Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by all his statements with regard to asset sales?

Yes, including my statement that the Government would set out its mixed-ownership policy well in advance of election 2011. We did that. It was an election that saw National’s vote increase and Labour’s vote decimated.

💬 David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement that “In the world of making the boat go faster, actually I don’t think selling off State assets is going to make the boat go faster.”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I stand by that quote in relation to the context it was given when I said: “I personally think it’s not the issue that the current economy …”—actually, as we later went on to find out, Labour had so badly mismanaged the economy that we had a decade of deficits. I think it is actually one of 120 things that will help a little bit.

💬 David Shearer: Did he say: “There is no motivation to sell assets;” 10 days after Merrill Lynch collapsed, 10 days after Lehman Brothers collapsed, and 6 months after Bear Stearns collapsed, when the world was going into recession?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, as I said earlier, in the context of what I said, which was “I personally think it’s not the issue that the current economy faces.” Actually, the economy changed dramatically from there.

💬 David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement in answer to question for oral answer No. 6 on 7 June last year that a brokerage fee for selling assets of 1.9 percent is very low?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, because at the time I was referring to some advice that the Government had received about the range of fees, and they are up to about 10 percent, so 1.9 percent is quite low.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What reports has he seen on mixed-ownership models in other countries?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have seen a very interesting report about a country that has well and truly embraced the mixed-ownership model. That country—wait for it—is Finland. The large energy company Fortum is 51 percent owned by the Finnish Government and 49 percent owned by a mix of other investors, including Finnish mums and dads. The national airline is 56 percent owned by the Finnish Government, and the balance is owned by Finnish mums and dads and others. This is the same country that is repeatedly held up as a shining example of where New Zealand should be going by none other than David Shearer.

💬 David Shearer: Is it his view that a $150 million fee—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. I want to be able to hear this question.

💬 David Shearer: Is it his view that the $150 million fee for selling State assets is very low, and is it a low amount to pay merchant bankers Goldman Sachs, Macquarie Capital, and Credit Suisse?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is not confirmed that the fee would be of that magnitude. I certainly do not know that today. But what I do know is that to release $6 billion to $7 billion worth of capital to be used for other assets is a good idea. I think it will lead to a brighter future. That is something that David Shearer and I both want, so maybe he should just cut to the chase and vote National.

💬 Michael Woodhouse: What other reports has he seen on mixed-ownership models in other countries?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I have seen a report that one of the directors of the mixed-ownership energy company Fortum, which is 51 percent owned by the Finnish Government, is none other than the former Finnish Prime Minister Esko Aho. This is the same Esko Aho who is held up as an example of being a “wise Prime Minister making bold decisions to make his country a better place” last week by David Shearer. As I say, if he wants a brighter future he should just vote National.

💬 David Shearer: Is $150 million a “very low” amount to pay merchant bankers Goldman Sachs, Macquarie Capital, and Credit Suisse, and how does it compare with spending just $2.8 million to enable local family violence services to continue providing services?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: You simply cannot draw a comparison. Everybody knows that you will have to pay a fee to release that capital, but let us look at what that capital is going to be used for: $1 billion for 21st century schools, $400 million to lift New Zealand’s GDP for irrigation of the South Island and North Island—we know that Labour do not like farming. David Shearer said—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think that was sufficient answer. What Labour might or might not think is not the right honourable Prime Minister’s responsibility.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Release of Personal Information

2. to the Minister for ACC: Does she consider an independent inquiry into ACC’s management of the incident in which personal information relating to 6,700 claimants was sent to Bronwyn Pullar is needed; if not, why not?

Yes; that is why I fully support the Privacy Commissioner undertaking a review of both the August incident, when a data spreadsheet was wrongly sent to an ACC claimant who did not return it, and of ACC’s privacy policies and processes.

💬 Kevin Hague: Does she not agree that a fully independent inquiry is now needed, given that neither ACC’s interim report on the matter nor the scope of the inquiry announced by the Privacy Commissioner are adequate to cover the now public facts of the involvement of former National Party president Michelle Boag and former ACC Minister Nick Smith in the matter?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The Office of the Privacy Commissioner is an independent statutory office, established under section 12 of the Privacy Act 1993. It is absolutely independent. If the member has any other queries in relation to these issues, I suggest he takes them up with the Privacy Commissioner.

💬 Kevin Hague: When did she discover that former Minister for ACC Nick Smith had written a letter on official letterhead, drawing attention to his role as Minister for ACC, supporting Bronwyn Pullar?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I received an Official Information Act request from the New Zealand Herald, which I think was yesterday, alerting me to the fact that there was a letter of reference, and today I was able to read that letter because it had been released and was put on to a website.

