Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his recent statements?

Yes.

💬 David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement at the Job Summit 3 years ago this week that “I don’t want to spend much time talking about how difficult economic conditions are at the moment. … I’m here to do something about it.”, and is he aware that there are now 53,000 more unemployed in New Zealand?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not entirely sure I would say that 3 years ago is recent, because Labour has gone through about three leaders since then. But anyway, putting all that to one side, the country has gone through, like the rest of the world—

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I can’t count the three.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: One never knows when another one is coming along. It is like a bus: you know, you just wait there long enough and they turn up. Look at Mr Cunliffe; he is just waiting.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: He’s laughing.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Is the Minister getting short-sighted? She knows I am on my feet, and there will be silence.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member will be aware that the world has gone through the worst recession since the global Depression. I think if you look at the New Zealand economy, it has grown in nine of the last 10 quarters and has an anticipated faster growth rate than the UK, the European Union, and the United States. I am not saying things are perfect in New Zealand, but I would argue that we are in a lot better shape than most other countries.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Leader of the Opposition, I accept that part of the first part of the answer was provocative and was bound to lead to interjections. But where the Leader of the Opposition is asking serious questions, I would ask his own colleagues to be a little reasonable on the interjections.

💬 David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “There are plenty of jobs out there for people if they look really hard.”, and are there plenty of jobs for Carolin Jentzsch, with two bachelor’s degrees and a master’s in speech therapy, who says “It seems like this is just not the year for getting jobs, and I am looking everywhere, all over New Zealand, and there is just nothing there.”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by my full statement, which I actually read out in the House yesterday and which was quite comprehensive. I also stand by the statement I also made in the House yesterday that if one looks at the ANZ jobs report, there are currently 30,000 jobs being advertised. I think TradeMe has over 10,000 jobs being advertised. If one looks at Work and Income, there are about 1,300 to 1,500 vacancies a week being advertised. There are around 3,500 on the books at any one time, and 80,000 people went off the benefit into work last year.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Churn!

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: And I tell you what, it is no wonder Trevor Mallard has got a loud voice, because when you are trying to scalp tickets, you want to make sure people know where you are.

💬 David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “…I for one would rather invest your taxes in jobs for our young people than in unemployment benefits.” when there has been a sevenfold increase in youth on long-term unemployment benefits since he became Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The first thing I think we need to acknowledge is when there is a global recession, those that are most—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Prime Minister, but I presume the questions from the Leader of the Opposition are serious, and his own senior colleagues should respect their leader.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have said before, if one looks at a global recession, what one recognises is that those who are most disproportionately affected are always lower-skilled and younger people. That has been the same pattern here in New Zealand over the last 3 or 4 years. It is also true in every other developed country around the world. It is also true the Government has been working very hard on making sure those young people have training and skills. The very purpose of the changes that we are making in our welfare reforms is to target those 16- and 17-year-olds I assume the member was talking about, to wrap a provider round them to make sure they are in training or in some sort of opportunity to get into work, so they do not go on a benefit. I would have thought that the member would want to come over to this side of the House and actually congratulate us on doing something about it.

💬 David Shearer: When he made his statement: “our Government campaigned on a Jobs and Growth plan for New Zealand.” did he consult his finance Minister, whose opinion of the job market is that it is what it is?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have consulted the Minister of Finance, and while I was consulting him I also thanked him for his economic leadership, where in nine of the last 10 quarters this country’s economy grew, and where 62,000 people had jobs created for them in the last 2 years. Actually, the Minister of Finance is right. What creates jobs in this country is when the right incentives are there to invest, when people think that they can make a return, and when they feel that the Government is not going to overload them with costs and regulation. Quite frankly, that has been the ethos of this Government: unwinding the mess we inherited after 9 years of Labour.

💬 David Shearer: Does he stand by this statement that he expects high standards from his Ministers and he will take action if necessary, and why has he not insisted on high standards from Minister McCully, who is laying off 300 of his ministry’s staff while at the same time building a swimming pool in one of his embassies?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: There are a couple of things. Firstly, the member should know that staffing responsibilities are a matter for the chief executive. It is not a matter for the Minister; it is a matter for the chief executive. Secondly, I can assure the member, as I can assure New Zealanders, that the Minister has made it quite clear to the chief executive that his expectations are that in this time when the ministry is going through restructuring, spending should take place in areas of capital investment only where it is absolutely necessary, like in Beijing, where there is some work going on. That edict was delivered by the Minister, I understand, quite some months ago.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does that mean that Minister McCully will not be going to the Budget round with Treasury on this year’s budget, and that he will send the chief of his staff along in his stead?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I am not sure how the member did it when he was the Minister, but I am sure the Minister will turn up with his chief executive.

Budget 2012—Focus

2. to the Minister of Finance: What will be the main focus of Budget 2012?

Budget 2012 will be delivered on Thursday, 24 May. It will focus on implementing the Government’s clear and comprehensive plan to build a more competitive economy. Within that plan the Government’s main priorities are responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more competitive economy, delivering better public services, and rebuilding Christchurch.

