Questions for Oral Answer

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

Today the latest release of GDP data shows that the economy grew by 0.2 percent in the December quarter and by 1.5 percent in the last calendar year. This largely confirms what other indicators are telling us: that the economy was growing very moderately through the second half of last year, as New Zealanders increased their savings and paid down debt. However, it was the highest annual growth in the last 2 years, and the economy has expanded in six of the past seven quarters.

💬 Jacqui Dean: How does this compare with growth in the recent past and expected future growth?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the 2008 calendar year the economy contracted by 0.2 percent, and in 2009 it contracted by 2.1 percent. However, most commentators and forecasters agree that growth is likely to accelerate over the next couple of years, driven by a combination of lower interest rates than expected, strong commodity prices, continued Asian growth for our export markets, quake rebuilding, and the Rugby World Cup. They are forecasting growth reaching 4 percent or 5 percent over 2012 and 2013.

💬 Jacqui Dean: What implications does today’s data have for interest rates and inflation?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: It certainly does not signal any particular change. Both interest rates and inflation are likely to stay low for some time, reflecting the fact that the economy has been pretty flat and there is plenty of spare capacity.

Working for Families—Changes to Payments

2. to the Prime Minister: Will he rule out making cuts to Working for Families payments this year; if not, why not?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; if there were to be any changes to Working for Families they would take effect after the election, probably from 1 April next year.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Did he say: “there will be no changes at all to Working for Families under an incoming National government and the reason for that is we want to ensure that there is certainty and there isn’t greater complexity in the system.”; and does he intend to break that promise?

The Government has kept its word. We have maintained Working for Families and therefore security for families’ weekly incomes, despite the fact that since the Prime Minister made that statement we have had a global financial crisis, we have had finance company meltdowns in New Zealand, and we have had two major earthquakes, as well as flat economic growth. I think that is a major achievement of this National Government.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clear and asked whether he intends to break that promise. I did not hear the answer to that question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I heard the answer very clearly. He said that no, the Government has not broken its promise.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not need any further time wasted on it. In his previous answer the Minister made it very clear—[Interruption] If the Hon Pete Hodgson wants to remain in the House he will not interject while I am on my feet. I am not in a mood to be trifled with this afternoon. The Minister’s previous answer stated there would be no change until after the next election. The member should listen.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did listen, and I resent the reflection that I did not listen.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. Please just ask your supplementary question.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister also say: “I’ve said earlier there will be no changes. People will not be worse off under Working for Families.”, and will National continue to honour that promise?

As I explained to the member, National has honoured that promise. If there are any changes, as I explained to him, they would come into effect after the election. It seems to me that keeping that promise, despite the fact of a global financial crisis, finance company meltdowns, and two major earthquakes, is a remarkable achievement.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: When those promises were made, were they qualified with the words “we will honour them for 3 years” or were those promises unequivocal?

The promise was made and has been kept. If there were to be any changes, we would do what any respectable Government would do, and that is go to the electorate with those changes. If they are endorsed we would implement them, and if they are not endorsed we would not implement them.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Did the Prime Minister’s colleague the Minister of Finance say: “Whether it’s national super, or student loans, or Working for Families, we’ve said we’d leave that stuff alone and we have, despite the fact that we’re running a large deficit.”, and does that assurance still stand?

I give the same answer I gave to questions about the Prime Minister’s statements: that is what has happened despite the fact we have had a global financial crisis, a couple of large earthquakes, and a finance company meltdown, as well as dealing with the leaky homes problems. These things have incurred billions of dollars of extra costs for the Government. We have stuck to what we promised, and any changes in any of it would be put in front of the electorate at the election.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: When the Prime Minister talked about cutting Working for Families for those whose joint household incomes are over $100,000, is it correct that cutting Working for Families for those whose joint incomes are at that level would return only $1.7 million, as the Parliamentary Library sets out?

I have not seen the Parliamentary Library calculations, so I cannot comment on that.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table the workings of the Parliamentary Library, which point out that the savings for joint incomes over $100,000 would be $1.7 million.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

💬 Hon Phil Goff: If the savings on cutting back Working for Families payments to those whose joint incomes are at that level are so insignificant, can he give an assurance to this House that any cuts to Working for Families would actually dig down to people whose joint incomes reflected each income probably being less than the average wage?

The member will have to wait and see what decisions the Government makes in that area, but he ought to keep these things in proportion. Those same families are currently paying about 6 percent on their mortgages, whereas under his Government they were paying 10 percent. I think they are grateful for that.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: What integrity do the promises of the National Government have when it has already broken the promise not to increase GST and when he is now telling the House that National is going to break its promises on Working for Families, and probably on KiwiSaver as well? Where is the integrity?

