Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Treasury yesterday issued its monthly economic indicators for August, pointing to an improved global outlook and signs of a fragile world recovery. It suggested that unemployment would peak around 7.5 percent, compared with 8 percent in the Budget forecasts. I welcome these early signs of recovery, particularly if it helps to preserve jobs, but we have considerable work ahead of us over the next 3 to 5 years to ensure that New Zealand achieves sustainable long-term increases in productivity, and to undo the economic mismanagement of the last decade.

💬 Craig Foss: What other observations did Treasury make in its monthly economic indicators report?

Treasury noted that the composition of growth potentially based on housing and consumer spending is unlikely to unwind our economic imbalances, such as the large current account deficit and high debt levels. I agree with these observations, and particularly that we need to address these structural imbalances to achieve a truly sustainable economic recovery.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: In light of his previous answer, and given reports that a potential recovery would be on the back of a return to growth in the housing market and an increase in domestic spending, does he stand by his comment: “Many of the people who are losing their jobs today are the unfortunate victims of policy that built economic growth on borrowed money …”; if so, is this the kind of recovery he planned?

I agree with that member that too many people’s jobs were based on borrowing and consumption. That is precisely why I made the point that we need to work towards a sustainable recovery based on exports and investment, because that will lead to sustainable jobs.

💬 Craig Foss: What would be the consequences of allowing the imbalances to continue unabated?

As I said in answer to the previous question, we are looking for a sustainable recovery rather than one that could pick up on the back of housing and consumption but then peter out as people found that, for instance, the cost of servicing their large household debts was growing on them, and they could not afford to go spending or to bid up house prices. The challenge for New Zealand will be to rebalance the economy towards exports and investments, and that is going to take some time because the imbalances have been a good decade in building up.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: In light of Treasury’s indications that the economy is beginning to recover, when can those currently unemployed expect to find a job, and when can New Zealanders expect to see the resumption of contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, the reinstitution of research and development tax credits, or further KiwiSaver incentives?

Fortunately New Zealanders are finding jobs every week, and if the member looks at the unemployment flows he will see that for every two people coming on to the dole, one person is going off it. In respect of the Superannuation Fund contributions, we have said we would contribute again to the fund when we actually have surpluses to contribute. On current forecasts, that is 10 years away.

💬 Metiria Turei: In light of the value of the $20 billion tourism industry to the New Zealand economy, does the Minister believe that allowing for mining in national parks like Mount Aspiring, home of the Routeburn, or in internationally recognised Ramsar sites such as the Awarua Waituna Wetland in Southland, would be good for a tourism industry based on a “100% Pure New Zealand”—“clean, green” brand?

In the first place, the Government is doing a stocktake rather than actually digging mines. Secondly, I am sure that that member was as supportive as she could have been of the Pike River mine, which is an excellent example of the exploitation of a mining resource on the conservation estate. As I recall, that occurred while she was part of the governing coalition.

SAS—Deployment to Afghanistan

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: What advice did he personally receive from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade before recommitting SAS troops to Afghanistan?

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, along with a number of other departments, provided advice in the preparation of material for Ministers making the decision on whether to redeploy the SAS to Afghanistan. I was one of those Ministers.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Was the Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Trade, John Allen, correct in stating on Q+A on Television New Zealand on Sunday that “we didn’t advise the Government to send the SAS to Afghanistan”; if so, what was the advice of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade?

Mr Allen was quite correct: no specific view was ever provided to me by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade on whether to redeploy the SAS. That decision was left to Ministers.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What heed did the Prime Minister pay to the warnings given to him surrounding the deployment of combat forces, such as the inadvertent killing of civilians—like the death of 95 civilians near Kunduz just last week—which has led to the growing alienation of Afghan people from the international forces there?

Part of the advice from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade was clear. It was frank advice on the security situation in Afghanistan and the importance of the role New Zealand could play in stabilising Afghanistan. The previous Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defence had this to say: “Security and stability in Afghanistan will be not be restored by peacekeeping and development assistance alone.” That was from Phil Goff, who thought it was right to deploy the SAS three times when he was in Government; in Opposition, he does not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I take the honourable member’s supplementary question, let me say the question specifically asked whether any advice was received on issues to do with the safety of civilians, and the Prime Minister did not—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: That was my point of order.

Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is not a point of order. I have just pointed out to the Prime Minister that, in fact, I listened very carefully and the advice—

The advice was frank on the security situation; it was not specific to civilians; it was just generalised advice about security.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What advice was given to him in respect of whether most Taliban combatants were local groups operating independent of any international influence, and to what extent the Taliban was under the influence of al-Qaeda?

I do not recall any specific advice in relation to that.

💬 Keith Locke: Will the Government be following Australia’s example of openness and accountability in telling us which Afghan provinces our SAS unit will be operating in; if not, why not?

It is not my practice, nor was it the practice of the previous Government, to discuss the operational details of the SAS deployments. I may at an appropriate time make a statement about its whereabouts, but I do not intend to do that at this time.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: In his earlier answers, was the Prime Minister telling us that he made the decision to deploy SAS troops to Afghanistan without any information as to whether what was happening in Afghanistan today was relevant to international terrorism and as to whether there was a growing alienation of Afghan people against the presence of international troops?