💬 Kevin Hague: Has former ACC Minister Nick Smith’s letter concerning Ms Pullar been used in any ACC-related claim?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I would not be aware of that, but I am sure that the Privacy Commissioner’s review will be able to determine any of that.

💬 Kevin Hague: Would she write a letter in support of an ACC claimant while Minister?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: As Minister for ACC no, and I am sure that the member is aware that Dr Smith has said that he regretted the lapse in judgment. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to be able to hear Kevin Hague.

💬 Kevin Hague: What investigation is currently under way into whether the former Minister intervened in any other ACC claims involving friends of his?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not aware of any.

💬 Kevin Hague: How can the New Zealand public possibly have confidence in the institution of ACC or in ministerial independence unless and until every aspect of what has occurred is independently investigated?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member seems to ignore the fact that the Privacy Commissioner is independent. The terms of reference are still to be decided, but my view is that they need to be as wide as the Privacy Commissioner believes they should be, and that they should be very full. As the member should have seen by the fact that ACC released its report to me on Friday just gone and I asked ACC to release it on its website straight away, I will expect transparency.

Better Public Services—Economic Programme

3. to the Minister of Finance: How will the Government’s programme for delivering better public services within tight financial constraints contribute to the Government’s economic plan?

It will contribute in a couple of ways. The first is that the public sector makes up about a quarter of the New Zealand economy, so it makes a large contribution to our economic performance. Increases in productivity and skills in the public sector will benefit the whole economy, as well as those New Zealanders who expect public services to be maintained, even though there are tight financial constraints.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: What specific steps is the Government taking to ensure the Public Service is more innovative, efficient, and focused on delivering results?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: With the size and complexity of the public sector, the Government has been taking a large number of steps since it took office back in 2008, but more recently the Prime Minister announced three changes that will sharpen the public sector’s focus on delivering better services for New Zealanders. The Prime Minister has set 10 challenging and specific results for the public sector to achieve over the next 3 to 5 years. The Government has lowered the cap on full-time equivalent positions in core Government administration and created a single, dedicated Government department that will service business, indicatively called the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does he agree with the conclusions of the Better Public Services Advisory Group that better delivery of public services requires a clear understanding of the Government’s priorities; if so, which set of priorities does the Government want the public sector to focus on: the National Party’s six-point brighter future plan, the revised six-point brighter future plan with 41 actions, National’s 120-point action plan, the four priorities in the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister’s 10-point plan, Steven Joyce’s eight-point plan, Nick Smith’s eight-point plan, Bill English’s five themes for Government priorities, or any of the other multiple-action plans, strategies, and priority lists the Government is releasing, or will he simply admit that the Government cannot even get its own priorities set out straight, so how on earth is the public sector supposed to follow them?

💬 Hon Paula Bennett: What a busy Government.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: What a busy Government—there is no doubt about that. The member, of course, will understand that, for instance, the Ministry for the Environment will be focusing on things we want to achieve in respect of natural resources. That is logical enough, and they will be a bit different from what the Ministry of Social Development is focusing on. What I can tell the member is that no Government, including the previous Labour Government, has put itself to the test in respect of the 10 results that the Prime Minister announced last week. They will enable us to get to grips with long-running difficult issues in New Zealand, such as crime, reoffending rates, violence to children, and long-term welfare dependency. And I will welcome the member’s participation in providing ideas about how we can achieve those results better.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: What will be the main focus of the 10 results set by the Prime Minister for the public sector?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The main focus of those results is to simply test whether the tax paid over by taxpayers and spent by Government actually makes a difference. It is one thing to stand around wringing hands and writing strategies, like the last Labour Government did; it is another thing to test whether all our actions and all our funding are actually leading to change. Because the fact is, under the previous Government, with a huge upsurge in spending, many of our social problems got worse, not better.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Has the Minister seen reports that Treasury, which has no front-line staff, has increased its staff numbers by over 13 percent in the last 3 years and that the number of staff earning over $100,000 at Treasury has increased by 8 percent, and that in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which, coincidentally, also has no front-line staff, personnel costs have increased by over 13 percent and the department had an $800,000 budget blowout? And why is it that his department and the Prime Minister’s department are growing fatter while the rest of the Public Service, which provides genuine front-line public services, is having its funding cut?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member’s last statement is wrong. I could point out to him that Treasury and the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet have overseen a fairly significant event called the Christchurch earthquake, which has required the deployment of $9.5 billion of public money. If Treasury has been able to supervise that with the addition of a few staff, then it is doing an extremely good job.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: How will progress towards meeting each of the Public Service targets be measured?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is important to measure our progress, because good intentions simply are not enough. It is not enough to say that we care about children, or enough to say we think welfare dependency is a problem. So the results the Prime Minister has announced will require measurable and stretching targets. They will be public, and the public will have the opportunity not just to monitor progress but actually to participate. For instance, having a safer environment for our children will require the neighbours to make as much of a contribution to that child’s safety as Government bureaucrats. It will help us all understand our respective responsibilities.

