Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Minister of Finance: Is it the Government’s plan, if successful at the coming election, to run the economy like they have for the last three years or to run it differently; and why?

The issues for the economy will not have changed, so the plan would not change if the Government was re-elected. We have been working on rebalancing the economy more towards savings and exporting, and away from a reliance on debt and Government spending. A newly elected National Government would be committed to getting the Government’s books back into surplus. On the one hand there are some who say we should have slashed expenditure, and on the other hand there are others who say we should have borrowed a lot more money to stimulate the economy. The Government will continue to take a sensible middle course. But I can confirm we have no plans to legalise marijuana.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Does the Government plan to allow public finances to continue to, in the word of Fitch Ratings, “deteriorate”; if not, what concrete plans does he have to improve them?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: No, public finances will not be allowed to continue to deteriorate, except maybe in the circumstances where there was another earthquake, perhaps. The earthquake has had a big impact on the Government’s finances. The plans to get back to surplus were laid out in the 2011 Budget.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: Does the Government plan over the next 3 years to improve the New Zealand Government’s credit rating, or does the Government expect to keep it where it is or to have it deteriorate further?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: We believe that if we were re-elected and continued with a sensible plan to get back to surplus and grow our capacity to earn an income from the rest of the world, so that we can lift incomes here and start paying off the mountain of debt we have, we would tend to have ratings agencies view us more favourably.

💬 Hon John Boscawen: What does he believe the Government has to do in the next 3 years to achieve a credit upgrade?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can tell the member what a re-elected National Government would focus on, and that would be to improve the competitiveness of this economy so that we can earn more from the rest of the world, to lift our incomes and create more jobs, and to get the Government’s finances under control, with a track back to surplus in 2 or 3 years’ time, when we can start repaying debt. In terms of the rating agencies, the threshold that at least one of them has set is a sustained positive current account balance. That is a huge challenge for a country that has not achieved that in the last 30 or 40 years, but we are up to that challenge.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Government plan to continue to increase the current account deficit and the net international investment deficit, as forecast in his 2011 Budget for the next 4 years, and does the Government plan to continue to reduce real median incomes by a further 16 percent in the next 3 years?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government plans to continue progress on both of the figures that the member mentioned. We have made significant progress on the net international investment position; it has improved. There are some forecasts that say it will deteriorate; we just regard it as a challenge to turn that round. On the current account deficit, thankfully it is half what we inherited when we became the Government, just as interest rates are much lower than when we became the Government, and we want to continue with that progress.

New Zealanders’ Well-being—Government Performance over Last 3 Years

2. to the Prime Minister: Are all New Zealanders better off after three years of his Government?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: I do not know the personal circumstances of every New Zealander, but what I can say with absolute confidence is that the vast bulk of New Zealanders are better off, certainly than they would have been under a Labour Government.

💬 Hon Annette King: Why should New Zealanders feel better off under his Government, given the $37 billion borrowing with no growth, the 56,000 extra people unemployed, escalating child poverty, and the smallest annual increase in median wages in 11 years, with people working hard but unable to get ahead?

They do not have to feel better off. Some do, but some, depending on their circumstances, feel the pressure of paying the bills, holding their jobs, and getting their debt down. We are there to do as much as we can to support those New Zealanders. In respect of their incomes, the facts are that real after-tax incomes have risen, not decreased.

💬 Hon Annette King: Are the rising number of children now living in poverty under his Government—up to 228,000 in the last 3 years—as quoted by himself 2 weeks ago, “now better off”; if so, how?

The problem of the rising number of children in benefit households is a product of both the New Zealand recession, which was precipitated by the bad policy of the previous Government, and the global recession. Of course they are not better off being in households living on benefits instead of wages, but Labour has criticised every single move this Government has made to turn round long-term welfare dependency. But we will persist—most New Zealanders want us to—and we will succeed if we are re-elected.

💬 Hon Annette King: Can he confirm there has been an increase of 21.8 percent in the number of New Zealanders now receiving a main benefit since National became the Government, and has that made New Zealand better off?

The Labour Party exists, as I said yesterday, in a funny little world that pretends the global recession never happened. Of course there are more people on benefits, because we have been through one of the biggest recessions New Zealand has had in a while, but our economic policy is creating more jobs and higher incomes, and our welfare policy is getting alongside people, supporting them, encouraging them, and sometimes pressurising them in order to assist them back into the workforce. Despite Labour’s relentless criticism of our positive moves on welfare, we will keep going.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his comments yesterday during the questioning of the Minister of Finance on the double credit downgrade that there has been no downgrade, or has it not yet registered that the verdict is in on National’s economic management and it is a “failed to achieve”?