No. What I said earlier was that a range of advice was provided to me about the security situation in Afghanistan. Advice was also provided not just by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade but by my departments, the intelligence departments, and by the Ministry of Defence on a range of areas. In the end the decision on whether to deploy SAS troops to Afghanistan was made by the Government.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Is the Prime Minister prepared to see New Zealand lives put at risk to defend a regime that is known to be endemically corrupt, that is widely suspected of huge electoral fraud in the recent election, that is working today in conjunction with warlords known to have committed gross human rights abuses, and is known to be linked to criminal groups involved in drug trafficking; if so, why did he make the decision to recommit SAS troops?

Let me try to answer at least one or two parts of that rather rambling question by the Leader of the Opposition. First, we are responding to—

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Who are the “allegators”?

I think it is a bit like Afghanistan in the Labour caucus at the moment. But putting that to one side, New Zealand responded to a call from the International Security Assistance Force to help out in Afghanistan. Of course New Zealand could have not responded to that call and so could have a lot of countries around the world. But what is the alternative? The alternative is to return to a Taliban-led Government that was oppressive and that cared not one jot about women. I suspect that if that Government were to be returned to Afghanistan the same Labour Party currently arguing about our desires to try to put some security back into Afghanistan would be arguing from completely the other corner.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister favour the redeployment of SAS troops to Afghanistan, given all the problems that have emerged in the last couple of years, which led the previous Labour Government not to redeploy the SAS, and why did he agree to withdraw from Bamian the provincial reconstruction team, which is regarded as a model by others in that country and has the support of local people?

Maybe it is useful for me to remind Mr Goff of his own words about the SAS. This is what he said when—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There will be silence.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question. I indicated in that question that a number of things had changed in the last 3 years, and clearly, from the start of the Prime Minister’s response, he was going nowhere near actually trying to address the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: With respect, the Leader of the Opposition did ask why the Government had departed from the views of the previous Labour Government in respect of the deployment of troops. I think that the Prime Minister was answering that part of the question in what appeared to be a fairly direct response.

Let me remind Mr Goff, because it may be useful, of what he said when the SAS was deployed under his leadership.

💬 Hon Members: What year?

I am sorry, my little chipmunks, I do not know, but I will get the year and come back to you. Anyway, this is what Phil Goff said when he deployed the SAS to Afghanistan. He said that their presence, together with other international forces, had been “critical both to constrain the influence of al-Qaeda and Taliban elements and to allow nation-building and reconstruction to take place.” Nothing has changed.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Why has the Prime Minister ignored all the advice that was given to the previous Labour Government and that in the last 3 years of the Labour Government led that Government to decide that it was no longer appropriate to send combat troops to Afghanistan and that we should assist in other ways, such as the provincial reconstruction team, which was far more effective?

Because International Security Assistance Force nations were asked to make a contribution—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Prime Minister for interrupting for a moment, but there was a fair bit of exchange during the previous supplementary question. The Leader of the Opposition has asked a pretty straightforward and serious question, and his own colleagues do not help elicit an answer by a lot of interjecting, because they invite the Prime Minister to respond to the interjections. If they want to hear an answer to the question, I suggest they ease off a bit.

It is a very simple position. New Zealand has over 150 people in Bamian as part of an international effort trying to stabilise Afghanistan so that one day all of us can leave Afghanistan. What the Leader of the Opposition said is quite correct: at the moment the situation in Afghanistan is getting more dangerous, and it is getting worse. The Government acknowledges that. We have only one of two options. One is that we lend our shoulder to the wheel, as other countries have, to try to stabilise the position and basically make sure that the Taliban is restrained, or we decide to leave our troops in the reconstruction unit in Bamian, in which case they will be in a worse position. I for one can assure the Leader of the Opposition that if ever I am the Leader of the Opposition I will not be arguing that I would do something completely different if I were in Government.

💬 Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a section from the Commonwealth of Australia parliamentary debates on 28 February 2007, where the Australian defence Minister explains the deployment of Australian special forces in Oruzgan province.

💬 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.

Legal Aid—Review

3. CHESTER BORROWS (National—Whanganui) to the Minister of Justice: What recent announcements has he made regarding legal aid?

On 1 September I announced the release of the discussion paper Improving the Legal Aid System. The discussion paper is the first stage in a fundamental review of the legal aid system led by Dame Margaret Bazley. The purpose of the review is to consider how the system can best be structured so that it delivers effective services to those who need them most, in a way that is cost-effective and sustainable. Dame Margaret Bazley will provide me with a final report from the review in November.

💬 Chester Borrows: How can the public have their say on the future of the legal aid system?

Public submissions on the discussion paper are open until 9 October. I note that in a press release the Hon Lianne Dalziel and Charles Chauvel indicated they would be making a submission on the discussion document. I look forward to receiving that. I encourage members of the public in particular, as well as members of the profession, to read the discussion paper, which can be found on the Ministry of Justice’s website. They should all make a submission, if possible.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is the Minister disappointed in the lack of opportunity for expanding the Public Defence Service that this paper presents, in light of his public endorsement of the service; and will the Government consider the expansion of the service beyond the very limited suggestion in the discussion document, where it is limited to improving standards where there are particular problems?

