Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement on TV3 yesterday that “we may just muddle through” the current economic situation?

I stand by my full statement, which was made in response to a question about a global double-dip recession and was as follows: “You can’t rule it out, but I think the general feeling from Bill is that while the atmosphere and the mood is very dark in the United States and in Europe, that we may just muddle through, and I know a number of the major economic commentators don’t think that there’ll be a double-dip recession. But what we are in for is a period of volatility—I suspect extreme volatility—in certain parts of Europe.”

💬 Hon Phil Goff: When he also said yesterday: “Unemployment is starting to fall—not too bad.” had he read the latest National Employment Indicator for July, which shows that nearly 5,000 jobs were lost in New Zealand in that month alone?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. Can I tell the member, because I will assume he does not know this and that is why he is giving the wrong information, that the National Employment Indicator is not a full indicator of all jobs in the economy.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Oh, it never is.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. So—

💬 Hon Annette King: Always changing the goalposts.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Actually, we are not changing. The consistent position we have always taken, and which the member took when he was in Government, is the household labour force survey. The number of people employed in New Zealand now is higher than ever before in New Zealand’s history. We have not lost jobs in this country; we have created jobs.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister also think that it is not too bad that Ministry of Social Development figures show that under his watch the number of 18 to 24-year-olds on the unemployment benefit for more than a year has risen by 733 percent? Is that not too bad?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As always with the member, I would need to check his statistics, because they are almost always wrong.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a tradition, and I think it is in repeated Speakers’ rulings, that members take another member’s word in this House. That was a very clear quote. It was a very clear indication from the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister was clearly not doing that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point, and he is quite correct that members should take another member’s word. The dilemma during question time, of course, is quotes that may or may not be in context and figures that may or may not be in context, and that is why I can sometimes understand Ministers challenging figures. But perhaps they can be challenged in a less objectionable way, if the Prime Minister disagrees with the figures. The language used in disagreeing was perhaps not helpful.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Maybe I can help. I seek leave of the House to table a set of figures compiled from, I think, about seven or eight parliamentary written questions that demonstrate just what I asserted to the Prime Minister—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Could the House be told the source.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: The source is written questions Nos 6058—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, who compiled them?

💬 Hon Phil Goff: They were compiled by my office from these parliamentary questions, and I can read them out—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We do not have a practice of tabling answers to written questions, because they are available to all members. We should not be wasting time on that. In fairness on this whole issue, a question had been asked but it was interrupted with a point of order. I will now ask the right honourable Prime Minister to answer the question, but not using the provocative language that he used, even if he does disagree with the figures.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: All I can say is that I cannot confirm the figures. When one is in my job, then one learns very quickly not to necessarily accept statements that are made. The Labour Party yesterday said that 47,000 fewer people had jobs in New Zealand. That is not true. The household labour force survey shows that employment is higher in New Zealand than it has ever been before, with 2.215 million New Zealanders in employment, which is higher than 2.210 million—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think we have heard sufficient, because the question was actually related to social welfare figures. I think we have heard sufficient on that.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker—

💬 Chris Tremain: Get it right this time, Phil.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have just received an interjection across the House suggesting that I did not get it right. I have offered to table the statistics, the answers from Ministers, to show that I did.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The House will settle down. There is no need to be too thin-skinned today. I just ask the House, actually, today to show a little respect to this place. A New Zealander lost his life this morning. We do not make New Zealanders proud of us if we behave like a bunch of schoolkids. I just ask members to be mindful of that today.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister also think that it is not too bad when he looks at Statistics New Zealand’s latest figures, showing that nearly 100,000 New Zealanders have left permanently or long term to go to Australia under his watch, when on the basis of the same problem—of emigration to Australia—he demanded a vote of no confidence in Helen Clark when the departure figures were much, much lower?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the member forgets the number of New Zealanders who have come back in that time, which, again, is a fault in his logic. Secondly, it is not true to say it was lower. Over the period of the Labour Government about 300,000 New Zealanders left for Australia. I go back to my overall point. Let me quote from the BNZ, as one example, on the overall economy. It states, in relation to GDP data: “we prefer to interpret today’s figures as confirming”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This is question time, where questions are answered. The right honourable Prime Minister might wish to make a point, but he has to wait until a question asks about that point.

💬 Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Prime Minister received, as Prime Minister, any reports of billboards appearing around New Zealand claiming that he, as Prime Minister, is “Building a brighter future”; and will he be replacing that slogan with the words “We may just muddle through”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think the world may muddle through a global recession, but one is not sure. In terms of building a brighter future, let me, for the edification of the member, give him this graph from Treasury. It is compiled by someone, but it is from Treasury. It is a sign of GDP growth around the world. Here is Australia. Here is New Zealand, above pretty much every country in the world. With the backdrop of a global financial crisis and three major earthquakes in Christchurch—a more significant event as a percentage of GDP has not occurred in any natural disaster in the world—New Zealand has grown faster than the United States since this Government has been in office, faster than the eurozone since this Government has been in office, faster than the UK since this Government has been in office, and faster than Japan since this Government has been in office. Relative to pretty much everyone else, it is a brighter future.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I just remind members that visual aids can be used by members to support their speeches, but not to flash around the House willy-nilly. A senior member should know that.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: When Statistics New Zealand shows that in recent months we have seen the highest-ever emigration from New Zealand permanently to Australia, why does he not accept his own advice, which he gave to Helen Clark, and resign?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because a reasonable proportion of those people have left Christchurch.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Supplementary—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Hon John Boscawen deserves to be heard.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: When he told the House just a few minutes ago “We have not lost jobs in this country; we have created jobs.”, was he aware of a recent Department of Labour report that showed that unemployment amongst 16 and 17-year-olds was about 4,000 higher than it otherwise might have been, as a consequence of, firstly, Labour legislating to cut out youth rates and, secondly, National refusing to support Roger Douglas’ member’s bill to reinstate them?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am aware of the Department of Labour report and I am prepared to accept that that is one factor, but I think there are a number of factors taking place. I go back to the member and say that that is right—recessions have a disproportionate effect, typically, on lower-income people and young people. But the good news for New Zealand is that employment in this country has never ever been higher. It has never ever been higher.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Has he actually looked at the National Employment Indicator figures from Statistics New Zealand, which show, in fact, that in the latest figures for July the number of filled jobs is 46,710 fewer than was the case in October 2008? Will he examine his figures again, or at least look at these figures?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member can, if he wants to, look at a subset of employment in New Zealand, but if he wants to look at the—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: People who’ve got jobs are a subset!

