Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that “There is a common misconception that people in need can’t get help from Work and Income, but these figures clearly demonstrate that this is not the case”?

Yes, I do.

💬 Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need, why are they now waiting up to 3 months before they can access necessary budget advice, which has been caused by the 70 percent increase in referrals to budget advisers by Work and Income, as required by her policy?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have been keeping in close contact with the budgeting organisations over the last 3 years, but specifically over the last year. That waiting time is not the norm, as far as I see it. I am sure it is happening in some cases, but budgeting services are also coping with 40 percent no-shows for appointments they make with people. Budgeting services have quite a few problems with setting up appointments and seeing those people who genuinely need help.

💬 Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need, why has the demand for food parcels around New Zealand reached an all-time high, with the number of families requiring their first-ever food parcel having gone up fourfold just this last year, and does she believe that these people are making poor lifestyle choices, as was suggested by the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have also seen an increase in people wanting and requiring special-needs grants. Last month alone we paid out over $6 million for 42,779 receipts for special-needs grants through Work and Income. There is no doubt at all that people who at the moment are doing it hard are in need, but I think Work and Income is doing an outstanding job and is stepping up and helping those people how it can.

💬 Hon Annette King: If people are getting the help they need, why does the Household incomes in New Zealand report state that, in 2010, two in five poor children were from households where at least one parent was working, and does that not indicate that the hardship New Zealanders are facing is spreading from beneficiaries and older New Zealanders to those on low and middle incomes?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it has always been true that those who are on low incomes do it harder than those who are not. We also have evidence of the social outcomes, education outcomes, and everything else for families who are in work, as opposed to those who are on benefits. What is often not pointed out to people is that those on low incomes can still get assistance from Work and Income. They might get accommodation assistance. Their family tax credits help them. People on a low income can get other assistance from Work and Income to top it up.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Is she satisfied with assistance provided from Work and Income for 15 to 19-year-olds who are seeking work, when 27.6 percent are now unemployed, which is the highest rate on record?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I am pleased to see for 15 to 19-year-olds is that more of them are in education, and we certainly have had a push to keep those young people in school and gaining their education qualifications so that they can go on to have other choices. I am extremely satisfied to see that more young people are staying in school for longer, but we certainly have work to do as far as making sure that they have that pathway out.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: On what did she base her statement in relation to the household labour force survey that “those aged 15 or over who would like to have an hour a week’s work or more, for example, a young person at school who would like to have a paper run”, when there are 35,800 under-19-year-olds who are not in work, not in training, and not in education?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: This side of the House certainly does stand by keeping young people in school longer, so I certainly advocate for them to finish their education and stay through to year 13 whenever possible. We are seeing those numbers increase, which is really pleasing, and we are really thrilled to see that, but, as we say, some of them are certainly falling out of the system. We have had a huge backlog that we have had to catch up on after 9 years of neglect in this area, so we are catching up and doing the best that we can to make sure that those services are provided.

💬 Phil Twyford: Does she believe that sole parents should be supported by the Government to adequately care for their children while they are training to get back in the workforce; if so, why did she cut the training incentive allowance for those in tertiary education?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is actually—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Excuse me a moment. The member’s colleague has asked a serious question, and I need to be able to hear the answer. It is very difficult when interjections are so loud.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: This Government is actually spending more on support and training for sole parents than has been spent, certainly, in the last 12 years alone. What we needed to look at is that, unfortunately, a very high percentage of those who are sole parents are not even achieving school qualifications, or getting to that first step on the rung of the ladder. So I am absolutely thrilled that we are putting the funding where it is really needed, and making sure that we are assisting those sole parents to get the kind of training that helps them then take those next steps ahead.

💬 Phil Twyford: Is she aware that the $8.7 million over 5 years cut from the training incentive allowance will affect 4,500 people every year—people who are training to get more skills so they can get off the benefit?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have not cut the money from the training incentive allowance. What we have done instead is to change the qualification level that they can actually get it for.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: That is a lie!

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Look, I understand that Labour is having a bad day today and its members are feeling a bit angry. It is all right.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I hate to interrupt the Minister but there is a member from across the Chamber shouting out the word “liar”. It is unnecessary, it is totally untrue, and she should not be saying that. Can you ask her to withdraw, please.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All I heard was a totally unacceptable barrage of noise. It just sounds awful. I do not know how members think it sounds to the public, or how it looks on television, but it does us no service in this place, at all. I did not hear the particular offence, but a member has taken offence to it. If a member owns up to having said that, I would ask the member to stand, withdraw, and apologise for having made that interjection. If a member does not, then I cannot do anything about it, because I did not hear that particular interjection—the overall noise level was so high. [Interruption] I am dealing with the matter, and if a member does not feel the need to do that then I am going to let the matter lie there.

💬 Chris Tremain: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being dealt with, and I say to the National back bench that if they want the matter dealt with, they will not carry on like that.

💬 Chris Tremain: The member who shouted that across the floor was Carmel Sepuloni, not once but on a number of occasions, and I ask you to deal with this matter, because I certainly took offence to it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Offence has been taken. I ask Carmel Sepuloni to stand, withdraw, and apologise for accusing a member of being a liar. If the member says she did not say that, I will accept her word. Is the member claiming she did not say that?

