Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s economic vulnerabilities?

New Zealand’s main economic vulnerability is the combined public and private debt to the rest of the world. This debt, which is measured by our net international liabilities, is one of the main indicators that lenders and credit rating agencies focus on when deciding our creditworthiness. New Zealand’s net international liabilities have improved in recent times, reflecting an increase in savings. But with US and European fears driving global uncertainty, there is clearly more work to do.

💬 Nikki Kaye: What progress has New Zealand made in reducing its international liabilities?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: New Zealand’s net international liabilities have dropped from a peak of 86 percent of GDP in late 2009 to about 69 percent of GDP in March 2011. This improvement is even more marked when compared with Budget 2009 forecasts, which suggested that the figure would have climbed to 106 percent of GDP by now. So instead of it being 106 percent of GDP, it is actually around 69 percent. The Government has been working hard to reduce its own borrowing while putting in place policies that lift economic growth.

💬 Nikki Kaye: Why is reducing New Zealand’s international liabilities important?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it is important just because the current state of the financial markets, particularly in the US and Europe, make it clear that financial markets are becoming more sensitive to debt—that is, any country that has significant international liabilities will come under the microscope. So although the New Zealand ship is in better shape than it was 3 years ago, global waters have become significantly rougher.

💬 Nikki Kaye: What reports has he seen of policies that would increase debt and heighten New Zealand’s vulnerability in uncertain global markets?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports of a number of policies that would require more borrowing in uncertain global markets—for instance, a tax package that would result in $6.6 billion more debt. It is certainly not one for which the Government is responsible.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Supplementary question—

💬 Jonathan Young: Ah, another marginal member.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Ha, ha! That was Jonathan Young.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members should just ask their questions, although some interjections, I do acknowledge, are difficult to ignore.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Does muddling through, as the Prime Minister described the Minister of Finance’s policy, involve losing another 50,000 jobs, or does he stand by his forecast of an employment gain of 175,000 net jobs over the next 4 years?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: To deal with the first question first, we had a question yesterday about the National Employment Indicator. It is a partial measure of jobs. The household labour force survey, which the Opposition has used for the last 2 years and 11 months while in Opposition, is the standard. By that measure, the number of jobs has grown. Treasury has forecast 175,000 new jobs, and we do not see any reason as yet to change that figure.

Job Creation—Statistics

2. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement “there are jobs out there”, given statistics released this week show there are 47,000 fewer jobs than three years ago?

Absolutely, particularly in light of statistics released a few weeks ago that show that more people are employed than ever before.

💬 Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, is it now the Government’s position to rely on the household labour force survey as the measure of unemployment and employment, in light of the Prime Minister recently dismissing the household labour force survey as being “notoriously volatile” and just a survey?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are a number of reports on employment and unemployment that come out during the year. I know that the members on the other side pick which sort of report they want to use at different times, and that those choices are actually of some concern. But, as I am saying, there is a measure here that says we have more people employed than ever before. I know we do not want to see that as being a good story, but actually it is.

💬 Hon Annette King: Was she aware, when the Prime Minister said yesterday that employment is at the highest level ever, that in fact the increase was a mere 5,000 people over 3 years, while the working-age population actually grew by 103,200 people?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, and I think in the light of our having one of the worst global recessions that this world has seen in a long time that it is actually quite remarkable that we have seen that level of growth in employment.

💬 Hon Annette King: Where are the additional 98,000 working-age people who have been added to the household labour force survey figures over the past 3 years, and do they account for some of the 45,000 extra unemployed people under her stewardship?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Did the beginning of that question ask where they are? Can I just check that, Mr Speaker?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is correct.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: They are in work, because they are counted as being in employment, or they are in training, which is a reality as well. Just by the sheer measure of the household labour force survey and the numbers that are coming into the country, that is how it is made up.

💬 Hon Annette King: Were the 170,000 new jobs National promised in its May Budget predicated on 4 percent growth by 2013; if not, what was the promise of 170,000 new jobs based on?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: That was a Treasury prediction, and as the Minister who spoke before me just said, it is one that we feel can be reached. We can see no reason to question it.

💬 Hon Annette King: In light of that answer, if 4 percent growth helps to create 170,000 new jobs, as set out in the May Budget, how many jobs is the Government now expecting to be created, given that the Minister of Finance said yesterday that he expected growth forecasts to come back over the next 2 or 3 years?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Those sorts of predictions are for Treasury. I suggest to the member that she may want to put her questions to the Minister in charge of Treasury.