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If he wants to look at a subset of employment in New Zealand he is welcome to, but if he wants to look at the overall economy, then I go back to the member and say that the household labour force survey shows that there are more people in employment in New Zealand than ever in New Zealand’s history.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: I seek to release a report that was put out today from Jobs Online, which shows that the number of job vacancies advertised online on both SEEK and TradeMe increased by 6.3 percent for August 2011.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just want to check that the Minister is not trying to fool us and table something that is already on a website, unless, of course, she is like Mr Heatley, who has taken embarrassing figures off the website today.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member was using a point of order to score a political point, and I do not think that is very appropriate. If the material the Minister is, I presume, seeking leave to table is on the website, we do not do that, because it is available to all members. Can I check with the Minister whether it is available on the website.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: It may be available on a website. I have just a printed report. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being considered. I want to make certain for the House, because I do not want to breach our conventions, as the Minister is seeking leave to table a document. Is this Jobs Online not a Government agency?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: No, it is not.

💬 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: Why does the Prime Minister not just acknowledge that in the real world people are struggling to find jobs? When we read today that when a New World supermarket was opened in Kaiapoi, 870 people applied for 45 full-time and 45 part-time jobs, does that not show the Prime Minister that people are struggling to find work under his economic mismanagement?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Of course people are looking for jobs. The good news, as the Minister just demonstrated, is that an increasing number of jobs are coming online. I think what New Zealanders would say, though, is that they will be pleased that employment has never been higher in New Zealand than it is today. They will be pleased that they have a tax system that is finally rewarding them, that they do not have a Government that is piling costs on them, that we are building infrastructure, that we are reforming the economy, and that we are reaching out to make New Zealand stronger. For the most part, if anyone is in denial, it is the Opposition. It is in denial about how tough the international conditions are and, relatively speaking, how well New Zealand is doing.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Does the Prime Minister think that it is not too bad and that we can muddle through when growth in the last quarter for New Zealand was 0.1 percent, and when I recall him 2 years ago promising an aggressive recovery from the recession?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For a start, I am more than happy to table the graph that shows New Zealand’s GDP growth since my Government has been in office outstripping basically every country in the world on this graph other than Australia. But that graph is from Treasury, so maybe tabling it will be rejected. Secondly, in relation to the point made by the member, let me read this from the BNZ in relation to GDP data: “There is a lot of noise in the data at the moment that is, and will continue, creating substantial quarterly volatility in GDP readings. In our opinion, you need to smooth through this. This being the case, we prefer to interpret today’s figures as confirming that activity is growing on average around 0.5% per quarter over the last three quarters. Hardly spectacular but light years away from recession.”

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Given that the Prime Minister has just told the House that employment has never been higher, does he accept that employment amongst 16 and 17-year-olds could have been at least 4,000 higher as a consequence of not having the youth rates abolished by the Labour Government—rates that were not reinstated by the National Government—as was conclusively shown by that Department of Labour report?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I cannot confirm that. I can confirm the existence of the Department of Labour advice that it may well have been higher if youth rates were there, but I cannot confirm that that would have been the number. I can confirm two things. First, I can confirm that employment has never been higher in New Zealand’s history than it is today, at 2.215 million. The second thing I can confirm is that when the Opposition said unemployment would go to 11 percent, it was wrong. Unemployment went to 7.1 percent. When the Opposition said 20,000 people would be unemployed in Christchurch, it was wrong. The whole way through, Opposition members were very, very, very good at forgetting all of their predictions, which have been wrong.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Remember the Job Summit? What did the Prime Minister deliver from that?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The Job Summit? Let us talk about the United States. Unemployment is at 9.2 percent, officially. The unofficial unemployment rate is 15 percent. Let us talk about unemployment in Europe. It is considerably higher than it is in New Zealand. So New Zealand has come through the same situation—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table a printout from the Department of Labour website of the Jobs Online statement that Paula Bennett just quoted from.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Under the circumstances, leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection.

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

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will note that the Minister said it was not on the Government website.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is—[Interruption] The House will settle down. That is not a point of order. The House heard the points being made previously. That is not a point of order.

Economy—Effect of United States and European Debt

2. to the Minister of Finance: What information has he received about how the New Zealand economy might be affected by the economic and fiscal issues in the United States and Europe?

There is a clear message from recent events in the US and Europe that these major economies face large challenges stemming from too much debt, and it will take some time to sort out these problems. New Zealand is not immune from the fall-out either in financial markets or in terms of the demand for its exports. After all, we are borrowing in the same markets as the indebted countries in Europe, and Europe and the US remain significant export markets for New Zealand. It is a bit hard to judge exactly what impact there would be on New Zealand if there was a significant crisis in the US and Europe, but in the absence of such a crisis our best information is that New Zealand is relatively well placed to be able to continue to grow moderately, even if these large economies find that their growth slows down.