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I said it, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member said it, she will in all seriousness apologise now to this House and withdraw that remark.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I would rather leave the House than withdraw and apologise for that statement.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will do what the Speaker requires. Either the member will get to her feet, withdraw her comment, and apologise, or I will name her.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Reluctantly I withdraw and apologise—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member is running the grave danger of being named. The member will now get to her feet with dignity, as required in this House. I will not have this place treated with contempt by that member. She will get to her feet, withdraw her comment, and apologise with no other words, or I will name her.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: I withdraw and apologise.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the member.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: How can the Minister possibly tell this House that she has cut, for a large group of young people and some older people, the training incentive allowance, but that that is not a cut?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: What has happened is that we have changed the criteria. We had huge concerns—[Interruption] Well, wake up! It was done more than 2 years ago. We changed the criteria because we had so many concerns for those women in particular who were not achieving even to level 2 in educational attainment. I am proud to say that we are putting more money into supporting those people, and those women, into work and into training, and I am proud of that record.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member, I tell members there is no way I can assist them if the Minister does not answer the question, because I cannot possibly hear it. I just say to members that one of their colleagues is asking these questions, and it is discourteous to their own colleague to make such a high level of interjection.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: How can she justify cutting the very benefit that allowed her to get her qualifications, and how can that not be characterised as hypocritical?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. There is a long practice in this place that members cannot be accused of being hypocritical, and to allude to it that way, I think, is an unreasonable construction. I accept that it is a little different from directly accusing the member of being hypocritical, but I invite the member to reword that question to avoid that possible slight on the Minister. I invite the member to reword his question.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the fact that the member used the training incentive allowance to get her qualification, can she elucidate to the House whether, in the same circumstances, she would be eligible now, or is it just another case of pulling the ladder up after she has climbed up and off the benefit?

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister is not responsible for the policies of an earlier administration, which is a fundamental limb of the first part of that inept question.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to that—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard briefly.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: She is absolutely responsible for the policy change that changed the criteria for the allowance that she took advantage of in the past.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If I recollect the question correctly, it asked whether the Minister would have qualified given the criteria she changed. So it is not a matter of whether she would have qualified under a previous Government’s administration; it is whether she would have qualified given the changes made by the Minister herself. On that basis, I believe that the question should not be ruled out on the grounds that the acting Leader of the House has raised. I believe that I should allow the question.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: We are looking at a very different education system and tertiary system now than we were in 1994. Members on the opposite side may not think that things have changed—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. Either the Labour Party takes the questions of its colleague seriously, or it does not. I have just treated the question with some seriousness. The acting Leader of the House argued that it was out of order. I did not take that advice; I allowed the question. Maybe I made a mistake. If Labour thinks the question is so worthless as to keep interjecting like that, maybe I did make a mistake. But I made the decision and I have asked the Minister to answer the question, and I think it should be treated with some respect.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: My point is that things have changed since 1994. The education system and the tertiary system have changed. Those young women and men have more access to interest-free student loans, they get more childcare assistance than they ever had, and they are certainly far better off if they are in tertiary study now than they were in the early 1990s when I was there. That member may not think that times have changed in the 30 years or however long it is since he was in tertiary training, but actually they have. If one went back 40 years and said they would never ever make a change to a system, as a Minister, because of something they did or did not get, then what a ridiculous position to be in. That is the situation as it stands.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a long answer and it was commendable for the information it gave, but it did not tell us the answer to the question. The Minister said that things have changed, but she did not indicate to the House whether, under the circumstances—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It was my understanding from the Minister’s answer that she was indicating that she may not qualify under the current criteria. If I am wrong on that, then the Minister will certainly correct me.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: My point was that we cannot compare now with what it was like in 1994. It is a completely different system, both in tertiary education and in the welfare system. I will not take a hypothetical situation. My point was that if Trevor Mallard was going to study, right now, at university—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, and we will not go any further with this question.

Economy—Reports

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

More good news. This week we have seen reports of both jobs and wages growing. The household labour force survey released today shows that 43,000 jobs were created in the past year—43,000 new jobs—with unemployment at 6.5 percent. Earlier in the week the quarterly employment survey showed that even after adjusting for inflation, the after-tax average wage grew 2.1 percent in the past year.

💬 Tim Macindoe: How has the economy performed through recent economic shocks?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Both the economy and New Zealanders have been remarkably resilient. The figures for the last quarter include the considerable impact of the Christchurch earthquake. But the numbers show that the economy has been growing moderately and unemployment has been slowly falling, from a peak of 7 percent in 2009. Since the peak in 2009, there have been 61,000 new jobs and total hours worked are up about 4 percent.

💬 Tim Macindoe: How much have real after-tax wages risen in the past year?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If we use the measure that Parliament has legislated as the basis for calculating national superannuation, the after-tax average wage rose by 7.4 percent in the past year due to a combination of wage growth and the 1 October tax cuts. Over the same year inflation was 5.3 percent, driven in large part by the increase in GST. The real after-tax average wage increased by 2.1 percent in the year to June, even after accounting for all consumer price increases, including food, petrol, and the increase in GST.

💬 Tim Macindoe: How has the Government’s tax switch contributed to increases in real after-tax wages?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member may recall, in Budget 2010 the Government reduced income taxes and increased GST and the taxation on investment property, as well as closing a number of loopholes around Working for Families and other income assistance. The package helped to rebalance our economy away from excessive consumption and debt, towards savings, investment, and exports.

Capital Gains Tax—Current Exemptions

3. to the Minister of Finance: Further to his reply to Oral Question No 6 yesterday that “tax is paid on some capital gains in New Zealand”, what exemptions exist to the current taxation of capital gains income?