No, I am not disappointed at all with the discussion document. As the member knows, the Budget itself announced an expansion in the Public Defence Service. I am on the record as saying I am very impressed with it, and I am sure it will have a role.

💬 Rahui Katene: What progress has been made to co-locate advice and information services with other social services in order to address the underlying problems that the discussion document says are being faced by Māori and Pacific peoples, and by other groups of people at risk of social exclusion?

Well, although we await Dame Margaret’s final report on the issue of the proposed future shape of the legal aid system, including whether that system should be integrated with other social services, I can say on first hearing the suggestion that it is something I would be prepared to have a look at.

Child, Youth and Family—Increasing Workloads for Regional Staff

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports, if any, has she received on the effect increasing workloads would have on regional Child, Youth and Family staff?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development and Employment: The restructure that Child, Youth and Family has recently undertaken will put at least 52 more social workers on the front line. This restructure was designed to enable staff to deal with any increase in workload.

💬 Hon Annette King: What is the Minister’s response to the report that the Kaitāia office of the Ministry of Social Development lacks resources, and that staff were ordered not to tell her of their woes when she visited them recently? If staff are not allowed to talk to her, and if reports to her have to be sanitised, how can she really know what pressures the staff are facing?

I am sure the Minister would be very pleased to hear from that member about any reports like that. If the member really was genuine in her concern, she would have advised the Minister of it.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does the Minister agree with the Kaitāia Ministry of Social Development management that the relationship between her and regional offices is “a relationship between a master and a servant—that is, the servant knows their place”? As the master, how does she hear the voices of her servants if they are to be muzzled?

Things must have changed since Labour was in Government, because the chief executive of the Ministry of Social Development, not the Minister, is the employer of the staff in the regional office. Obviously, it was much more political under the Labour Government.

💬 Hon Annette King: Has the Minister or her staff given a directive to Ministry of Social Development staff not to meet with Opposition MPs so they can hear the pressures staff are facing? This—combined with her refusal to provide information, her obstruction of Official Information Act requests, and her refusal to provide answers to questions in a timely manner—shows a Government that is arrogant and fast getting out of touch with New Zealanders.

The former member of Parliament for Clevedon, now the MP for Papakura, waited 6 long years when Labour was in Government to be allowed to go to the Ministry of Social Development buildings in Papakura, because of directives from the member and her ilk.

💬 Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter of complaint from me to Paula Bennett, written because she failed to provide answers in a timely manner to 84 written questions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a letter from the member. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

💬 John Boscawen: Is the Minister confident that the workload of Child, Youth and Family staff will be reduced, given the Prime Minister’s absolute assurance that parents will not find themselves under a full investigation from Child, Youth and Family staff for lightly smacking their children?

The member is as concerned about child abuse as, I am sure, every member of the House is. It is obvious that Child, Youth and Family must consider any reports it receives and consider whether to investigate them further. What I might consider to be a bashing, someone else might consider to be a light smack. It is important that Child, Youth and Family takes a very sensible approach to the matter.

Safety in the Home Campaign—Accident and Injury Data

5. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) on behalf of MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister for ACC: What accident and injury data has led the Accident Compensation Corporation this week to run a high-profile campaign on improving safety in the home?

There are two worrying trends in home injury data. First, 573 New Zealanders died in accidents in the home last year. That is more than the 375 killed in road accidents and the 123 killed in workplace accidents combined. The campaign is intended to raise awareness of home injuries, because public discussion tends to focus on those accidents on the road and in the workplace. The second worrying trend is the 36 percent increase in the last 2 years in the cost of people injured in the home, which now exceeds $640 million per year.

💬 Dr Jackie Blue: What are the implications of these sharp increases in accident compensation costs for accidents in the home for the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and for levy payers?

Home accidents are paid through the earners levy, which is currently $1.70 per $100 of earnings. This increase and other increases across the scheme are putting huge pressure on the current levy. Although we can push out the full funding date to try to constrain levy increases in the work and motor vehicle accounts, that has very little effect on the earners account. Earners levy increases are inevitable, but the Government is doing everything possible to try to constrain costs. The campaign we are running is part of a broad strategy to better manage the scheme’s costs.

💬 Hon David Parker: How can the victims of sexual abuse receiving treatment through the scheme have any confidence that the Government is properly looking after their interests, given the conflicting statements made last sitting week, when, firstly, the Hon Pansy Wong confirmed on 25 August that there were new clinical guidelines—saying, indeed, this is a new guideline—and a day later the Hon Nick Smith said that no final decisions have yet been made?

I am surprised by the linkage the member makes between home injuries and the issue of sexual offending.

💬 Hon David Parker: Where does most sexual abuse occur?

Well, they are different categories, and properly so. It is a sensitive area. The Government has said that the clinical guidelines for dealing with such sensitive claims will be addressed by clinicians, not by politicians.

💬 Hon David Parker: How can the Minister maintain his assertion that no final decisions have been made, when ACC is already advertising for the triage clinical psychologist who will be “leading and coordinating the new triage process for sensitive claims”, and will the Minister or his staff be making an urgent telephone to the corporation after question time today to find out what really is happening?