💬 Jonathan Young: What are the attitudes of international lenders in the current global environment?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have had the opportunity recently to talk to a range of politicians, credit rating agencies, and international banks. It would be fair to say they have a fairly gloomy view of economic prospects around the developed world over the next 12 months or so. In fact, I would describe the mood as ugly. Heightened uncertainty in markets means that international lenders and credit rating agencies are increasingly concerned about companies, countries, or banks that have significant debt. Although the New Zealand ship is in better shape than it was 2 or 3 years ago, the international waters are becoming choppier.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Given that the Minister has just now confirmed his assessment that the international picture is ugly, and given the earlier statement that we can only muddle through, why has he been contradicted by the Prime Minister, who said we can be “reasonably confident” of strong growth in quarters two, three, and four this year, despite growth in quarter two being a paltry 0.1 percent?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If I could correct the member, I actually said the mood was ugly. To go into a bit more detail, it is reasonably clear that the US and European economies are likely to slow down, and that is reflected in changes in recent international forecasts. However, New Zealand’s principal exporting is now done with Australia and China, both of which have fairly good growth prospects. So I agree with the Prime Minister that New Zealand’s growth prospects remain better than those of most developed countries.

💬 Jonathan Young: How is New Zealand placed to deal with this increased uncertainty in global financial markets?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: We are reasonably well placed. We have had a growing economy. We have set a path back to surplus, which we will achieve at a time when most countries will still be in deficit and will be increasing their borrowing. We are reducing New Zealand’s overall indebtedness to the rest of the world, which is our largest vulnerability. One measure of this is our net international liabilities, which cover households, business, and government. As at 30 June 2009 our net international liabilities were 86 percent of GDP, and as at 30 June this year they are just slightly under 70 percent of GDP, which means that compared with the size of our economy, our total stock of international liabilities is now shrinking. That is mainly because of changes in the behaviour of New Zealand households, which are saving more, and some statistical changes that mean we are measuring New Zealand assets owned in Australia better than we used to do.

💬 Jonathan Young: What other progress has the Government made in reducing New Zealand’s vulnerability to the current global market environment?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The other progress that has been made has been to change the approach of the general machinery of government to ensure that it is focused on value for money. That has taken a couple of years of pretty consistent discussion and policy changes with Government departments, but now they understand the need for value for money and have begun the process of making significant changes to ensure that they can deliver more service to the public for less. We have also moved to improve our business environment, because, after all, there will be new jobs only when businesses are confident enough to invest. We are making some progress there, as well.

GDP Per Capita—Percentage Change Between June 2008 and June 2011

3. to the Minister of Finance: By what percentage did GDP per capita fall between the June 2008 year and the June 2011 year?

If the member will bear with me on just a bit of detail, I have interpreted this question to mean a real production-based measure of GDP, which is the one most commonly quoted. On this basis, the 2011 year was 3.6 percent below that of 2008, but the story does have some nuances. Per capita GDP actually peaked back in 2007 and then started sliding before the global recession, because under the previous Government New Zealand went into recession well ahead of the rest of the world. The big decline in per capita GDP happened in the year to June 2009, when real per capita GDP fell by 3.3 percent—that is, before the current Government had delivered its first Budget. Since our first Budget, in 2009, the growth has stabilised. It is pleasing to see that the economy has expanded in eight of the past nine quarters and that GDP has grown by 3.5 percent over the past 2 years.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table this representation of Statistics New Zealand figures, which show that GDP has decreased—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What is the source of the document please?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Statistics New Zealand.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is it a photocopy of something?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It is a graph. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am trying to sort out who has compiled this document.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It is Statistics New Zealand’s data, which is represented in a graph.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I asked who has compiled the document, not the source of the data.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The research unit has used Microsoft—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document from the party research unit. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: How much money has the Government borrowed over the last 3 years?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I could not give the total figure off the top of my head, but it certainly would be well in excess of $20 billion. That has been driven by two things. One is the recession, which began under that member’s party, and it was then compounded by the need to borrow for the Christchurch earthquake. Of course, the important thing is to have a plan for the path back to surplus, and we have a plan in place.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table these Statistics New Zealand numbers, which show that the actual amount of debt—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members will be silent. When I get to my feet the member will resume his seat and other members will be silent. I have developed a procedure whereby members identify the source of a document before citing the information in it, so that we can quickly determine whether leave should be sought to table the document. Seeking leave is not an opportunity to convey information while members are on their feet; seeking leave is about whether a document should be tabled. First, the House needs to know the source of the document.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: The source of the estimate of $37 billion—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat, and he may ask a supplementary question if he wishes to.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: How many fewer jobs are there in New Zealand than when his Government came to office, according to the latest National Employment Indicator?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: According to the standard for measuring jobs, which is the household labour force survey, there are more jobs now. One reason is that we have been able to stabilise the drop in per capita GDP. If I can point out to the member, per capita GDP fell during Labour’s final term—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have just dealt fairly severely with the Hon David Cunliffe, and although the Minister may not have liked the question, and may have criticism about the statistics upon which the question is based, the answer should at least start at the question asked, not ignore it totally. The question asked about employment figures as indicated by an employment indicator survey. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to indicate his concerns about that data, but to ignore it totally is not on. The Hon Bill English, to answer the question asked. I am happy to have the Hon David Cunliffe repeat it if it has been forgotten.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker, I answered the question and I will repeat it in case you did not hear it. According to the standard for measuring the total—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members may wish questions were different from what they are, but I will invite the Hon David Cunliffe to repeat his question. The Minister may certainly have views of the particular statistics, but the answer should at least start from the point of the question being asked, not ignore it totally and cite other data, without any reference whatsoever to the question asked.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: How many fewer jobs are there in New Zealand than when his Government came to office, according to the latest National Employment Indicator?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not know the answer to that question, because the National Employment Indicator is a partial measure of jobs in the economy. According to the standard measure there are more jobs than ever.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table data from the National Employment Indicator, indicating—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet; is there something wrong with the member’s eyes? The House will come to order and just settle a little. The member knows that we do not table statistics that are released by Statistics New Zealand, because members have those available to them. Seeking leave to table documents to try to score political points is not the purpose of the Standing Order. I invite the member to read the Standing Order if he is going to seek leave to table documents.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is this a point of order?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Mr Speaker, I seek your guidance; I am not trifling with your ruling in any way. You have held that the information is freely available to members, but we are in the situation where the Minister of Finance has just told the House that he does not know the answer to this important—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. That does not mean that the information is not readily available to members, and we are simply not going to go back to tabling statistics releases and press statements, or press releases and newspaper clippings. It just wastes too much time in this House. Question time gives members the chance to question Ministers. If the member does not like the way the answers refer to statistics, he can ask questions about why the statistics are inferior, if he believes that his statistics are superior. The question can be expanded in that area because that field has already been covered. Rather than trying to table documents, question time is about asking questions—why Ministers may hold certain views of things. It is not about trying to table documents.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am reluctant to drag this out, and this will be the last comment I make on this matter. But it is, of course, possible for Ministers of the Crown to either genuinely or conveniently say they do not know the answer to any number that does not support their case—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. We will not have any more of that. Does the member have a further supplementary question? If he does not, we will go on to question—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I have a supplementary question. Given that before the last election his leader was claiming that New Zealand had a growth problem and not a debt problem, and given that he has now saddled the country with $37 billion of extra Government debt with no growth to show for it, has not New Zealand developed now both a growth problem and a debt problem, through 3 years of his Government muddling through?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, we are dealing with both growth and debt in somewhat challenging circumstances. If we had followed that member’s advice for the last 3 years, we would have probably about twice as much debt as we have now.