As the member may know, our tax system does not work, in this respect, by exemptions. Some capital gain is classified in the Income Tax Act as “income”, and is therefore taxed at income rates. One very important exception exists, though: KiwiSaver funds do not currently pay tax on their capital gains from trading New Zealand or Australian shares. This exemption helps boost KiwiSaver returns and provides a level playing field for local investment. However, a new, more widespread capital gains tax applied to the sale of all shares would mean the end of this exemption. KiwiSaver funds would have to pay capital gains tax, lowering their investment returns.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Prime Minister says: “it is not true that New Zealanders are not taxed on capital gains that they might incur.”, how much is raised annually from the intention test, and how much capital gains income goes untaxed?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: With respect to the intentions test, over the last couple of Budgets the Government has given quite a bit more money to the Inland Revenue Department to pursue those people who are, in fact, trading in property but claiming that they are not trading in property. If they are not trading, then they will not be paying taxes on their capital gains. The Inland Revenue Department advises that it has been quite successful in extracting considerably more tax from those property speculators.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respectfully submit that the Minister has not addressed the question, which was trying to get him to quantify how much tax was raised from a particular aspect—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have heard sufficient. If the member really wanted those figures—and he is perfectly entitled to seek those figures—he would need to put them down in the primary question. To expect a Minister to give him those figures, given the base of the primary question today, is unreasonable. If the member wants those figures, then the primary question should have been different.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Was the Minister’s statement that a comprehensive capital gains tax is “the right thing to do” not an admission that the current system offers a tax advantage to property that distorts investment decisions and hurts the economy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I explained to the member yesterday, many tax theorists advance a comprehensive capital gains tax as a way of raising more revenue. As I have explained to the member, the Government took a series of measures with respect to property, including the one referred to in the last question—that is, more resources for the Inland Revenue Department to pursue those people who have been avoiding taxation on the trading of property—and also a number of measures in Budget 2010, which I understand are collecting about $800 million this year from the property investment sector. We have taken moderate measures to increase the effective tax rate on property in order to assist the rebalancing of the economy.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Minister is on record as supporting a comprehensive capital gains tax, and given that the Minister could not tell the House earlier in this question what the exemptions are to the capital gains tax that he and the Prime Minister say currently exists, in what respect is the capital gains tax he believes is currently in place not comprehensive?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I have pointed out to the member, the Income Tax Act does not work by having a capital gains tax and then making exemptions from it. What it does is classify some forms of capital income as income that should be taxed. The rest of the tax law has been determined by a series of court decisions, which try to determine the difference between ordinary income and capital income. One exception, as I pointed out, is that KiwiSaver funds do not pay capital gains tax on Australian or New Zealand - traded shares. I think that under the member’s proposition, they would.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: In the simplest possible terms, does he stand by his statement that a comprehensive capital gains tax is a good thing? If so, does he believe that New Zealand currently has a comprehensive capital gains tax, and in what respect; if not, why not?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I pointed out in the comments he is referring to, a number of people have advocated a comprehensive capital gains tax. I understand that the member is not advocating a comprehensive capital gains tax; he is advocating one full of holes, exemptions, exceptions, and multiple rates. That would be a nightmare for compliance.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have used, as you can see, several additional supplementary questions, in effect, to get—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Hon David Cunliffe, please, to view the tape of the last supplementary question he asked, and to reflect on the first two statements he made in the supplementary question he asked. He made all sorts of allegations about the Minister’s view of capital gains tax and other matters. Having done that, the Minister had absolutely open licence to say almost anything he liked about the policies of the member’s party, because the member in asking his question made allegations about the Minister’s policies. I just ask him to look at the question he asked, because there is no way I can assist him when he asks that kind of question.

💬 Aaron Gilmore: Has he seen any reports on exemptions to the tax rules on capital gains on share trading?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a couple of interesting reports. The first was a Government policy released by the then Minister of Finance in the last Government, which this Government has maintained: “Capital gains on New Zealand and Australian shares held via a vehicle like a managed fund will no longer be taxed. … It is … important for encouraging people to save through KiwiSaver.” That was a policy position taken by Dr Michael Cullen, and remains a current policy. The second report was by Labour’s finance spokesman, David Cunliffe, who told the New Zealand Shareholders Association that under Labour’s proposed policy KiwiSaver funds would tend to be taxed on the capital gains. So I think it is now Labour’s policy that capital gains on Australian and New Zealand - traded funds will be taxed, and that will punish 1.7—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: —million—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: —KiwiSavers.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Unlike the previous question, that was a question from a colleague from the member’s own party. He reported accurately the report he had received, but he erred in expressing his view about KiwiSavers being punished. That was beyond the provisions of the Standing Orders.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I invite you to review the tape of that one and see whether you called the Minister to order three or four times while he studiously avoided looking at you.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: When the member’s own behaviour is perfect, I will take his advice on that matter.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to reflect on that and see whether you should address points of order raised or provide a commentary that sounds more like an Australian cricket commentary.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s view, but if the member wants me to take his points of order seriously, he needs to behave—most times—seriously. It is a very simple matter: the matter the member raised is a matter for the Speaker to decide. It is for the Speaker to decide whether the Minister did not respond quickly enough to my being on my feet. I admonished the Minister for going into an area that the supplementary question did not allow for, and, as far as I am concerned, that is the end of the matter. All I say to the member is to just reflect on his own behaviour if he is going to criticise the behaviour of other members in this House.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite you to consider whether it is appropriate for the Speaker to express prejudice before—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat right away. I have to deal with the behaviour of members in this House all of the time. I have been, I think, quite generous to the shadow Leader of the House and some of his behaviour in this place. I noted last night that in the Committee the member was told to leave the Chamber, and he argued with the Chairman. The shadow Leader of the House argued with the Chairman instead of leaving when he was told to leave. Members need to think about their own behaviour if they are to be taken seriously in this place. Had the point of order been a serious point of order, I would have acted on it immediately.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If you are going to reflect, as the member requested, I think you should reflect on the latitude that that member seems to get in this House. As you pointed out, yesterday he was asked to leave the Chamber by a—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not think we should take this matter any further. I have dealt with it as Speaker, and that is the end of the matter. I have made it very clear to the members of the House that I do not view bad behaviour favourably. When the Hon Trevor Mallard raised a point of order claiming that another member had behaved poorly, I suggested, because I did not believe that the offence was so bad, that the member reflect on his own behaviour. It seems that quite a few members of the House actually share my view, it would be fair to say. But that is the end of the matter.

