Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement in the House yesterday that: “Mr Hide has carried out his affairs in a personal and private capacity to a high ethical standard”?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he think Rodney Hide met the highest ethical standards when on a Television One Close Up programme he encouraged New Zealanders to break the law relating to the Building Act, by saying: “Look as a Minister I can’t recommend someone breaking the law but I believe he should.”?

I am advised that he was not actually advocating breaking the law—because it was not the law.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he think a Minister who told an audience that the Prime Minister, John Key, does not do anything, and who suggested it was easy to ram proposals through Cabinet, as was reported in the Christchurch Press, demonstrated the highest ethical standards?

Any Minister will have an opinion about how Cabinet is run or how his or her colleagues perform. Mr Hide is no exception.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he think that a Minister’s endorsing a dental firm, in breach of the Cabinet Manual, demonstrates the highest ethical standards?

That is an assertion. The Prime Minister would expect any breach of the Cabinet Manual to be brought to his attention.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he think that a Minister’s charging people to hear him speak on his portfolio demonstrates the highest ethical standards?

That issue has been discussed and dealt with in the past. I have to say it is a bit rich to be lectured by the Labour members about ethical standards, after Labour’s previous term in office was a trail of ethical breaches, ministerial incompetence, and untrustworthiness.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he think that a Minister who has been accused of bullying another Minister, as was reported in numerous media outlets, shows the highest ethical behaviour? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Minister, I say to members that the level of interjection is getting too high. I was finding it difficult to hear the Hon Annette King.

If the Prime Minister was to receive an allegation of ministerial bullying, he would refer it to the Labour members, who are experts in these matters.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called.

💬 Grant Robertson: In a number of the answers that the Hon Bill English has given today, he has not actually addressed the question. In that one he immediately turned to talk about Labour, rather than answering the question that was asked.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think that is a fair point. There was a lot of noise while the member was asking the question, and I invite the Hon Annette King to repeat her question.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he think that a Minister who has been accused of bullying another Minister, as was reported in numerous media outlets, shows good ethical behaviour?

As I said, if the Prime Minister received an allegation of ministerial bullying, one option would be to refer it to the Labour members, who are experts in these matters.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept that the question was seeking an opinion and there is no particular answer to an opinion, but I do not think that the question justified an attack like that on Labour. I invite the Minister to re-answer that question, because he can answer the question without attacking the questioner.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. How can it be proper for a member, in a question, to accuse a Minister of bullying but not proper for the Minister, in response, to refer to many complaints of bullying by members of the Opposition? Is it not tit for tat in this House? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is not a game of tit for tat; it happens to be question time in Parliament. The member who asked the question referred to reports, and the member does not need to think back far to when a former Minister was reported as making such a claim. The member has based her question on that. Admittedly it was a supplementary question and therefore could not be validated, but I do not believe that the question justified an attack on Labour. The questioner did not attack National; the question just asked whether certain behaviour was considered to be ethical behaviour. I do not believe that it deserved an attack to be made on the questioner’s party.

💬 Hon John Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We get to these situations because we are now into political issues. We get to the stage where one party asks another party a political question and then the respondent, the Minister in this case, responds in a political way. For example, an Opposition member has raised the issue of an accusation of bullying by one Minister against another. In the same way, the Minister may well have been referring to the fact that the Opposition accused one of its members of being mentally unwell—and that, again, is a form of bullying.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have listened to the member long enough. The question was not out of order. Members may not like the question. I can think of many times when I have asked a question in this House and certain members did not like the question. But that does not mean to say questioners should be treated with contempt. No attempt was made to answer the question. I accept that there is no precise answer, but simply to attack the party of the questioner is not good enough. I stress again that the questioner did not attack the Minister’s party. The question did not make any attack on National in respect of anything at all. It just asked whether certain behaviour would be considered to be ethical. I accept that the question is hypothetical. It seeks an opinion, and there is no precise answer, but to attack the questioner’s party is not acceptable.

As far as I am aware, the Prime Minister has not received any substantiated complaint of that nature.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he think Mr Hide’s use of taxpayers’ money to take his girlfriend on a round-the-world trip and attend her brother’s wedding, after he had campaigned against such behaviour, demonstrated the highest ethical standards?

It is the style of this Government that Ministers deal with the consequences of any decisions they make, and that matter has been aired publicly. I can assure the House, though, that when National members make judgments that get them into trouble, we do not accuse them of being mentally ill, as is the habit of the Labour Party.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of the question, in the hope that the situation would improve. I am sitting just two rows directly behind Annette King, and those of us in the back row can barely hear what is going on today. I waited for the duration of question No. 1, as I hoped the situation would improve. We could not hear what John Carter was saying when he spoke to the point of order, and we could not hear what the Clerk was saying when she read out the items of business at the beginning of the day. I wonder whether the volume could be turned up a bit. We seem to go from one extreme to the other. Some weeks it is incredibly loud and I cannot hear myself think, and on other days, such as today, I can barely hear what is going on.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point is well made. I apologise to the House. I am equally frustrated. I cannot understand why the technicians cannot achieve a standard level of sound in this Chamber. All I can say, to give some hope to members—and I think the sound has improved while I have been talking—is that the experts who installed this hugely expensive sound system are coming back during the next adjournment to do further work, to try to improve the quality. But as Speaker I still state publicly that I am not happy with the day-to-day variation in the levels that we are subjected to in the House. The member is absolutely right. I find it equally frustrating, and I apologise to all members. But I think the sound has improved; it is indeed better now.

Economy—Reports

2. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?