I am not sure today is the day for the Leader of the Opposition to make claims about integrity around public statements.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member should know that his own leader has raised a point of order.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, I think if you reflect on that answer you will see it went nowhere near addressing the question. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There will not be any comment when I am on my feet—I got to my feet to make sure there was no comment during a point of order. The member should reflect on the question he asked. He basically accused the Prime Minister of lacking integrity, and, surprise, surprise, he got an answer that questioned his own integrity. He should not ask the Speaker to intervene under those circumstances. He should reflect on the question asked.

Child Abuse and Neglect—Changes to Family Start

3. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What changes is the Government making to Family Start to ensure a greater focus on protecting children from abuse and neglect?

I announced today changes to the governance, design, and delivery of Family Start. We know early intervention works. We know home visiting works. It is the right approach. But the research shows that Family Start’s focus has drifted over time, and that effectiveness varies from provider to provider. We can do better.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Why is the Government making these changes to Family Start?

💬 DAVID BENNETT: Family Start currently delivers services to 6,000 families at a cost to taxpayers of $30 million, which is the largest Government spend on any early-intervention programme. We can do better by these children and their families. They need us, and I am fully committed to ensuring that we will do better by them.

Beneficiaries—Prime Minister’s Statements

4. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she agree with the Prime Minister that “anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice … some make poor choices, and they do not have money left”?

Yes, I agree with the Prime Minister, but, as per usual, the member has taken the quote out of context. He was also right when he said: “this Government has, through a number of policies, tackled problems that, under Labour, simply removed hope and opportunities from the lives of those people.”

💬 Hon Annette King: Is she aware that her department is sending 25 people a day to just one budget adviser in South Auckland to have budget reports carried out for them because they cannot pay their bills, and has she been advised whether the reason that they cannot pay their bills is poor lifestyle choices or the rising cost of living?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member should be aware that changes were made in September last year under Future Focus, when we were sending more people for budgeting assistance. So it is hardly a surprise that we are sending more people for budgeting assistance. It is something that was introduced last year as part of policy changes, as something that is being productive.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does she consider Major Campbell Roberts of the Salvation Army to be a reliable commentator on social issues in New Zealand; if so, what does she say in response to his comments that he could not understand why Mr Key made the remark about beneficiaries and lifestyle choices, and called it “a very foolish statement”?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Actually, it is a good opportunity to thank the Salvation Army, particularly for the work it has done most recently in Christchurch. That has been really appreciated and has been a time when the Salvation Army has stood out. I think it certainly has a role to play for those people who need it most, and its work quite recently has really shown an example of that. So this Government is very supportive of the Salvation Army.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does she agree with the statement 1 month ago by the Christchurch City Mission head, Michael Gorman, that it is not a matter of the poor making poor choices, but of the poor having few options to choose from, and could the rising cost of living—including increased costs for rent, petrol, and milk—account for the biggest rise in food parcels ever given out by the Salvation Army?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have seen under this Government an increase in the number of hardship grants that have been issued, and also of special needs grants. Next week we will see benefits going up again, under the CPI increase, by more than 1.75 percent. That will help more than a million New Zealanders. As the Prime Minister has also said, we have seen wages increase by more than 16 percent, particularly for those on low incomes, so I think we are seeing that help go exactly where it is needed.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does she still stand by her statement that a lot of women went off the benefit because of Working for Families, and is she prepared to back her comment about National keeping Working for Families, when she said “I’m kind of pleased they are”, or will she be joining Mr Key and Mr English in their publicly stated determination to change it?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am sure that if I started to quote that member’s three-word sentences, then I could come up with the same sort of displacement that she just did. But, yes, I certainly stand by the fact that we have seen women, in particular those on the domestic purposes benefit, get the balance adjusted between the benefit and the right sort of tax incentives so that work then becomes easier and better for them. Getting that balance right is a key part of this Government’s focus.

Earthquake, Christchurch—Minister’s Meeting with Business Leaders

My question is to the Minister of Civil Defence—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I say to members, on the National benches on this occasion, that I have called one of their colleagues.

5. to the Minister of Civil Defence: Did he meet with business leaders in Christchurch yesterday to discuss the civil defence state of national emergency operations; if so, what was the outcome of that meeting?

Yes, the national controller, Steve Brazier, and I met with representatives from the Central City Business Association, the New Zealand Retailers Association, the Canterbury Development Corporation, the Canterbury Employers’ Chamber of Commerce, and the Canterbury Business Recovery Group. The meeting was to address issues that business owners have raised with the national controller about access to businesses in the cordoned red zone, and planning for business continuity in the wake of the 22 February earthquake. I am pleased to report that it was a very positive meeting, and civil defence is working to meet business owners’ pressing needs to access their vital records, property, and stock. Helping to restore business activity in Christchurch is a key focus.

💬 Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi: How will the Ministry of Civil Defence and Emergency Management progress the outcome of the meeting?