💬 Hon Heather Roy: In light of the Department of Labour report that revealed that the abolition of the youth minimum wage pushed up to 9,000 young people out of work, does the Minister think the report was wrong, or does she concede that abolishing the youth rates was a mistake that should be fixed immediately?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think there are a number of reasons why young people are out of work disproportionately at the moment. Some of the main ones are the recession and the effects of that, and their having fewer skills and experience to take into the workforce. I know that the member certainly cites reports that say the abolition of the youth minimum wage is one of the reasons, but I think there are also others that need to be taken into consideration.

💬 Grant Robertson: Further to that answer, can the Minister advise whether she has received any reports on policies promoted by the ACT Party for young people that, rather than saying “Let them eat cake.”, say “Let them smoke dope.”?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Only a couple of days back I did not allow a similar type of question asking about reports on Labour Party policies.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: But you let it go.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I did not.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: No, we talked you into it.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I did not allow that question, and I am not going to allow this one, either.

GDP Growth—Budget 2011 Projections

3. to the Minister of Finance: Has he received any reports that suggest Budget 2011’s nominal and real GDP per capita growth projections are unlikely to be met; if so, what are the consequences of this?

I have not received any such advice as yet. Treasury is currently preparing the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update that will be released next month. The most recent assessment of the outlook was in the Reserve Bank’s Monetary Policy Statement, released 2 weeks ago, which showed cumulative growth and inflation broadly similar to the Budget forecasts, although data for the year to June 2011 has generally been stronger than the Budget assumed.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Given that the Budget update for the last 7 years has overestimated 2-year real GDP growth projections by 1 percentage point on average, what specific contingency plans, if any, does he have for lost revenue of $14.5 billion if future growth is also 1 percent lower than Budget 2011’s optimistic projections over the next few years?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, this is a Government that has always taken a pretty considered and balanced approach. We keep in mind that there is a range of outcomes from any Budget: things could turn out worse than one expected; things could turn out better than one expected. At the moment, though, I would have to say that, with the combination of performance in 2011, the economy has been doing better than expected and it is quite likely, given the international circumstances, that growth forecasts 2 and 3 years out might be a bit lower. We have yet to see from the pre-election fiscal update what that adds up to, but certainly in these uncertain times Governments should be prepared for a range of different outcomes.

💬 Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Given the Minister’s reply, could I ask him whether, if growth is 1 percent lower than projected, as it has been in the past, the Government will cut spending; or will it abandon its commitment to New Zealanders that we will be back in surplus by 2014-15?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the Budget we showed a track to surplus for 2014-15 and it is pretty important in these uncertain times that the Government sticks to that track and achieves that surplus.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the fact that he will have received the first draft of the pre-election fiscal update background documents now, is he as confident of his current growth forecast as he was in Budget 2010, when he promised a growth of 4.7 percent between December 2009 and today, given that the actual growth has been less than half of that amount?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member will know, the pre-election fiscal update, at least under this Government, is one that is produced independently by Treasury. Whether or not I have seen the documents, I would not tell the member anyway. We have yet to see what Treasury forecasts are going to show. What I can tell the member, though, is that, whatever those forecasts show, we will not revert to the damaging and wasteful economic policies of the Labour Government.

State Housing, Auckland—Tāmaki Transformation Programme

4. to the Minister of Housing: On what date did he make the decision to reverse the previous Labour Government’s commitment to the Tamaki community that the Tamaki Transformation Programme would reduce the concentration of State housing in Tamaki but not reduce the existing number of State houses?

I do not direct the Tāmaki Transformation Programme board; it is a partnership between the Government, the councils, and the community. It does not direct the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which is a separate entity. However, the Tāmaki Transformation Programme does support the corporation’s moves, and so do I. Subdividing large sections, upgrading brand new houses, and reducing the concentration of State housing in Tāmaki to below 56 percent is sensible. So is increasing State house numbers by 1,400 right across Auckland, including central and east Auckland.

💬 Moana Mackey: Has a decision been made to renege on the commitment made by the previous Labour Government to not reduce the number of State houses in the Tāmaki Transformation Programme area?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It is very clear that a decision has been made by the Housing New Zealand Corporation, which I support, to increase the number of State houses in Auckland by 1,400; in Tāmaki, to reduce concentrations of State houses below 56 percent, so that one in every two houses is not a State house; and to rebuild State housing in Tāmaki and elsewhere. We are reducing the number of State houses in Tāmaki, we are subdividing sections, and we are reducing the concentrations.