💬 Simon Bridges: Why is it important to responsibly manage the Government’s finances?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. This time I say to a very senior member on my left that I wonder whether she is getting short-sighted, because she could see me on my feet while she kept interjecting, and it is not good enough.

💬 Simon Bridges: Do I need to ask it again?

💬 Hon Members: Yes, yes, yes.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order. We have had enough fun for today, and there will be silence while I am on my feet and that includes the member who sought to play that prank. The member has asked his question, and the Minister of Finance will answer. I just want some reasonableness in interjections so he can hear the Minister.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is important because we are spending more than we earn. Between 2000 and 2009 total core Crown expenditure jumped by 85 percent, from $35 billion to $64 billion up to 2009. Excluding earthquake costs it will rise another $7.4 billion to over $70 billion by 2012. We have made it clear that that kind of rate of increase, faster than the increase in revenue, cannot continue for ever, and that is why we are tightening up on spending to get back to surplus by 2014-15 and stop our ever-rising public debt from rising.

💬 Simon Bridges: How will the Government build a more productive and competitive economy?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, a competitive and productive economy is primarily built by businesses and organisations that invest and employ, that invest in capital and create jobs. It is our job to set the policy framework, such as sound incentives in the tax system, Government agencies that pull their own weight in increasing productivity in this economy, changing our regulatory environment so it helps businesses make decisions to employ another person, and reducing their costs where we can. For instance, from 1 April ACC levies on employers and the self-employed will drop by 22 percent, reducing costs to businesses by around a quarter of a billion dollars, because we are running the scheme more competently than the mess left by the last Labour Government.

💬 Hon David Parker: Will his Budget show that under his Government’s policy settings New Zealand’s international debt deteriorates, with a growing current account deficit funded by more overseas borrowing and the sale of New Zealand assets to foreigners?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Budget will show, as our previous Budgets have, that that is exactly what we inherited and despite the difficult conditions we are wrestling with it successfully.

💬 Simon Bridges: What progress is the Government making through its economic plan?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Just a couple of indicators: the economy has grown in nine of the last 10 quarters, and our forecasts for growth, while moderate, are better than for most of the developed world; and, secondly, we are beginning to make progress in getting on top of our deficit. Last year it was the largest ever and we expect by 2014-15 we will be in surplus.

Question No. 3 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that earlier this year, on the issue of questions, you raised the difficulty for Ministers answering if questions were, for example, couched as question No. 1 is. Accordingly, I drafted a question to the Prime Minister so that I would not offend your ruling, only to have it flicked to the Minister of Finance. I am not asking for the Minister of Finance’s views. I want to know, amongst the numerous statements the Prime Minister has made—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has been in this House as long as I have and he knows that it is absolutely the prerogative of the Government as to which Minister is to answer a question, so long as the question is not shifted away from a Minister who could be the only person who could possibly hold the information that is being sought. This question asks: “Does he believe it is his responsibility, if it is his intention to sell strategic assets, to obtain the best possible price; if not, why not?”. There is no reason why the Minister of Finance cannot answer that question, and that is why it is perfectly in order. The member may now ask his question.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that is the case, then one is forced to resort to framing a question like question No. 1; otherwise, getting the Prime Minister to answer—and bear in mind he never turns up here on Thursday to answer questions; just 2 days a week he wants to be involved in democracy—if we are going to have that—[Interruption] Well, look at the record. Look at the last 2 years’ record.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to have debate by way of point of order. That sort of thing went out of this place some years ago, and we are not going to have that. [Interruption] Order! There will not be comment. Look, it has been for years the Government’s prerogative which Minister answers questions laid down. It is within members’ wit to draft questions to make sure they cannot be transferred from the Prime Minister, but where questions are such that the Standing Orders allow them to be transferred, that is the Government’s prerogative. The member may ask his question.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although I do not totally agree with the tone of the member’s comments, I think it is a matter that could well be referred to the Standing Orders Committee. I think he has highlighted a point. You have given us very good advice that when we are asking questions to the Prime Minister we try to give an indication of the area on which we are interested in following the Prime Minister’s views through. The problem we are facing is that every time we give an indication that it is an area that the Prime Minister would prefer not to answer, the question is transferred.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was doing fine until that point. Expressing a view about why questions are transferred is not consistent with a point of order. Members must have short memories if they are not aware that this matter has been a practice in this House for years—that questions are transferred often from the Prime Minister to other Ministers. There is nothing new about this. What the member says is perfectly right and proper: if members want to review the Standing Orders covering the asking of questions, it is perfectly proper for the Standing Orders Committee to consider that. That is right and proper. But for today the question is down to the Minister of Finance, and I want the right honourable member to ask his question.

State-owned Assets, Sales—Valuation

To the Minister of Finance, does he believe it is his responsibility, if it is his intention to sell strategic assets, to obtain the best possible—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to the member. The question I want to ask is whether, when this question was first put down, “his responsibility” were the words—when it was to the Prime Minister. If so, transferring it to the Minister has taken it away from being the Prime Minister’s responsibility—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Look, we are not going to debate this matter any further. The way the question was transferred is totally consistent with the Standing Orders. It is a matter, if the members are concerned about that, for the Standing Orders Committee. We will not debate it further by way of point of order today.