I say to the member that, no, I will not. I note that the change in dealing with sensitive claims was launched by none other than Steve Maharey, now of Massey University, when he was a Labour Party member of Parliament. Frankly, I am surprised at members opposite stooping to the level of using sensitive sexual claims as an area in which to play politics.

💬 Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a copy of the ACC advertisement for the triage clinical psychologist for the sensitive claims project, which the Minister said has not started yet.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. [Interruption] The dilemma is that I had actually said there was no objection, prior to the Minister saying he did object. Therefore I had ruled on the matter.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason I objected is that the member in seeking the leave made an incorrect assertion at the end. That was the reason for the objection.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We do not need to pursue this matter any further. I have dealt with it. The document can be tabled.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Health Care—Policy

6. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?

Despite the fact that this Government inherited $160 million worth of unfunded services to fill, and that $150 million was quietly stripped from Vote Health just before the election, yes, I do stand by that policy.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the people of New Zealand trust anything the Minister says, when he initially and categorically stated in the House that he had no involvement in the review of the health sector by Government insider Murray Horn, and then later that same afternoon he corrected that answer and tabled the four drafts of the same report he had commented on?

I think members of the public can take it quite clearly that I have had ongoing and appropriate discussions with the group over the 6 months, as any responsible Minister would.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the people of New Zealand trust anything the Minister says when he initially declared that he had no involvement at all in the review of the health sector by Government insider Murray Horn, and then he had to further correct his faulty memory because he had had dinner with the Horn review group to discuss the report?

The member’s claims that she makes in her question would not stand up to any scrutiny. The fact is that I had quite responsible, ongoing discussions with the group over a 6-month period.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: Can the Minister tell the House who was on the ministerial review group that delivered the comprehensive report on improving the performance and quality of the public health service?

The ministerial review group included some of the leading clinicians and managers in the New Zealand public health sector. The Director-General of Health, Stephen McKernan; Southland District Health Board Chief Medical Officer, Dr Pim Allen; general practitioner and former New Zealand Medical Association president, Dr Tom Marshall; former medical officer of health in Auckland and elected member of the Auckland District Health Board, Dr Virginia Hope; Hutt Valley District Health Board chief executive, Mr Chai Chuah; former public health nurse and executive, Sally Webb; and Hauora Taranaki Primary Health Organisation chief executive, Hayden Wano joined Dr Horn on that group.

💬 Hon Ruth Dyson: How can the people of New Zealand trust anything the Minister says when, after forgetting all those things about the Horn report, he has now asked for an additional 20 working days under the Official Information Act to compile all the input he had into this so-called independent review?

The public of New Zealand would understand that that member has a record of misrepresenting facts and information. She stood up in the House and showed a table that indicated cuts to services, and then she found out that it was actually extra money that was going into services. She is the member who stood up in the House and said that people are waiting longer, but if she had used the up-to-date information it would have showed that people were waiting for shorter periods of time. People cannot believe that member.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to forgive me, but I cannot hear what on earth is being called.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have wanted to raise a point of order about the Minister of Health on this matter on a number of occasions, and now will do so. My point of order is whether it is orderly to respond to a questioner by doubting the veracity of the question and the questioner generally. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard.

💬 Hon Pete Hodgson: In this particular case, the question was whether a report into which the Minister had claimed he had no input could be believed when he took an extra 20 working days to tell us what that input was. That was the question; it was clearly political. But the response from the Minister—it has happened in the past and I am sure it will happen in the future—has been to say that he does not know whether he can trust that member’s word, and he then goes on to deliver a small homily on that. Sooner or later I think that will become disorderly.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the honourable member has raised and were the question exactly what the member had claimed the question to be, then I might have treated the matter differently. But if the member reflects on the question asked by the Hon Ruth Dyson, he will see that it was a very political question about how the public can trust anything this Minister says. Under that kind of provocation in a question I cannot help the questioner if the Minister launches back with some information that may question whether people can trust the questioner. The point raised by the honourable member certainly might, under normal circumstances, have some merit but I think he chose the wrong question under which to raise it.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What efforts have been undertaken to involve Māori health providers in considering changes to the health system, and what has been their reaction?

I attended a meeting in Taupō on Friday afternoon with well over 200 Māori health providers and social service providers there. It was a meeting with the Hon Tariana Turia, and we talked about the involvement that Māori can have in taking the next steps forward in improving primary health care services in New Zealand. There were well over 200 providers present. I think there is a lot of interest in developing Whānau Ora, which is the new and improved way that we can provide better services for individuals and families in Māori communities.

Building Sector—Improvement of Quality and Reduction of Bureaucracy

7. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What is he doing to improve building quality and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy?

On 27 August I announced two major initiatives. The first was a release of the terms of reference for a review of the Building Act 2004, and the second was quite substantial changes to the licensed building practitioner regime.

💬 Hon Shane Jones: Labour policy.