There is a verdict that I suppose the voters will deliver on that economic management in a couple of months’ time, and they certainly delivered a verdict on Labour’s very damaging economic management, at the last election. It was quite a devastating verdict and Labour has not quite got over it. The fact is that New Zealand is in better shape now than it was in 3 years ago to withstand the most difficult global circumstances in a generation. I think it is a tribute to New Zealanders that they have shown the resilience to deal with these very difficult circumstances, and we will continue to support them.

💬 Hon Annette King: Why can he do something about the TV timeslot for Coronation Street, but says that he can do nothing about the wages of the lowest paid in New Zealand, like the staff who clean his office every night?

The Prime Minister has an extraordinary range of capacities and talents. Almost everyone in New Zealand recognises that, except for the Labour Party, which still thinks that the former Prime Minister will drop down out of the sky back into the Prime Minister’s seat and everything will be right again. Well, that is not going to happen. John Key has shown remarkable leadership skills through difficult times in New Zealand, and I think he would be the first to accept that he has not fixed every problem, but he has fixed quite a lot.

Economic Programme—Foundations for More Competitive Economy

3. to the Minister of Finance: How has the Government’s economic plan over the past three years laid the foundations for a more competitive economy based on savings, exports and productive investment?

The Government had to set out to lay some foundations, because the economy that we inherited was in very bad shape. It was dependent on excessive Government spending, it had high levels of household debt, it was providing new but unsustainable jobs, and we had become less competitive with the rest of the world. We have debt under control; we have changed the incentives for people to work, to save, and to export; we have cut red tape; we have built infrastructure; we have raised educational standards; and we are increasingly focusing the economy on what we are good at, which is trading with the rest of the world.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Since he is intent on a walk down memory lane, can he confirm—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: —can he confirm that in December—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Because I accepted that in answering the primary question the Minister of Finance gave some attention to the matters that the Government inherited, which was not absolutely necessary to answer that primary question, out of courtesy, rather than going as normal to the primary questioner for the first supplementary question, I went to the Opposition to give the Opposition the chance to question the Minister of Finance in those circumstances. But to start the supplementary question in that way makes the Speaker look stupid for having departed from the normal practice, because that is not the appropriate way to start a question and it just makes it difficult in the House. I accept that the Minister of Finance did not need to mention the economic situation that the Government inherited in answering that primary question, and that is why I came to the Opposition to ask the first supplementary question. I would like a supplementary question to be asked.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister recall, in December 2008, saying that he had inherited Government books that were in reasonable shape, and was that because Government net debt, including the assets of the New Zealand Superannuation Fund, had been paid off to zero in the year preceding the election?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, Government debt was relatively low, but all the forecasts showed it was about to expand in a never-ending, almost geometric fashion as the accumulated mistakes and damage of the Labour Government built up over time to create damage to this economy. One of our mistakes, I suppose, early on was to underestimate just how much damage Labour had done to this economy.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How did the Government’s tax package last year help to tilt the economy towards savings and exports, and away from excessive borrowing and property speculation?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax package back in 2010, which had a total value of around $4 billion, cut taxes on work, on savings, on exporting, and on investment across the board, and increased taxes on consumption, with an increase in GST and tax on speculative property investment. This is going to have a benefit for the economy, not over 1 or 2 years but, we believe, over 4 or 5 years, because it fundamentally shifts the incentives in the economy in a way that will strengthen economic growth.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: How is the Government’s multibillion-dollar infrastructure programme helping to build a more competitive economy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: These are remarkably good questions. The multibillion-dollar infrastructure programme was an effort by the Government to ramp up investment—even in the midst of a recession—in New Zealand’s long-term productivity. That means we will have, within a few years, an upgraded electricity grid, ultra-fast broadband rolled out around the country, an upgraded rail network, and, of course, we will be most of the way through a very significant roads of national significance programme.

💬 Chris Auchinvole: What benefits has the Government’s wide-ranging economic programme delivered?

💬 Hon Annette King: Who wrote that?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Despite answering, I think, over 400 questions—

💬 Hon Simon Power: I think it is; it is over 400.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: —over 400 questions—and a handful of very good answers—the benefits have been wide ranging, but I want to focus on just some. One benefit is that, despite a recession, New Zealanders have had small real income increases, and I think that is a fantastic achievement. Secondly, in the past year this economy has added 43,000 new jobs. Thirdly, our households—New Zealanders deserve congratulations on this—now have positive savings for the first time in more than a decade.

Economy—Minister’s Statement

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “the New Zealand ship is more seaworthy than it was three years ago” despite an extra 56,000 unemployed, $37 billion more debt, and lower GDP per capita?