Local Government Reforms—Implementation of Review Recommendations

4. to the Minister of Local Government: What recommendations from at least three government reviews of local government since 2006 are yet to be implemented, and if any have not been implemented yet, why not?

There were two reports in this period to the previous Labour Government and one to this Government. The report to this Government was from the royal commission of inquiry into Auckland governance. It had 169 recommendations, and we have largely implemented these. The debates at the select committee and in Parliament record why some recommendations were not implemented. The previous Government received two substantive reports. The first was the rates inquiry done by former Labour candidate David Shand in 2007. The then Government did very little with it, and I am not privy as to why. A key recommendation was that central government provide a share of GST to local government. Sadly, when we came into office the cupboard was bare, and that was not an option. We also believe the answer is not in shifting the costs, but in actually getting the steep rise in local government costs under better control. The third report was also received by the former Government and contained no substantial recommendations regarding legislative change. The one legislative change this recommended is included in yesterday’s announcements, and that is in respect of greater flexibility about the sizing of rural wards.

💬 Hon Annette King: Is he aware the Local Government Rates Inquiry panel said that although it received submissions suggesting amendments to the Local Government Act 2002 have led to increased costs because councils have moved into activities outside their core business, the panel could find little evidence to support this; and what new evidence has he received since last Tuesday, when he told me that he had no reports from local authorities on new core activities?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The rates inquiry in 2007 concluded that the very steep increase in rates between 2002 and 2007 was the transitional cost of implementing those new 2002 Act requirements, and that it expected in future years the rates increases would taper off. In fact, in the 5 years since we have seen rates increases continue to compound at 7 percent every year, and the conclusion that this Government comes to is that the 2002 very politically correct Local Government Act, which was put in place by members opposite, has proved to be a very expensive experiment for New Zealand landowners.

💬 Hon Annette King: When he said on radio this morning that councils’ job is not to replicate the private sector or the role of the Government but to “focus on those things only councils are able to provide”, will councils now need to sell their housing, bus services, and ownership of airports and ports, and remove subsidies for early childhood centres and so on because these are all activities the private sector is involved in; if not, where is the list of services that are in and those that are out?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The current provision in the Local Government Act is that councils are to provide for social, economic, environmental, and cultural well-being, and that is why councils can do absolutely everything: buy farms in Australia, be involved in greenhouse gas targets, run schools, run hospitals. The new provision in the law is going to be simply this: the core role of councils is to provide good quality local infrastructure, to provide local public services, and to provide regulatory functions. My view—and, interestingly, the widespread comment I have heard from all around New Zealand today—is that change is being broadly welcomed.

💬 Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I used the Minister’s own quote on what local government would do, and then asked him, would it now mean that local government will have to sell its housing, bus services, and ownership of airports and ports, and remove subsidies from early childhood centres because they are provided by the private sector; if not, what is the list that they would do? The Minister raved on about what was in his proposal—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was not doing too badly until she accused the Minister of raving on. [Interruption] Order! The Minister said that the new bill, if I heard correctly, would lay down what local government would be involved in, and that the list included local public services—and local public services cover a number of the issues that the member included in her letter. I cannot ask the Minister to answer in any particular way, but I think he made it pretty clear what his proposal would cover.

💬 Hon Annette King: Did he decide to include fiscal responsibility requirements in his eight-point reform plan on the advice of his coalition partner the Hon John Banks, who, in his last term as Mayor of Auckland, oversaw a trebling of the Auckland City Council’s debt from $135 million to $738 million, excluding debt associated with the formation of the super-city; or was it just a lapse of judgment?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: My colleague John Banks has been one of a group of Ministers, particularly in his role in regulatory reform, who have advocated for stronger fiscal discipline within local government. I would just suggest to the member opposite that since the 2002 Act, which Labour put in place, local government debt across New Zealand has grown from $2 billion to $8 billion. I ask members opposite to reflect on the assurances they gave ratepayers in 2002 that their changes would not result in increased rates—and they have done exactly that.

💬 Hon Annette King: Does he think it is fair to criticise councils for increasing their debt from $2 billion to $8 billion in 10 years, when his Government holds the record for increasing debt from $8 billion to $50 billion in just 4 years?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: When we came to Government we faced a decade of deficits from the fiscal mess left by the profligate Labour members opposite, and I must praise the Minister of Finance and the team that works in that area for setting out a clear plan for debt reduction. The difference between local and central government is that local government’s debt is projected to continue to increase, whereas this Government has set out a very clear plan to reduce borrowing.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I say to members that a little bit of steam has been let off, but the noise is—[Interruption] Order!—unacceptable.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou katoa. Can the Minister confirm that one of the outcomes from the review of local government was that local bodies should consult with whānau, hapū, and iwi in matters of mining licences to prospect, explore, and develop, for example, the East Coast of the North Island; and what evidence would he expect to be available to ensure that this happens?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I want to acknowledge the representations that the Māori Party has made to me as Minister of Local Government and as Minister for the Environment, and also to my colleague Phil Heatley around the importance of Māori being included in decisions around resources such as minerals. I know that there are specific consultation provisions that have been set down in respect of minerals. The member would also be aware of the very specific provisions that have been included in the exclusive economic zone legislation that has also been a consequence of the strong advocacy of the Māori Party.