I just want to see behaviour in this House improve a little. In recent times it has become poor, and we are not seen well in the public eye when we allow that to happen. If members doubt the behaviour of certain members, I tell them to look at the television replays—look at the tapes. I do it all the time, and at times it is not good. At times I just have to make it clear to members that they should pick up their game, because the public does not like seeing its Parliament behaving badly. If I have offended the member, I apologise for offending the member, but the behaviour has not been very good.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will be interested to know what the point of order is about.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am about to advise you of it, Mr Speaker. I would like some clarification. Without wishing to relitigate the exchange we have had, I think the issue is simply this: no one is challenging your right to make a ruling—that is absolutely correct, and we would support you making a ruling—but what follows or prefaces that ruling, inevitably, is a commentary. You may see that as your right and privilege as an evolving Speaker’s role, but the difficulty is that that commentary often becomes a narrative well outside what could be seen to be judicious and impartial. It is your right to make a ruling. You are the referee, but you are not in the game, I put to you, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Bill English.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As someone who has recently been on the other end of decisions of the Speaker, I think it is fair to say that we need to reassert a standard that has been held in this House for 20 years, which is that the impartiality of the Speaker is not questioned. Questioning the Speaker’s impartiality has never been a custom of this House, but the Opposition is starting to get into that. I sometimes disagree strongly with the Speaker, and have had cause to do so recently, but questioning the impartiality of the Speaker takes us down a road that leads to disorder, and it should not be occurring. We can disagree with the Speaker, but not question his impartiality.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: I do not take many points of order, but that point of order was very provocative. I sat on the other side of the House, where that member is now, and heard member after member of National questioning the partiality of the Rt Hon Jonathan Hunt and the partiality of the Hon Margaret Wilson. I was galled by it then, and I am even more galled by the member saying that they did not do it. I just wanted to lay that on the record. I accept that the member is correct in that we should not question the impartiality—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the House has expressed a view. All I say to all members is that if I have offended a member, I apologise for that, but we have to improve the behaviour. If members think that some of the behaviour that we have seen in recent times is acceptable, then I am sorry, but I disagree. The only way I can make it clear to members that the behaviour is becoming unacceptable is to invite members to look at the tapes to see what the public sees, and to see why we lose respect. That is all I am asking. If comments offend members at times, be assured that it is not without a lot of provocation, because I have been very tolerant of some members’ behaviour. I just want to see the behaviour improve a little.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Without again wanting to revisit the matter, I think you have missed the point, with respect.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise. The member will resume his seat. We are not going to waste more time on this. I have not missed the point, at all; I heard what the member said. The member thinks I make too many comments, and maybe I do. I accept that. But it is a way of indicating to a member when their behaviour to me is becoming unacceptable to the House. It is not that I have missed the member’s point; I heard it. Maybe there is some merit in what the member has said, but I can assure the member that the public sees my performance as being absolutely impartial. I get a lot of feedback from the public and they see it as that. In fact, I could say I was criticised somewhat yesterday for not being impartial, but that is enough on that matter.

Constitutional Review—Establishment of Constitutional Advisory Panel

4. to the Deputy Prime Minister: Kei hea ngā mahi i te wā nei mō te whakatū ropū ārahi i te arotakenga-whānui o ngā whakaritenga ā-ture o Aotearoa?

[What progress has been made on establishing a group to lead a wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements?]

The Government confirmed such a review in December that would include the size of Parliament, the length of the electoral term, Māori representation, the role of the Treaty of Waitangi, and whether New Zealand needs a written constitution. Today the Minister of Māori Affairs, Dr Pita Sharples, and I confirmed the make-up of the Constitutional Advisory Panel. It will be co-chaired by Professor John Burrows and Sir Tīpene O’Regan. It will shortly begin work on a plan to inform public debate, and it will report back to Ministers in September 2013.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: What significance has been accorded to Crown-Māori relationship matters, including Māori representation and electoral participation, and how does the membership of the panel reflect this?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The significance attributed to the Crown-Māori relationship is appropriate to the historical and contemporary practice of that relationship. In the context of the panel itself, Dr Sharples and I are supervising the panel together, there are co-chairs—Professor John Burrows and Sir Tīpene O’Regan—and I think the balance of the membership reflects a strong and broad Māori interest in constitutional matters.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: How will tangata whenua be involved in the discussion on New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: That discussion will probably begin in earnest next year. The plan of the panel, as I understand it, is to have one meeting this year, then to keep clear of the electoral referendum that is associated with the 2011 election. The panel’s terms of reference require it to listen to a wide range of views. I hope that many Māori who have strong constitutional views will take the opportunity to air those, so that the public are more familiar with them and get to grips with the implications of those views. Often these discussions are held just between the Crown and Māori, and they deserve a broader airing.

Surgery, Elective—North Shore Hospital Centre

5. to the Minister of Health: What projects has the Government approved to ensure greater access to elective surgery in greater Auckland?

More good news. Today the Government has announced approval of a $37 million state-of-the-art elective surgery centre at North Shore Hospital. All of the international evidence points to separating urgent and elective surgery as the best way to lift productivity and treat more patients sooner. The new centre, due for completion next year, will have 40 beds, four operating theatres, and be staffed by a team of 80 clinicians. It will be one of the most medically advanced centres in the country and will provide better access to surgery for the people of greater Auckland.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What other improvements have there been to health services in Waitematā?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: The new elective centre comes hot on the heels of the Lakeview development at North Shore Hospital, which is a 50-bed assessment and diagnostic unit, and of a new emergency department for finalisation in October. This is in addition to the $9.2 million North Shore dialysis centre, which opened last month and provides in-centre renal dialysis for people with kidney failure. The emergency department at Waitakere Hospital is now open 24/7, which is something that the previous Government promised for successive elections and even with the local MP as the Minister of Health could never deliver.