Youth Unemployment—Work and Income Support

4. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How is Work and Income working proactively to support young people into employment?

As Minister I have recently insisted that we step up our youth employment seminars, rolling them out throughout New Zealand. Over the past few months more than 1,000 seminars have been held, from Northland to Palmerston North, and in Kapiti and Otago. Over 13,000 young people have been invited to attend these seminars. These are seeing young people move off benefits into jobs and training, through connecting them with local businesses and local trainers. Since then we have seen that number of young people dropping off the unemployment benefit. In January 2010 we had 23,500 young people on the unemployment benefit; in August 2011 we had 15,980. Progress has been made.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What response has there been to these seminars?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say there has been a mixed response. We are getting a fantastic response from employers and from training organisations in turning up, but we are not always having a fantastic response from the young people themselves in turning up. In some places we are getting as low as a 50 percent attendance; in others it is about 80 percent. These seminars are part of work testing for the unemployment benefit; we have had to sanction a number of young people for not following up on the work test, but that does not mean we will give up on them. We do believe we can get better behaviour there so that they are turning up for these seminars so they can get these jobs.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: What set of statistics is she using to base employment policy on: the household labour force survey, which shows we have the highest youth unemployment on record; the seasonally adjusted National Employment Indicator, which shows 47,000 fewer Kiwis in jobs than when she took office; or the figures she has tried to table today from TradeMe?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say that I use a range of reports and figures that come in. I concentrate on the people who are affected. These are young people who are out there trying to—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. A Labour member asked a question and if Labour members were serious about asking the question, I would expect they would want to hear the answer. There was no way anyone could hear much of that answer. I just ask for a little more respect, please.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: For example, I could also look at the Hudson Report, which just came out today, on employment expectations. It says that there are signs of employer confidence emerging, particularly amongst small businesses. A net 22.5 percent of employers are planning to increase staff numbers before the end of the year. That means that there will be some jobs. Our job is to try to get those young people ready for those jobs, and that is what I am clearly focused on.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Does she think it is appropriate to continue to pay a young person the dole when that payment could be used to subsidise an employer to take on that young person as an apprentice instead?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member may not be aware that there is a $5,000 subsidy that can go to employers. There are more than 13,000 of them now for young people, and more than 90 percent of those young people have stayed in jobs because of that subsidy. It now has a training component alongside of that as well. It is having outstanding results and is seeing young people get into jobs.

Earthquakes, Canterbury and Christchurch—Insurance

5. to the Prime Minister: When he said “if we want to be the insurer of last resort right here as we stand today, everyone needs to understand what we’re signing up for”, was he indicating his acceptance of the Government undertaking that role, or was he ruling it out?

I was doing neither, which is quite obvious from my full statement, which is as follows: “if the Government walks in today and writes a blank cheque, it won’t be a short-term fix. It’ll be there for a long time, it could be tremendously expensive, and it’ll be very difficult to exit. So there is no free lunch here. If we want to be the insurer of last resort, right as we stand here today, I think everyone needs to understand what they’re signing up for. My view, having assessed it all, is that we need to give that a lot more time. I think we need to work our way through it, and we need to try and continue to work with the private sector providers. If in the end having tried everything that all fails, then we’ll come back and have another look at it.”

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he still confident that insurers will start to write new policies in Canterbury soon, as he said last week, and if they do not do so soon, at what point would he consider that Government intervention would be necessary to stop the insurance money bleeding out of our economy and crippling the recovery effort?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Insurers are writing new contracts; I met people last week who had received those contracts.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Is he aware that the delays in getting back to a functional insurance market in Christchurch—something described by chamber head Peter Townsend as “a cancer” only a couple of days ago—is holding up the construction of business premises and now causing severe difficulties for an industry that has been told to prepare for a boom but is currently starved of work; and how long will his Government tolerate this cancer on our recovery as a city?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There is no doubt that insurance issues are slowing up the rebuild in Christchurch. That is because the seismic activity at the moment makes it difficult for the insurers and their reinsurers to fully assess the position in Christchurch. I think the view of insurers and reinsurers that Gerry Brownlee met when he was in Monaco is that they will want to re-enter the market. The fact that the New Zealand insurance industry is still interesting to offshore people is evidenced by the fact that there are considerable bids for AMI Insurance, and unless I am missing something, by the time the Labour Party had its third go at trying to get this right, it was arguing it would not rush in and offer insurance straight away, either.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: How long does he think Gwenda Williams and Darryl Dawson should be forced to live in a caravan with two toddlers, given that they are now “effectively stuck” with “No house, no new build insurance, therefore no mortgage and no build.”, before the Government sees itself as having a role in the insurance market?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is impossible for me to comment on the individual circumstances of a couple. But if that couple want to contact the offices of, probably, Phil Heatley or Paula Bennett, then we are more than happy to try to facilitate them to get into another home.