Today Statistics New Zealand reported that real GDP grew by 0.2 percent in the June quarter. The economy has now expanded in five successive quarters and has grown by 2 percent over the past year. This follows five quarters of contraction that began at the start of 2008. The numbers today illustrate that the economy is headed in the right direction. Private consumption growth was almost zero, which tells us that households have clamped down on their spending. By contrast, export volumes have risen by 7 percent and had their strongest quarter on record. Although we want stronger growth, this switch towards saving and exporting more is precisely what the economy needs as a prerequisite for sustained higher incomes and sustained new growth, which is a reversal of the trend of the previous 5 years.

💬 Todd McClay: What is the outlook for growth from here?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Most commentators see a continuation of the expansion through the next few years at around 2.5 to 3 percent per year. Of course, given world conditions, it is likely that progress along this path could be volatile. Also, local events will impact on it—for instance, the Canterbury earthquake will have some negative impact. Trading partner growth looks to be weaker in the second half of 2010, though it could still end up being positive. I think most people are realising by now, though, that we have a different kind of recovery from what is usual in New Zealand. In this case, exporting is strengthening, and people are saving more. In the shorter term, that means things are a bit tougher; in the longer term, it is the right direction for the economy.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Is the Minister aware that since he became the Minister of Finance, the gap between Australian and New Zealand incomes has increased by 29 percent; if so, how does he plan to achieve the Government’s concrete goal of catching Australia by 2025?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with the member’s figures, but we share the common goal of catching Australia. The Government will continue with the plan it is currently following: extensive investment in infrastructure, cutting red tape in regulation, lifting skills and education across New Zealand, reforming the tax system, supporting innovation, and improving the efficiency of the Public Service, which makes up about one-quarter of the economy.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: I seek leave to table a chart prepared by the Parliamentary Library comparing New Zealand gross average weekly earnings with Australia’s, purchasing power parity adjusted.

💬 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.

💬 Todd McClay: What is the Government’s next step to ensure that the current expansion is sustainable?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The next step to help strengthen the economy is next week’s tax changes. These include across-the-board personal tax cuts to the value of about $4 billion, offset by increases in GST, tobacco excise, and the effective tax rate on property investment. This will help boost New Zealand’s long-term growth prospects by tilting the economy towards savings, investment, and exports, and away from borrowing, housing speculation, and excessive consumption.

Inflation and Wage Growth—Treasury Forecast to March 2013

3. to the Minister of Finance: How much does inflation outstrip nominal wage growth for the next 3 years to March 2013, as forecast on page 63 of the Budget 2010 Economic and Fiscal Update?

It does not. In 2012 and 2013, as well as in 2014, the forecast the member refers to shows quite the opposite, with nominal wages growing faster than inflation. In 2011 inflation is forecast to outstrip pre-tax wage growth, but that is simply because the table on page 63 does not take account of the tax switch on 1 October. After-tax wages are what matter to people, and the 1 October tax switch will increase people’s after-tax wages. As I said in the House on Tuesday, real after-tax wages—that is, after tax and after taking into account inflation—will rise by over 1 percent in the last 3 months of the year.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given that his online tax calculator does not take account of his own inflation forecasts and he is now telling the House that his own Budget does not take account of his own tax switch, how can he maintain that New Zealanders will be better off when his Budget is delivering higher prices, not higher wages; and does this explain the widening wage gap between New Zealand and Australia, which is estimated by his esteemed predecessor to have grown by 29 percent?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, but let me explain to the Minister again. He picked out—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Which Minister?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Let me explain to the member—well, as a Minister he spent a lot of time in front of the mirror, and that is what he sees when he looks in the mirror. The member sent us to page 63. When I look at the figures on page 63 I see that in the next 4 years nominal wages outstrip inflation in 3 of those years. Nominal wages outstrip inflation in 3 of those years. The 1 year where they do not is 2011, and the reason they do not is that the GST increase pushes inflation higher. But, of course, those figures do not take account of the income tax cut. When we take account of the income tax cut, we see that in all 4 years wage increases outstrip inflation. So, using the figures the member himself pointed out, he is wrong.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Could the Minister describe in plain English whether today’s poor GDP figures, which are less than one-quarter of the 0.9 percent growth that the Reserve Bank was expecting, are further evidence of a stalling economy that has so far delivered only higher rents, higher doctors’ fees, and higher electricity and petrol prices for New Zealanders?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The outlook for the economy is that it is rebalancing in just the way it needs to, with stronger exports and stronger savings. It is also delivering more increases in real after-tax wages in the next year than the Labour Government delivered in its last 3 or 4 years in office. The fact is New Zealanders are being more careful with their spending—probably a bit more careful than we expected—and that is one of the reasons for the number today.