💬 Grant Robertson: Will the Minister now correct his statement to the House in June that only 2 to 3 percent of patients waiting for access to elective services are treated after 6 months, when the Auditor-General’s report shows that the figure is in fact 10 percent?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: More good news. There are fewer and fewer people waiting more than 6 months. The results of the Auditor-General’s report have been quoted by the member, but I can tell the House that when the elective performance comes out in the elective target report in the next few weeks, New Zealanders will be stunned at the performance of the New Zealand public health service.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does the Minister dispute figure 7 of the Auditor-General’s report, which shows that the number of patients waiting longer than 6 months for access to elective surgery increased in both 2009 and 2010; if so, why?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: What is in the Auditor-General’s report is obviously what is in the Auditor-General’s report. But I can say the number of people waiting longer than 6 months is lower than it was under the previous regime, and we have not culled 30,000 people off waiting lists to try to deal with it.

💬 Grant Robertson: At the risk of testing your patience, Mr Speaker, but given the Minister’s answer to that question, I seek leave to table figure 7 of the Auditor-General’s report, which shows that people waiting for elective surgery—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Grant Robertson: —longer than 6 months increased in 2010.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All members have access to the reports of the Auditor-General. They are tabled in this House.

💬 Hon Craig Foss: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just regarding the previous point of order, the member over there who was speaking watched you stand and kept on talking. You said the member should finish, or something along those lines. He tried to, and did, get his last words in whilst you were on your feet, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: All I can do is to ask all members please to respect the traditional practice in this place that when the Speaker gets to his feet, members desist. A member left the Chamber yesterday for failing to do so, and I do not want a repeat of that. I ask all members to please respect that.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just like to compliment you on that ruling.

Monetary Policy, New Zealand—Prime Minister’s Statements

6. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand’s monetary policy is “best practice”?

Yes, not that that means necessarily the Reserve Bank has made, in retrospect, the ideal decision in every case, but that view that New Zealand’s monetary policy framework is best practice was confirmed by, I think, five different reviews under the previous Government as well as our own.

💬 Hon David Parker: What changes to monetary policy and Reserve Bank powers is he proposing?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are not proposing significant changes, because we do not believe that such are required. What has happened is that what is now called macro-prudential policy has become an important part of the mix of tools available for determining monetary conditions. The New Zealand Reserve Bank has been something of a world leader in the transparency of its macro-prudential approach.

💬 Hon David Parker: Has the Minister seen yesterday’s report by Fran O’Sullivan, which said that “a bizarre alternative reality has emerged which has resulted in Mr English saying New Zealand is a ‘safe haven’ ”, and “New Zealand exporters do not need to see the currency get so out of whack with the underlying reality that this is no longer a ‘safe haven’ for them to operate from.”?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the bizarre alternative reality is what we saw happen in Washington over the last couple of weeks and what we see happening in Europe, where both of those areas are following policies that are devaluing their currencies quite considerably. Of course a high dollar is difficult for exporters—we would much prefer the dollar to be lower—but there is no obvious monetary policy tool that could achieve that.

💬 David Bennett: What reviews of monetary policy have been conducted over the past decade, what did they conclude, and what changes occurred as a result?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: There have been number of reviews of monetary policy. The first, in 2000, was by Professor Lars Svensson, who found that our monetary policy is entirely consistent with best international practice. The most recent review was undertaken by the Finance and Expenditure Committee in 2008, under Charles Chauvel. It found that New Zealand’s monetary policy approach is standard among small, open, developed economies and is regarded by our advisers as world best practice. In fact, no changes have been made as a result of four or five reviews over the last 10 years, and that is because no obvious changes can be made.

💬 Hon David Parker: Has the Minister also seen reports from exporters like Rakon, recently, and industry bodies like the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association calling for substantial changes to monetary policy, and is his Government’s inaction in the face of those calls why Fran O’Sullivan said: “Key is playing the old Pontius Pilate line, saying there is nothing the central bank can do to lower the dollar.”?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Not only have I seen those reports but also I have discussed this matter with any number of exporters. When they are asked just what changes they want to the monetary policy regime, I have found that the various propositions amount to small wording changes, which anyone who knows about monetary policy would say do not make much difference to the practical conduct of monetary policy. We would prefer a lower exchange rate. The world is not delivering that to us, so we have to get on with being a very competitive economy so that our exporters can do business profitably.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is the Minister concerned or embarrassed that in the same article, Fran O’Sullivan said: “But the Prime Minister’s memory is faulty. Four years ago, Key was singing a different tune when he bailed me up at an Australasian power-brokers conference in Sydney. Back then Key—at the time National leader—argued the New Zealand economy couldn’t sustain exchange rates at US74c.”?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, not at all. The fact is that the exchange rate has reached levels I do not think any of us anticipated. That simply shows the size of the challenge this economy has in becoming competitive enough to create jobs and incomes. The alternative of more Government spending, higher taxes, and more debt is a recipe for a much worse outlook for exporters, not a better one.

Superannuation—Retirement Age

7. to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with former Treasury Secretary John Whitehead that a retirement age of 65 is “pretty hard to justify” and that an increase is “inevitable”; if not, why not?