💬 Moana Mackey: Then why is the commitment to not reduce the number of houses in Tāmaki still on the Tāmaki Transformation Programme website, in a document dated 19 March 2009, when he was Minister, stating that although the proportion of State housing would reduce, they would be “retaining at least the absolute number” of State houses—why is that still on the website today?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: That might be exciting for members of the Opposition, but I have been saying for the last few days—and just so that people are clear—that we will no longer have quarter acre sections in Tāmaki, we are reducing State house concentrations below 56 percent, we are increasing the number of State houses across Auckland, and we are getting rid of the old, and cold, and mouldy ones. Have I made myself crystal clear about Tāmaki and Auckland?

💬 Moana Mackey: Does he realise just how much time and effort went into consulting Tāmaki residents to develop a comprehensive plan that they were comfortable with, that reflected their vision for their community, which was handed to him on a platter at the last election; if so, why has he arrogantly reneged on that commitment to not reduce the number of State houses?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It was the previous Government’s habit for years to consult year in and year out, and do nothing. Essentially, in Tāmaki we are building new State houses on subdivided sections, first-home buyers are able to buy other sections, and community housing organisations will also get involved in Tāmaki. But we will no longer have excessive numbers of quarter acre sections in Tāmaki, and we will no longer have State house concentrations of 56 percent.

💬 Moana Mackey: Why, then, did the National candidate, Sam Lotu-Iiga, promise before the last election in the East and Bays Courier that “the aim is not to reduce the number of state houses but the percentage.”?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Right across Auckland we are increasing the number of State houses, including in central and east Auckland, where Tāmaki is. I think the member has to realise that we have a difference of view here. We do not believe that State houses should be on hundreds if not thousands of quarter acre sections, in concentrations of 56 percent. We believe that State housing stock needs to increase in Auckland, and it will. And we believe that it needs to be upgraded, and that is what we are doing. If those members do not support that, that is fine. Let us go to the election with that view, and let us go to Tāmaki with that view.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I was somewhat surprised that the question was allowed to go through, but your having ruled that it was in order, I think there is a requirement on the Minister to address whether he supported the current member’s commitment before the election.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I think the Minister did answer that, because he—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he say no?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The Minister said it was his policy to increase the number of State houses in Auckland, and I believe that was part of the question. No, it might not have mentioned Auckland; it did not mention any area, if I heard the supplementary question correctly. Where it referred specifically to concentrations of number of houses, it did not actually mention an area. The Minister, in my view, answered that.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Subsidies and Carbon Pricing

5. to the Minister responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations: Does he stand by his statement that “it is completely incoherent for the world to be now tentatively coordinating actions to put a price on carbon on the one hand, while simultaneously massively subsiding consumption of carbon”?

on behalf of the Minister responsible for International Climate Change Negotiations: Yes.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Well, how does he reconcile that statement with the work of his colleague the Minister of Energy and Resources, who stated last year: “We’ve taken a number of actions as a government to support the oil and gas sector”, including $25 million worth of free geotechnical information and 183-day tax exemptions?

The world spends about US$500 billion per year on subsidies. There are countries that spend more money on subsidising fossil fuels than they spend on education. The programmes that this Government has funded include GNS Science being funded to do seismic surveys and gather petroleum information on New Zealand’s huge exclusive economic zone and extended continental shelf. Those amounts are quite minuscule, and I think it is a long stretch to call those programmes subsidies. It is simply New Zealand wanting to know what resources it has in the huge ocean area for which it is responsible.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: How is the granting of millions of dollars of taxpayer-funded research and tax breaks to private fossil fuel companies not a subsidy on fossil fuels?

It is about the Government spending its money to find out what is in the ocean area for which New Zealand has responsibility—an area 20 times our land area—and this Government makes no apologies for funding both GNS Science and other parties so that New Zealand can make informed decisions based on knowing what resources are in that huge area of ocean.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Is he perhaps, then, concerned that the Government’s emissions trading scheme, which grants large, unconditional subsidies to trade-exposed sectors with 80 years of phase-out, and which allocates free units to polluters, could be determined to be arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination by the World Trade Organization; if not, why not?

It is a very long stretch for the member to claim that a partial exposure to the emissions trading scheme—for instance, like our aluminium smelter or our steel mill, which are among the very few such operations in the world to pay any price for their emissions—is to pay, effectively, a partial price. There is a huge difference between those businesses paying a partial price and those countries that deliberately set out to spend hundreds of billions of dollars subsidising fossil fuels. It is absolutely consistent for this Government, internationally, to advocate that those large fossil fuel subsidies be reduced if the world is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: If we are in the business of comparing size for size, then how does he reconcile the Government’s further delays to the emissions trading scheme, which, according to the emissions trading scheme review report, will result in New Zealand taxpayers and households further subsidising greenhouse gas - emitting industries by, at least, hundreds of millions of dollars?