The member should cheer up a bit.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I recently remonstrated with the questioner for prefacing a question with unnecessary language, and now the Minister has added to difficulties by prefacing his answer with unhelpful language. It would be more helpful if he just answered the question.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Does his 2011 Budget forecast the net international investment deficit to increase in each of 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15, and was this raised as a concern in the Standard and Poor’s and Fitch Ratings downgrade reports issued last week?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the Budget does forecast some deterioration in both the current account deficit and the net international investment position. That is, as I understand it, driven partly by the Canterbury earthquake, because there will be significant importing of materials to rebuild Christchurch, and partly by a view Treasury has that New Zealand households will probably go back to their bad old habits of spending a lot more than they earn. We are a bit more optimistic that New Zealanders understand how the world has changed and understand what they need to do to improve this economy, and there is a track record now that shows they are getting on with spending carefully, saving more, and paying off their debts.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Does the New Zealand Income Survey released today confirm that the median wage increase last year was just 1.9 percent and inflation was 5.3 percent, implying a cut in real terms in the median wage of 3.4 percent over the last year?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Every time the member uses figures in that way, it confirms that he is not getting to grips with what is actually happening in the real world, as opposed to in his own head. The fact is that the inflation figure is 5 percent because of the tax switch. When we take into account the impact on take-home pay of the tax changes, the after-tax median income has, in fact, risen by about 7 percent, which is higher than the rate of inflation. Real incomes have gone up.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Does the New Zealand Income Survey show that the real median income has fallen 6 percent after 3 years of his Government, and that real median incomes for Māori and Pasifika people have fallen by 16 percent and 21 percent respectively?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: In respect of the Māori and Pacific figures, there must be some question marks about the plausibility of the measure if it shows that for some reason Māori who are earning income are earning 16 percent less, yet the population as a whole is earning 2 or 3 percent more. In any case, in the case of after-tax incomes, Māori and Pacific people who are working have higher real incomes than they did 3 years ago.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister explain, when in the last week he has received objective reports from Standard and Poor’s, from Fitch Ratings, from the Auditor-General, and from the New Zealand Income Survey—all of which have shown either a downgrade or negative economic statistics—why he continues to make excuses, including blaming the weather, the previous Government, seismic activity, and the colour of people’s ties?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The fact is that, whether the Labour Party likes it or not, under this Government’s economic management we have been able to make considerable progress, with moderate economic growth, moderate growth in incomes, and significant growth in new jobs. This is despite the fact that there was a world recession and an earthquake that brought damage equal to 10 percent of GDP, making it the largest natural disaster proportionate to an economy. But in Labour’s parallel universe, none of that occurred. As long as Labour members remain in that parallel universe, voters will find it hard to vote for them, because the voters live in this universe.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister confident that the structural elements of the New Zealand economy have turned round, in light of the fact that over the last 2 years household lending is up, farming lending is flat, and business lending is down? How can the structural transformation happen in light of that basic underlying activity?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: A structural shift, I would say, is just under way. I certainly would not claim that the structure of this economy, which has been locked in for the last 25 years or so, would change in a couple of years. But we do need to stick to the direction of growing our ability to earn income from the rest of the world, and reducing our debt. I thank the member for his sensible and insightful questioning on economic matters—a sharp contrast to other—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is just as well it is the last day of term, I think, or the Speaker might have to get tougher.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: What has Treasury got wrong? When Treasury predicts that the current account deficit will increase to over 6 percent of GDP by 2014-15, what does the finance Minister know that Treasury does not?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, it could take me all afternoon, I think, to outline the things I know that Treasury does not. It knows a few things that I do not, and one of them is how to put together the detail of economic forecasts—that is, Treasury’s forecasts. As I have said before, this Government is a bit more optimistic that New Zealanders understand that the world has changed, and that their economic behaviour needs to be different. We think there is ample evidence that they have changed in terms of how they see savings, spending, and debt. If we are re-elected as a Government, I hope that the results would be better than Treasury’s forecasts.

💬 Amy Adams: What economic problems did the Government inherit from Labour?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think you can anticipate the point of order. The Minister has no responsibility for Labour policy, either present or past.