💬 Hon JOHN CARTER: The national controller is carrying out a stocktake of buildings within the cordoned red zone to give clarity to business owners about the current state of their business premises, and to reassess the situation after last weekend’s 5.1 magnitude aftershock. Where possible, work will be undertaken to secure businesses and property or stock that owners cannot yet access—for example, doors may be shut and locked. A team is now set up to do that. The ministry is working with business leaders to find out which businesses are in the affected buildings. After combining that information with a building stocktake, they will be able to map out how and when businesses can retrieve what they need to get their businesses back up and running. This work will remain subject to the maintenance of people’s safety. The ministry fully appreciates the concern of business owners who want to retrieve the information, property, or stock that will enable them to continue their business operations. The national controller and his team are working with business leaders on this, and are making good progress. They are talking to them every day and have been in contact with them since the day after the 22 February earthquake.

GDP—Forecasts and Prime Minister’s Statements

6. to the Minister of Finance: Who was right: the Prime Minister, who predicted that the New Zealand economy would grow “reasonably aggressively” in 2010-11, or the last four quarterly NZIER consensus forecast updates for GDP, which have progressively declined from 3.2 percent to just 0.8 percent for the year to March 2011?

The Prime Minister was certainly correct. His comments were made in March 2009 and he said that he believed that growth in 2010 would be positive. It turns out that for the 2010 calendar year growth was about 1.5 percent. At the time the trough was negative 2.8 percent, so it was aggressive growth from a low trough.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following three quarters of growth in 2010 would he classify as aggressive: June’s 0.1 percent, September’s minus 0.2 percent, or December’s 0.2 percent? Is it more accurate to describe these figures as indicating that the economy has come to a standstill?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: A standstill would, I think, be zero growth. For the 2010 calendar year we had 1.5 percent growth. That was not as high as we would have liked or was expected, actually, 12 months ago, but given the depth of the recession, when the economy actually shrank by 2.8 percent, it was not a bad effort. The reasons the economy has been growing more slowly have been rehearsed here many times: people are paying off debt, they are restricting their spending, and our exports are growing. That is the right direction for the New Zealand economy.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: When he criticised as conservative Treasury’s prediction of just 0.4 percent extra growth over 4 years as a result of his $14 billion tax cut, was this quarter’s meagre 0.2 percent what he was hoping for?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Using the word “conservative” is not a criticism; it is actually, in the current circumstances, wise.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Was Treasury correct when it forecast that 66 percent of the GDP write-downs expected over the next 4 years are unrelated to either of the earthquakes, and are, in fact, the result of a failing economy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think Treasury has been quite straightforward. The flatter growth it is expecting this year is roughly one-third because of the earthquake and two-thirds because people are saving more than expected, being more careful with their spending than expected, and doing less borrowing than expected. Those are sensible decisions by New Zealand households. It means that the economy is flatter in the short term, but in the longer term it is a stronger platform for better economic performance.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: With real gross national disposable income per person effectively the same today as it was 6 years ago, when will he move to ensure that the drivers of economic growth are given a higher priority in the Government policy settings than they are receiving?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is right to point out that the combination of bad policy from the previous Government, an early start to the New Zealand recession, and then the global financial crisis means that incomes are only now getting back to where they were 4 to 6 years ago. From the Government’s point of view, attaining economic growth is our top priority, as it will help us deal with issues like the Christchurch recovery, but we are going about it in a reasonably considered and moderate way.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: In light of today’s flat GDP figures, what exactly is his plan to create jobs, to lift incomes, and to give New Zealanders just a glimmer of hope for a better future?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: It could take some time to outline every detail of that plan, but the member will be familiar with some aspects of it, such as our extensive investment in infrastructure, making the public sector more efficient, the significant tax changes that were announced last year, and a focus on education standards and skills, as well as strong support for the business community through research and innovation.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: With economic progress and growth so dependent on private ownership, competitive markets, efficient capital markets, and low taxes, when will these policy aspects be given more prominence by the Government?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: We believe they are given prominence by the Government. The member and his party believe that the Government should be much more aggressive about those aspects. That is just one of the differences between National and ACT, but it does not stop us from working constructively with the member’s party to move ahead in that direction.

Earthquake, Christchurch—Effect of Response on New Zealand Credit Rating

7. to the Minister of Finance: Which response to the Christchurch earthquake carries a greater risk of a credit downgrade: increased Government borrowing or a temporary earthquake levy?