No, they were not Labour policy, I say to Mr Jones. They were quite increased enhancements on original policy. Both of these initiatives will try to address a sector that is currently drowning in red tape and dying from over-regulation and bureaucracy. They will try to enhance quality and take away all the additional costs that the sector has been suffering from for a long time.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What has been the response to these announcements?

I have to say it is an unusual experience for me, but for the first time in relation to any announcement I have ever made over the many, many years I have been an MP or a Minister, no statement has been made by anybody in opposition to these announcements. The Certified Builders Association thinks this move is wonderful and said that this will be a really good step towards reducing red tape and bureaucracy. The Chief Executive Officer of the Registered Master Builders Federation, Warwick Quinn, said that this was a fantastic step forward in addressing issues that have been holding the industry back. Even John Gray, the President of the Home Owners and Buyers Association, said that this was the building blocks towards improving the standards in the industry that were long overdue.

Police, Minister—Line by Line Review Approval

8. Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) to the Minister of Police: Did she approve the line by line report of 3 February 2009, prepared for her by the New Zealand Police and entitled “Value for Money and Budget 09: Line by Line Review”, for submission to the Minister of Finance?

Yes. All departments were required to conduct a line by line review of their expenditure to find savings that could be put into front-line services. The New Zealand Police line by line review yielded $14.2 million for the 2009-10 year, comprising $5.5 million in actual savings made by Police National Headquarters, and $8.7 million from returning funding from the previous year for depreciation of assets, because the assets had yet to be built. As the member should know, the New Zealand Police saved $5.5 million in its line by line review but received $182.5 million in Budget 2009 to increase the number of police.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why did she allow a report to be submitted during the Budget process that included a proposal to make savings through “the rationalisation of housing and station numbers”?

Actually, it is not my practice to stop the police from making suggestions, and I have said to them that I want them to put forward ideas, even ideas that I do not agree with, because the Government does not want to hold the police back and politicise them, which the previous Labour Government did.

💬 Simon Bridges: Has she received any other reports on reviews undertaken by the police?

Yes. I have received a report from the New Zealand Police advising that its property portfolio was reviewed in 2001, in 2006, and twice in 2007. During that time, under the previous Government’s watch, 37 police properties were sold.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: 37!

Yes, 37. The police property portfolio is worth $665 million. It is expected to be regularly reviewed, but 37 were sold under Labour’s watch.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why was the section of the report—specifically paragraph 30—that discussed “key areas that are likely to be considered” during the second phase of the police line by line review, including the property portfolio and the vehicle fleet, deliberately omitted when the paper was released on to the Treasury website?

I am not in charge of Treasury; the member should be asking me about the police. In fact, the member is now confused and upset because the police have released all the documents he wanted.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The dilemma is that the question was very specific. The document has the Minister’s signature. The document that was subsequently released by the police under the Official Information Act has all the information in it. The document that the Minister submitted for Treasury to publish had direct omissions pertaining to this point. The Minister is responsible for it; it is not a matter of Treasury being responsible for it. She signed the paper, she submitted it to Treasury, and she took out the particular elements that were omitted and not published on the Treasury website.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I believe that the Minister, from what I heard, answered the question quite accurately. The paper being referred to, I understand, was published on the Treasury website, and the Minister pointed out that she was not the responsible Minister for what Treasury might publish on a website. The paper that she has released as Minister of Police, I gather, contains all the information.

💬 David Garrett: Will the figure budgeted for crime investigations cited in the 3 February report, referred to in the primary question, be reduced as a result of the Prime Minister’s direction that the police not pursue trifling incidents of child smacking; if not, why not?

I cannot imagine so, because, unfortunately, people still commit crimes, and we expect a very good service from the New Zealand Police for the public.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister, now that this review of police property has been exposed publicly after she had kept it off the Treasury website, and therefore secret, for 7 months, guarantee that no operational police stations—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am being very liberal on the kind of question I allow, but the Standing Orders are very specific that members should not make allegations in asking questions, at all, and especially when a Minister has pointed out that something is not her responsibility. For the member then, in asking a question, to allege that the Minister had kept something off the Treasury website is clearly not consistent with the Standing Orders. I invite the member to rephrase his question.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will the Minister, now that this review of police property has been exposed publicly after being unavailable for 7 months, guarantee that no operational police stations or operational police houses will be closed or sold under this Government?

Both the Prime Minister and I have made it perfectly plain that police stations will not be sold under this Government. In fact, we are actually opening another one on Friday. I say to that member, who keeps popping up, that 37 police properties, including police houses, were sold under the previous Labour Government. That member was, in fact, a member of Cabinet when that happened.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is an article in which the Prime Minister is reported as refusing to rule out the selling of police houses.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Where is this article from?