💬 Hon Simon Power: The question asked what the new Government inherited. That was quite different to the way it was put by Mr Cunliffe, and I suggest that the Minister of Finance does have some responsibility for the state of affairs he inherited.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Speaking to the point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear briefly the Hon David Cunliffe again.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Were the question worded in terms of whether the Minister had seen reports of historical aggregates, I submit that that would have been within the Standing Orders, but as the question was phrased—using the word “Labour” and referring to the past policies of the current Opposition—I submit to you that it is outside the Standing Orders.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that that is the case. It has been longstanding practice that economic Ministers, because they have to deal with an economic situation inherited by a Government, are entitled to report on what they have found on coming into office. It is in order for the Minister to report on what the Government inherited. But he must not ascribe to Labour any policies now or criticise any policies now. He is entitled to report on what he understands to be the situation the Government inherited.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Well, this Government by nature and aspiration looks forward, not backward. But it does help occasionally to note those things that we inherited, which were Government spending out of control, an export economy on its knees, a shambles of a tax system—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You rightly, I think, warned the Minister that in order to be within the Standing Orders—and you were giving him, I think, some good grace and latitude in allowing him to answer the supplementary question—he would have to avoid ascribing motivation or characterising the actions of the current Labour Opposition. To start with language like “things were out of control” is pure hyperbole—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me, but the current Labour Opposition was in Government at the time the Minister is describing. Therefore, he is not describing anything to do with the current Labour Opposition. It would be helpful if the Minister were a little more careful with his language, but he is entitled within reason to describe the situation inherited. If it is not accurate, other members can question him about it. But I have been listening carefully, and the Minister has not alluded in any way to current Labour policies, at all—and he must not.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With regard to your ruling on the substance of the supplementary question that was just asked, I wonder whether you would consider Standing Order 371(1)(a) and (b), which basically makes it very clear that a question cannot contain arguments, inferences, imputations, etc., etc. I argue that the entire supplementary question did exactly that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure how asking about the situation a Government inherited is making an imputation. Forgive me if there was some language in there that was making an imputation, and maybe I was in error if I did not pick up language that was condemnatory of the situation. But certainly a question that asks—[Interruption] The member must resume his seat. Maybe I should get to my feet to make it clear that the member should resume his seat. If I missed some language in the question, I apologise for that, but the substance of the question is in order. If I missed an implied criticism—at least, a stated criticism—in the question, then I apologise for that. But the fundamental question was in order. The Minister is entitled to report to the House on the economic situation inherited by the Government—any Minister is entitled to report—but he must not cross the line of ascribing to another party in the House current policies and criticising them in any way. I do not believe that the Hon Bill English has finished answering. Has he finished his answer?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a long list.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let us not make it too long, please.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Housing speculation was out of control; per capita GDP was falling; finance companies were collapsing left, right, and centre; households were spending a lot more than they earned; and I could go on.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Which of the following economic aggregates was the Minister referring to when he described the record of the previous Government as out of control: 3.4 percent unemployment, the lowest in the Western World; zero net Crown debt, despite his urging to provide tax cuts to people who did not need them; rising GDP every year for 9 years; fiscal surpluses every year for 9 years, when he has run deficits every year for the last 3 years; or the fact that real median wages rose consistently every year under the Labour Government, in contrast to the last 3 years, when they have gone backwards by 6 percent?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: One reason that both of the people who turn up to that member’s meetings do not listen to—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question leaves the Minister a lot of latitude in answering, and I am prepared as Speaker to give the Minister a lot of latitude in answering a question like that. But to start the answer that way is to go beyond reasonable latitude. There is plenty of latitude in just answering the question, because the question asked the Minister what was out of control about a whole lot of things. I am sure the Minister has all sorts of views about what was out of control. But to criticise the questioner about the number of people attending meetings is not in order. The Minister can do better than that.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just to pick—

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has flouted your rulings four times by my count today. The same lame joke that was used against me yesterday has been used against Mr Cunliffe. I seek an extra supplementary question for the Opposition in the circumstances, because we seem to have no other effective remedy.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: We will see. If the Minister ignores my ruling right now, that may just happen.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I feel a need to defend you in this, Mr Speaker. While you were ruling on that point of order, the Minister of Finance laughed, giggled, and talked right through it. Should he not be listening to what you are saying instead of acting like a schoolboy?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The House will come to order. I realise that it is the last day of term, but the House will come to order. It will be the actions that the Speaker takes more notice of. The Minister is on notice.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just to pick up one figure that the member used, he referred to New Zealand’s low unemployment in 2008. That was the result of the previous Government’s job scheme, and their job scheme was the Government. When we untangle the figures we find that almost all of that drop in unemployment was caused by growth in Government jobs. There were no new jobs in the private sector.

Urewera Operation—Independent Police Conduct Authority Investigation

5. to the Minister of Police: Kua whiwhi i a ia he ripoata nō te Rōpū Whakatika Pirihimana e pā ana ki tō rātou uiui rangahau i ngā raweketanga tika tangata pea a ngā pirihimana i Te Urewera i te 15 o Whiringa-ā-nuku 2007?