This member and other members make the gross error of trying to claim that not exposing industries or consumers to the full price of carbon over all their emissions is somehow a subsidy. A subsidy implies that there is a cost to taxpayers. That is not true. It is not true, and members opposite who attempt to run that argument ignore the fact that there is no international agreement beyond the end of 2012 for reducing emissions at this point, and without it, there is no cost to the New Zealand taxpayer.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Taking the Minister’s definition of a subsidy as a cost to the taxpayer, then what is his response to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s report on lignite, which stated that as things currently stand, companies that develop products from lignite on a large scale are likely to receive subsidies of millions of dollars per year from the taxpayer?

The question as to whether the development of lignite resources for briquettes, urea, or diesel and whether they would be eligible for an allocation under the emissions trading scheme is an open question. The reason that I am hesitant to give a judgment on whether they would or would not be eligible is that there is a proper legal process when an application is made, and I would be subjecting myself to judicial review if I expressed a view on that prior to the proper legislative criteria that are set down in the Act being considered, and prior to even receiving an application.

💬 Dr Kennedy Graham: Is it, then, this Government’s hesitant policy that the rest of the world should produce and use less fossil fuel, but New Zealand should produce and use more; if not, why is his Government granting subsidies to greenhouse gas polluters?

No, it is not, and this Government is not providing subsidies to greenhouse gas polluters. I remind the member that we are the only country outside the EU to have an emissions trading scheme. Our aluminium smelter in Bluff is the only aluminium smelter in the world to face any price at all for its greenhouse gas emissions. This Government is about New Zealand doing its fair share on climate change, and that is exactly what we are doing.

Earthquakes, Canterbury and Christchurch—Trade Skills Training Policy

6. to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does he stand by his statement migrant workers will only be used in Christchurch to fill jobs where New Zealanders “won’t be able to be trained in time to do the job” such as engineers that take four to five years’ training?

Yes, I stand by my full quote, which was as follows: “You will have a need for people who won’t be able to be trained in time to do the job, and that’s why we’ve also got the Department of Labour involved to look at what sort of occupations will not be able to be filled, just because of the time it takes to train them. So if you look at engineers, 4 to 5 years, where realistically we have what’s going through the pipeline right now, so that’s the sort of areas where they might look at some extra migration to help with that particular part of the skills requirement.”

💬 David Shearer: Given that it takes only 18 months’ training to obtain a basic scaffolding qualification, why is the Government advertising this occupation in its special Christchurch migrant skills list, instead of investing more money into Modern Apprenticeships, in Budget 2011, to help Kiwis into jobs?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In fact, that is an interesting example, because the Ministry of Social Development, I am advised, has just done an exercise with Scaffolding and Rigging New Zealand to subsidise 27 scaffolding trainees into jobs. I understand they are from the Limited Service Volunteers course. So it all moves around, which is the reality of it. We are balancing two things: firstly, ensuring that as much as possible we use the skills of New Zealanders and train New Zealanders—and we are doing that—and, secondly, not delaying the recovery in Christchurch by having particular areas of skills needing to be filled. So that is the balance the Government is looking to strike on all cases.

💬 David Shearer: I seek leave to table a document from the Immigration New Zealand website, which sets out the—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We do not table stuff on departmental websites. It is available to all members. Does the member have a supplementary question?

💬 David Shearer: Given that it takes 2 years’ training to become a qualified electricity line mechanic, and that the Christchurch rebuild is expected to take 15 years, why is the Government advertising this occupation in its special migrant skills list instead of training Kiwis to do that job?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The member implies that it is some sort of mutually exclusive situation where one cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. The reality is that we are training very large numbers of people right now for the Christchurch rebuild and for the wider building and construction requirements in the country. For example, we currently have around 8,400 construction trades - related equivalent full-time students active in New Zealand right now, and we have 15,000-odd trainees in the Built Environment Training Alliance now, too.