3. to the Minister of Finance: Does he believe it is his responsibility, if it is his intention to sell strategic assets, to obtain the best possible price; if not, why not?

If the member is referring to the Government’s proposed sale of a minority share in State-owned enterprises, then it is our responsibility to get the best price subject to the Government’s intentions for those sales, which include that the Government will retain at least a 51 percent ownership, and that Kiwi investors will be at the front of the queue, with an expectation that 85 to 90 percent of the companies will remain in New Zealand hands, and no one will be able to own more than 10 percent of the shares.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, does he now stand by his comment of 16 February on State assets’ values that—to quote him—“It’s just a guess.”?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been explained, for the purposes of putting some numbers in the Budget Policy Statement Treasury chose a midpoint in the range of $5 billion to $7 billion, which is about as much certainty as we can provide at this time.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, why is the Minister of Finance ignoring the Crown Ownership Monitoring Unit’s report on these assets, all of which are up for sale, where it has an assessment of $7.6 billion at 49 percent, way above his $5 billion to $7 billion?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a couple of different valuations that are available. One is the boards’ valuations and the other is independent commercial valuation. I think the difference in the numbers that the member is looking at is that the board of Solid Energy has a considerably higher valuation for Solid Energy than the independent commercial valuation. Apart from that, they are fairly similar, and, of course, those valuation issues would need to be resolved before the Crown sold any shares.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Is this the member that wanted to sell Kiwibank?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Sell what?

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Kiwibank.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very happy to oblige by your ruling, but if Mr Smith here, who is famous for giving—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member—[Interruption] Order! Look, there will be silence from elsewhere in the House, and the right honourable gentleman will resume his seat. [Interruption] Order! I do not want that sort of carry-on. Unlike in previous Parliaments, it is now possible for members to interject while questions are being asked. It is unwise, though, if they do not wish those interjections to be picked up on, and it is unhelpful to the order of the House. I would appreciate the member, though, just asking his question; he does not need to respond to some of those unnecessary interjections.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given the value of Mighty River Power is in the order of $3.8 billion, will the Minister of Finance undertake to this House that if National sells Mighty River Power, it will do so for the expert-assessed value, not at a discount price its mates can afford?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If the member means by “our mates” Kiwi mums and dads, the 2 million New Zealanders who are in KiwiSaver, then of course we want to make sure that they get reasonable value out of a share sale—because they are who will mostly be buying them.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Minister of Finance understand that the so-called mates called Kiwi mums and dads already own those assets; or is he plainly in la-la land on this issue, given that Treasury, his department, has advised him that within 10 years they will be in foreign ownership?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: That has not been the advice from Treasury. And in respect of the evaluation, the member is raising a reasonable question, and that is that at some point closer to the sale of these shares, the Crown will need to come to a view about what value it expects would be a fair value for the shares. We are not at that point yet, but it is likely to be somewhere around, in the case of Mighty River Power, what he is suggesting. There are other views that it might be worth quite a bit more than the current book value, because of low interest rates around the world. We have yet to see.

💬 Rt Hon John Key: Has he seen any reports dated 2008 of a political party wanting to have the mixed-ownership model applying to Kiwibank; if so, which political party was it?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The very obvious response to that inappropriate question is that that Minister—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat, right now. [Interruption] Order! Just because a member in the House does not like a question being asked—the question is in order. It relates to strategic assets and the sale of strategic assets. The right honourable Prime Minister asked whether the Minister had received certain reports. The Hon Bill English is to answer it.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: If I was not sure which political party it was when the Prime Minister asked that question, I am now. I think it was New Zealand First that advocated the mixed-ownership model for Kiwibank in the 2008 election.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is patently obvious that he has received—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. If the member does that again, he will be leaving the House, because that is not a point of order. Points of order relate to the proceedings of this House, not to whether that member happens to like or dislike an answer or anything said in this House. That does not provide grounds for a point of order to be raised and the business of this House interrupted. I am deadly serious. The member will cease that abuse of that point of order process.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It had better be a different point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: There have been countless rulings that say that the Minister is not responsible for another party’s statements or policies—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now starting to dispute my ruling, and if he is not careful he will be leaving the House.

Welfare Reforms—Effect on Sole Parents

4. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she agree with the comment in today’s New Zealand Herald that she is stripping away the rights of beneficiaries that she herself had as a sole parent; if not, why not?

I think it is important that we hear the entire statement, which said “Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has defended herself against claims she is a hypocrite for stripping away the rights of beneficiaries that she herself had as a sole parent.” It is that member, of course, who made the statement, and I totally reject it. Maybe he should look in his own backyard.

💬 Hone Harawira: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I was advised by the Clerk of the House that the word “hypocrite” was—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. If a member chooses to use the word in relation to themselves, that is their business. What is not in order in this House is to accuse another member of hypocrisy or being a hypocrite. But if a member chooses to use it in relation to themselves, that is their right.