[Has she received any reports about the Independent Police Conduct Authority investigating possible violations of human rights that occurred from actions taken by the Police in the Urewera on 15 October 2007?]

on behalf of the Minister of Police: No, the Minister has not received any such report.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Is it appropriate that the people involved in those actions have to wait for 4 years for the release of an Independent Police Conduct Authority report and, indeed, the Human Rights Commission report on violations of human rights that occurred from the actions taken by police on 15 October 2007; and what actions will she take to deal with the sad saga that continues to hang over those affected by those traumatic actions?

The Independent Police Conduct Authority and the Human Rights Commission are completely independent bodies. Independence means that the authority makes its findings based on the facts and the law. It does not answer to the police or anyone else over those findings. In this way its independence is similar to that of a court. Those agencies are behaving responsibly and in the interest of justice by deferring the release of those reports until the matters before the courts are resolved.

Early Childhood Education Task Force Report—Government Response

6. to the Minister of Education: When will the Government respond to the Early Childhood Education Taskforce Report that was released on 1 June 2011?

Soon.

💬 Sue Moroney: When she made the statement on 1 July about the release of the Taskforce on Early Childhood Education report that “any proposals for major changes … will form part of the election campaign.”, did she mean that the work done by officials in preparing the Government’s response to the task force would form the National Party election policy on early childhood education?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No.

💬 Sue Moroney: Will she commit to keeping all the existing subsidies at current levels for 20 hours’ early childhood education if her Government is re-elected?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I thank the member for her confidence that National will be re-elected. If there are going to be any changes to the funding system—that includes 20 hours’ early childhood education—it will take some time. I have said in this House, and in public, on a number of occasions that this Government supports 20 hours’ early childhood education. We have expanded it to include parent-led centres. If we saw any changes, we would see 20 hours’ early childhood education retained, including fee controls.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specifically about keeping all existing subsidies at current levels for 20 hours’ early childhood education. The Minister has made a statement committing to 20 hours, so she is prepared to do that. My question was about existing subsidies at current levels.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I invite the member, though, to reflect on what she has asked. She has asked the current Minister whether this current Minister is prepared to commit a future Minister of Education following an election. The Minister in answering has indicated, it sounded to me, what might have been the Government’s approach to this issue. But there is no way the member can expect a Minister just prior to an election to commit to something like that when this Government may or may not be the Government after the election and this Minister may or may not be the Minister of Education after the election. So I think to ask her to commit exactly is a bit unreasonable.

💬 Sue Moroney: Does she regret, then, promising to keep all existing subsidies for early childhood education prior to the last election but then proceeding to cut two of those subsidies, causing parents’ costs to rise by nearly 12 percent in 1 year alone for early childhood education?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As the Minister of Education in a John Key - led Government I am delighted that we have focused on increasing participation in early childhood education. We have increased the funding to early childhood education. We have made some changes to the funding mechanisms, but we did maintain our promise to retain 20 hours, to retain the subsidies, and to retain the fee controls.

💬 Sue Moroney: I seek leave to table the National Party’s election promise to keep existing subsidies—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Party policies are available to all members.

Surgery, Elective—Increase in Discharges over Last 3 Years

7. to the Minister of Health: What improvement has there been for patients needing elective surgery over the last three years?

Mr Speaker—

💬 Hon Annette King: Oh, more good news.

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: —more good news. When this Government came to office, elective surgery numbers had flat-lined over 9 years. In fact, access had been cut. The number of operations did not keep up with population growth, according to the Ministry of Health. Since 2008 elective surgery in New Zealand has grown by 22 percent. A total of 27,000 extra people a year are now getting the operations they need. This is a fantastic achievement, and I thank the many doctors, nurses, and other health professionals who have helped deliver this result. This is what happens when we focus on patients instead of on strategies, plans, visions, missions, and frameworks.

💬 Nicky Wagner: How has this huge increase in elective surgery been achieved?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: This Government inherited a public health service in disarray. People were left waiting for months and months for treatment, and 30,000 people were culled from hospital waiting lists. This Government has put an average of $500 million a year extra into the health service, 800 extra doctors, and 2,000 extra nurses, and we have had an unwavering focus on improving services for patients in New Zealand.

💬 Grant Robertson: How much of the average $500 million the Minister is claiming that the Government put into the health system was actually reprioritised money?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has made it very clear that we have put $1.5 billion of new money into the health service over three Budgets. It is an extraordinary investment in the most difficult of economic times.

Minimum Wage Review—Factors Considered

8. to the Minister of Labour: What factors are taken into account in considering the minimum wage increase for New Zealand’s lowest paid workers?

on behalf of the Minister of Labour: The same factors will be taken into account in considering the minimum wage as have been in the past 2 years. These include changes in the labour cost index, inflation, wage rates, general labour market activity, and the wider economic environment, to name a few. Also considered will be official Department of Labour advice that to increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour immediately would destroy up to 6,000 much-needed jobs.