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Will he return to the Christchurch communities that he spoke to after both earthquakes and explain why his pledge to do everything he could to help them did not extend to ensuring there is a functioning insurance market, without which there is no recovery?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not want to labour the point, but let me put it into a bit of context so that the member understands it. There has not been a natural—

💬 Hon Lianne Dalziel: Will you come back? Answer the question.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I have been back on numerous occasions, actually. There has not been a natural disaster in the developed world that has had a bigger impact on a developed economy than the Christchurch earthquake. The Government, in response to that, has offered to buy every home in the red zone at rateable value. To the best of my knowledge as Prime Minister, I cannot find another example of that anywhere in the world. In 2011 the Government provisioned $5.5 billion for the rebuild of Christchurch, when it ran its zero Budget. The Government has stepped in to provide support for AMI Insurance, the largest insurer in the Christchurch region, because a failure to provide that back-up financing support if required by AMI would have left literally tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Cantabrians without a position where they had insurance. The Government has established the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority and passed legislation. The Government has appointed a full-time Minister responsible. I have been to Christchurch either every week or every second week since the first earthquake took place on 4 September 2010. I believe the Government has taken remarkable steps to try to stand alongside the people of Christchurch. I really find the member’s statements to be a little offensive.

Point of Order—Chamber Audio System

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am seeking your assistance on a matter that continues to trouble me—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard and the Hon David Cunliffe will show some respect.

It is increasingly difficult to hear the speakers from the Government side even when there is not a lot of interjection. I find it incredibly difficult, and I would very much like to hear what my colleagues have to say. I would like to see you investigate the sound system, so that those of us in the back rows can actually hear the debate and the discussion.

I agree with the member: I think the sound in here is slightly uneven at times and it depends on where people are speaking from. The unfortunate thing is that sometimes we are trying to listen to the Government too, and we hear the member on her left, Paul Quinn.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member did not need to do that during a point of order and he knows it. And I—[Interruption] That does not help. All I can say to the honourable member at the back of the House is that he just let his colleague off the hook. I do not think that was a very wise thing to do. The Speaker deals with matters of order. Now, look, the issue that Louise Upston has raised is a serious issue. There are two problems: one is that the sound system does in my view appear to be somewhat down today, but, secondly, the volume of noise at times has been unacceptable. I ask members, please, to just to show the House a little more respect—please.

Water Quality—Confidence in Minister for the Environment

6. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in his Minister for the Environment in light of the Auditor-General’s report released yesterday that states, “there is still some way to go if we are to halt and reverse the declining trends in freshwater quality”?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because this Government has made more progress on addressing problems with freshwater management than any in recent history. Specific actions that have been taken include the first National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management since the Resource Management Act came into effect in 1991, and the first regulations under the Resource Management Act on fresh water. The Government has increased by fivefold—fivefold—the amount spent on the clean-up of lakes and rivers. There has been a doubling in the fines for non-compliance with resource consents, under the Government’s changes to the Resource Management Act, and we also note the highest levels of compliance with this—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I wish members would read questions more carefully. The question did not ask why; it just asked whether the Prime Minister has confidence in his Minister. Some questions ask “if so, why?”. This one did not. It is important that we do focus on questions.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister agree with the reported statement made by the Hon Nick Smith, who said that the Government’s national policy statement on fresh water “will only be as good as the implementation of it by regional councils”?

Yes, I think that is correct. The very structure of the Resource Management Act delegates the key regulatory functions to the regional councils. The national policy statement does require every one of our regional councils to set limits on water quality and minimum flows. The Government has just commissioned additional work from the Land and Water Forum on potential national environmental standards to complement and support that national policy statement.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of the Auditor-General that the regional councils are failing to control diffuse pollution from intensive agriculture, and that regional councillors, many of whom have agribusiness interests, are intervening in decisions about whether to prosecute water polluters?

The Government does support the report of the Auditor-General. I think it is a good report and a helpful one in making progress on water quality. Specifically on the issue of prosecutions, the Government holds a strong view that the elected representatives on the regional councils should not be involved in prosecuting decisions. I draw to the member’s attention that it is not just in respect of farmers; I think members of this House would equally express concern about the decision in the Manawatū where the Palmerston North City Council breached its resource consent repeatedly over a period of 7 years and no action was taken. I am currently considering the suggestion from the National Party candidate for Palmerston North for a formal inquiry into the decisions around that, so that the Government can provide greater guidance to the councils about how they make those prosecution decisions.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is not the basic problem with the Government’s approach that it is relying on the regional councils to set and enforce water-quality standards, when the Auditor-General has just told us—and the Government has accepted it—that the regional councils are profoundly compromised and are failing to protect our waterways?

The member does not completely represent the Auditor-General’s report. He was highly complimentary, for instance, of the Taranaki Regional Council and noted that it is making very good progress in improving the quality of fresh water. The truth is that there is a mixed bag of performance from the regional councils. The very worst performance, of course, was from Environment Canterbury. This Government took decisive action to address that non-performance, and that action has resulted in huge improvements in terms of compliance in that region, and a clean-up plan for Lake Ellesmere, New Zealand’s most-polluted lake. Ironically, those actions were opposed by that very member.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is not the solution to the problem that the Government has got itself in for central government to set water-quality standards instead of our relying on the regional councils to set those standards, and has not the Minister for the Environment’s decision to gut the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management actually now become part of the problem, because we are having to rely on the regional councils instead of setting central government standards?

I note that both the Auditor-General and OECD visitors here for a water-quality conference last week were highly complimentary of the Government for the national policy statement and the steps that it takes. The criticism that has come from the member and some others is that the national policy statement did not include specific regulation requiring a resource consent for any intensification of agriculture. That is clearly against what the Resource Management Act intends, and I have tabled in this House clear Crown Law advice that said such an action would be illegal. It is something I am not prepared to do.