💬 David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that 1,500 new training places should be more than enough to meet the skills needs in Canterbury, given that the most recent estimate from the Canterbury Employment and Skills Board states that 30,000 extra trades workers will be needed for the rebuild?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure where the member gets that particular view from. We have added $48 million specifically into a pool for additional trades training, which, if it were applied to equivalent full-time student places, would equate to 1,500 places, but also that could be applied to industry training and to a range of other things as well. On top of that, I inform the member that right now we have equivalent full-time students places available in polytechnics and in universities around the country. We have full-time subsidy places with the Ministry of Social Development in Christchurch for the give a local a job programme available now, we have industry training places available now, and Modern Apprenticeships places available now. So if the member knows of anybody who is interested in stepping up and being part of the rebuild in Christchurch—

💬 Hon Member: A few of them might be stepping out.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: My colleague points out that a few members across the aisle might be interested after November, and they would be most welcome to contact their local polytechnic or industry training organisation and ensure they have the opportunity to participate. There are lots of places available.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s answer to the second-to-last supplementary question, the Minister appeared to be quoting from an official document. I ask that he table that document, as per the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will check with the Minister. Was the Minister quoting from an official document? That is not a document prepared for him by his officials?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is not an official document.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the rest of the question, but you ruled, as you have consistently, that members are not allowed to table documents that are from websites. Yesterday we had an assurance from the Minister for Social Development and Employment that she was not, and in fact she did. I wonder whether that matter is going to be taken up.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker cannot just take up matters like that, although he notes the point the honourable member is making. He noted it yesterday, and there is not a lot the Speaker can do about that, but it is in the Speaker’s mind and if it happens again, I will be very concerned about it.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that it is relatively unusual, but when the Speaker receives an assurance from a Minister on a matter of fact that is incorrect, one would have thought that the Speaker would take some action. I know that it would be very hard to refer a breach of privilege to oneself, but it was not a simple question. You asked the Minister, and she gave you an incorrect reply, which has not been corrected.

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: Just in light of the conversation we had yesterday, you asked me whether the document was from a website. Yesterday I said that I believed that it was not. I had it in a hard form in front of me; it did not indicate that it was from a website. It turns out later on that it was on a website, which they found, but the document itself was not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We will not debate this issue right here and now. Yesterday I asked whether the particular document was from a departmental website. I noted later that the document had “Department of Labour” across the top of it; it was rather difficult to have not been able to see that the document was from a Government department. The member who raised the original point of order may note that the Standing Orders proposals will provide a mechanism for the Speaker to deal with this kind of issue, because the Speaker is not particularly happy when this kind of issue occurs. It troubles the Speaker that such an issue is not of sufficient moment for it to be considered to be a matter of privilege, but it is an important issue none the less. I think the new proposals will enable matters like that to be dealt with.

💬 Brendon Burns: Given that there are 10,000 18 to 24-year-olds out of work in Canterbury, and given that we have a $30 billion rebuild over a generation, why will he not step up and give young Cantabrians real opportunities to train, and rebuild their city, rather than importing migrant labour?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think the member might have misheard the answer to the previous supplementary question, when I listed a whole range of things that are available now, including subsidised jobs into Christchurch. The big challenge that we are all dealing with in Christchurch is the ongoing seismicity and when that will settle down, and that has an impact on everybody’s desire to step up and do things, but the places are available right now. I think the only thing we could do is sort of march the people into the places at the point of some sort of compulsion, and I do not know whether the member is suggesting that, but I think that would be inappropriate. If he knows of anybody in his own constituency, for example, who would like to take up one of the many, many training opportunities of all types in Christchurch, then I ask him to please tell them to contact their local industry training organisation, or they can contact my office if they like.

Resource Management Act Reforms—Consents Process

7. to the Minister for the Environment: What progress has the Government made in addressing the problem for homeowners and businesses of slow and delayed processing of resource consents since passing the Resource Management (Simplifying and Streamlining) Amendment Act 2009?

Delays in processing resource consents got progressively worse over the last decade, from 18 percent in 2002, to 23 percent in 2004, to 27 percent in 2006, and to 31 percent of consents being late in 2008. In the last year, only 5 percent of resource consents were late. This means that in contrast to 16,107 consents being late in 2008, there were only 1,807 late in the last year.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What steps and progress have been made in addressing other problems over resource consent processing, such as the councils granting themselves extensions of time for nearly one-third of consents, and extensive and repeated requests for more information?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government’s legislative changes limited the circumstances in which the councils could grant themselves an extension, and also the number of further information requests. I am pleased that since 2008 the number of extensions of time has dropped from 15,000 to 5,400, and the number of further information requests has dropped from 22,000 to 13,000. These improvements show that the Government’s first phase of resource management reforms is working well and supporting the Government’s agenda for investment, for jobs, and for growth. The Government is planning a further phase of reforms to further improve the way in which the Resource Management Act works.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Subsequent to the Minister’s last supplementary answer, can he detail some of the policy points involved in the legislation currently being developed in the Ministry for the Environment for introduction in December or February, if in fact his Government is returned?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The National Party will be publishing an aggressive policy that will make further important changes to the Resource Management Act. They are changes that will, for instance, deal with the issues identified in the technical advisory group’s report on urban growth, on issues of infrastructure, and on getting greater collaboration, and I invite the member to watch this space. The second phase of resource management reforms will be at least as effective as the first phase.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Can he give this House an assurance that the items that the Ministry for the Environment is currently working on are not part of the National Party manifesto?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can give the member that absolute reassurance, albeit the ministry is developing work on the technical advisory group’s report on both urban design and infrastructure. But the policy of the National Party is being written by the most capable blue-green caucus this Parliament has. Its 18 members are focused on making the Resource Management Act work. When that member was Minister, things just got progressively worse.