💬 Simon Bridges: Is 1.2 percent growth in real after-tax wages a significant increase?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The answer is that I would not get too carried away about it, but it is pretty significant growth compared with what has happened in the past. If we use the figures that are used to calculate national superannuation entitlements, and have been used for the last 15 years or so, we see that under the previous Labour Government from September 2003 to September 2008 real after-tax wages grew by a total of only 0.3 percent. They then did go up a bit, when the tax cuts came in, and wages will go up after these tax cuts come in. So the member opposite cannot claim that when Labour cut taxes wages went up but when National does it they do not go up. Of course they go up.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister guarantee that supermarkets and other retailers will not raise prices by more than 2.5 percent on the back of his GST increase from next week, and what enforcement powers are at his disposal to ensure that that will not occur?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If supermarkets could put up their prices any day they liked, they would have already done it. I think many supermarkets will be putting their prices up by less than the GST increase. New Zealanders are being very careful in how they spend, retailers are having to discount consistently to get their sales up, and it is not likely that we will see a burst of excessive pricing. If there is, then the member is free to complain to the Commerce Commission about it.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Do the retailers he was just talking about that will have to discount include Contact Energy, which will increase its prices by 6 percent on 1 October; bus fares in Wellington, which for some people are increasing by 100 percent; and even the humble stamp, which is increasing by 20 percent? If so, what has he done to ensure that none of those prices exceeds the 2.5 percent GST increase?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The unfortunate thing for the member’s theory is that in fact forecasts of inflation are dropping, not rising. If the member was such an expert on controlling prices, then why did the CPI under his Government increase by almost 3 percent a year? It is currently increasing by about 1.2 percent a year. Food and vegetable prices have actually dropped by 6.5 percent per year in the last 2 years, compared with an increase of 4.9 percent a year under Labour. Petrol and diesel prices have dropped by an average of 4 percent a year, compared with an increase of 7.2 percent a year under Labour. That is why forecasts of inflation are now dropping—because a lot of prices are dropping and real after-tax incomes are rising.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your earlier comments, I think there may still be a problem with the speaker system, because I was not sure whether he said it was growth or inflation that was dropping.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I said to the member the other day that he is a senior member in this House, and he knows that that is not a point of order. One day he will stretch my patience too far.

Tax System Changes—Fairness and Equity

4. to the Minister of Revenue: How will the tax system be fairer and more equitable for all New Zealanders from 1 October?

In response to the member’s question, the tax system will be fairer and more equitable in the following ways. By next Friday the bottom tax rate will have fallen 30 percent in the last 2 years to 10.5c, and the threshold up to which it applies will have gone up considerably, from $9,500 to $14,000. All intermediate tax rates will have been reduced, and every income tax threshold increased, so much so that for nearly three-quarters of taxpayers the top marginal rate will now be just 17.5 percent. When the effect of Working For Families tax credits is added in, a family with two children will now pay effectively no tax at all until their earnings exceed $50,000.

💬 Jonathan Young: Which groups gained most from the Budget 2010 tax changes?

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: That is a very interesting question. Two-thirds of the cost of the income tax cuts will go to reducing the bottom two marginal tax rates. The rate for income up to $14,000 will go down from 12.5 percent to 10.5 percent, and the rate for income up to $48,000 will reduce from 21 percent to 17.5 percent. In every single income level, the income tax cuts will more than offset the rate of increase in GST. A further important point is that we are also reducing the top personal tax rate to 33 percent, and aligning that with the rate payable by trusts.

💬 Jonathan Young: Which groups will bear most of the cost of the Budget 2010 tax changes?

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: The costs of these cuts do have to be met, and the Budget is therefore not a lolly scramble. The groups that will pay more are property owners, large foreign companies with interests in New Zealand, people who use trusts to reduce their taxable income to gain access to Working for Families tax credits, and also smokers. For its own part, the Government will be giving another $120 million to the Inland Revenue Department to better prosecute cases, and we expect about a fivefold return over the next 4 years. In response to both this question and the previous questions, all these measures put together are overall a much fairer tax system for every single New Zealander.

💬 Stuart Nash: How can the tax cuts be fair when they increase the wage gap between someone on the median wage and someone on $120,000 by over $75 a week?

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: I do not think the member was listening to my earlier answer. The biggest point of fairness in this package is the fact that nearly three-quarters of New Zealand taxpayers after 1 October will face a top marginal tax rate of just 17.5c in the dollar. That is a huge improvement on the position just a couple of years ago, when that rate was over 30c in the dollar, and it certainly boosts our international competitiveness.

💬 Stuart Nash: How can it be equitable when the Minister himself will be better off by almost $140 a week while someone on the median wage in his electorate will be better off by less than $5 a week?

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: Unlike the member, I am not fixated by what I earn. The reality is that with two-thirds of the cost of this package being borne by the bottom two tax-rate changes, the vast majority of the impact of the package will be beneficial for people on those lower income tax rates.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: Will the final tax proposal outlined in his Making tax easier discussion document prevent workers who have been overtaxed through no fault of their own from receiving a tax refund; if so, how is this fair or equitable?

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: Firstly, we are still consulting on that particular proposal, but the point at issue there is that by having a better method of collecting tax from people, through greater reliance on electronic measures, we will actually get the tax rate right first up, so there will not be the need for the unders and overs square up at the end of the year. So I can assure the member that no one will lose out under that proposal.

Accident Compensation—Hearing Loss Victims

5. to the Minister for ACC: Does his recent admission that ACC has handled the issue of counselling for sexual abuse victims badly give him cause to question whether ACC has also treated victims of hearing loss badly?

No. The issue of sensitive claims was about best clinical practice, and with the assistance of the independent clinical reviews supported by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), it has resulted in a good outcome. The issue of hearing loss is about policy and regulation, and arises from a Cabinet decision last year that ACC should, as per its legislation, be responsible only for injury-related hearing loss and not for that caused by other factors such as age. In short, age is not an accident.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does the Minister still assert that he had no responsibility, nor blame properly attached to him, for the mistakes made in relation to the withdrawal of accident compensation counselling for victims of sexual crimes; if so, why do we bother with question time, where he was repeatedly warned about his folly?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of course I am responsible; I am the Minister for ACC. But my response to the issues that were raised was to seek an independent clinical review. Members opposite have been misleading when they have asserted that decisions made by clinicians in respect of sensitive claims were made by either me or Ministers.