💬 Darien Fenton: Should the review take into account the fact that the Prime Minister has admitted he could not live on the minimum wage, yet Sosefina Masoe, who cleans his office, is struggling to support her family of four on just $13.50 an hour?

Yes, I am sure all members in the House would say that those who clean our offices work very, very hard, and we are certainly appreciative of that. This is one of the reasons why the Government is focusing on growing and building a strong, growing economy, because a strong, growing economy will give all New Zealanders the opportunity to benefit in higher wages. As the member knows, eight of the last nine quarters have seen growth in the New Zealand economy.

💬 Darien Fenton: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, John Key, when he said yesterday that the pay of cleaners is an employment matter, and has she not told him he could improve the pay of cleaners like Jaine Ikurere, who cleans her office, by raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour?

Yes, she does agree with the Prime Minister, as all Ministers do. What I can say is that under this Government’s stewardship, the New Zealand economy has grown in eight out of the last nine quarters, when the world has been experiencing the most difficult of economic times. This Government remains determined to focus on what is important, and that is a strong, growing economy.

💬 Darien Fenton: Does she support our parliamentary cleaners being paid a minimum wage of $15 an hour; if so, will she commit to increasing the minimum wage to $15 an hour for all workers, should her Government be re-elected?

The Minister of Labour is not responsible for the pay rates that the cleaners are being paid. What the Minister of Labour is responsible for is being part of a Government that is determined to have a strong, growing economy in New Zealand, which means having good investment in infrastructure, having lower taxes to reward people who work hard, and making sure that red tape and bureaucracy are minimised.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Just before I call the next member, the questioner did actually ask whether the Minister would commit to a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and I do not believe there was much else in the question, apart from referring that to a particular worker. Although the Minister may not be able to commit to that, it would have been helpful to mention it in the answer.

There were two questions asked in that one question, and the previous answer addressed the first question. With regard to the second matter, the Minister of Labour’s view would be that a strong, growing economy is very important to the New Zealand economy, because that provides opportunities for workers to have higher pay rates. Right now, this is a Minister of Labour who has increased the minimum wage every year, and I am sure that in further considerations the Minister will be consistent.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Does the Minister accept that the fact that Parliament’s cleaners are being paid the rock-bottom minimum wage to clean the offices of those who are on high—and some on skyscraper-high—salaries demonstrates that the current bargaining arrangements are unbalanced and unfair, and that the Government’s regime seems to be consistent with the Old Testament, which says: “To those who have, all shall be given.”?

No, I am sure she does not agree with the tenor of that question, and I am sure she also does not agree with, and probably cannot put together, the policy of the Labour Opposition, which announced yesterday that the minimum wage should be permanently set at 60 percent of the average wage.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Will the Minister act to resolve the imbalance in the bargaining relationship between Parliament’s cleaners and Parliament, because every Kiwi knows that in the contest between an individual and Parliament, Parliament will win every time, and that this is unfair to Parliament’s cleaners, who are paid less than those who clean in schools and paid less than those who clean in hospitals; if not, why will the Minister not act to fix this injustice?

The Minister of Labour is not party to the discussions or the negotiations over those staff members’ wages. That member would be better off taking his concerns to the people who do the negotiations. The fact is that this Minister of Labour is focused on what will benefit all New Zealanders, and that is a strong, growing economy. What will put that all at risk is any potential that that failed party opposite could ever run this country again.

💬 Hon Rick Barker: Does the Minister agree with Dr Martin Luther King that it is always the right time to do the right thing, and agree that giving our hard-working cleaners a pay rise is the right thing to do and now is the right time to follow the Prime Minister’s lead; and will the Minister “talk to someone important enough” to see whether it can happen?

Yes, the Minister agrees with Dr Martin Luther King. It is always the right time to do the right thing, and she knows that on 26 November New Zealanders will do the right thing with the right party—and that is the party on this side of the House.

Households, Improvements—Environmental Benefits

9. to the Minister for the Environment: What practical environmental improvements has this Government achieved for households?