💬 Hone Harawira: Point taken; thank you very much. Does the Minister accept that being on the domestic purposes benefit, getting a student allowance, having a Housing Corporation house, and getting a Housing Corporation loan when she was a young mum, while overseeing the cancellation of those same benefits to other young mums now that she is Minister, are reasons why beneficiaries think she is being duplicitous, or does she think that comments like “I pretty much fell apart because I was exhausted. I went back on the DPB” should apply only to her, and not to any other young mum?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I must say that I am kind of surprised that the member advocates for us to go back to the early 1990s. To be clear, there was nothing like what we have as far as the support that there is now for beneficiaries. For example, the Government now pays around $2.7 billion in Working for Families entitlements, compared with about $1.1 billion for the equivalent payments in 1999—and this is more than double. So there is more support going to beneficiaries right now. I think that member needs to look at the fact that he puts them down so much, and thinks they are so worthless that they are not worth jobs and that they are not worth the level of support that this side of the House is putting around those very people.

💬 Hone Harawira: When the Minister talks about young mums going out to look for jobs, does she think young mums should be allowed to go to the front of the queue of the 150,000 people who are already unemployed, or does she think that the young mums should be made to wait until the 150,000 get jobs first, and can she please tell us where the jobs are for the 150,000 who are already unemployed, so that young mums can then get in line for the next jobs?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member could look in his own patch, actually. I have a newspaper article here about the forestry industry that is saying they cannot get enough workers, because of the drug taking that is going on, and some of those workers are not stepping up and do not actually want the jobs. I was in Kawakawa just a few weeks ago, when I heard about someone who had 19 jobs and could not fill them. Two young women had gone into a job in hospitality in his own patch. Within 3 days their boyfriends came along and told them they did not want to see them working, because they did not want to see them getting ahead of themselves. We are going to back those young women. We are going to back them into work and try to get them off benefits. That member may not think that they are worth it, but we do.

Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ministry—Job Cuts

5. to the Minister of Foreign Affairs: Does he support proposals to make redundant 63 people in policy and diplomatic positions within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade; if so, why?

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade change document released to staff on 23 February proposes a structure with 63 fewer diplomatic and policy positions than currently exist. Given the 16 vacancies that currently exist in these roles, the proposals would mean 47 fewer actual diplomatic and policy people. That needs to be seen against the background of the 114 new diplomatic positions created under the so-called step change process in 2008. In a press release I issued immediately following the distribution of the document, I described the changes as a genuine attempt to create a Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade that can meet New Zealand’s current and future needs. A 1-month period in which staff will be consulted is now under way. My press release of 23 February emphasised the need for the consultation to be open and genuine.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: When he is prepared to see 63 people working hard in the interests of their country sacked, why is he also prepared to see $903,000 of taxpayers’ money being spent on building a luxury swimming pool at the New Zealand embassy in Tokyo?

💬 Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The suggestion that the ministry will spend large sums of money on swimming pools while diplomats’ jobs are on the line is ridiculous. The story floated by that member on Television One last night was a complete beat-up. The document that I understand to be in question was an engineer’s recommendation of what should be spent, and it was distributed to those who might tender for the property outsourcing work, should such outsourcing proceed. There is no proposal to spend the money at the moment. Can I further assure the member that early in January of this year, when it became clear to me that some jobs in the ministry were on the line, I asked to see the chief executive and I told him that I thought that all non-essential capital expenditure should cease if there was to be discussion about staff positions going. Two days later I received his confirmation that such steps had been taken to ensure that non-essential capital expenditure had ceased.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: If there was no such proposal, what were the construction engineers bidding for?

💬 Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The document, as I understand it, that the member refers to was one of a large number of documents—a very large number of documents—provided in the context of a full disclosure of the ministry’s property interests. Over time, as the member will know, the ministry does contract engineers and other professionals to carry out survey work and recommend expenditure proposals. It is over to the ministry to decide how to configure its budgets, and in this case it will do so after receiving clear advice from me as to what is appropriate in the context of the staffing restructuring discussions.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Is the ministry now preparing to spend $1.33 million on refurbishing the residence in Niue for former backbencher Mark Blumsky, who has been politically appointed as high commissioner, and why would you spend that much money in a very small country of 1,100 people while at the same time you are getting ready to sack 63 core staff members in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade who have worked hard for their country?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker is not doing either of those things, but—

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Why would the member? You would never have done those things, Mr Speaker.

💬 Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Can I confirm, as the member has suggested, that there was indeed a recommendation to spend over $1 million refurbishing the residence in Niue occupied by High Commissioner Blumsky. This matter was drawn to my attention by High Commissioner Blumsky, who told me it was barking mad. I agreed with that assessment, and told the chief executive that for that sort of reason there should be no non-essential capital works in an environment in which staffing losses were under discussion.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Will the Minister tell the House that the $155 million in capital spend that is being proposed will not go ahead at that level, including the $2.5 million refurbishing of the residence of the High Commissioner in London?

💬 Hon Members: Oh!