The Government does not really have any choice about increased Government borrowing in respect of Christchurch. The Government has had to start borrowing more money almost immediately to pay for earthquake costs such as the $150 million welfare spend that is going on at the moment, just to put cash in people’s pockets. The real issue is how the Government intends to deal with that increased debt. If we were not borrowing, we would not be able to meet all of those immediate demands, but the Government will outline in the Budget how it intends to deal with that increased level of debt.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a primary question, and it was specifically about the risk of a credit downgrade. I do not believe the Minister addressed that part of the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the member raises a fair point. The question was on notice, and it asked which would be the greater risk. I realise it is hypothetical to some extent, but I think the Minister should address that issue as it is a primary question.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, in our view, we believe that a levy could be just as much of a risk to our credit rating as increased borrowing, because on the one hand it would demonstrate that the Government was not willing to deal with its own spending quality, and on the other hand a levy could make it more difficult for economic growth to pick up. In the long run, economic growth will help to cut debt and rebuild Christchurch.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is the real issue with regard to a credit downgrade not the level of Government debt, and if a levy were struck to raise around, say, a billion dollars a year, would that not have a significant impact on reducing the amount that the Government needed to borrow, and hence reduce the risk of a credit downgrade?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Regardless of whether we had the earthquake, that is the argument for increasing taxes when the Government owes money. We have argued that it is in our long-run best interests to have relatively low tax rates on incomes, savings, investment, and exports, because that will help the economy to grow. There is an argument that we could put those tax rates up right now to reduce debt, but we believe that that would be detrimental in the long run.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: With regard to the short run and the specific circumstances in which we find ourselves, a temporary earthquake levy at, say, 1.5 percent or 3 percent on incomes above $70,000 a year, rather than being a long-term increase in taxation, would just be a short-term effect to deal with the costs we have now, so it is not about the long-term argument; does he still believe we should not go down that path?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I still do. In respect of the levy, our calculations indicate that a levy of the size that the member refers to would probably have to last for about 8 to 10 years to meet, say, a $6 billion cost. We do not regard that as being short term. It does look as though it is fairly long term.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree with the advice from Treasury and others that a downgrade would cost an ordinary mortgagee—someone with a mortgage on a house—in the order of a 1 percent increase in interest rates, and that that would be a much greater increase in payments for that household than a temporary earthquake levy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not seen Treasury advice as specific as that, but there is no doubt that a credit downgrade would generally lead to somewhat higher interest rates. New Zealand faces that risk not just because of Government debt. In fact, the credit rating agencies would say it is the large private debt, alongside the Government debt, that gives them some concern about New Zealand. We are very conscious of the risks of a downgrade and believe that we are making the right considered choices to deal with those risks.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does he agree that a 1 percent increase in interest rates on a person holding a $300,000 mortgage could result in that family paying an extra $60 a week in interest payments, which would be significantly more than the kind of levy we are talking about, so, in fact, people would be better off by paying a temporary earthquake levy than facing higher interest rates?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member’s calculations may well be right, but I think that in the long run the issue for New Zealand is the amount of debt it owes to foreign lenders. At the moment what is driving up that debt is the growth in Government debt. Most of the advice I have seen has indicated that the best thing the Government can do to deal with that rise in debt is to reduce, where it can, its expenditure in a permanent way, rather than relying on a temporary levy.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister saying the Government’s response of spending cuts and increased debt effectively means that it will be a smaller group of New Zealanders who will bear the cost of the quake rebuild—those who will have their benefits cut through Working for Families or something else, and the large bulk of New Zealanders who will face higher interest payments on their home mortgages—rather than having a temporary earthquake levy, which could avoid both of those things?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I think I have indicated to the member, a short-term levy that was large enough to raise enough money to meet the $6 billion or $7 billion cost would need to be either applied to a much wider range of income earners or applied at a higher rate than he says if we were to meet those costs in the short term. The method that the Government is pursuing will allow us to spread the costs of the Canterbury earthquake over more people over a longer period of time.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: If the fundamental choice is between our paying higher interest payments—which will go to overseas-owned banks, so we would be sending money overseas to pay higher mortgage payments—and our paying a temporary earthquake levy to pay for the earthquake, is the latter not a much more sensible approach than simply enriching our overseas lenders?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If those were the trade-offs, then the member might have an argument, but that is not quite how we see it. We believe that we need to have the tax settings and the spending settings that will help to lift the performance of the economy. Increasing taxes probably will not help that, and continuing with ineffective Government spending is not likely to help that. We have been trying to get the tax rates moderate and lower, and to focus Government spending on areas where it can be effective. If we can achieve both of those things, we can get a growing economy and deal with the debt that comes from the Christchurch earthquake.

Auckland Governance—Minister’s Statement

8. to the Minister of Local Government: When he said “Auckland’s fragmented governance has meant a lack [of] leadership and vision, but soon its leaders will be able to think regionally, plan strategically and act decisively”, did he mean only if they agree with the Government’s plan for Auckland?

on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: No.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “Aucklanders who go to London in my experience get on the Tube. That’s because it’s there, it’s efficient, and it’s cost effective.”; if so, why is the Government not supporting the Auckland Council’s plan for a central city rail link?