💬 Hon David Parker: Given the Minister’s earlier assertions that he relies on expert advice, why has he ignored the evidence from Professor Thorne and Dr Welch of the department of audiology at the University of Auckland who said: “The introduction of a percentage handicap threshold for [noise-induced hearing loss] appears to be a reaction to the cost of claims and is apparently not based on an understanding of the real [noise-induced hearing loss] situation in New Zealand.”?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is making reference to the accident compensation amendment legislation that introduced the 6 percent threshold. That decision was made finally by Parliament but with my strong support as the Minister. I note that every workers’ compensation scheme in Australia has a threshold—

💬 Grant Robertson: We’re in New Zealand.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, yes, we are. But I also say that as a consequence of the multibillion-dollar losses that the previous Government passed on to us in the area of accident compensation, we have had to be very careful about ensuring cost-effectiveness of the scheme’s expenditure.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What discussions has the Minister had with his colleague the Minister of Health to ensure that ACC’s systems properly respond to any changes to ensure that people are able to secure health support for any age-related hearing loss?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have had very close discussions with the Minister of Health, and officials from our respective agencies have been working closely together. The current rule is that if any support for hearing loss is provided through the accident compensation scheme, then the claimant is ineligible for any support from the Ministry of Health. This has led people in the sector to assume a lack of any support from the Ministry of Health where a person has industrial hearing loss as well as age-related hearing loss. The Government is working through the options and considering the submissions that have been made. We are confident that we can come to an answer between ACC and the Ministry of Health that will be fair and will work for those who require hearing assistance.

💬 Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen the latest issue of the National Foundation for the Deaf’s magazine, which contains a report about people on whom his decisions are impacting—like Les Slattery, who is reported to have repaired chainsaws in the 1970s without earmuffs, and if it were not for that job he would not need hearing aids, but now at age 72 he faces cuts to his accident compensation cover for his work-related hearing loss?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make the issue absolutely plain: the scheme will meet its full obligations for hearing loss that has occurred as a consequence of industrial hearing loss. We have made that absolutely plain. As I have said, I am working closely with the Minister of Health to ensure that where a person has a mix of both industrial and age-related hearing loss, the total package is one that works well for New Zealanders.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: Can the Minister confirm the facts of the audited accounts of ACC, which show losses of $7.2 billion in 2007 and 2008; if so, has he received any calls for a full and independent inquiry into those losses?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. The audited ACC accounts show a loss of $2.4 billion in 2007-08 and $4.8 billion in 2008-09. This total of $7.2 billion exceeds that of the expected losses from all of the 61 failed finance companies. The cost of ACC’s loss to the public purse exceeds by a factor of 10 the cost of the deposit guarantee scheme. I have not received any calls from the Opposition for a full public inquiry into those losses, although I note that the inquiry into the failure to disclose the losses in the non-earners account shows that it was a breach of the Public Finance Act.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why would older New Zealanders not see his refusal to provide proper accident compensation cover for work-related hearing loss as just part of National’s campaign to target the elderly for cost-cutting, with other examples being cuts to home support, to the falls prevention programme, and to orthopaedic operations for older workers who have suffered shoulder injuries?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: This Government is very committed to providing proper support for older New Zealanders—for instance, tax changes will come into effect on 1 October, and the average superannuitant will be significantly better off with those changes. We need to look only at the biggest-ever increase in elective surgery, which my colleague Tony Ryall has delivered, or at the very good work that my colleague John Carter is doing as the Minister for Senior Citizens to realise that older New Zealanders are so much better off with the leadership from this Government.

Welfare Reforms—Legislation in Force from 27 September

6. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What new legislation introduced by her is coming into force next week?

Two new pieces of legislation come into force next week. Both of these deliver on National’s pre-election manifesto promises. The Social Security (New Work Tests, Incentives, and Obligations) Amendment Act comes into force on Monday, and the Fresh Start Children, Young Persons, and Their Families (Youth Courts Jurisdiction and Orders) Amendment Act comes into force next Friday, 1 October.

💬 Chester Borrows: What changes will these two pieces of legislation make?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: The social assistance legislation rebalances expectations and obligations, and supports this Government’s belief that those who can work should be actively looking for work. The Fresh Start legislation is aimed at the country’s 1,000 most persistent serious young offenders. It means that from Friday, 1 October, Youth Court judges will have a greater tool box of options, including new parenting, mentoring, and drug and alcohol rehabilitation orders. This allows young offenders to be held to account, while providing the greater supports that are so necessary to turn their lives round.

💬 Su’a William Sio: Will the introduction of work-test requirements for recipients of the unemployment benefit and the domestic purposes benefit in Canterbury be delayed due to the effects of the earthquake; if so, how long will they be delayed for?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. Cabinet approved delays to those on Monday. They will be delayed until 1 March next year.

💬 Chester Borrows: How many people will be better off because of these changes?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Social Security (New Work Tests, Incentives, and Obligations) Amendment Act means that all 336,000 beneficiaries will benefit from the legislated CPI changes. About 28,000 people will benefit from increased abatement levels, which will cost $53 million. This means that those on the invalids benefit and the domestic purposes benefit will get more money in their pocket if they are working part-time.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: How much additional funding has been invested in alcohol and drug programmes since she created the new alcohol and drug orders, and does she believe that this will be sufficient to cope with the 80 percent of young people appearing before the Youth Court who committed their crime under the influence of drugs or alcohol?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Between the mentoring, parenting, and drug and alcohol orders, there will 1,232 new places. For the drug and alcohol issue by itself, there are 32 places in residential drug and alcohol programmes to combat the very serious end of it. About $9.4 million is going into those sorts of programmes. Contracts have been negotiated and are going out to community organisations to date.

Question No. 5 to Minister

I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Accident Compensation Corporation last year that states that neither Victoria nor South Australia has a threshold for hearing aids for work-related hearing loss.

💬 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.