💬 Hon MURRAY McCULLY: Are you sure you wish me to proceed, Mr Speaker? I can confirm that, having received a general instruction from me that it would be inappropriate to conduct major capital works of a non-essential kind in an environment where there was a discussion about staffing losses, the ministry came back to me asking for an exemption from that general rule for three or four specified types of capital works. To the best of my knowledge, London did not feature on that list.

💬 Hon Phil Goff: Does the Minister think that New Zealanders suffering traumatic experiences overseas, such as the three young women hospitalised in Bangkok, would prefer to have an 0800 number to direct New Zealand consular assistance in those circumstances, rather than projects such as the examples I have used, or, indeed, the Minister’s own $75,000 air force flight for the day to Vanuatu when he could have got there commercially for $4,000?

💬 Hon MURRAY McCULLY: On the last point, I want to confirm that I could not have made that trip commercially. On the earlier point made by the member, can I say this: the question as to whether consular services should be outsourced, and, if so, to what extent, is a perfectly valid question for discussion. I believe it is important that New Zealanders who are caught in distressed circumstances abroad are able to have their needs dealt with efficiently. I think that there will be some very difficult questions that need to be answered before there are significant changes in the consular process. What I would say, though, is that the ministry makes the point to me that a significant number—indeed, the majority—of calls that come in on the current system, are routine in nature and need to be diverted to other arms of State. It is not unreasonable that they should have a mechanism for working that drafting process, but I agree with the member that any steps we take forward in this area need to be looked at very carefully, because New Zealanders are entitled to expect a good service in that regard.

Welfare Reforms—Obligations and Incentives

6. to the Minister for Social Development: How do the Government’s recently announced welfare reforms balance obligations with incentives?

As part of our welfare reforms we are introducing greater work preparation and work availability obligations, alongside incentives for beneficiaries to get into work. For sole parents we are introducing a benefit run-on payment. This is for those who find employment before their work obligations require them to. Their benefit will be reduced by $100 per week until it is gone, and it recognises the fact that it can be quite difficult to go from being on a benefit to getting paid—gaps between those wages coming in and that sort of thing—in recognition of them going out there and getting that job.

💬 Scott Simpson: What support will be available, given the Welfare Working Group’s recommendation that we address “incentives for parents to have additional children while on welfare”?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Under the new reforms, the Government will provide financial assistance for women, especially those aged 16 to 18 with dependent children, to access contraception, particularly for those who choose to use the long-acting, reversible contraception. This will cover the cost of attending medical appointments so that cost is not a barrier for women choosing that option. The assistance will be available to women on a benefit with or without children.

💬 Scott Simpson: Will sole parents be penalised for not finding work or getting a job?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let us be clear: if a person is looking and applying for work but is not successful, they will not be penalised. These reforms are about requiring beneficiaries to get work-ready. This is a fundamental shift to policy settings to focus on greater obligations and incentives in a modern, active welfare system. We are requiring beneficiaries to be available and looking for work, but I repeat: if they cannot find a job, they will not be penalised.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister confirm that despite boasting this week that 13,000 people came off the domestic purposes benefit since Future Focus was introduced, 14,465 have gone on to the domestic purposes benefit, making the figures worse than when she started?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: What it is is a moving. So you have people moving in and moving off all of the time. That is kind of what happens with the benefit system. So the member might like to actually recognise and acknowledge that most of that percentage increase has actually been those with the Care of Sick or Infirm benefit, so not just for children, or for children who actually need extra assistance and have that and are not work-tested at all.

Oil and Gas Extraction—Hydraulic Fracturing

7. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: Does he stand by his statement that he is “not aware of any reason to justify a moratorium” on fracking in New Zealand?

Yes.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Are moratoriums on fracking in France, South Africa, Bulgaria, and states in Australia, Canada, and the United States a reason to consider a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am aware that there are four or five jurisdictions that do have a moratorium. There are many hundreds that do not, including New Zealand.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Are Selwyn District Council, Christchurch City Council, and Kaikōura District Council all wrong to have voted to call on the Government to enact an immediate moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No fracking has occurred in Selwyn, or in Christchurch, or in Canterbury. No fracking is currently occurring in Selwyn, in Christchurch, or in wider Canterbury, and no fracking is planned to occur in Selwyn, or Christchurch, or Canterbury. It appears there is a natural moratorium.