The Government is aware of the fact that a number of options are on the table. They have been put forward by the mayor and the Auckland Council. We are looking forward to working constructively with the Auckland Council.

💬 Phil Twyford: In that case, why did he sign out as Minister of Local Government a Cabinet paper that pours cold water on the Auckland Council’s plans for a world-class transport system, when the Government passed legislation last year that requires the Mayor of Auckland to develop a vision for Auckland?

I say again that the Government is aware of the vision the Mayor of Auckland and the Auckland Council have, and it is looking forward to working constructively with them.

💬 Phil Twyford: Why, when he has said countless times that his reforms will allow Auckland to speak with one voice, does he refuse to listen to what Auckland is saying, with the new council saying that the “Holiday Highway” is not a priority but the central city rail link is?

That is just one of the options that are on the table. We are looking forward to working constructively with the Auckland Council.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does he disagree with Rod Oram that the Government’s view “is that we should just ooze out over the landscape in very low density ways and therefore the only answer’s roads”, simply to please his property developer and road building mates, or is there another reason?

I actually have not read the comments from Mr Oram, but I suspect that, like a lot of options, that may not be one that we pursue.

Schools—Accelerating Learning in Mathematics Pilot Study

9. to the Minister of Education: What were the results of the Accelerating Learning in Mathematics Pilot Study?

I am pleased to say that the pilot programme to accelerate maths learning has seen significant improvements for struggling students in a short space of time. Overall, students achieved 80 percent of 1 year’s learning in maths after just 10 weeks of intensive teaching, with some children making over 1 year’s improvement in 10 weeks. National standards are helping to identify the students who need extra help, and programmes such as this will then be used to support and improve their learning as part of this Government’s ongoing commitment to literacy and numeracy.

💬 Jo Goodhew: What are the next steps for the pilot?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We will use the findings from this study as we roll the programme out to a larger number of schools to see whether it will be as successful on a larger scale. That is why we will be extending the programme into 180 schools this year. It will be continually improved, of course, as the project continues. In this next phase there will be a particular focus on supporting Māori students, because the previous pilot showed that they had not learnt at the same rate as some of the other students.

Biosecurity—Border Controls

10. to the Minister for Biosecurity: Does he agree with the statements made by John Lancashire and Stew Wadey, President of Waikato Federated Farmers, in the Dominion Post yesterday that New Zealand is exposed to greater risk of incursions or exotic pests at our borders as a result of the “fast-tracking of tourists”, the “attempts to abolish import restrictions”, and his axing of 60 front-line border staff?

on behalf of the Minister for Biosecurity: No, because all three claims are wrong. For example, the Government’s SmartGate initiative enables travellers to move more quickly through our airports but improves biosecurity by freeing up staff to focus on high-risk passengers. Equally, the Government’s new initiative to transfer X-ray images electronically from the port of departure, rather than X-raying those same bags again on arrival, improves efficiency but does not in any way compromise biosecurity.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: How can the Minister assure New Zealanders that the new visitor fast-tracking process will not expose New Zealanders to “incredible risks” in terms of pest incursions, as stated by Mr Wadey in his article yesterday?

New Zealand’s biosecurity systems are world class, but that should not get in the way of using smart technology to try to support New Zealand’s very important visitor industry. With New Zealand hosting the Rugby World Cup, using smart technology—such as the likes of SmartGate, or alternatively the transfer of X-ray data that has been taken at the airport of departure—is a really good way for us to have a more efficient transfer of passengers through the airport while providing for New Zealand’s very important biosecurity.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Is he willing to redraft the Government-industry agreement in the Biosecurity Law Reform Bill, which is before the Primary Production Committee, given the strong opposition from submitters, including the submission today from the Meat Industry Association, which stated that “industry will be required to write a blank cheque before any action will be taken” on incursions; if not, why not?

The member’s claims are incorrect. The approach that the Government has with the industry agreement framework was actually proposed by the previous Government. In fact, I have the Cabinet minute of 14 July 2008 in which the exact policy that the member is now objecting to was agreed to when he was in Cabinet.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Why does the Minister think producers are still convinced that the axing of 60 front-line biosecurity staff in 2009 has contributed to the recent increase in incursions, as stated by John Lancashire in his article yesterday?

Firstly, the number of 60 is incorrect; the correct number is 19. I also clarify that the number of import staff in biosecurity increases and decreases with the amount of imports. A lot fewer imported cars are coming into New Zealand and biosecurity staff numbers have gone down accordingly. That is a natural consequence of this Government’s policies for rebalancing the New Zealand economy. Unlike the importing that occurred under the previous Government, which was hugely unaffordable, New Zealanders are now taking a more cautious approach and importing less.