💬 Brendon Burns: Given that the Auditor-General identifies several regional councils that are farmer-dominated where councillors are inappropriately involving themselves in decisions on whether to prosecute farmers for repeated resource consent breaches, why is the only council this Government has acted against Environment Canterbury, which was urban-dominated and trying to reverse unfettered access to water?

The first fact I note about Environment Canterbury is that 70 percent of New Zealand’s freshwater irrigation occurs in that region. I think anybody in this House who is well informed on freshwater issues knows that the issue in Canterbury is huge. Canterbury, after 19 years, did not even have a resource management plan for water. It is only as a consequence of this Government having the leadership to appoint commissioners that we actually have an operative plan for water in Canterbury and a clean-up plan for Lake Ellesmere. What is also significant is that members opposite were silent when Canterbury had a 30 percent non-compliance rate. Now Canterbury has one of the highest levels of compliance with resource consents, and the House should welcome that improvement.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Does he accept that after 3 years in power this Government has some responsibility for the fact that water quality is declining; and at what point can we expect water quality to start to improve, in light of the reports from, now, the OECD and the Auditor-General that indicate that water quality continues to decline?

I note that many of our freshwater systems have as much as 30-year lag times. For instance, if we apply nitrogen fertiliser, in a catchment like Waikato, from the time it is applied on the land to the time it seeps through into the water system can be a period of as long as 30 years. So this is a long-term challenge. What I would say is that we need only look at Lake Rotoiti, a lake that was in a bad state; it has shown a massive improvement over the last 2 years as a consequence of the Fresh Start for Fresh Water programme. We now have, in five additional communities, specific programmes for the clean-up of lakes and water bodies, and that is something this House should be welcoming in terms of the progress we are making.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Given the concerns from the Auditor-General and many others about the ability of the current regulatory framework to control water pollution—and I refer the Prime Minister to the Cawthron Institute report, which made similar claims—how can he have confidence that the Government’s irrigation subsidies will not lead to further intensification and further downstream pollution, especially in Canterbury?

I draw the member’s attention to the very specific criterion around the Irrigation Acceleration Fund, and that is that the issues of sustainability and water quality must be dealt with in those applications. I simply draw the House’s attention to a scheme such as that at Ōpuha, in South Canterbury, which has resulted in substantive economic and environmental benefits. If I can use my own constituency of Nelson, it has a water irrigation scheme that has received support from the Government that will result in substantive water-quality improvements and that has the support of key organisations like Fish and Game and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society. The truth is that there are irrigation proposals that can also improve water quality.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table a plan to actually clean up New Zealand’s rivers, produced by the Green Party.

💬 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.

Prisoners—Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation

7. to the Minister of Corrections: What progress has the Government made toward its commitment to double the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment?

I am very pleased to report that this week I opened the third drug treatment centre to be opened by this Government in New Zealand prisons. The opening of units in Auckland, Otago, and now Whanganui means we now have nine treatment units throughout the prison network. It also signifies that we have delivered on our promise to double the number of addiction treatment places from 500 to 1,000 per year. More prisoners than ever before are receiving addiction treatment, and the treatment has been shown to reduce reoffending by up to one-third. This matches, if not exceeds, the very best - performing correctional programmes in the world.

💬 Chester Borrows: What treatment approach is being followed in the three new units opened by this Government?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: About two-thirds of prisoners enter prisons with drug and alcohol problems, and to reduce reoffending we need to break the cycle of addiction. The three new units are delivering an intensive 3-month programme that targets prisoners serving short sentences of between 4 and 12 months. Providing this intense shorter programme enables more prisoners to be offered treatment and it allows the Department of Corrections to target younger prisoners who are serving their first sentence. This early intervention gives us a better chance to stop offenders from developing a lifelong pattern of addiction and crime.

Water Quality—Prime Minister’s Statements

8. to the Prime Minister: Does the Prime Minister stand by all his public statements on water quality in New Zealand?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes.

💬 Brendon Burns: Now that the Auditor-General joins a chorus saying our water quality is deteriorating, mostly due to intensifying agriculture, will the Prime Minister take back his comments to the BBC dismissing Massey University ecologist Mike Joy’s views about degrading water quality as being just those of one scientist and “like lawyers, I can give you another with a counter-view.”?

The Prime Minister stands by that statement for a good reason: it is true. I note that last week Mr Kevin Parris, the OECD guest speaker at the lake water - quality conference held in New Zealand, said, firstly, that in his experience New Zealand matched up to its clean, green image; and, secondly, he noted, and the Government agrees, that more does need to be done in respect of improving the management of freshwater quality, particularly in terms of lowland catchments.

💬 Brendon Burns: When he quoted Lincoln University scientist Ken Hughey in the House as one counter-view and quoted him saying: “Perceived state of NZ freshwater is good—a view supported by science;”, why did he not give the full statement, which says: “lowland streams not so good; farming increasingly seen as a major cause of damage; management improving but issues around farm runoff.”?

The truth is—and the OECD report states it, the Auditor-General’s report states it, and international surveying states it—that New Zealand’s overall standard of freshwater quality is very good by international standards. To quote the environmental international index that is prepared by Yale University and Columbia University, it rates New Zealand’s freshwater quality at 99.2, the second-best in the world.

💬 Brendon Burns: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Yale University report, which he used to justify his claim that our water quality is second only to Iceland, has in fact been widely ridiculed by leading freshwater scientists and environmentalists, including former National Party candidate Guy Salmon, who says it is “totally flawed”?

Yes, I have read the commentary around the Yale University and Columbia University environmental performance index. The key question they ask is not about the data for New Zealand but about how reliable the data is for some of the other countries. That does not change Yale University and Columbia University allocating their assessment of New Zealand’s fresh water as 99.2. Furthermore, I would say the Government has initiated measures to improve the way in which we measure freshwater quality, so we have better data, and we have put out a discussion paper about the systems to ensure that there are more reliable measurements on which we can make that assessment about the quality of New Zealand’s fresh water.