Electricity—Prices

7. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his comments regarding electricity prices made a year ago where he said “I’m promising to make every effort to slow the increase”?

on behalf of the Minister of Energy and Resources: Yes, and the efforts made through the Government’s policies are working. During the 9 long years between 1999 and 2008, under the Labour Government, average residential electricity prices went up by a massive 72 percent. In the nearly 2 years since National came into office, prices have risen by 6 percent, and that is including the effect of the emissions trading scheme. It is clear that Labour has no credibility in questioning power price increases.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is the Minister aware that the average unpaid electricity bill has increased by $100 in the last year, to $615, and how does that statistic support his statement that electricity is becoming more affordable for New Zealanders?

As I said, power prices increased over the last 2 years by 6.6 percent, and between October 2009 and 2010 the increase was 4.4 percent, which is nowhere near the 72 percent increase during those 9 long years of the Labour Government.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I imagine that you can anticipate the point of order. I waited until after the response to the first supplementary question to raise it. The primary question set down on notice asked the Minister a substantive question and we got a rehearsal of Labour’s record.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the member is on about. Ministers must listen to the question. I know that the Minister is very keen to get her point across, but the question asked something quite different. If I recollect correctly, it was “Is the Minister aware of a certain increase in the average value of unpaid electricity bills; if so”—and it went on to the next bit. At least, the Minister might have indicated in answering whether she has even heard of that or is aware of it in any way, shape, or form. To just repeat a point that the Minister wants to make is certainly not what question time is about. I invite the Hon Nanaia Mahuta to repeat her question, to make sure the Minister does hear it.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is the Minister aware that the average unpaid electricity bill increased by $100 in the last year, to $615, and how does that statistic support his statement that electricity is becoming more affordable for New Zealanders?

I think power prices, increased affordability, and whether an individual pays the higher prices are not necessarily correlated. Obviously, the power companies should be looking at enforcing repayment. The fact that the Government is introducing tax cuts from next month will certainly mean that people are better off, with cash in their pockets. I hope they will pay their unpaid bills.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How will the Government’s tax package leave an average household better off?

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not see how that can come within the terms of the primary question, and I do not think it is permissible, with respect, for the Government to answer a supplementary question so broadly as to bring anything within the ambit of a supplementary patsy question.

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Mr Speaker, yesterday there was a very precise question on the Crafar farms, and you allowed the supplementary questions to range well beyond the scope of it. I suggest that this is an identical situation.

💬 Hon Rodney Hide: I do not want to address the issue of the substance of the point of order, as that is for you, Mr Speaker, but my point is that a member should not be able to stand up in this House and say that because he or she cannot see something it is outside the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The point that the Hon David Parker was making, as I understood his point of order, was to raise a concern that Ministers may, when answering a question, introduce such material as to allow another member from their party to then ask a favourable question based on the material included in a previous answer. That is what I understood to be the point being raised by the Hon David Parker. It is an interesting point, because I would have to rule that the question was in order because of the way that the Hon Pansy Wong had answered the previous question. Should it become a problem, I will watch it and think about it. But I think, given that this is the first time this issue has particularly been raised, I cannot deprive the member of the right to ask a question based on an answer the Minister has given. But I understand the point that the honourable member was making in his point of order, and I think it was perfectly reasonable. However, given the situation today I must invite the Minister to answer the question.

The Electricity Industry Bill, which is to receive its third reading, includes measures that will certainly slow down the increases in power prices. First of all, it is implementing recommendations made by the ministerial review of the electricity market conducted last year. It includes asset swaps between State-owned enterprises—

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Speaker ruled that the question was in order, but the Minister has not addressed the question, which came from her own member.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: I think there has been an element of confusion arising from the constant points of order. I would be very happy to repeat my question, which was a spontaneous question asked in response to the Minister raising an issue in her answer to a previous question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Given the circumstances that have arisen, it appears to me that the Minister might have been answering a different question. I invite Chris Auchinvole to repeat his question.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How will the Government’s tax package leave an average household better off?

I see. Following the tax cuts to be introduced on 1 October—next month—73 percent of New Zealanders will pay average tax of only 17.5 percent, and each household will be $25 per week better off, and that has to be good news.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister agree with the comment of the Veda Advantage Chief Executive Officer, Geoff Harper: “with ETS levies, GST rises, ongoing job losses and the fact that money is generally tight and recovery still feels a long way off, I’m afraid we’re going to see a massive spike in the number of people who just won’t be able to pay their bills.”; if not, why not?

The emissions trading scheme introduced by National is estimated to increase power prices by $3. If the Labour emissions trading scheme had been introduced, the increase would have doubled. Next month, when the tax cuts are introduced, people will have more cash in their hands. The fact that we have introduced the Electricity Industry Bill, which will increase competition, is further good news for consumers, because more competition will lead to a slow-down in increases in power prices.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Is the 12 percent electricity price rise that Gisborne households will incur from Genesis Energy from October the “slower rate of increase” that households should expect under the Minister’s watch?

History is the better indicator. The fact is that over the last 2 years price increases have been constrained to 6.6 percent. Also, the Electricity Industry Bill will enable consumers to switch companies more easily. I think intelligent New Zealanders will use that scheme to check and monitor their power price increases.

Animal Welfare—Ethical and Moral Dimensions

8. to the Minister of Agriculture: Is animal welfare principally an ethical and moral issue; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture: Animal welfare is not just an ethical and moral issue; it is a complex international policy issue involving ethical, moral, scientific, economic, and trade-related considerations. This requires the Government to take a balanced approach when considering animal welfare matters.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Which, in his view, is more important: trade and economic considerations and the profitability of farmers, or moral and ethical issues about how animals are treated?

I believe that I answered that in reply to the primary question. I said the Government needs to take a very balanced approach.