Electricity—Generation from Renewable Resources

11. to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What reports has she received on levels of renewable electricity generation?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. The New Zealand Energy Quarterly released by the Ministry of Economic Development last week showed that the annual renewable electricity generation for 2010 was 74 percent of all electricity generated—the highest level since 1998.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What benefits will the levels of renewable electricity generation have for the environment?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: There are a number of benefits from raised levels of renewable electricity generation, including a reduction in reliance on thermal electricity generation sources and a reduction in electricity generation emissions.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister stand by her answers to written questions No. 1187 and No. 1095 this year, which show that fully four-fifths of all renewable energy consented to by November 2010 was consented to under the last Labour Government?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora tātou. What assurances can the Minister give to Te Uri o Hau that their wāhi tapu will be protected from any consequences of the tidal power generation project in Kaipara Harbour?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am advised that the Environment Court considered these matters thoroughly during a robust 4-year consent process, and the matters are addressed by the conditions of the resource consents awarded to Crest Energy.

💬 Charles Chauvel: Did her answer to the primary question take into account the 100-megawatt gas-fired plant that is about to be developed in Taranaki, whose owners have openly agreed that it would never have occurred if her Government had not repealed Labour’s renewable preference legislation in December 2008?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.

Earthquake, Christchurch—Funding of Accident Compensation Claims

12. to the Minister for ACC: Does he stand by his answer to question 4 on Thursday last week “that funding will be taken from either the earners account or the work account” and “that a higher proportion of claims than the overall average for ACC are actually in the work account”; if not, why not?

Yes. The Government moved quickly to assist people who had been seriously injured in the Christchurch earthquake, by extending accident compensation coverage to the first week following the earthquake. The cost of that will be met from the work and the earners accounts, but there may also be some exceptional circumstances where it will be funded from the motor vehicle account. I also stand by my answer that a higher proportion of income compensation claims will fall to the work account. Those claims usually make up about 20 percent of claims, but in the case of the Christchurch earthquake they make up about 40 percent.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Has the Government made an in-principle decision to allow private insurers to provide cover under the work account, rather than continue with the universal coverage that the accident compensation scheme currently provides; if so, will a future Government be able to direct those private insurers to pay above scheme entitlements in the event of an unforeseen event or natural disaster?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government remains absolutely committed to a universal, 24/7, no-fault scheme that will ensure, just as per the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake, that people will be covered. Because the entitlements are determined by legislation, exactly the same mechanism could be used for providers other than ACC. I am surprised that the member opposite would want to try to make politics out of the tragedy of the Christchurch earthquake.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Will he guarantee New Zealanders that if the ACC work account is privatised, the level of cover in the event of a natural disaster will be no less than it has been for the victims of the Canterbury earthquake; if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Absolutely, because the entitlements for those who are injured in an accident are, and will be, provided for in legislation. I also say to the member that he is incorrect with his rhetoric of privatisation. The Government has made plain that it has made a decision in principle to allow insurers to provide the option and choice of providing support alongside ACC.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Can he reassure New Zealanders that should an influx of accident compensation claims due to an unforeseen event such as an earthquake cause a private insurance provider providing cover under the accident compensation scheme to go broke, New Zealanders covered by that insurer will not be left high and dry; if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is equally true under ACC. In fact, when I first became Minister for ACC it had made losses of $2.4 billion in 2007-08, and $4.8 billion in 2008-09. This Government has borne the very difficult job of trying to secure the future of ACC by providing a far more robust system of managing ACC’s finances.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think I can anticipate the point of order. Although the Minister’s answer was interesting, it was not an answer to the question he was asked. I ask the Minister to ask the question he was asked.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government will be issuing a discussion document. The event of a potential insurer going broke is one of the detailed issues that, rightly, should have to be worked through. The member should wait for that discussion paper, which will address those issues.

Questions to Members

Point of Order—Questions to Members Ruled Out of Order

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to draw to your attention a question to the chair of the Local Government and Environment Committee from Gareth Hughes on 27 April 2010 and a question to the chair of the Law and Order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I fail to see what that has got to do with order in the House right now. I simply said the House is coming to questions to members, and the member is talking about questions from a previous time. I fail to see how that has anything to do with order right now. It may become relevant, but I do not see it being relevant right now.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The reason my point of order is relevant is that, as you are aware, early this morning my office submitted questions for oral answer, and some of those questions were declined. The questions we submitted that were declined were based on questions that had been previously submitted by Gareth Hughes on 27 April 2010 and by Hon Clayton Cosgrove on 17 February 2010, which had been accepted. I am asking for a ruling from you, Mr Speaker. If it was good enough to accept the questions from Gareth Hughes and Hon Clayton Cosgrove, why was it not good enough to accept the questions submitted by my office, which were based on the precedent established by those two questions? Why were those questions declined?