💬 Brendon Burns: I seek the leave of the House to table the Lincoln University study quoted by the Prime Minister, or partly quoted by the Prime Minister, on fresh water. It is from Ken Hughey and two others.

💬 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.

Youth Minimum Wage—Abolition

9. to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement in relation to the abolition of the youth minimum wage that “we were concerned it would price young people off the job market”; if so, why?

on behalf of the Minister of Labour: Yes; there has been concern that the previous administration’s decision to abolish youth rates would see young job-seekers miss out on work opportunities. The Government has taken a number of steps to assist youth through initiatives like Community Max, Job Ops, trades academies, and the Youth Guarantee. Recent research commissioned by the Department of Labour on youth wages will also help inform our future policy settings.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Does she agree with the Department of Labour report that the abolition of the youth minimum wage has accounted for a loss of between 4,000 and 9,000 jobs for 16 and 17-year-olds; if so, does she agree that this confirms what the ACT Party has said all along—that abolishing the youth minimum wage has thrown young people on the unemployment scrap heap and that the only caring solution is to reinstate the youth minimum wage immediately?

I can confirm that the research stated that the minimum wage increase accounted for approximately 20 percent to 40 percent of the fall in proportion of 16 and 17-year-olds in employment by 2010. However, it should be noted that it did not have a significant impact on unemployment per se according to this report, because most of the 16 and 17-year-olds impacted were students who were combining study with part-time employment. It is important we consider that, as well as the headline that the member raises.

State Housing, Auckland—Tāmaki Transformation Programme

10. to the Minister of Housing: Does he stand by Housing New Zealand’s commitment that the Tamaki Transformation Programme will not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tamaki area; if so, why?

I stand by Housing New Zealand Corporation increasing the number of State houses across wider Auckland. The number of State houses in central and east Auckland, which Tāmaki is part of, will also see that increase. In the streets of Tāmaki, where State houses are at concentrations of 56 percent, numbers will decrease, as State house concentrations of 56 percent are far too high.

💬 Moana Mackey: Did he, or anyone in his office, instruct Housing New Zealand Corporation to remove this document from its website after questions were lodged this morning—a document that clearly states the corporation’s commitment that a Tāmaki transformation project will not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tāmaki area?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No one in my office instructed Housing New Zealand Corporation to remove that document off the website. The document was on the website. I am advised it came from a policy under the previous Government where State houses were allowed to be on quarter-acre sections, State houses had concentrations of 57 percent, and State house tenants lived in old and cold and mouldy conditions. I was ashamed of that 2008 policy. I am glad it has been removed.

💬 Moana Mackey: I seek leave to table the document from the Housing New Zealand Corporation website that was removed this morning.

💬 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.

💬 Carol Beaumont: What has changed that means the commitment to not reduce the existing number of State houses in the Tāmaki area is being undermined, as evidenced by the northern Glenn Innes redevelopment, which will reduce the number of State houses from 156 to 78, and even with another 39 owned by other social housing providers the number is still only 117?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: What has changed is the Government. I cannot defend State houses being on quarter-acre sections. I cannot defend concentrations of 57 percent. I cannot defend having tenants in old, cold, and mouldy houses.

💬 Hon Member: That is not the point.

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The member is defending it. The member is failing miserably.

💬 Carol Beaumont: When he said yesterday that he would expect the tenants from northern Glenn Innes to have the usual “bunch of options” like relocating back to their community, does that mean that this document by Housing New Zealand Corporation is wrong when it states that “all transfers will be permanent”; and can I tell the community that they have the choice to move back to their existing community if there is a suitable house for them to return to?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: My understanding is that the document has been removed. It is based on old Labour Party policy of quarter-acre sections, 57 percent densities, and old, cold, and mouldy State houses. We are ashamed of the document. The document has gone and I am glad of it.

💬 Carol Beaumont: I wish to table this document, which is actually from this week from Housing New Zealand Corporation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I would appreciate the member making it clear—she wishes to have leave to table this document. The document is?

💬 Carol Beaumont: The document is dated 26 September 2011 and is general questions and answers provided to me in a briefing by Housing New Zealand Corporation, which clearly talks about—

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

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

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder, in light of that clarification, whether the Minister wants to correct his reply—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The member has already erred twice today raising points of order where he has attacked various members of the House under a point of order, and I will not tolerate that.

💬 Moana Mackey: Can he confirm that the Tāmaki Transformation Programme under the previous Government was also going to utilise existing land better and was also going to reduce the concentration of State housing, but that Labour made a commitment to the people of Tāmaki that the number of State houses would not be reduced; and when was he planning to tell the people of Tāmaki that that commitment has changed?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I can confirm that that was the Labour Party commitment in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Unfortunately, nothing ever happened. We are not having high densities, quarter-acre sections, or old, cold, and mouldy houses.

💬 Moana Mackey: What will he do to allay the fears of northern Glen Innes State house tenants that they are being squeezed out of their neighbourhood because it is now deemed too valuable for them to stay in, given the halving of State house numbers in their community, and in light of comments made by his recently appointed Tāmaki Transformation Programme interim board chair, Lee Mathias—who also happens to be Sam Lotu-Iiga’s National Party electorate chair—when she said “Glen Innes is lovely, it’s just a shame it was built for working families from neighbouring Mount Wellington.”?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The only fear that Tāmaki residents have is that Labour will get back into Government, and they will have to stay in their old, cold, and mouldy houses. We are not halving the number of houses in Tāmaki, but we are not putting up with quarter-acre sections, 57 percent densities, and, as I say, old, cold, and mouldy houses.