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: It is a news media article; it is from the Dominion Post. [Interruption] Well, they do not like it, of course.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There will be no further comment like that, and there will be no interjection. Leave is sought to table a press clipping. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is. [Interruption] Sorry, there is no objection. [Interruption] I hear there is objection. I beg your pardon: there is objection.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is exactly the same—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, this is different, because I heard conflicting voices. If there is objection, I must take it.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a New Zealand Police report on its line by line review that was recently released under the Official Information Act that reveals proposals to close police stations and houses.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take a bit of counsel on this. I think the document is incorrectly described, but tabling it will sort that out. It will show that the member is quite wrong in what he is claiming.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has the right to—

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will not hear further on this issue. These are not valid points of order. I caution the member that when describing a document he should give the greatest emphasis to detailing where the document is from, rather than trying to summarise its contents, because that will tend to lead to disorder. This is a release under the Official Information Act on the line by line review. 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 Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table the same document, but the version that was published on the Treasury website, where the references to rationalisation—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member has described the document. Again, we get back into this practice of tabling documents that are readily available to the House. If it is on the Treasury website, it is readily available to the House. The reason the member seeks to table it is to try to make a political point. I have to put the leave the member has sought, but—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, you have given a commentary on my motives. I do not believe that is appropriate. Secondly, the reason the document is being tabled is that there are two versions of it, one of which is the total document, one of which has omissions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member perfectly well, and it is perfectly obvious to everyone that that is what the member is doing. Leave is sought to table a document that was published on the Treasury website. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I seek leave to table a speech from the previous Minister of Police, Annette King, in July 2008, in which it was noted that 34-plus police stations had been opened or refurbished under the Labour Government.

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

I seek leave to table a list of the 37 police properties sold under the Labour Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is—

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Stations? Houses?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Can I inquire as to the source of the document.

It is from the New Zealand Police to me.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have not recognised the member. Leave is sought to table that document.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Before the leave is given—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member wants to speak to the point of order. I am not sure what issue of order he seeks my assistance with, because he can refuse leave very easily.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I may not wish to refuse leave. I seek further advice from the Minister as to the nature of the document, because in the past blank pieces of paper with no letterhead from departments, particularly the New Zealand Police, have been tabled as some sort of official document. I would simply like clarification. Is it an official document with a letterhead that has been signed by somebody as a briefing paper to the Minister?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Will the document be an official document, prepared by officials?

I cannot recall whether it has a letterhead, but it came from the New Zealand Police. Actually, I take great objection on behalf of the police—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, we will not have a debate by way of points of order. It is my fault for allowing this in the first place. 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.

Senior Citizens—Government Awareness of Issues

9. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Senior Citizens: What is the Government doing to be kept informed on issues that affect older New Zealanders?

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Becoming one!

Apart from reaching the age, as the Minister for Senior Citizens I meet regularly with national organisations that advocate for and represent older people, such as Grey Power and Age Concern New Zealand. This engagement allows me to keep up to date with issues of national importance for older people. I am also fortunate to have a group of 50 people called Volunteer Community Co-ordinators, who live from Cape Reinga to the Bluff and who keep me informed on issues that affect their communities. Not only do they provide me with the opinions of older people but also they contribute to the development of policy and services that impact on senior citizens.

💬 Katrina Shanks: How does this information and policy advice assist the Government?

Volunteer Community Co-ordinators recently helped the Ministry of Social Development redevelop the department’s forms that older people most frequently use, and told us how it would like the ministry to deliver services to older people. However, Volunteer Community Co-ordinators is not limited to its work with the Ministry of Social Development. For example, it recently prepared a submission to Pharmac’s consumer advisory committee on its review of its terms of reference, which the Minister of Health was very pleased to acknowledge. It also works with local district councils to promote positive ageing, and is heavily involved in planning the International Day of Older Persons.

National Land Transport Programme—Priorities

10. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: How many, if any, projects have had their priority downgraded in the recently announced National Land Transport Programme?

This is the first time a 3-year National Land Transport Programme has been prepared. It is therefore not possible to say that any project has been downgraded.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: Why is the Tararua district not getting its upgrade of the Pahīatua track, even though it is a regional priority that ratepayers have spent $4 million preparing for and is the only alternative to the often-closed Manawatū Gorge road, particularly when transporting critically ill patients from Dannevirke and Pahīatua to Palmerston North Hospital?

The New Zealand Transport Agency is charged with prioritising a huge range of projects across the country. If the member has a specific concern about a specific project, then if he contacts me directly I will be happy to find out the situation.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: If the Minister has prioritised the route to the Port of Tauranga as being important for economic growth, then why has Rotorua’s eastern arterial highway, which has similar economic value according to the Bay of Plenty Regional Transport Committee, been left off the list?

The regional transport committee prepares a set of projects and the New Zealand Transport Agency is charged with providing a national priority. In relation to the Rotorua eastern arterial highway, I can advise the member that currently the New Zealand Transport Agency is completing an exercise to reconcile the information based on the assessment to date in relation to that project, and also that the agency is meeting with Rotorua District Council staff in regard to a Rotorua transport strategy later this calendar year. There may quite possibly be progress on this project later in this calendar year.

💬 Hekia Parata: What investments does the National Land Transport Plan make in State highways and local roading, and how will these investments contribute to New Zealand’s economic growth and productivity?

The 2009-12 National Land Transport Plan makes an $8.7 billion investment in New Zealand’s land transport, which is the largest ever. This includes investment of $4.6 billion in the State highway network, $1.9 billion in local roads, and just under $1 billion in key urban public transport networks. This funding will help advance many projects. Some that spring to mind include the Kōpū Bridge, Victoria Park, the western ring route, Pūhoi to Wellsford, the Waikato Expressway, the Tauranga Eastern Link, and the Christchurch Southern Motorway, all of which, when completed, will greatly benefit economic growth and productivity as this Government works to secure a brighter future for all New Zealanders.