The member’s point of order is indeed reasonable. The House may or may not be aware that members of the ACT Party today lodged some 700 questions to members. Standing Order 370 sets no limit for questions to members. However, members in lodging so many questions run the risk of limits being placed on the number of such questions and, in so doing, adversely affecting other members with genuine issues they want to pursue.

The questions have been scrutinised by the Clerk’s Office. Questions to a chairperson must relate to a matter before the committee and a process or procedure for which the chairperson has responsibility. The responsibilities of chairpersons relate to limited areas of process and procedure. They are limited. First, in the absence of a committee making a decision about its next meeting, the chairperson may set the date for that meeting, but the chairperson does not control the agenda. This is a matter for members of the committee. I refer to Standing Order 186(2). Second, the chairperson may, on behalf of the committee, request any person to attend and give evidence, and request papers and records be produced. I refer to Standing Order 291. Third, the chairperson may direct the examination of witnesses and question witnesses. I refer to Standing Order 220. Fourth, the chairperson with the agreement of the committee may make a public statement to inform the public of the nature of a committee’s consideration of a matter. I refer to Standing Order 238(1). Finally, the chairperson signs the committee reports and presents them. I refer to Standing Order 243.

These are the extent of the chairperson’s powers and set the limits for questions to chairpersons. Questions that ask about committee decisions are not in order. Questions asking what the committee is currently considering, for example, or when it will consider a matter are not in order. The chairperson is no more responsible for such a decision than any other member of the committee is. Furthermore, such decisions are more than likely to be confidential to the committee. Similarly, the chairperson is no more responsible for progress on an item of business than any other member of the committee is.

The fact that such questions may have been allowed in the past does not make them in order now. The Speaker must rule whenever a question arises on the interpretation or application of the Standing Orders. The Speaker is guided by established Speakers’ rulings. There is nothing in the rulings, though, that convinced me that the questions I ruled out today were in order. Given the number of questions to members lodged, I believe my actions were appropriate.

Questions Nos 1 to 20 to Member

Questions postponed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the chair of the Commerce Committee is not available, I wonder whether those questions could be answered by the acting chair.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I have ruled that the Standing Orders require that questions are addressed to the chair, and if the chair is not present, the questions are postponed.

Questions Nos 21 to 40 to Member

Questions postponed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would like to refer you to Speaker’s ruling 150/2. You have just ruled in respect of the questions to the chair of the Commerce Committee that the questions could not be put to the deputy chair, and I accepted that ruling. However, the issue of the deputy chair of the Finance and Expenditure Committee arises. Speakers’ ruling 150/2 states that a question can be put to the deputy chairperson if the chairperson is overseas. In the case of the Commerce Committee, I know that Sam Lotu-Iiga is not overseas, because I saw the Government whip escorting him from the House a short time ago. However, I do not know that the chair—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and the member will resume his seat. The Speakers’ ruling the member is referring to actually refers to the chair being overseas. The member has got it somewhat wrong.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I have an assurance that Mr Foss is not overseas.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am satisfied that the member is absent from the House. I do not believe he is overseas. That is the end of the matter.

Questions Nos 41 to 44 to Member

Questions postponed.

Questions Nos 45 to 48 to Member

Questions postponed.

Questions Nos 49 to 60 to Member

Questions postponed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The members who have been called have been on notice for the last couple of hours that these questions have been lodged. I do not think it is acceptable that members who are select committee chairs choose to absent themselves from the House this afternoon because questions are set down for them to answer. I ask you to rule that the—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is not responsible for members. They could be attending to important parliamentary business, and I am sure it is just as important as the 700 questions lodged.

Questions Nos 61 to 64 to Member

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am dealing with questions Nos 61 to 64 to member. Does the point of order relate to those questions?

It does, to the extent that you have just made a snide remark about the questions we have raised. I think the questions should be dealt with with some decorum. I do not think the remarks you made were reasonable. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard. If I did not show suitable decorum I apologise to the member.

Questions postponed.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Reflecting, then, on Speaker’s ruling 150/2, can we have an assurance that Katrina Shanks is not overseas. According to Speaker’s ruling 150/2, if she is overseas we would be entitled to have those questions answered by the deputy chair.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members are not entitled to ask questions about why members are absent from the Chamber. That is not consistent with the Standing Orders.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have to help me. Speaker’s ruling 150/2 states that it is acceptable for the question to be put down to the deputy chairperson if the chairperson is overseas. Clearly, it is relevant where the chairperson is. If the chairperson is overseas I am entitled, according to Speaker’s ruling—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. If the member were serious about his questions being asked, he would have ascertained whether a chair was overseas. That is not very difficult; he could have done it quite easily himself. If it helps solve the problem for the honourable member, though, I can check with the Government whip. Is Katrina Shanks overseas?

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I can assure the House that none of these people who are absent are overseas.

Questions Nos 65 to 68 to Member

Questions postponed.