Police,Taupō—Questioning of Pretoria News Journalist

11. to the Minister of Police: Has she investigated reports that Taupō police were racially motivated when questioning the senior rugby writer for the Pretoria News, Vata Ngobeni; and if so, what conclusions has she reached regarding his statement that he was targeted as the “unlucky black man in Taupō”?

No, under section 16 of the Policing Act 2008 this is an operational matter that is the responsibility of the Commissioner of Police. But if anyone wants to make a complaint over this matter, the appropriate course of action is to ask the Independent Police Conduct Authority to carry out an investigation. I am sure it will get to the truth of the matter.

💬 Rahui Katene: Is the Minister aware of the value of cultural competency, as being advanced by the Māori Party, and what training in cultural competency do police officers currently receive in order to ensure quality service to the public?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Police officers receive cultural competency training as recruits, specifically around engaging with Māori, Pasifika, and ethnic communities. The police run a further five specialist courses per year, open to all police employees. These courses are attended by middle to senior managers throughout the organisation. In just the last month Responsiveness to Māori training was delivered on the marae in Hastings to all staff in the Eastern Police District. Week-long Māori courses have also been held for staff being hosted on the marae at Tokomaru Bay. Staff also receive training on human rights issues and on the police’s own code of conduct. Each of the 12 police districts has engaged senior Māori leaders to provide advice on cultural issues relevant to Māori communities, and in the main centres senior ethnic and Pacific advisers have established fora to engage with police on cultural issues relevant to their communities. Police have also produced significant resources to engage with Māori, Pasifika, and ethnic communities, and to assist in educating staff about those communities. A specialist police team was established in response to the tragic events of the February 2011 earthquake. Its members have been praised for their professional and empathetic approach in dealing with victims’ families from over 20 different nationalities. Finally, I am delighted to confirm that the New Zealand Police was just this year the proud recipient of the Institute of Public Administration New Zealand Public Sector Excellence Award for excellence in recognising ethnic diversity.

💬 Rahui Katene: What training do police officers receive about how to avoid ethnic profiling—the practice of race or ethnicity becoming a factor in deciding when and how to intervene in an enforcement capacity?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In calling the Minister, I hope that the answer can be a little shorter.

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I will not repeat the last answer, but, basically, all of the above. That is one of the reasons why New Zealand police are the finest police in the world, and I am extremely proud of them.

Youth Guarantee—Progress

12. to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the Youth Guarantee?

I am very pleased to inform the House that over the last 3 years we have had a huge focus on providing more options for 16 and 17-year-olds who are at risk of dropping out of school, or who have in fact left school. That is why the wider Youth Guarantee number of places will rise to 10,000 next year, and to 12,500 by 2014. From a standing start we have established eight trades academies, and announced another 13 to come. We opened another eight service academies in 2010, and have announced another eight to come. We are setting up vocational pathways to improve the transition from education to employment, and we are providing more facilities, such as teen parent units, and have invested more in alternative education.

💬 Nicky Wagner: What are the early results?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Although we are still in the first year of trades academies, we are already seeing really encouraging progress. In the trades academies, 93 percent of students have had attendance rates of 80 percent or better, which is slightly better than senior secondary school rates. We are seeing Youth Guarantee course completion rates of about 63 percent. Again, this compares favourably to general tertiary results, and remember that these are our most at-risk students. When I go around the country and talk to these young people, they are overwhelmingly positive and enthusiastic, and they tell me that for many, many of them, education seems relevant for the first time. This Government is absolutely committed to giving these young people the best possible results, and we are already getting a good start.

Questions to Members

Government Superannuation and National Provident Funds, Petition—Hearing of Submissions

1. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Chairperson of the Commerce Committee: Further to her answers to Oral Question No 2 to Members yesterday, has she called a meeting of the Commerce Committee to hear submissions on the petition of Allen Hair, on the annuities payable to members of the Government Superannuation Fund and the National Provident Fund; if not, why not?

I can confirm that I have not called a meeting of the Commerce Committee to hear submissions on the petition of Allen Hair, and will not be doing so before the rising of the House; I cannot, under Standing Orders, explain why not.

💬 Grant Robertson: Can she confirm her answer yesterday that she put a motion to the committee to call for the submissions to be heard before the House rises?

Yes, I can confirm—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I have not called the member yet.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I could not hear it, but I can anticipate the advice you are getting. I would like to remind you that this is a matter of a Speaker’s ruling, and we had a very good Speaker’s ruling on this issue yesterday.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It could perhaps be that the Speaker may have erred a fraction yesterday, which I am very happy to explain. The question would be permissible if it asked whether the member had lodged a notice of motion, but if the question is asking whether the member put a motion to the committee, that matter would have taken place in the confidential proceedings of the meeting, and the question is therefore not in order. The dilemma for the Speaker is that the Speaker cannot know whether a notice of motion was lodged, and that is why sometimes the Speaker will allow a question. However, on this occasion I suspect that a notice of motion was not lodged. I will give the member the chance to reword his question if he wishes to word it in that way and refer to a notice of motion.

💬 Grant Robertson: Can she confirm the answers she gave to question to member No. 2 yesterday?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, that is not what I invited the member to do. I invited the member, should he choose to, to reword his question. I think we probably should move on now to question to member No. 2.

Railway Workshops, Petition—Request for Submissions

2. CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Has he requested any written submissions on the petition of George Laird, signed by nearly 14,000 people, calling on the Government to retain the Hillside and Woburn workshops?

I have not requested any written submissions on this petition.

💬 Clare Curran: Did he as chair put a motion to the committee that a submission be requested from the petitioner or a representative of the petitioner?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question is not in order, because such a motion would have been in the confidential proceedings of the meeting. If the member is referring to a notice of motion, she should clarify her question, because that would be in order. I will give Clare Curran that opportunity.

💬 Clare Curran: Did he as chair put a notice of motion to the committee that a submission be requested from the petitioner or a representative of the petitioner?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Perhaps I should clarify that question. Such a notice would be lodged with the clerk of the committee.

No.