💬 Sue Kedgley: What responsibility does he have as the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for animal welfare, for investigating ethical issues relating to the treatment of farm animals in New Zealand?

The member will be pleased to know—and, indeed, she commended the Minister in her first reading speech on the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill, which the House passed earlier this year—that the Government has invested $8.2 million over 4 years. That is the biggest funding boost for animal welfare activities that we have had, and it doubles the number of Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry enforcement agents on the ground.

💬 Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a very straightforward and specific question. I asked what responsibility he had for investigating ethical issues relating to the treatment of farm animals. Whether the Government has increased the enforcement budget is completely irrelevant to the ethical issues relating to the treatment of farm animals in New Zealand.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the member has further supplementary questions in which to pick apart the Minister’s answers. The Minister, as I heard his answer, indicated that the Government was investing more money in inspectors, to enable these issues to be investigated and dealt with. That would seem to indicate that the Minister is prepared. Ministers are not responsible; they take these actions through their departments. That answer seemed to be reasonable, but if the member is not happy with it, she has further supplementary questions in which to pick it apart.

💬 Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have only a very limited number of supplementary questions. I asked specifically about investigating ethical issues, which animal welfare inspectors do not do. They investigate issues of the abuse of animals; they do not investigate ethical issues relating to the treatment of farm animals.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I believe that that is a perfectly valid reason why we have further supplementary questions. The Minister, I believe, made an honest attempt to answer that question, and it is not for the Speaker to pick it apart; that is the role of the member who asked the question. As I look at the supplementary questions that may be asked, I see the member has four more questions. The member has every opportunity to pick the answer apart with four more supplementary questions.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Does he think it is acceptable that it is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act to keep a companion animal, such as a dog, in a cage but perfectly acceptable to keep a farm animal, such as a hen or a pig, in a cage for all or most of its life?

The member will be pleased to know that this Government is doing an awful lot more on animal welfare issues than was done in the previous 9 years. As a result of that, we have already passed some legislation through this House, and the Minister has also announced that a full review of the Animal Welfare Act is planned for 2011.

💬 Sue Kedgley: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think that I can predict what the member’s point of order is. On this occasion the member’s question was very specific. I invite her to repeat it so that there will be no misunderstanding, because some attempt must be made to answer it.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Does he think it is acceptable that it is an offence under the Animal Welfare Act to keep a companion animal, such as a dog, in a cage but perfectly acceptable to keep a farm animal, such as a hen or a pig, in a cage for all or most of its life?

That is something that will be addressed in the wide-ranging review in 2011 that I have indicated will occur. The Minister looks forward to the response to that review and bringing the issue back to Parliament.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Does he disagree with New Zealand’s largest mainstream animal welfare organisation, the SPCA, that it is unethical to keep sows in cages where they cannot turn round, socialise, search for food, be part of a family, build a nest for their young, or express any normal patterns of behaviour; if so, why?

Yes, the Minister has heard of those concerns, and I come back to the point again that they will be captured in the 2011 review. The Minister has also received information in the last week from the New Zealand Veterinary Association, which wrote: “I would like to acknowledge the continuing support and priority you and the Government are putting on animal welfare, and particularly the additional funding of $8 million to support MAF deliver on the animal welfare portfolio.”

💬 Sue Kedgley: Does he believe that the National Animal Ethics Advisory Committee pays enough attention to the ethical considerations that underpin animal welfare, such as whether it is acceptable to force animals to suffer throughout their lives so that they can become more efficient producers of meat, milk, and eggs?

Yes, at this point in time the Minister does, but that will be covered under the wide-ranging review in 2011.

💬 Sue Kedgley: Given the ethical and moral issues that underpin animal welfare, why will the Government not allow a personal or conscience vote on my member’s bill on animal welfare?

National has made a decision on that, and we will not be supporting a conscience vote. It is also interesting to note that when the Animal Welfare Amendment Bill recently passed through this Parliament it had majority support in the House, but the member for the Greens did not call for a conscience vote then.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: To assist the House, I tell members that it is not actually a Minister’s responsibility as to whether a conscience vote is allowed on a matter; it is a matter for the Speaker.

Student Loans—Performance Element

9. to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Why did the Government make the performance element of the student loan scheme that requires a borrower to pass more than half their course over a 2-year period retrospective to include courses taken in 2009, when it was introduced in Budget 2010?

The Government put the performance element in place to encourage students to use taxpayers’ generous support of their academic study wisely, and because we want to avoid the situation where students who are not succeeding academically are stung with thousands of dollars of debt and have no qualification to help them pay back that debt. With regard to commencing with 2009 data, we have acknowledged at the outset an element of retrospectivity, and we have made it clear that if students are showing strong progress this year, or have legitimate reasons for their past performances, then StudyLink has the discretion to consider their individual cases for having their student loans extended.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an interesting statement from the Minister, but the question asked why—it was looking for a reason. We got an explanation of what was happening in the process, but there was no attempt to explain why it was retrospective.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister wishes to add further to his answer, I am very happy for that.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I went through the reasons why we introduced the performance element, and I acknowledged the retrospectivity, which links the two together, and then I said what the students could do about it. I think it was a very clear and full answer.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is being a little pedantic given that he has further supplementary questions. The Minister did not try to be political. I think he made a genuine attempt to answer that question. He said the Government acknowledged why it was retrospective. The reason it has introduced the measure, including why it is retrospective, is to improve performance. The quality of an answer is something the Speaker cannot judge, but it seemed to be a reasonable answer.