Questions Nos 69 and 70 to Member

Questions postponed

Questions Nos 71 and 72 to Member

Questions postponed.

Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Purpose

73. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill: What is the purpose of the Education (Freedom of Association Amendment Bill?

The purpose of the bill is to uphold students’ rights to freedom of association by removing any requirement for students to join students associations.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not intend to allow a supplementary question on that. The question was answered very clearly.

Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Status

74. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill: What is the current status of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill?

The bill is currently at the Committee of the whole House stage.

Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill—Proposed Changes

75. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Member in charge of the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill: Does she intend to propose any changes to the Education (Freedom of Association) Amendment Bill as reported back from select committee; if so, what?

No.

Questions Nos 76 to 78 to Member

Questions postponed.

Questions Nos 79 to 81 to Member

Questions postponed.

Questions Nos 82 to 84 to Member

Questions postponed.

Questions Nos 85 and 86 to Member

Questions postponed.

Questions Nos 87 and 88 to Member

Questions postponed.

Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill—Purpose

89. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill: What is the purpose of the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill?

The purpose of the bill is to amend the Smoke-free Environments Act 1990 to ban the display of tobacco products and smoking accessories at the point of sale.

Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill—Status

90. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Member in charge of the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill: What is the current status of the Smoke-free Environments (Removing Tobacco Displays) Amendment Bill?

The bill is set down for first reading.

Point of Order—Limit on Number of Questions to Members

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One of the points you made was that there was no limit on the number of questions that could be raised by members, and I wondered about the interpretation of that particular issue. Under the heading “Questions to Ministers and Members” in the Standing Orders of the House of Representatives, there are a number of Standing Orders—369, 370, and going through to 379. I just wondered about Standing Order 372, which does relate to oral questions, and whether the limitation to 12 questions applies to questions to members as well as to questions to Ministers.

I am seeking advice on that issue. [Interruption] The Speaker is considering a point of order. The Standing Order referred to is No. 372, which refers to the lodging of oral questions. It has always been interpreted as referring to questions to Ministers, but with the situation that has arisen today, with 700 questions to members being lodged, clearly I think the Standing Orders Committee, which is currently sitting, will be able to consider that issue. The member may in fact wish to write to the Standing Orders Committee and ask it to look specifically at that issue. It would be a way to have it looked at quite carefully.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There may be confusion on my part, but my recollection is that you ruled out of order an attempt by the honourable member Mr Boscawen to ask a supplementary question. Members on this side of the House were unclear as to the rationale for ruling supplementary questions out of order, given that it is the normal practice, provided that a supplementary question is within the scope of a question to, for example, the chairperson—

I hear the member. The Standing Orders provide very clearly that supplementary questions are awarded at the sole discretion of the Speaker. These questions are very clear questions, and when the answers are very clear no further supplementary question seems to be relevant, as far as the Speaker is concerned. That is why I have not allowed supplementary questions today. That does not mean that I would not necessarily allow a supplementary question to a question to a member. But that is totally at the discretion of the Speaker.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not questioning your ruling that that is absolutely within your discretion. Noting that you have been willing to extend the opportunity to members of the Labour Opposition to ask supplementary questions on questions to committee chairs, would it be your intention, Mr Speaker, to offer a rationale in such cases as you exercise your unfettered discretion in favour of ruling out such supplementary questions, and would it be your expectation that such a rationale would prevent an interpretation that you might be acting, perhaps, more in the interests of one party than another—which, of course, would never be your intention in this House?

The Speaker is unlikely to give rulings that constrain where the Speaker has discretion. I am sure the Speaker will always have discretion in these matters. But the member will recollect that a number of his colleagues have asked supplementary questions that I have simply ruled out, because with questions to members supplementary questions are quite difficult to bring within the Standing Orders. I try to allow them where it seems sensible to allow them. Today, on these particular questions to members, it has not seemed appropriate to me to allow supplementary questions so far. That does not means to say none will be allowed, though.

Questions Nos 91 and 92 to Member

Questions postponed.

Questions Nos 93 and 94 to Member

Questions postponed.

Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill—Purpose

95. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Member in charge of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill: What is the purpose of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill?

The purpose of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill is to ban the possession, use, sale, manufacture, testing, and transit of uranium in all conventional munitions and armour within New Zealand, and by agents of the New Zealand Government.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Is the member satisfied that the current bill accurately reflects the stated purpose; if so, why?

Yes.

Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill—Status

96. Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Deputy Leader—ACT) to the Member in charge of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill: What is the current status of the Depleted Uranium (Prohibition) Bill?

I am currently lobbying members of the House for support for this bill, and I hope to get it beyond the first reading. The bill has been introduced to the House, but it is currently languishing on the Order Paper, awaiting the progress of a rather foolish bill put forward by that member’s party.

Questions Nos 97 and 98 to Member

Questions postponed.