A total of 120,000 homes have been insulated with Government support in this term of Parliament. That is four times the number in the last term. Also, 26,500 homes have been converted, with Government support, to clean heating to reduce air pollution this term. That compares with only 800 in the last term. In addition, 6,740 homes have been converted, with Government support, to solar water heating in the last term, as compared with 200. This last month 28,000 home televisions were recycled under a new scheme piloted by the Government. These are just four examples of successful, practical programmes in which this Government is making real achievements for the environment.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What benefits have flowed on from these and other programmes for the New Zealand environment?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: There have been real benefits, with cleaner air, fewer greenhouse gas emissions, and healthier homes, as well as cost savings for households from these programmes. Old dirty fires and log burners are the greatest source of air pollution. These programmes, alongside the tighter fuel and vehicle standards, have contributed to New Zealand in the last year having the cleanest air on record. It is also encouraging that the proportion of renewable power hit a 10-year high and that for 2 years running greenhouse gas emissions have declined, when in the previous decade they had consistently gone up. This Government’s practical environmental programmes are making a real difference for New Zealand.

Student Achievement Practitioners—Minister’s Statements

10. SUE MORONEY (Labour) on behalf of to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by all the statements that she made and that were made on her behalf yesterday?

Yes.

💬 Sue Moroney: Why did she say that the claim a suspended principal was a student achievement practitioner was completely false, when Deborah Mutu gave a presentation as a student achievement practitioner to a meeting of Northland principals and Ministry of Education staff at the ministry’s offices in Whangarei on 31 August, the same Deborah Mutu whom the Northern Advocate reported in May 2008 as having been suspended from her role as principal of Te Kura Kaupapa Māori o Kaikohe?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Because the Northern Advocate was incorrect.

💬 Sue Moroney: Is she aware then that Deborah Mutu’s teacher registration has not been renewed following her suspension, nor was her employment as principal reinstated?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: What I do know is that that principal has never been suspended.

💬 Sue Moroney: What information can the Minister provide to Parliament today to show that the Northern Advocate report was in fact false when it said that she had been suspended as the principal of the Kaikohe kura?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am advised that the Ministry of Education, in advertising for the student achievement practitioners—these expert advisers of whom 46 have been employed—has done extensive research into the background of the over 500 applicants who wanted to take part in this National-led initiative to support the increasing of student achievement in our schools as a result of national standards. The ministry has done extensive research and checked out the backgrounds of all the applicants and certainly has given advice to me in the last 24 hours that no one has been employed who was a suspended principal.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked specifically what information the Minister could put before Parliament. She has failed to provide any evidence—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me, but I think I heard the Minister say that the advice she has received from the Ministry of Education was such and such. I think advice from the Ministry of Education is evidence, indeed.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Minister was, in fact, referring to an official document, could she table that document, please?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I did not see the Minister reading. Was the Minister reading from an official document? The Minister is saying she was not.

Welfare Reforms—Addressing Long-term Welfare Dependency

11. to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What steps has the Government taken to reduce welfare dependency?

This Government believes that we can and we must continue to support people to get off welfare and into work. Under this Government, during very difficult times, we have had a number of successes over the past 3 years. For example, nearly 10,000 people are off the unemployment benefit, because we introduced a simple process to make them reapply. More jobs come every week into Work and Income, and more people are available for work. Under the previous Labour Government we saw many transfers between—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: This question asked “What steps has the Government taken to reduce welfare dependency?”. It did not ask anything about the former Labour Government.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was merely pointing out that we have seen fewer transfers between benefits under this Government, because of our focus on making sure that we get people on to the right benefit at this time. We have seen a number of successes.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: What reports has she seen that discuss welfare changes?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen a number of reports. I have seen reports that defend a so-called sort of job-focused record, where in reality we actually saw the number of people on the sickness benefit and the invalids benefits more than double during a period in the 2000s. I have seen reports of work-for-the-dole schemes in drag. Meanwhile, this Government, of course, has had more than 12,000 young people going through our successful Job Ops programme, and more than 90 percent of them staying in jobs. I have seen reports of a peak in numbers on the youth unemployment benefit in January 2010, and more than 10,000 of them coming off since then.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table data from the New Zealand quarterly employment survey from the Parliamentary Library—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is the document prepared by the Parliamentary Library?

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It is. It shows that the number of people employed went up 25 percent under Labour and has declined 3.3 percent under this National 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.

💬 Dr Rajen Prasad: What sustainable evidence does the Minister have that her policies will reduce welfare dependency given that the number of people receiving the domestic purposes benefit is at a 10-year high and the cost to taxpayers has increased by nearly $200 million since she became the Minister?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I do know about people on the domestic purposes benefit is that there are actually 15,600 people on the domestic purposes benefit who are doing part-time work. Prior to our Government’s Future Focus changes, this was more like just over 13,000. Nearly 12,000 people have gone off the domestic purposes benefit—

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: We do know that a lot of them can’t put food on their table for their kids.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I know that that member is kind of angry, and this might be her last question time, but it is OK—it is OK. Nearly 12,000 people have gone off the domestic purposes benefit into full-time work, and I think that is an achievement.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Did the Minister decline the opportunity to appear on Back Benches alongside me and Sue Bradford because—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker must be able to hear the question to be able to determine whether it is in order at all, and I cannot hear the question with that kind of interjection level. Carmel Sepuloni may start again.