💬 Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not whether fracking was happening in those districts—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I heard the member’s question very clearly and he asked whether these councils were wrong. So he asked the Minister an opinion. The Minister gave his opinion in response to the question, and where a member seeks an opinion like that there is no particular answer.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Is the Minister aware of numerous peer-reviewed scientific reports such as by Professor Vengosh, currently in New Zealand, of drinking-water contamination by modern fracking practices, and is this a reason to justify a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Of the few international scientists saying that fracking is of significant concern, there are hundreds who are saying that it is not. But I actually take my advice from officials and from the Taranaki Regional Council. They are very experienced in this technology in the New Zealand context and they say that there are no environmental effects from fracking that has occurred in New Zealand for the last two decades. Furthermore, the technology is getting better and better.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Is this Shell Todd Oil Services and Taranaki Regional Council report from 2011 that found discharge of fracking fluids in Taranaki that resulted in groundwater contamination that was unsuitable for drinking water, stock use, and irrigation a reason to justify a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Taranaki Regional Council asked Hill Laboratories recently to do water-quality tests on areas that were alleged to have been affected by fracking. The tests came back. The report is on my desk. It says that there is no contamination. Landowners were concerned there might be, but it seems there was not. You might also be interested to know that the Taranaki Regional Council has got scientific evidence now from over 1,000 seismic events in Taranaki that shows that earthquakes are not related to fracking practice, anyway. The fact of the matter is that the science says that in the New Zealand context, done properly, fracking should not be of concern.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Regarding that report and those wells also outlined in the Shield Petroleum and Taranaki Regional Council report that found that over 2007 to 2009 fracking fluid leakage happened at those two well sites that breached the consents, and that we saw in the Kapuni wells, where we saw that benzene, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and naphthalenes all exceeded Ministry for the Environment acceptable criteria for drinking water, are those two cases justification for a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I do not consider that is a justification for a moratorium on fracking. It might interest the member to know that fracking is being used in both petroleum and geothermal energy resource use in New Zealand. Geothermal is something that the member supports. I would hate him to close the door—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: —on renewable geothermal—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat now. That was not what the questioner asked, and the Minister saw me on my feet and kept getting out what he wanted to get out. Question time is about answering questions, not about making statements the Minister may wish to make. If the questioner is foolish enough to ask a broad question then, OK, Ministers can often get out a statement they want to make, but that question was pretty specific, and I think I let the Minister go on long enough. But I do not want to see that happen again.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Will it take a major groundwater contamination and Kiwis getting sick before he puts a moratorium on fracking in New Zealand?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The member may promote scare tactics. The reality is that in the New Zealand context over the last two decades there have not been environmental incidents. Fracking is used in geothermal renewable generation. He should be very careful. If he rails against fracking, he rails against renewable geothermal in this country, which also employs thousands of New Zealanders.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Have Māori tribal nations on the East Coast been consulted, specifically about the possible practice of fracking in their waters; if not, why not, and what will the nature of the consultation process be?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am advised that it is not proposed to do fracking in the waters off the coast where the member indicated. He may be interested to know that fracking is actually very, very expensive on land. On sea it is almost prohibitive, it is so costly. It is rarely done internationally and it has not been done in our waters nationally, as far as I know.

💬 Gareth Hughes: I seek leave to table three papers. The first is a peer-reviewed study by Professor Avner Vengosh and others from the National Academy of Sciences that outlines methane contamination of drinking water in 85 percent of fracking water samples in the US.

💬 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.

💬 Gareth Hughes: The second document is a US Department of Environmental Protection report outlining over 60 cases of water contamination in fugitive methane migration resulting from fracking in Pennsylvania.

💬 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.

💬 Gareth Hughes: Lastly, I seek leave to table the Shell Todd Oil Services Ltd Maui and Kapuni Production Stations Monitoring Programmes Annual Report 2009-10, which outlines contamination of benzine, ethylbenzene, total xylenes, and naphthalenes from the fracking pits.

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

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

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: How does the Minister reconcile those that propose 100,000 green jobs from the development of geothermal energy, which involves fracking, with those same parties wanting a ban on fracking?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I do not see how the Minister is responsible for other parties’ views on those matters.

Export Sector—Performance

8. to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received demonstrating New Zealand’s improved export performance?

I have received the 5-yearly Census of International Trade in Services and Royalties. It shows exports in commercial services have increased to $4 billion in 2011, which is an increase in 60 percent over the last 5 years, and there has been significant diversification away from traditional tourism services towards computer services, management fees, and royalties. This is good news for New Zealand, as these sorts of service exports are less affected by the distance from markets, which has always been one of the challenges in the past for New Zealand, relative to other countries. It comes on top of recent news that New Zealand’s merchandise trade grew nearly 10 percent in the last calendar year, and these are all signs of the strengthening export growth story.

💬 Mark Mitchell: What reports has he received showing that this export-led growth will continue?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have received the HSBC report The World in 2050. According to HSBC economists, New Zealand is first amongst all developed countries in terms of its export-led growth potential, with GDP growth forecast to average 3.4 percent over the 10-year period to 2020. This is an encouraging projection, ahead of others like Australia at 2.4 percent, Canada at 2.3 percent, and the UK at 1.6 percent. New Zealand’s strong outlook is attributed by these economists to the Government’s focus on exports, investment in technology infrastructure like ultra-fast broadband, and New Zealand’s strong performance in education and skills training.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: By how many billions of dollars is his own Government projecting the current account deficit to worsen over the next 4 years?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The pre-election update last year forecast the current account deficit to widen by about just under $5 billion over the next 4 years. The main reason for that, apart from export prices coming off their record highs, is the Canterbury rebuild, which is forecast to increase import payments. But I think that just underscores the requirement to get stronger export growth.