Aged Care, Home-based and Residential—Management of Wellington Services

8. to the Minister of Health: Has he received any reports on changes to the aged care arrangements in Wellington; if so, what assurances can he give to workers in the aged care sector that they will not lose their jobs?

Yes; and although this is an operational matter of the Capital and Coast District Health Board, it has informed me that the two providers going forward will need to increase their workforce to meet demand. Capital and Coast District Health Board has also advised that the changes to providers should not mean job losses for support workers.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Does the Government have any plans to implement a qualified workforce in the aged-care sector; if not, why not?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: As the member will know, the industry and the industry training organisation Careerforce are providing training opportunities for people working in the aged-care sector across the board. The Government has also added to that with a significant investment in supporting further education and training for aged-care nurses, and for other people in that sector.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Does he have any plans to establish a Government-funded national training pathway for all staff in residential and home-based care that is linked to a national qualification framework and recognised in pay negotiations; if not, why not?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: Well, the Government supports the work that the industry and Careerforce are doing, as they take a bottom-up, quality-focused approach to improving the training. I do not think we need the sort of top-down lecturing that that party opposite might be promoting.

💬 Hon Steve Chadwick: Has the Minister seen the Auditor-General’s report entitled Home-based support services for older people; if so, when will the Government be responding to the recommendations in the report, tabled in July?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: Yes, I have seen that report. In fact, it is a shocking indictment of the previous Government’s management of these services—it is absolutely disgraceful. That is the reason why this Government has invested more money in home-based support services.

Roading, Waikato—Waikato Expressway

9. to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Waikato Expressway Road of National Significance?

This morning I was in Ngāruawāhia to turn the first sod, beginning construction on the $150 million bypass project, which will add 12.3 kilometres to the Waikato Expressway. Construction of the Ngāruawāhia section is expected to create up to 300 local jobs, with many more created in downstream industries, demonstrating the Government’s commitment to boost regional economies with further infrastructure investment. The project is expected to take only 2 years to finish, because things are moving much faster under this Government. It will help to make the journey between the Waikato and Auckland shorter and faster.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What risks are there that the Waikato Expressway will not be completed within the 10-year time frame?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There is only a small risk that the Waikato Expressway may not be finished on time. This was raised with me this morning by the Waikato Times. This scenario would occur if, for example, funding for roading infrastructure on the expressway was diverted to other projects, particularly non-roading projects. This would be a serious blow for the Waikato, because the project, of course, will lift productivity, create local jobs, and get Waikato goods to market faster. As I said to the Waikato Times, this scenario would occur only if Labour or the Greens became the Government and slashed investment in infrastructure, so the reporter would have to ask them.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 10, Stuart Nash. [Interruption] I say to both sides of the House, please, I cannot hear Stuart Nash.

Economy—2008 Statistical Survey Results Compared with 2010

10. to the Minister of Finance: How many more families report their income is “not enough” to meet everyday needs since the Government took office, according to the Household Economic Survey (Income) comparing the 2008 survey to the latest survey?

First of all, I am advised that comparing this measure across different surveys is not advisable, given that it is a subjective, self-reported measure that is very dependent on day-to-day events. I am also advised by Statistics New Zealand that the 2008 data was later revised, so I can give the member the revised data. In the 2008 household expenditure survey, 18.6 percent of households, or 295,000, reported their income was “not enough” to meet everyday needs. In the latest survey, for 2010, 18.5 percent of households—roughly 295,000—reported that their income was “not enough” to meet everyday needs. So no change.

💬 Stuart Nash: Can he confirm Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand data that show that the GDP per capita gap between Australia and New Zealand has widened by 2.6 percent since his Government took office?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot confirm that, but I can confirm the data I think quoted yesterday, which is that since this Government has been in office all of the drop in per capita GDP occurred before the middle of 2009. In fact, per capita GDP started shrinking in 2008, under the previous Government. There was a big drop in 2008-09. Since then it has levelled out, and now it is likely to rise.