💬 Grant Robertson: How does the Minister think it is fair that thousands of students will not be eligible for student loans next year on the basis of having failed courses in 2009, at a time when they had no idea that the Government was going to introduce this requirement?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I have just said to the member, if students are showing strong progress in 2010, or have legitimate reasons for their past poor performances, then StudyLink has the discretion to consider their individual cases, and it can.

💬 Grant Robertson: Is the Minister aware that some tertiary institutions have estimated that more than 20 percent of their students are at risk of not being eligible for student loans next year as a result of making the performance element retrospective; if so, will he be compensating institutions for that loss of funding?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am aware via the media that one institution has claimed that, and let us think about what that means. It means that that institution is saying that 20 percent of its students are failing more than half their courses, not over just 1 year but 2 years. I have a problem with any institution doing that, because that says there are big issues with pastoral care and big issues with encouraging their students to achieve academically. I think that institution has much wider issues that it needs to address.

💬 Grant Robertson: Has the Minister made any public statement that has acknowledged the retrospectivity of the performance element of the student loan scheme before today?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: On the day the decision was released in the Budget, there was a press release and a series of questions and answers about it, I say to Mr Robertson. It seems to me that you are one of the few people who have not been awake since then, because you are now raising it as an issue, not in May—

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was reasonably straightforward. It asked whether the Minister had made any public statement on that.

💬 Hon Bill English: He answered it. You didn’t like the answer.

💬 Grant Robertson: He did not, I say to Mr English. He answered about the department and not about—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We will not have interjections. It was my fault; I apologise to the member that that happened. The Hon Bill English should know better than to interject during a point of order. The Minister did answer the question. He disputed it. The question, which was a fair question, asked whether the Minister had made any public statement about the retrospectivity aspect of this issue. The Minister said he did make that clear, I think, on the day of the Budget in a press release in answers to questions. It sounded to me like it was attached to that press release. I acknowledge that the Minister then threw in a bit of a political gibe in suggesting that the member had not noticed that—in slightly different language—but I do not think it was a particularly vicious political gibe, and at least he answered the question. Had he started his answer that way, I would have pulled him up totally, but at least he did answer the question.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There is just one part of your ruling I think you omitted. In fact, the Minister brought you into the debate. He addressed the member as “you”, and I remember that a poor old member who asked a question yesterday was made to apologise for including you in an interjection.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Mr Speaker, I apologise profusely for drawing you into it. I was, of course, referring to Mr Robertson being asleep at the time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The only fair thing for me to do now is to hear Grant Robertson.

💬 Grant Robertson: This is a different matter. I seek leave to table—I would not normally do this, but I will in light of the Minister’s answer—the Minister’s press statement on Budget day, on this matter, which did not contain any questions and answers.

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

Earthquake, Canterbury—Government Assistance for Character and Heritage Buildings

10. to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What assistance is the Government providing to assist with the repair, restoration, and strengthening of heritage and character buildings in the Canterbury region?

Last Friday the Government announced that it would contribute up to $10 million in addition to local funding to assist with the repair, restoration, and strengthening of heritage and character buildings in the Canterbury region.

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Why is the Government providing assistance with the repair, restoration, and strengthening of heritage and character buildings in the Canterbury region?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Those buildings are an important part of the region’s character and history. The earthquake caused significant damage to many of these buildings. The cost of their repair and restoration will be considerable, and it is appropriate that the Government assists with local rebuilding and strengthening efforts in order to preserve that history. The Canterbury community places a high value on its heritage and character buildings. The Government shares that view, and it will encourage further donations through its provision of matching funding for regional heritage repairs dollar for dollar up to a maximum of $10 million.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Thank you for that contribution to heritage buildings—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There should be just a question, not a comment.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Is he satisfied that building owners and interested parties will be appropriately consulted on any decision arising from the Order in Council process related to heritage in Christchurch?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I thank the member for her thanks; it is gratefully appreciated. Yes.

💬 Hon Members: Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well—

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I have answered the question succinctly, which is, I know, a novelty.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise. I hear what is going on.

💬 Rahui Katene: Does the council’s definition of heritage buildings include marae, as ancestral marae are by definition the embodiment of a community’s heritage; if so, what assistance will be made available for marae repair and strengthening?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Officials from the ministry are currently working with the local councils in Canterbury and the Historic Places Trust to establish relevant criteria for applications to access the funds that the Government is going to make available. Those criteria have not yet been finalised.

💬 Rahui Katene: What consultation has there been with mana whenua throughout Ōtautahi to seek guidance about the repair, restoration, and strengthening that will be required of their special heritage and character buildings?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Decisions on the repair, restoration, and strengthening of the special heritage and character buildings in Canterbury will be made by members of the Canterbury community, not by central government. Although it is not an area of ministerial responsibility, I note the close and constructive earthquake recovery engagement between local councils and representatives of Ngāi Tahu.

Auckland Transition Agency—Cost of Recruitment Agency’s Services

11. to the Minister of Local Government: What is the total cost to date of the services provided to the Auckland Transition Agency by the recruitment firm Momentum?

The evaluation panel chaired by Laila Harré, the Auckland Transition Agency’s human resources and workforce adviser, selected Momentum from three possible agencies due to its quality, processes, and the fact it offered the lowest price. I am not sure what has been charged, but the total cost to the Auckland Transition Agency of Momentum’s consultancy services has been $355,500 for the recruitment of 45 mid-tier managers in the structure of the new Auckland Council.

💬 Phil Twyford: Is he concerned that public money is connected to a conflict of interest by Michelle Boag campaigning and fund-raising for John Banks on Momentum letterhead while Momentum is recruiting senior executives for the super-city?