💬 Mark Mitchell: How important is export-led growth to boosting jobs and incomes in New Zealand?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Very important. As a small trading nation, New Zealand’s economic growth strongly relies on our ability to trade successfully with the rest of the world. Growing exports boost our incomes relative to other countries’, increasing our standard of living and making New Zealand a more attractive place to live and bring up a family in. New Zealand cannot become prosperous by trading with itself. New Zealand’s exports as a share of GDP sit at around 30 percent, in comparison with around 40 percent to 55 percent in similar-sized countries overseas. That is why this Government has made it a priority to reverse the unbalanced concentration of growth in the non-tradable sectors by ensuring that businesses have access to the necessary skills, capital, resources, infrastructure, capital markets, and export markets needed to build a stronger economy.

Education, Ministry—Confidence

9. to the Minister of Education: Does she have confidence in her Ministry?

Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, but there is always room for improvement.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: When was she notified that a convicted sex offender had breached bail conditions and had been working in schools with young children?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: On Friday.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: When were parents notified that person A, a convicted sex offender, was before the courts in Auckland?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Due to the court-imposed suppression order, which was not varied until late on Friday, the two affected schools were notified on Monday.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table a letter circulated to parents late—very late—on Monday, 27 February, detailing the arrest of a former teacher for breaching bail conditions but with no mention of the nature of the previous convictions.

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

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

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Why did it take her ministry some days to properly communicate—fully communicate—with parents the risk—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Will the member please get on with her supplementary question.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Why did it take the Minister some time to properly and fully communicate with parents the risk that their children faced, and should they have to find out on the 6 o’clock news?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I just explained, the court suppression order of all details related to person A was not varied until late on Friday, after the school community had left. The letter was prepared with the detail that we were allowed to give under the suppression order on Monday, and went home—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Well, what happened to Saturday and Sunday?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: —with students at the end of school. Perhaps if the member was really interested in the idea, he would show me the courtesy of listening. They went home at 3 o’clock on Monday afternoon.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table a letter from a parent, which was sent to me on 28 February, claiming that the Minister knew of this offence last week, yet as late as last night no support or counselling services had been offered to children and parents where person A—

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

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

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: What immediate support from Monday, 27 February was offered to children, parents, and staff; and did she ensure personally that that support was actually delivered?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: The traumatic incident teams made available by the Ministry of Education were available to the school from Monday.

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: I seek leave to table a document circulated as late as today at 11.31 a.m. offering support advice to parents, for them to administer themselves, from the ministry and Child, Youth and Family.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table—sorry, the source of that document was?

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: An email.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: An email from?

💬 Hon Nanaia Mahuta: A concerned parent.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: An email from a concerned parent. 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.

Child Poverty, Abuse, and Neglect—Green Paper for Vulnerable Children

To the Minister of Social Development, can she enlighten us with what response—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should ask the question as it appears on the Order Paper.

10. to the Minister for Social Development: What response has she had to the Government’s Green Paper for Vulnerable Children?

I would like to inform the House that we have received over 8,470 submissions from members of the public, some of them big organisations representing a big membership. I understand that this is a significantly high number of submissions for such a process, and I want to thank every person who has made a submission.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: What has been the response from some of the public meetings held around New Zealand?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: There have been over 130 community meetings up and down New Zealand. These have been right across the board, with child protection and support agencies, parents, teachers, doctors, and even children themselves. I know that the member himself held a number of meetings all throughout last week especially with men’s groups, focusing on how fathers can play their part in this process, and my thanks go to him for his contribution.

💬 Alfred Ngaro: What have been some of the main things New Zealanders have been saying in their submissions?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: It would be fair to say that there has been quite a range of views that have come forward, but when you do read the submissions, there is a certain number of themes that come in. Many were around information sharing and how it happens from agency to agency, and also with our communities and community agencies; changes to the Privacy Act, with some suggestions that it apply to young people aged 16 and under; mandatory reporting has certainly been topical; tagging mothers and children, and whether or not that should go through the health system; and compulsory well child checks—amongst many things.

Prisoners, Transgender—Chief Ombudsman’s Report

11. to the Minister of Corrections: Does she agree with the finding of the Chief Ombudsman that “transgender prisoners are particularly vulnerable to abuse and/or sexual assault”?

Yes to verbal abuse, as are many prisoners, but no to sexual assault. All prisoners are assessed for safety and security on a case by case basis. I am advised that only five out of our 8,500 prisoners identify as transgender, and the Department of Corrections believes that all prisoners should be treated with decency and humanity, in safe and secure environments that acknowledge their gender identification.

💬 Jan Logie: In light of the Ombudsman’s report that says “abuse (of transgender prisoners) goes unrecorded in male prisons”, what actions will she take to ensure transgender prisoners’ safety?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: My understanding is that the Ombudsman spoke to only one transgender prisoner, and I am advised that there is no evidence of widespread sexual assault.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: What assurances can the Minister give that transgender inmates are protected from harm in prison, and that their physical and mental health needs are promptly and appropriately addressed?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I can assure that member that the Department of Corrections is fully aware of the duty of care that it has to all prisoners, and continues to make improvements. The department does deliver a pretty good health service to prisoners, which, indeed, the Ombudsman did acknowledge in the report.