No. The Government’s policy is clear: the continuation of universal national superannuation for all New Zealanders from age 65. The cost of this policy does rise, but it is fully factored into all projections made by this Government.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: Has he seen Gabriel Makhlouf’s speech, made when he was the deputy chief executive of Treasury, where he stated that New Zealand needs to either increase GST to 19 percent or raise average income tax by $30 per week to fund the existing retirement age, and, in light of his Government’s refusal to change the age, which option does he favour?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot recall whether I have seen that speech, but it would be entirely consistent with Treasury’s view. As Mr Makhlouf will be finding in his new job as the Secretary to the Treasury, part of the professional task is to be gloomy and forecast that things are going to be pretty rough in the future. I am sure he will stick to that task.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: Does he think that John Whitehead; the Retirement Commissioner, Diana Crossan; Gareth Morgan; Bernard Hickey; and others are all wrong in calling for the raising of the retirement age, as Labor Prime Minister Julia Gillard is doing in Australia; if so, what information does he have that they do not have?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The information we have is a firm commitment made by this Government not to execute that policy. If those advisers all want to change the policy, then they should run for office. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have called the Hon Heather Roy, and I want to hear her question.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: Does he think it more caring to give retirees time to plan for their future by raising the age over a long transition period, or has he too adopted the John Key approach of leaving the problem of funding superannuation for a future Government that he is not part of to deal with at short notice?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, the Government is not leaving the problem. What we are doing is bringing to the Government much-needed fiscal discipline in light of changed circumstances and the recklessness of the last Labour Government, because for every dollar that we can put into effective rather than ineffective services, we are improving the likelihood that retirees in the future will have a decent standard of living.

Mine Safety—Underground Mines

8. to the Minister of Labour: Can she assure underground miners that the Government is doing everything possible to keep them safe at work?

Firstly, it is important to remember that the primary responsibility for health and safety in the workplace lies with the employer. That is a fundamental part of the Health and Safety in Employment Act. Secondly, this Government does take the safety of underground miners seriously. That is why we established the Royal Commission on the Pike River Coal Mine Tragedy: to find out what exactly went wrong at Pike River and where safety measures could be improved in the future. We also ordered an independent safety audit of all underground mines to ensure they were operating safely. Underground mining is hazardous, and the Department of Labour is working closely with New Zealand’s three operational underground mines. It is also well advanced in recruiting for another mine inspector. The resources dedicated to this sector are also being evaluated.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Has she instructed her department to employ more underground mine inspectors than the one we have at the moment and to increase mine visits from more than “occasional”, given her health and safety policy manager’s admission at the royal commission inquiry that “… we are now thinking that actually we were too hands-off …”?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I can confirm that we are certainly taking a close look at the resources and expertise in the department to ensure that it can carry out its role of overseeing the mining sector.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Can she give an assurance to this House that dangerous ventilation issues at Solid Energy’s Spring Creek Mine will be monitored by a mine inspector with the necessary skills, despite the fact that the one mine inspector who is employed has limited experience in gaseous underground coal mines?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I remind the member that the primary responsibility for workplace health and safety at the Solid Energy mine remains with Solid Energy. I can also say that Solid Energy was independently audited post the Pike River tragedy and there was found to be no imminent signs of danger.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: How can she give assurance of the safety of miners when she has done nothing to improve mine safety since the Pike River tragedy, nor since the spontaneous ignition—that is, explosion—in the Spring Creek Mine, where ventilation problems continue to be a danger, on 29 June?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I totally reject that assertion. I can say that it is interesting: the standards are the same as they were under Labour, and the number of mining inspectors is the same as it was under Labour. Under Labour the framework if it was not appropriate then, Labour amended it twice. It did not address mining, whatsoever. There was a call for check inspectors, yes, but Labour also ignored that. It is a bit rich for Labour members to accuse us 9 years later of doing nothing.

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: Will the Minister take responsibility now and, as requested by the families of the Pike River victims, initiate changes to the inspection of underground mines, such as those previously rejected by her in October 2009, when she received advice to make changes that could remove unnecessary workplace risks for underground miners?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: That 2009 report had recommendations relating to small mines. Pike River is not a small mine.

Electricity, Renewable—Project Consents

9. to the Minister for the Environment: What reports has he received on consents granted on renewable electricity projects since the ETS came into effect and how does this compare with the previous decade?

More consents were granted for renewable energy projects in the last year than ever in New Zealand’s history. A total of 1,340 megawatts was consented, which was made up of 59 percent wind energy, 26 percent geothermal energy, 13 percent hydro energy, and 2 percent tidal energy. This is five times the average per year over the previous decade, when it was 233 megawatts per year. It is also noteworthy that no new thermal generation was consented, which contrasts with the last decade, when most of the new capacity was from fossil fuel.

💬 Nikki Kaye: What changes in Government policy have contributed to this surge in renewable energy projects?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first change is in the price signals. The previous Government subsidised fossil fuel generation. The new 155 megawatt Whirinaki diesel station was funded from Government levies, and the Government provided an underwriting guarantee for the gas contract on the massive 385 megawatt e3p new generator at Huntly. In contrast, the emissions trading scheme has imposed a price penalty on fossil fuel generation since 1 July. The second change has been in the consenting policy. Whereas renewable stations used to take up to 5 years to get through the Resource Management Act, our Resource Management Act reforms have freed up the process, and consenting decisions are being made in record time. We have also adopted a Resource Management Act national policy statement on renewables, in order to support increased capacity.

💬 Brendon Burns: When the Minister suggests that his emissions trading scheme has boosted renewable energy investment, how many of the 11 new stations consented to were, in fact, well under way in planning and consent before the change of Government, or does he pretend it is all his own work?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Of the new generating station capacity of 1,340 megawatts, just over 1,000 megawatts—about 80 percent—was after the emissions trading scheme legislation was passed. It was after the emissions trading scheme legislation was passed—

💬 Hon David Parker: That wasn’t the question.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —which I think Mr Parker would note was in the dying days of the last Labour Government.

Low-income New Zealanders—Raising Real Wages

10. to the Minister of Labour: What steps has she taken to help raise real wages for low income New Zealanders?

We have undertaken a pragmatic programme of reform to help create jobs and grow wages for all New Zealanders. My approach has been to raise the minimum wage steadily so that jobs are preserved and people are not thrown out on to welfare. I have resisted pressure to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour and destroy 6,000 jobs; I have introduced the 90-day trial period, which has helped create 13,000 jobs; and we have reformed the Holidays Act to make it simpler and to improve workplace productivity.