💬 Hon RODNEY HIDE: I have been assured by the Auckland Transition Agency that Momentum has done a good job. Of course, I am not responsible, as Minister, for the behaviour of Michelle Boag or Momentum.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he believe he is displaying “high ethical standards” by washing his hands of this matter when public money is clearly involved?

💬 Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes.

💬 Phil Twyford: What confidence does he think Auckland ratepayers have in his ability to manage the transition to the super-city, given revelations that have called into question his ability to act in an ethical manner?

💬 Hon RODNEY HIDE: Well, the people of Auckland should have very high confidence, because, as that member has observed, the previous Government for 9 years did nothing in Auckland. This Government has done a remarkable job. To give the member just one example of what that means, a member over there was saying that the water price would go up by hundreds of dollars; in fact, because of the changes we have instituted, the water price for a family of four in my own electorate will fall on 1 July next year by 40 percent.

💬 Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was about his ability to act in an ethical manner and the confidence of Auckland ratepayers. It was not about water charges in Epsom.

💬 Hon RODNEY HIDE: Speaking to the point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need assistance. In fact, the Minister answered the question asked. He gave reasons why Aucklanders would have confidence—so he believed—in him as Minister, and given the length of the question, he was at liberty to answer whatever part of the question he chose. The Minister chose in his answer to cover the issue of confidence. I believe that the Minister answered that part of the question.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has refused to answer part of that question on the grounds that he was not, as Minister, responsible for the actions of Michelle Boag—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I have not made the request yet.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not see what the point of order is. Is the member referring to an earlier supplementary question?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Yes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister indicated that he does not have responsibility for the activities of a business that is under contract, it would seem, to the Auckland Transition Agency, and the Minister is absolutely right—he does not have direct responsibility for that. He can certainly be questioned about it, but when it comes to detail, the Minister has indicated that he does not have direct responsibility; he has indicated that to the House.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the member briefly further.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker, the intent of the point of order was to inquire whether your ruling about the Minister’s responsibility would change if the person in question were to take up a senior line management position in the organisation—for example, as the chief of staff of the incoming mayor.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: As Speaker, I am not going to rule on hypothetical issues; I can rule only on what is before the House and on matters to do with the order of the House. I have ruled that the Minister is answerable for issues going on in his local government area of responsibility. The Auckland Transition Agency has been set up by statute, so the Minister can answer questions about it. But the Minister in his answer says he does not have ministerial responsibility, and I think there has to be a reasonable point at which I, as Speaker, have to accept that.

💬 Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your comment just prior to that, my recollection is that the Minister in his answer to my first supplementary question acknowledged that public money had been spent by the Auckland Transition Agency on contracting Momentum to recruit executives for the super-city. I would have thought that that was clearly within the responsibility of the Minister—the spending of public money by his transition agency.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We will not go back, because that question was dealt with. I can only, through points of order, deal with the issues before the House right now. The question was dealt with; the Minister answered it. The question before the House right now is to do with ethical issues and confidence, and the Minister answered that he believed that Aucklanders did have confidence in him as Minister. The member has further supplementary questions available to him should he wish to take them.

💬 Hon RODNEY HIDE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. To help you in the House, Mr Speaker, let me say through you that I am more than happy to help any member of the Opposition frame his or her questions so that they are in order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not helpful to the good order of the House. On this occasion I will choose to ignore it.

Public Transport, Auckland—Commuter Rail Network

12. to the Minister of Transport: What further progress is being made on developing the commuter rail network in Auckland?

There is more good news. I am looking forward to tomorrow, when I will help to officially open the newly constructed New Lynn transport hub. This $275 million project has separated road and rail, by placing the rail tracks in a trench; it has double-tracked the railway line; and it is being serviced by a new station that is part of an integrated transport hub for bus and rail. This will provide easy access to public transport for New Lynn locals, and it will significantly improve traffic flow through the area. The wider development is expected to create 4,000 new residents and provide 12,000 new jobs.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I acknowledge that the question has been accepted on notice, but I question whether the Minister does in fact have responsibility for the matters raised in the question, as he has made no significant decisions around the New Lynn transit—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not know what the Hon David Cunliffe is attempting to achieve with silly points of order. The only way to describe that is as a silly point of order. The member may think that it is clever, but I do not. I do not think that members of the public who are listening will think that it is clever, either.

💬 Dr Cam Calder: How does the development at New Lynn fit into the Government’s wider $1.6 billion investment in Auckland rail?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: This National-led Government has funded improvements to all transport modes in Auckland—for example, the Victoria Park tunnel, the north-western cycleway, and, of course, our enormous commitment to rail with the electrification of the lines, new electric passenger trains, and ongoing work to upgrade the infrastructure. This Government has spent $180 million on improvements to Auckland’s commuter rail, with another $1 billion worth of commitments to come, and all of it without charging a 10c a litre regional fuel tax, which, of course, the previous Labour Government was planning to do.

💬 Carol Beaumont: When the Minister warned the House yesterday that further work must be done to ensure that the new rail network is financially sustainable, did he mean that further fare increases can be expected, or that the central business district rail loop is now off the agenda?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Firstly, the central business district rail loop has not been committed to by anybody in terms of funding—not by either the previous Government or the current one, nor by any of the local bodies in Auckland that have talked about it on a regular basis. So it cannot be off the agenda if it has not yet been on it. In regard to the cost of actually running the rail network, there are some issues in terms of making sure that we can cover the operating costs of the expanded network for Auckland before we go further. There are three ways in which that can be met: increased subsidies from the Auckland local bodies, from the New Zealand Transport Agency, and from fares. We do not want to see in Auckland the situation that has occurred over many years in Wellington, where insufficient investment in maintenance and renewal has resulted in a very, very poor network. That situation was not fixed by the previous Government.