💬 Carmel Sepuloni: Did the Minister decline the opportunity to appear on Back Benches alongside me and Sue Bradford because, firstly, she thinks she would be unable to effectively defend her actions in respect of welfare reform and her Government’s failure to address increasing unemployment, or, secondly, because she knows she would be unable to?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: For 3 years I have been looking for that killer hit from Labour, and I would say that I have not seen it yet. What I would say to the member is that, firstly, I think it is cute that she is gasping for breath and trying to get an audience by using my own profile, and, secondly, that she might recognise that I am not a backbencher. See you next time, honey. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Members have had their fun. We come to question No. 12, in the name of Gareth Hughes. [Interruption] I want to hear Gareth Hughes. [Interruption] The Hon Annette King ought to cease interjecting.

Fisheries Management System—Bycatch

Kia ora, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and I ask—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. I say to the National backbench now that I must be able to hear the question.

12. to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture: Does he have confidence in New Zealand’s fisheries management system, in particular, how it deals with bycatch?

Yes. New Zealand has an internationally recognised fisheries management system. Of course, we are constantly introducing improvements.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Is it possible that the country’s favourite emperor penguin, Happy Feet, was killed by a trawler?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I call the Hon Phil Heatley, in so far as the Minister has responsibility for Happy Feet.

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: It is highly improbable, because my officials had a screen of Happy Feet’s transponder next to a screen of fishing vessels’ transponders, and they never came near to each other.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Given that the Minister, in his response to questions for written answer, identified that there were nine southern blue whiting trawlers recorded within 20 to 50 nautical miles of Happy Feet’s last known location, how can he say it is highly unlikely that he was killed by a trawler?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear the Minister’s answer. It will be interesting.

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I can report that when Happy Feet’s transponder turned off, the nearest southern blue whiting fishing vessel was 32 kilometres away. Its fishing lines are not 32 kilometres long.

💬 Paul Quinn: Is the Minister able to advise us as to what did happen to Happy Feet?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I really want to. I have heard it said that Happy Feet may very well have become a happy meal.

💬 Gareth Hughes: To the Minister—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I realise that this is the last question of this parliamentary term, but I still want to hear it.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Given that a southern blue whiting trawler can cover 50 nautical miles in a day—and we are talking about an incredibly long net that is almost half a kilometre wide and 75 metres high—how can the Minister claim that it is very unlikely that Happy Feet was possibly trawled by a southern blue whiting trawler?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The reason I say it is highly unlikely is that when Happy Feet’s transponder—or whatever we call it—turned off, the closest vessel was 32 kilometres away. That would have meant that the vessel raced the transponder’s emission, which went probably faster than—or close to—the speed of light. That is a very fast fishing vessel, indeed.

💬 Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very good answer, but it did not get to the question, which was whether a trawler can cover 50 nautical miles in a day.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister gave a pretty fair answer as to why he believes that the trawler could not have caught Happy Feet, because of the difference in the speed of the transponder’s signal compared with a trawler’s speed. I think that is a reasonable answer to that question, but the member does have some more supplementary questions to pursue the matter.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Would Happy Feet have had any chance of survival had he been captured by a southern blue whiting trawler, given that the net is 400 metres wide and 75 metres high and that the vessel can trawl for 6 to 8 hours at a time?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I hate to sink the member further, but unfortunately the fact is that the closest vessel to Happy Feet when the transponder went off was the Tangaroa, which was the boat that released Happy Feet.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister concerned—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member, but—[Interruption] Colleagues, please. I believe we have only a couple more questions, so if we could just hold it together for that length of time.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister concerned that a southern blue whiting fishery not only posed a possible threat to the emperor penguin Happy Feet but also is the fishery with the highest bycatch of New Zealand fur seals and that also captures seabirds and critically endangered sea lions?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: As I said, I am reasonably convinced that a southern blue whiting vessel did not catch Happy Feet. We are always disappointed about bycatch, but the industry is working very well with the Ministry of Fisheries to minimise this.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Will the Minister consider stopping the destructive practice of bottom trawling, given its devastating effects on the marine environment and endangered species and the risk to our fisheries image globally, and given that last week the Guardian ran an article on New Zealand’s Hector’s dolphin that was covered prominently in the UK media? Is that a risk to our “clean, green” brand?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The fishing industry has voluntarily closed one-third of New Zealand’s deep-sea space to bottom trawling. We support that move. It is one of the largest closed areas in the world, which shows a responsible attitude. I support that.