💬 Darien Fenton: Does she stand by her assertion that the 25c minimum wage increase from 1 April this year will maintain the real value of the minimum wage when, in fact, half of that increase was wiped out in the first 3 months?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: The increase in the minimum wage was linked to the consumer price index at the time, and, as always, it is a matter of striking a balance between what is fair to employees—but not pricing them out of a job—and giving employers the incentives and the encouragement to actually take on more employees.

💬 Darien Fenton: Does she believe she is doing all she can to help minimum wage earners cope with the rising cost of living, given that in real terms the minimum wage has decreased by $16.80 a week since June last year?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: As we have heard before, the after-tax average wage has actually increased by 7.4 percent, which, after taking inflation into account, is a net increase of 2.1 percent.

💬 Darien Fenton: Is she aware that once inflation is taken into account, according to Parliamentary Library calculations Sam, the minimum wage worker whom the Government used as an example in last year’s tax switch, receives less net income each week now than in June last year, despite his supposed $6.30 tax cut and this April’s small minimum wage increase?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: We are aware that there are challenging economic times at the moment, but we would rather have workers in jobs than sacrifice them by increasing the minimum wage to an unsustainable and unrealistic level.

💬 Darien Fenton: Why, in her unique position of being both Minister of Labour and Associate Minister of Immigration, has she not been able to put two and two together and realise that the $7 gap between our minimum wage and Australia’s minimum wage is one of the factors driving record levels of migration across the Ditch?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I can put two and two together, and the answer is four.

💬 Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister could do a little bit better than that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member asked whether the Minister could put two and two together, and I guess the Minister answered that part of the question. I accept that it certainly was not the answer the member was looking for, but in respect of the way we word questions, we are vulnerable to their being answered literally.

💬 Darien Fenton: I seek leave to table the calculations from the Parliamentary Library on the change in the real full-time minimum wage since June last year, showing that a minimum wage worker is actually worse off than a year ago.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

Parents, Teenage—Government Support

11. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support teen parents?

I am pleased to update the House on the progress of the Government’s work on teen parents. We have put $15 million into teen parents, which is the biggest investment in one lot that has ever been made. As part of the package we have opened a number of supported homes for teen parents around the country. These supported homes are providing 24/7 support and supervision for these young mothers. The last one is about to be opened very shortly in Gisborne.

💬 Jonathan Young: What other initiatives are working to support teen parents?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: We also invested a lot in intensive case workers for the most vulnerable of teen parents, who need much more of a wraparound service and who have very complex needs in most of the cases. We so far have 19 of those case workers in very high-need communities, and we have also put additional support in for those intensive case managers so that they can do the work that is needed most.

Lead-acid Batteries, Used—Export and Compliance with Basel Convention

12. to the Minister for the Environment: How many tonnes of used lead acid batteries has the Government approved for export since January 2008, and is this consistent with New Zealand’s obligations under the Basel Convention?

Responsibility for new export permits transferred from the Ministry of Economic Development to my portfolio on 1 July this year, as part of the Government’s Environmental Protection Agency reforms. Permits were issued by the Ministry of Economic Development for 26,000 tonnes in 2008, 33,000 tonnes in 2009, 18,510 tonnes in 2010, and 17,000 tonnes so far this year. I am advised that those permits were issued by the Ministry of Economic Development, consistent with New Zealand’s Basel convention obligations. Since becoming the responsible Minister, I have initiated a formal review of our domestic policy. My preference is for these batteries to be recycled in New Zealand, although I will need to be satisfied about the environmental standards, given the quite chequered record of the Exide Technologies plant in Pētone. A further important consideration is the cost to consumers.

💬 David Clendon: Does the Minister, then, agree that exporting this volume of batteries is inconsistent with our Basel convention obligation to recycle batteries locally, and that it could lead to the closure of our only domestic battery recycling facility?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The advice I have from the Ministry of Economic Development is that those export permits were issued in a consistent way. There are two countries that those batteries have gone to: the Philippines and Korea. The Basel convention differentiates between developing and developed countries. Ministry of Economic Development officials did inspect the Philippines facility. They advised me that the standards there are the same, or better, than those of our own plant in Pētone. I am happy to table in the House the report on that Philippines plant. The other important differentiation is that the Basel convention differentiates between waste to be recycled and that to be disposed of. So the member needs to focus on the recycling provisions of the Basel convention rather than those for disposal, in respect of these batteries.

💬 David Clendon: Can the Minister explain how, if we lose the capacity to recycle batteries locally, we can continue to meet our obligations under the Basel convention?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The obligation is to ensure that such waste is responsibly disposed of, and to ensure that where a country is exporting hazardous waste, either for disposal or recycling, it is being done in a proper way and that that country is aware of it. That is to say, there has been a historical problem of developed countries like New Zealand sending waste off to countries that have no idea it is coming in, and where it is not being properly disposed of. I restate that my preference is for these batteries to be recycled in New Zealand, but I do have to be satisfied that Exide Technologies has an appropriate plant with proper conditions for the local environment. I remind the member that there have been substantive problems with those resource consents in Pētone, and, given the toxic nature of lead, I think we would want to be strongly reassured of the plant’s environmental performance.

💬 David Clendon: Is the Minister then confident that all overseas facilities receiving batteries from New Zealand have suitable environmental and safety standards to meet obligations under the Basel convention?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The advice I have had from the Ministry of Economic Development is that it is satisfied. I think that is a core issue, and one of the reasons I have initiated the review is that now this responsibility has moved over from the Ministry of Economic Development to my own portfolio, I want to sort of kick the tyres and make sure that we are doing best practice. If there is the opportunity to work with the Green Party on that, I would welcome the opportunity.