💬 Moana Mackey: Can the Minister confirm that he has pulled the funding for the Wainui cycleway in Gisborne because it does not meet his Government’s criterion of contributing to economic growth; if so, why do cycleways that the Prime Minister announces contribute to economic growth, but this cycleway, which has had 4 years of planning and development and was due to be started next month, does not?

I have, of course, done no such thing. It is the New Zealand Transport Agency’s responsibility to prioritise projects around the country, and it does prioritise them according to contributions to economic growth, strategic fit, and a number of other criteria. Again I repeat for members present that this is the largest programme ever, and a huge number of projects have been prioritised for funding.

Ministerial Accommodation—Proposed Allowances

11. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services: Can he confirm that under his proposed new rules Government Ministers will be given a lump sum of up to $37,500 a year to pay for accommodation in Wellington, and will Ministers be able to pocket any of the public money they do not spend?

In respect of the first part of the question, yes, but the member should note that the payment is expected to cover all the costs associated with ministerial accommodation, such as rent, power, and other expenses. In relation to the second part of her question, the member should note that the advice I received from Ministerial Services is that the average value of the current provision for ministerial accommodation is $48,295 per annum, so the scenario that she proposes is most unlikely as the new rates do not, in most cases, cover the full costs.

💬 Metiria Turei: Can the Minister guarantee to the House and to the public that none of his Ministers will pocket the extra money provided in the lump-sum payment that they do not use on their accommodation?

No more so than I can guarantee that that member, who is bulk funded for $14,700 for other costs, does not pocket some of that. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am calling Metiria Turei; please show some courtesy to a colleague.

💬 Metiria Turei: Will the Minister then support a full review, an independent review, of Ministers’ and MPs’ allowances, including the $14,000 MPs’ expenses allowance—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Metiria Turei:—including the unlimited Ministers’ credit card allowance—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member must have seen that I am on my feet, and she kept going on and ignored me. She cannot ask the Prime Minister about matters to do with members’ allowances, because they are not matters the Prime Minister is responsible for; they are matters to do with the Parliamentary Service, and the Prime Minister is not responsible for them.

💬 Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I agree with you on that, but the Prime Minister, in response to the supplementary question from Metiria Turei, brought that specific matter to the House’s attention by saying he could not comment or could not guarantee anything regarding members of Parliament’s allowances. At the point that he brought that material into the question time it became debatable, and I think her question is within order because of the Prime Minister’s answer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have to confess that that is a very good point of order from the Hon Darren Hughes. I will hear the Hon Gerry Brownlee speak to it.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Mr Speaker, I do not think that you can rule suddenly that because an answer refers to something that is outside someone’s responsibility, it makes that person responsible for it. Ministers routinely answer questions about justice matters, where they will use examples of situations that clearly they have no responsibility for but that serve to articulate the utter hypocrisy of the—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear further on this; I think that has given me time. I thank the honourable member. His point of order was very good until the last bit, which was unhelpful. He will not carry on down that vein any further. In respect of this matter, an interesting issue was raised by the Hon Darren Hughes. Had the Prime Minister raised matters that were not specifically related to the primary question, then it would have expanded the area that he could be questioned on, but the Hon Gerry Brownlee is quite right in saying it does not extend the matters the Prime Minister can be questioned on to areas outside the Prime Minister’s responsibility. One cannot question a Minister or the Prime Minister on areas outside their responsibility. It was a very interesting point of order, but I must rule, as I did previously, that the questions must relate to the Prime Minister’s area of responsibility.

💬 Jeanette Fitzsimons: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a slightly different point of order. The question did not ask whether the Prime Minister would initiate a review, which he clearly cannot do as it is outside his area of responsibility. It asked whether he would support one. The Parliamentary Service Commission is made up of representatives from political parties; therefore in the Prime Minister’s capacity as the leader of a political party he would be in a position to support such a review if a review were initiated.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no—a nice try, but the Prime Minister cannot be questioned on matters to do with his leadership of any political party.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister know that low-income workers need to prove evidence of their actual housing costs in order to receive a supplement through Working for Families; is it not reasonable that his Ministers do the same?

