itself?

It would be helpful if the member would listen to the answers he seeks. It is the practice for departmental reports to reflect the Government’s position. Rodney and Kaipara people along with other Aucklanders have had the opportunity to make submissions to the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee about all aspects of the legislation. I have been informed that a number of submissions on the northern boundary were received and those submissions have been carefully considered by the select committee, along with all the other submissions. I am also aware that members of the committee have been listening to the people, and indeed I have had very good reports from the people of Kaipara and Rodney that the local member John Carter is doing a great job.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he agree with former royal commissioner David Shand that the Cabinet decision on the northern boundary will lead to substantial coastal development, and who does he believe stands to benefit from turning our northern beaches into a mini - Surfers Paradise?

No, I do not agree with him.

Finance Companies—Oversight Changes

9. MELISSA LEE (National) to the Minister of Commerce: What changes is the Government proposing to the oversight of finance companies?

This morning I announced a number of changes to improve the regulatory oversight of finance companies. One of those changes will be to require debt issuers, including finance companies that propose to go into moratoria in order to avoid receivership, to produce clear and concise investment statements that disclose the details and merits of a moratorium proposal. They will also need to disclose the basis on which the relevant directors and trustees are recommending the proposal, and any other relevant information. The aim is to ensure that investors are provided with information in a way that is transparent and easy to understand, to enable them to make the appropriate decisions for their individual circumstances.

💬 Melissa Lee: Are there any plans to improve the oversight of corporate trustees and their relationship with finance companies?

Yes. The collapse of a large number of finance companies in recent years has raised some fundamental issues around the role of corporate trustees, and in particular the competence and accountability of some of those trustees. Today I announced a package of measures designed to improve the quality of trustees’ supervision of issuers, including a licensing regime to be overseen by the Securities Commission. Trustees will be required to meet a series of stringent criteria, such as appropriate infrastructure, monitoring systems, processes, and financial strength. The commission will also have an ongoing role in monitoring trustees, and that role will include the power to prosecute trustees, direct trustees to take action to protect investors, strengthen trust deeds, and require mandatory reporting to the commission when issuers may be nearing default. I can advise the House that I hope to bring legislation on this issue to the House by the end of the year.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Will the proposed moratorium regulations require investors to be given an honest assessment of both the benefits and the risks of the moratorium proposal as against receivership; if so, who will provide this information in light of the experience of certain companies overplaying the former to the personal benefit of directors, and underplaying the latter to the detriment of investors?

That is the intention.

💬 Melissa Lee: What other initiatives are being undertaken to improve oversight of the financial sector?

The Government is also undertaking a review of the Securities Act. The Act is now over 30 years old. The review will focus on ensuring, firstly, that investors receive relevant and timely information; secondly, that the rules around managed funds are clear and consistent; thirdly, that the regulatory bodies have the right roles, the right functions, and the right powers to enforce securities law and monitor issuers; and, fourthly, that the scope and objectives of securities law are clearly stated. I intend to release a discussion document that canvasses these issues by the end of the year.

Biosecurity—Border Controls

10. Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) to the Minister for Biosecurity: Has he received any reports on the increasing risk to the biosecurity of New Zealand?

Yes.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: What is his response to the 2006 AgResearch report that identified that 77 percent of shoes inspected at the border contained fungi, bacteria, and plant material, and how will he ensure proper biosecurity protection for New Zealand after the Prime Minister has just announced that the vast majority of travellers from Australia will not be inspected at all, just to save an estimated 8 minutes in processing time when those travellers enter New Zealand?

The Prime Minister has not announced that the vast majority of people will not be screened at the border. This change is about delivering the most effective biosecurity that we can at the border, and it would be irresponsible not to actively examine the system we have to see whether we can do it better.

💬 Shane Ardern: What steps has the Government recently taken to strengthen New Zealand’s biosecurity system?

Just last week the Government moved to double the instant biosecurity infringement fine. This toughening up on those who put our country at risk, combined with Biosecurity New Zealand’s more targeted approach of focusing on travellers who pose the greatest risk, will significantly strengthen and enhance our biosecurity system.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: How can the Minister protect New Zealand from unwanted pests and diseases, when the report from his ministry investigated and identified 106 living species in storage containers of palm kernel destined for New Zealand farms; and considering his view that “there is no evidence to suggest that the current requirements have failed”, in what circumstances will he start showing some concern, and will he review the importation of palm kernel into this country?