💬 Jan Logie: Will she consider changing the Department of Corrections regulation that requires full gender reassignment surgery before a trans person can be placed in a prison aligned to their gender, especially given that the Human Rights Commission inquiry into transgender discrimination found that only a small minority of trans people complete such surgery?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: No, but the department will continue to assess the needs of prisoners on a case by case basis, and common sense is also important. A man who is transgender but pre-surgery is still a man, and to move him to a women’s prison would raise a number of safety issues. By the same token, we cannot move a female prisoner into a male prison. But I am satisfied that the department is focusing on rehabilitation and reducing reoffending, which will ensure that fewer prisoners, transgender or otherwise, end up back in prison.

💬 Jan Logie: What level of sexual assaults on trans people needs to occur before the Minister acts to ensure their safety in prison?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said earlier, there is no evidence that there is widespread sexual assault.

NZ On Air Board—Potential Conflicts of Interest

12. to the Minister of Broadcasting: Does he stand by his primary answer to Oral Question No 11 on Wednesday, 15 February 2012?

on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: Yes.

💬 Clare Curran: Has he or his office received an email dated 18 January with an attached report from the chair of the New Zealand On Air board, Neil Walter, entitled “This story seems to have taken on a life of its own”, which devotes several paragraphs to addressing conflict of interest matters of “one particular member of the board”?

Yes, the Minister has received that email, but I think we would have to be quite clear that it is an email that is more about how New Zealand On Air was dealing with inquiries from the media on that issue. That is an article that it was circulating.

💬 Clare Curran: Has he or his office received correspondence from Sussan Turner, the Chief Executive Officer of MediaWorks, dated 19 January that reads: “I am conscious that this NZOA Air Child Poverty doco issue has political nuances and so if there is anything you would like from us on this topic please feel free to give me a call to mobile … We have taken a “no comment” position on it and are maintaining that but of course if there are any aspects you would like to discuss I am happy to talk them through with you.”?

Yes, he did, and he sent that email to the member some days ago.

💬 Clare Curran: Has he or his office received correspondence from the New Zealand On Air board chair, Neil Walter, dated 23 January 2012, advising him that the board does not intend to take any further action on the scheduling of programmes in a pre-election period, following legal advice, and advising the Minister that he was “discussing with Stephen McElrea how best to refute some of the wilder accusations made against him”, and noting that “The general question of political appointments is getting more attention now”?

Yes, and that was an email that Minister Foss sent to the Labour Party.

💬 Clare Curran: Is he still satisfied that Stephen McElrea has acted appropriately in his role as a New Zealand On Air board member at all times?

The Minister has confidence in the chair and the arrangements in respect of New Zealand On Air, and he has confidence in Mr McElrea.

💬 Clare Curran: I seek leave to table four documents released under the Official Information Act. The first is an email dated 18 January 2011 at 4.40 p.m.—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Just before the member goes through all these documents, can I check: have these been released publicly, or just to the member? I think it is important that we do understand.

If I could assist. An Official Information Act request came from the Leader of the Opposition to Mr Foss. He has responded, and has sent that information to the Labour Party, and I presume Labour is seeking to table the information—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is fine. I thank the Minister.

💬 Clare Curran: I seek leave to table four documents. The first is an email dated 18 January 2011 at 4.40 p.m., sent from the chair of the New Zealand On Air board to a number of recipients, including the Minister’s office, with an attachment document entitled “This story seems to have taken on a life of its own” by Mr Neil Walter.

💬 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.

💬 Clare Curran: The second is an email response dated 18 January at 5 p.m., from the Minister’s office to the chair of the New Zealand On Air board, saying “thanks for passing this on.”

💬 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.

💬 Clare Curran: The third document is an email dated 19 January from the Hon Craig Foss to a number of recipients, thanking the Chief Executive Officer of MediaWorks, Sussan Turner, for a document she has sent to him.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none.

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

💬 Clare Curran: The fourth document is an email entitled “NZ On Air”, dated 23 January, sent from the chair of New Zealand On Air to a number of recipients, including the Minister’s office, providing an update on the board’s intentions with regard to the “firestorm”, and outlining his discussions with Stephen McElrea on refuting the allegations.

💬 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.

Point of Order—Ministerial Responsibility, Phrasing of Questions

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance. It relates to the Prime Minister’s supplementary question on question No. 3 and the Hon Nick Smith’s supplementary question on question No. 7. I do not want a ruling today, but I perceive that there was a different logic that was applied to question No. 7 than was applied to my objection to the supplementary question in question No. 3, and I invite you to re-examine the Hansard and see whether we are correct or not.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not think I need to do that, because I recollect both questions reasonably clearly. The right honourable Prime Minister’s question was cleverly crafted to ask the Minister whether he had received any reports on a certain matter. The supplementary question from the Hon Dr Nick Smith was not crafted so carefully and did not fall within the Standing Orders. The one from the right honourable Prime Minister did, the one from the Hon Dr Nick Smith did not, and that is the difference. Ministers can be asked about whether or not they have received reports on certain things, but they cannot be asked directly about matters relating to other parties. That is the difference.