💬 Stuart Nash: I would like to table a document that shows—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before the member says what it shows, we must know the source of the document.

💬 Stuart Nash: It is a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library, and it shows that the GDP per capita gap has widened by 2.6 percent under this Government.

💬 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.

💬 Stuart Nash: Is he aware that the real average wage has fallen by 3.2 percent since his Government came into office, according to the labour cost index?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just for the member’s assistance, the labour cost index is actually a measure of wage inflation—that is, how much is paid for the same work. It is not a measure of the wages actually paid. Secondly, in respect of real wages, after-tax real wages have risen. I know that sticks in the member’s craw, but actually, despite a recession, in New Zealand after-tax real wages have gone up.

💬 Stuart Nash: I have something prepared by the Parliamentary—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I cannot hear the member.

💬 Stuart Nash: —sorry, Mr Speaker—prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that real wages have actually fallen by 3.2 percent since National came into office.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document prepared by the Parliamentary Library. There is objection.

💬 Stuart Nash: Can he confirm that according to the household labour force survey, 49,000 more New Zealanders are unemployed since his Government came to power?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, I cannot confirm that number, but I can confirm that the Government is working very hard to get on top of the unusual situation where, under his Government, despite there being a long phase of global growth, the number of New Zealanders on benefits rose significantly. We are taking on the challenge of getting those numbers down despite global growth looking a bit moderate.

💬 Stuart Nash: I seek leave to table something from the Parliamentary Library giving Statistics New Zealand figures that show that the number of people unemployed has increased by 49,000 since December 2008.

💬 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.

Electricity—Generation from Renewable Resources

11. to the Acting Minister of Energy and Resources: What updates has she received recently on renewable electricity generation in New Zealand?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I am delighted to advise that the New Zealand Energy Quarterly released by the Ministry of Economic Development earlier this month shows that nearly 80 percent of New Zealand’s electricity was generated from renewable energy sources in both the March and June quarters. Over the last 3 years this Government has focused on increasing renewable electricity generation in New Zealand. I am incandescent with delight to see this providing both heat and light.

💬 Jonathan Young: Why is the Government committed to renewable electricity generation?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. The Speaker must be able to hear the answer. I ask members please to not interject too much.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Can I ask you to rule on whether that question was ironic?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question is perfectly in order.

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Thank you for that great question. The Government is aiming for 90 percent of electricity generation to be from renewable energy sources by 2025. There are significant benefits from increased levels of renewable electricity generation, including a reduction in our reliance on thermal generation, which results in reduced emissions from the electricity generation sector.

💬 Rahui Katene: What place will iwi and hapū Māori have in renewable electricity generation consents, or will issues such as those experienced by hapū of Kaipara Harbour continue to happen?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Ah, I have been engaged—

💬 Hon Members: Ah!

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Whakarongo. Kua tūtaki ahau i ngā iwi me ngā hapū o Aotearoa mō te kōrero e pā ana ki ēnei kaupapa. Ko tāku, e mihi ana ki a rātou mō tā rātou whakahau ki tēnei mahi mō tā rātou whakaaro me uru pai i roto i tēnei mahi. Nā reira, ko toku whakaaro mō te aro whakamua kia haere ngātahi ai i runga i te kōrero. Kia ora.

[Members should listen. I have engaged with tribes and subtribes in New Zealand about these policies. I really congratulate them on their endeavours to become involved in this type of venture, and also their thoughts to be involved at all. So my view, in terms of going forward, is that it is done collaboratively and by consulting with each other. Thank you.]

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask you to rule on whether the question was answered. I think the core of the answer was that there was a Minister’s thought to think forward—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, the member cannot wax lyrical under a point of order, as the member well knows. Points of order have to be expressed tersely under the current Standing Orders. I am satisfied with the Minister’s answer, and that is the end of the matter.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: He pātai ki te Minita mēnā ka tautoko e koe ngā hiahia o taua rohe e pā ana ki ā rātou nei āwangawanga ki te take mō ngā ruarua ki reira?

[Does the Minister support the wishes of that region about their concerns relating to the number there?]

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Point of order!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is it a point of order? The Minister should answer the question unless there is a real problem with it.

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Ko tāku pātai, kei te kōrero koe mō tēhea o ngā moka o ngā rohe? Kei te kōrero koe mō te Kaipara?

[My question is this: which extremities of which regions is the member referring to? Is she referring to Kaipara?]

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Āe.

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Ā. Ko tērā kua whakakorehia i tēnei wā nā ngā āwangawanga o te hapū o reira, nā ngā āwangawanga hoki o te kaipakihi, nā rātou te whakaaro me whakatū tētahi mīhini kei roto i te moana, nā, kua whakaae mai e ika, me whakakorerohia i tēnei wā kia taea e rātou te kōrero ngātahi ai. Kia ora.