Over recent days I have seen a number of reports around palm kernel and the risk it poses to biosecurity in New Zealand. Most of them are totally inaccurate. All shipments of palm kernel are fumigated before they arrive in this country.

Economic Stimulus Package—State Housing

11. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Housing: What progress is being made on the State housing economic stimulus package announced earlier this year?

Good progress is being made: $20 million has been committed to the new build part of the package. That was for the delivery of 87 new homes, making up to 1,550 new State houses that are being added to the stock over 4 years. Although a handful of properties are yet to be finished due to the usual winter weather conditions, these houses should be finished within the next few weeks. This is 18 more houses over and above what we first announced, because of the new efficiencies in the Housing New Zealand Corporation under this Government.

💬 Todd McClay: What other good news can the Minister tell us about this project?

I am delighted with that question, because under the Healthy Housing component $3 million worth of work has been done on over 200 properties. Also, the corporation has finished, or is completing upgrades on, over 1,600 other State houses. But members should wait; there is more. On average, over 1,000 people each month have been employed since March, and we are now working on the next phase, in which we will upgrade the disgraceful and derelict housing stock that we inherited when we first came into Government.

💬 Moana Mackey: How can anyone take the Minister seriously when he gets up and brags about the number of State houses he is building, given that he has personally stopped the building of 500 State houses in Hobsonville because the Prime Minister does not like them; and how many State houses could be built or renovated for the $1.2 million that is being spent by the Housing New Zealand Corporation every year in Hobsonville in order to be the master developer for what is essentially now a private development?

I think I have previously outlined to the House that the previous Government started the process of Housing New Zealand Corporation being involved in Hobsonville in 2002. There were three elections between that time and now, when no houses were built, no consents were issued, there were no earthworks, and the promise of the 500 houses never came to fruition in 7 years.

💬 Moana Mackey: How does he think his housing stimulus package compares with the Australian Government’s nearly $8 billion social housing stimulus package, which is saving 15,000 jobs, and does he believe that this has had anything to do with the Australian unemployment rate now holding steady, while New Zealand’s continues to rise?

The Australian housing package and John Key’s National Government package are stimulating the economies of both countries, which is a lot more than what the hot air stimulated under the previous Government did.

Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims and Sexual Abuse Victims

12. LYNNE PILLAY (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: Has ACC abandoned all changes relevant to sexual abuse victims since question time yesterday?

No. The Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) is consulting providers on the clinical guidelines for sensitive claims. No final decisions have yet been made. I assure the member that the needs of sexual abuse survivors will be paramount. Decisions on the clinical guidelines will be made by clinicians, not by politicians.

💬 Lynne Pillay: Given the Minister’s assurance in the Chamber yesterday that the proposals were in the best interests of victims, followed by ACC’s back-down a few hours later because the proposals would not work, can the Minister guarantee victims of sexual abuse that they will not be subjected to more cost-cutting strategies at their expense?

I can assure the member opposite that in dealing with sensitive claims what is paramount, in respect of ACC’s policy, is ensuring the very best quality of service.

💬 Sue Moroney: Can the Minister provide any evidence of representations or submissions made by the Minister of Women’s Affairs to the Minister for ACC on behalf of victims of sexual abuse?

No, and I will tell the member why. We on this side of the House believe that clinical decisions should be made by clinicians, not by politicians. I am disappointed that members opposite think we want ACC’s clinical decisions to be made on a political whim.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What was the origin of the new clinical guidelines, and when did the process being?

I am surprised that Labour members are today criticising the clinical guidelines. In June 2008 the official launch of the guidelines was praised by none other than the Hon Steve Maharey. The origins of the guidelines go back to 2004, when concerns were raised about the effectiveness of sexual abuse counselling. That resulted in an $800,000 comprehensive research programme, which led to new guidelines being produced last year. Those guidelines are now being consulted on for implementation.

I seek leave to table a photo of the Hon Steve Maharey at the launch of the clinical guidelines, where he said what an important step forward—

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