No, I do not think that it is, for this reason: if the member wants to go and fully read the report—I am not sure whether she has—she will find that the best people to conduct this review were those in the Ministerial Services, who had at their disposal all the information. I think that by any measure the report is very fair and balanced, and lays out the information. If the member goes to option 4, she will see that that option, which is broadly the option we have adopted, quite clearly points out that the current administration costs are $220,000. The administration costs under option 4 would be cut to a maximum of $90,000, and potentially to less than that. So we have looked to try to put in place a system that will be the least administratively expensive. Ministers are being given $37,500, and they are free to pay rent, free to buy a house, and free to take a number of options as to how they house themselves. In the end, that option will be administratively the simplest, cleanest, and cheapest way of doing that. The member will know, because I am sure that she has looked closely at this issue, that the $14,700 each of us gets as a member of Parliament could also be, if we wanted it to be, a claims system. But that would require an army of bureaucrats to go and look at every single invoice. All I can tell the member is that if we look at the average here, we can see that the sum of $48,250 will go down to $37,500, and that the vast bulk of Ministers will lose on this deal.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has once again raised the issue of MPs, as opposed to Ministers, and their allowances and housing costs. I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on the extent to which a supplementary question of mine, which included a reference to MPs’ expenses and allowances, and the content of that question could be out of order, given that that matter has been raised twice now by the Minister himself—a matter for which he has no responsibility.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think that it is a very simple matter. The Prime Minister, in trying to be helpful to the questioner, used an example that he believed the questioner might be familiar with. It was similar: a simple payment being made versus a claims system being used. The use of that as a helpful example does not mean that the Prime Minister has expanded the area where the member can question him. The member cannot question the Prime Minister over matters to do with members’ allowances. If she wants to raise questions about that she can see the Speaker, but she cannot do that through oral questions.

💬 Metiria Turei: If the Prime Minister is using as an excuse for lump-sum payments that can be pocketed the cost of dealing with receipts for actual costs from Ministers, does he then agree that low-income workers who currently need to prove their actual costs would benefit, and the Government itself would benefit, from the savings in those administration costs if they too were provided with a lump-sum payment that they too could pocket as a supplement to Working for Families, just like the system he is proposing for his Ministers?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will let the Prime Minister judge his responsibility there.

I have a deal for the member. She should ask what the average is for the housing supplement paid to low-income New Zealanders. She should then go and poll those people collectively to ask them whether they are prepared to accept a 25 percent reduction in what they receive, on average, in return for no administration costs, and see the response that she gets.

💬 Metiria Turei: Why does the Prime Minister—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have called Metiria Turei. I apologise to the honourable member, but I ask the front-benchers to—

💬 Metiria Turei: Why does the Prime Minister not stop making excuses for the whitewash review that he has conducted after issues around ministerial housing allowances were raised, after this disclosure of MPs’ expenses, and simply agree to a proper independent review of all ministerial and MPs’ allowances—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have already made it clear that the honourable member cannot question the Prime Minister about MPs’ expenses. If the member persists in that, I will sit her down and cease her questioning.

💬 Metiria Turei: Why does the Prime Minister not simply support an independent review of all relevant allowances by an independent body at arm’s length from Ministerial Services, so that the public can gain some confidence that the rules by which Ministers are using their allowances are clear and transparent and that Ministers are not pocketing public money that they are not entitled to?

All I can say to the member is, firstly, I sought a review in relation to ministerial housing. The status quo was a cost to the Crown of $2.377 million. By the way, that was the status quo that that member, when the Greens gave some support to the previous Labour Government, thought was OK. Secondly, this Government has taken some action and has, essentially, asked Ministers to reduce their spending by 25 percent. From the way that I look at it, that is a hang of a lot more than any other Government has ever done.

Mining—Prohibition in National Parks

12. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister of Conservation: What input did he have to possible changes to the mining prohibition in national parks currently provided by schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991, prior to the Minister for Energy and Resources’ announcement during his address to the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy 2009 on 26 August 2009?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Acting Minister of Conservation): He had considerable input.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is the Minister aware that virtually all Department of Conservation land outside of national parks is not subject to a mining prohibition; and why did he not advocate for the continued protection of national parks?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: The Minister is doing a great job in advocating for conservation, but advocating for conservation actually means taking account of the bigger picture, not merely opposing everything. We are looking at a balanced approach to balance our environmental responsibilities with economic opportunities.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why has the Government not even ruled out the mining of coal and lignite in national parks?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: There is a review at the moment. Until the outcome of that review is known we will not be making decisions. I note that even the Hon Chris Carter agrees with our position in that he had to consider the environmental and wildlife effects as well as “the economic benefits that flow from the efficient development and use of New Zealand’s coal resources.” We look forward to his supporting our review as well.

💬 Hon David Parker: Given that the Minister has already adjusted the boundary of the Oteake Conservation Park to exclude the main stem of the river so as to facilitate the mining of lignite, why did he think it proper to label his critics as being hysterical?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: The Minister was making the very fair point that we all need to keep some perspective about the matter in hand.

💬 Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a Waikato Times article of 29 August in which the Minister of Conservation, the Hon Tim Groser, said his critics were emotional and accused them—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a press clipping from 29 August. Is there any objection to it being tabled? Yes, there is.

💬 Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a list of the 270 protected conservation places currently listed in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table part of an Act. Is there any—[Interruption] I have to seek leave. I would just ask members, though, to—

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My apologies; maybe I misdescribed it. It is not part of an Act; it is a list of the places that are protected under schedule 4, but those places are not listed in the Act.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I beg the honourable member’s pardon. Leave is sought to table a document—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Verify the document.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members are asking me to find out where the document is from. If it is not part of the Act, where is it from?

💬 Metiria Turei: The list is a generated list, I understand, from the Parliamentary Library, of all the places—of which there are 270—described in the categories in schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I say to honourable members that a point of order was being heard. It seems the document comes from the Parliamentary Library. It is a list of places covered by that part of the Act. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection.

Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.