[Fine. At this point, that has been abandoned because of the concerns of the subtribe there, and those also of the business unit whose proposal it was to put up a construction at sea, and as a consequence it has been abandoned at this stage so that the two can collaborate. Thank you.]

Accident Rehabilitation—Returning to Work

12. to the Minister for ACC: What recent reports, if any, has he seen on the role that returning to work can play in accident rehabilitation?

The recent reports I have received show marked improvements in ACC’s rehabilitation rates. These deteriorated every year from 2000 to a low in 2009 of 90.6 percent, but they have improved each year under this Government and are back up to 93.6 percent. Noting that a single 1 percent improvement results in an improvement of $500 million in ACC liabilities reinforces how important returning to work is in the effective management of ACC.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that Government employers should lead by example when it comes to providing opportunities for injured employees to return to work, such as providing opportunities for injured employees to return to light duties; if so, why?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Each individual Government agency decides on its own response. A large number of Government employers are part of the Accredited Employers Programme and have shown quite stunning rehabilitation rate improvements and also lower accident rates. I will give just one example. New Zealand Post’s injury rate has fallen by 24 percent, and the degree to which it is bringing back workers at an early stage by having them on limited duties is resulting in it making very considerable savings.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable member for a point of order, I say to members in the House that question No. 12 is just as important as any other question, yet the number of conversations going on around the House means that it is very difficult to hear answers. A point of order has been called by Chris Hipkins.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was very interesting information from the Minister. I wonder whether he could now turn his attention to answering the question I asked, which was whether Government employers should lead by example in this matter.

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It was a very broad question, covering any number of Government agencies. I simply said it is up to each Government agency to choose its own approach, albeit a large number of agencies are in the Accredited Employers Programme. I gave a specific example in respect of New Zealand Post.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I must say, I thought that, in fact, it was the answer to the primary question that the member may have expressed some concern about, rather than that to the first supplementary question. But the Minister is aware that there is concern about whether questions are being answered. I invite Chris Hipkins to continue, but I ask for the answers to be more specifically related to the question.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Is it consistent with Government policy for the Fire Service to insist that injured employees who are otherwise able to return to light duties use up all of their accrued sick leave and then be placed on unpaid leave, rather than return to work; if so, why?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would want to follow that up with the New Zealand Fire Service, because claims I have heard previously about that particular employer have varied from what actually occurred. I note that since the New Zealand Fire Service has been part of the Accredited Employers Programme, we have seen a 21 percent reduction in the number of injuries—

💬 Hon Tony Ryall: How many?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: —a 21 percent reduction in the number of injuries—and we have also seen a 26 percent drop in the number of lost-time claims. I think all members of this House who care about injuries to our firefighters would be pleased with those excellent results.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why should firefighters who have been injured, possibly in the course of their duties, be forced to take unpaid leave rather than return to work when their ACC compensation has ceased, and how is that consistent with his Government’s commitment to preserve the 24/7 comprehensive nature of accident compensation cover?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The New Zealand Fire Service is part of the Accredited Employers Programme. Its entry to the Accredited Employers Programme was approved by the previous Government. It was approved by the previous Government. The Accredited Employers Programme sets down the very specific conditions that an employer must meet. If the member has information that the New Zealand Fire Service is not meeting its obligations under the Accredited Employers Programme, which Labour approved, I would be happy to look into it. I am not aware of this specific example.

Questions to Members

Inquiry into the Identification, Rehabilitation, and Care and Protection of Child Offenders—Consideration

1. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Chairperson of the Social Services Committee: Will she call a meeting to consider the Inquiry into the Identification, Rehabilitation, and Care and Protection of Child Offenders; if not, why not?

I have not yet decided whether to call a meeting.

💬 Su’a William Sio: Will she call for an urgent meeting of the committee to deliberate on the inquiry, so that it can be reported back to Parliament before it rises next week; if not, why not?

I still have not decided whether to call a meeting.

Pacific Bilingual Education, Petition—Request for Submissions

2. SU’A WILLIAM SIO (Labour—Māngere) to the Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee: Has he called for public submissions on the petition of Judy Taligalu McFall-McCaffery and John McCaffery and 6,686 others which asks this House to urge the Government to fully fund Pacific bilingual education?

No.

💬 Su’a William Sio: When will he call a meeting to consider the petition of Judy Taligalu McFall-McCaffery and John McCaffery and 6,686 others?

I do not intend to do so.