💬 David Clendon: Would the Minister consider that a hand-written note that says “Fine by me.” on an export application indicates that a sufficiently rigorous assessment has taken place before the export of batteries has been approved?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I do not believe that that is correct. I have before me the report from the Ministry of Economic Development officials who visited the battery recycling plant in the Philippines. It is a quite a detailed report. It is interesting to note that in respect of the air-quality standards that are required to be met in the Philippines, the standards are the same as the current standards required in Pētone. There are some differences on the issue of water-quality standards. In my view, the way we should move this issue forward is that it is absolutely proper that if we are exporting batteries, the standards we would expect of any overseas recycler of those batteries should be exactly the same standards we would expect of a New Zealand facility.

💬 David Clendon: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect to the Minister, I think he may have misunderstood the question. I was not asking a question relating to the quality or otherwise of the destination, but in fact I was asking about an export application document on which an official had written a note “Fine by me.”, which was apparently the extent of the assessment that had been done prior to the approval being granted.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thought—and the Minister will correct me—the Minister indicated he did not accept that that was the extent of the assessment of the application. But if I am wrong there, the Minister should correct that, because the question was very specific about that, indeed.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I seek leave of the House to table the report by the Ministry of Economic Development on its visit to the facility in the Philippines, setting out the inspection and the environmental standards of the facility that is recycling those batteries.

💬 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.

But I come back to the point of order raised by David Clendon. It did not relate to matters in the Philippines; it related to exports from New Zealand, I take it, and an—

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: OK, if the Minister could clarify—what I will do to make it all clear is ask David Clendon to repeat his question. If he could repeat his supplementary question, because it was a fair question.

💬 David Clendon: Would the Minister consider that a hand-written note, which says “Fine by me.” on an export application, indicates that a sufficiently rigorous assessment has taken place before export of batteries has been approved?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I have not been the responsible Minister for the period going backwards; no permits have been issued by my own ministry. My advice from the Ministry of Economic Development is that these batteries are being exported to facilities in Korea and to a facility in the Philippines. Korea, of course, is a developed country, so there are different provisions, under the Basel convention, for relying on its regulatory sense. As I have already indicated to the House, I am happy to table the detailed report on the facility in the Philippines where the batteries have been sent to from New Zealand.

💬 David Clendon: I seek leave to table a hand-written note from the Ministry of Economic Development, which says “Fine by me.”, regarding the granting of an application to export batteries.

💬 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.

💬 David Clendon: Is the Minister aware that an export application may be approved—and indeed has been approved—despite an assessment from officials that “We are not fulfilling our obligations under the Basel convention.”?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I will restate that I have been responsible only since 1 July when the functions were transferred over. No, I am not aware of that. But I re-stress that since taking responsibility for these Basel convention responsibilities, I have initiated a review of the policy. I restate the Government’s objective—that is, that if batteries are to be exported from New Zealand our expectation is that they will be recycled, or be dealt with as waste, to a standard that would be no different from what we can reasonably expect from a facility dealing with that waste or recycling in New Zealand.

💬 David Clendon: I seek leave to table an export approval document, obtained from the Ministry of Economic Development, which states “We are not fulfilling our obligations under the Basel convention.”

💬 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.

💬 David Clendon: Will the Minister ensure that the review is completed in a timely fashion, ensuring that all future applications to export batteries are dealt with in a way that complies with the Basel convention?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Ministry of Economic Development currently has three export permits before it. The bill that has now become an Act, which was put through this Parliament, makes plain that applications that were received prior to 1 July remain as the responsibility of the Ministry of Economic Development. My responsibilities will be for any future applications that are lodged after 1 July.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister could address the question of the timeliness of the review. When will the review be completed?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the Minister, I think it is a reasonable point of order because the question actually asked about the review, not about the application. But if there is doubt about the question, I ask David Clendon to repeat his question please, if he can remember it.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There are two parts to the question, and I did answer the part about the further permits. I am more than happy to answer the question about the review. I have asked my officials to prepare the terms of reference. I will want to consult Exide Technologies about the terms of reference, to get that policy under way. I do understand the point the Greens make, and that is that it does need to be done in a timely way. I also note that the Greater Wellington Regional Council is dealing with the resource consent issues for Exide Technologies simultaneously.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister accept that it might be preferable to export the batteries, rather than have them processed at a plant where there has been a history of workers getting lead poisoning, lead emissions going to the neighbours, the dumping of sludge in the Wainuiōmata area, which polluted the stream—

💬 Paul Quinn: You did nothing about it when you were a Minister, Trevor.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Paul Quinn might not care about—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members should not interject like that. I do ask the member to ask his question, please.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister accept that it might be preferable to export the batteries, rather than have them processed at a plant that has a history of explosions, causing damage to workers both by lead and by the explosions, leakage at the boundary going into neighbours, a history of sickness of workers from lead poisoning, a history of dumping sludge in the Wainuiōmata tip, then going into the Wainuiōmata Stream, and that is now trying to save its bacon by employing a high-priced law firm to work with the Greens to ask these questions?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The track record of the Exide Technologies plant in Pētone is not acceptable. If we are to recycle the batteries in New Zealand, rather than export them, the Government needs to be satisfied that that facility is run by world best practice. The underlying issue for this Government is whether the batteries are recycled and processed in New Zealand or overseas and that those standards are proper and protect public health and the environment.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That brings to a close questions for oral answer today. I call on Government order of the day No. 1. [Interruption] Before I call the Hon Peter Dunne, can I say to Paul Quinn at the back of the House that he was most discourteous. I had called Government order of the day No. 1, but I could not even hear the Clerk, because the member’s interjections provoked other noise. There is nothing wrong with interjections, but just be a little more sensible and reasonable about when the interjections are made.