💬 Hon Annette King: Is the difference between council debt and Government debt that councils have borrowed for vital infrastructure within their communities, whereas this Government has borrowed to give tax cuts to the wealthiest in New Zealand?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: It is ironic that members opposite have repeatedly objected to every measure this Government has taken to get fiscal costs under control, and that they have continuously argued, including in the election campaign, for more Government spending, not less. So I do not think there is any question in the House that it is members on this side of the House who represent fiscal prudence both in central and in local government.

Local Government Reforms—Rates and Debt Increases

5. to the Minister of Local Government: What steps is the Government taking to address the average national 7% per annum rate increase and the quadrupling of local government debt from $2 billion to $8 billion since the major reforms of 2002?

Yesterday the Prime Minister announced an eight-point programme of local government reform. This includes refocusing the purpose for councils, introducing fiscal responsibility requirements, stronger governance provisions, and a streamlined process for council reorganisation. It includes a comprehensive work programme on the compliance costs for local government on infrastructure, on development levies, and on local regulations, with important work being done by the Productivity Commission and also from the Auditor-General. I am confident that these better local government reforms will help slow the escalating rates bill that we have seen since 2002.

💬 Nicky Wagner: What response has the Minister received to the Better Local Government reform package from key sectors like Local Government New Zealand, Business New Zealand, Property Council New Zealand, Federated Farmers, or mayors, councils, or chief executives?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The President of Local Government New Zealand, Lawrence Yule, says that the councils are broadly supportive of these proposals. Business New Zealand welcomes the reforms; it said that they were overdue and would be overwhelmingly positively received by business. Property Council New Zealand applauded the reforms and the overhaul of local government law, and Federated Farmers said that these changes could not come soon enough. I have also received numerous positive responses from individual mayors and councils. Although there is a broad and diverse view across the sector, the vast bulk of them realise that the sector needs to change with changing times.

💬 Nicky Wagner: What is the substantive change intended by the new purpose clause of the local government legislation, and how does it differ from the 2002 and previous 1974 Act?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The new clause makes plain that the role of councils is to provide that good quality infrastructure, local public services, and local regulatory roles at the least possible cost to households and businesses. Councils will have wide discretion within these in determining what infrastructure and public services are appropriate for their community. However, it is not nearly as broad and open ended as the 2002 Act that let councils buy farms in Australia, and let them run schools or hospitals or any number of services. I want to emphasise, though, that we are not intending to return to the quite prescriptive 1974 Act; our approach is balanced, common-sense, and provides the right framework for our councils to play their important role.

State Sector—Restructuring

6. to the Minister of State Services: Does he agree that few problems are solved by significant reorganisations—in fact many more tend to be created and it is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change, as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge?

Yes, but I also agree with what the Prime Minister said last week, which was that “We’ve always said that there’ll be a high hurdle for structural change in the public sector. My speech is not going to be about mergers for mergers’ sake. So we are not looking at wholesale restructuring, but there is one area of the public sector’s operations where we think that structural change is needed.” I would add that the case for the new Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment clears that hurdle, and the potential benefits are clear.

💬 Chris Hipkins: What is his definition of “significant reorganisation”?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, when you are talking about significant reorganisation, you could ask how long is a piece of string. But the point we are making here is that this makes sense. And there is support from Labour. Mr Cunliffe—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member was asked what he understood by “significant reorganisation”, and went on to talk about Labour.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, they do need significant reorganisation.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat. And while I am on my feet, he will not offer me advice.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister could now answer the question, which is what is his definition—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! It seemed to me the Minister did answer. He seemed to liken it to the length of a piece of string. So it seems that that was an answer.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that multiple departmental mergers, 2,500 job cuts, and the closure of several regional offices by Public Service agencies amount to significant restructuring; and if so, why does he not believe that the Prime Minister should have fronted up and said before the election that they were intending to do such significant reorganisation, rather than reinventing after the election what he said?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: No, but what I do know is that the Public Service grew by 40 percent under Labour. It was getting very bloated and inefficient, and, frankly, something has to be done about it so it supports New Zealand business and gets the economy going ahead, and that is what we are going to do.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does he believe that the staff working for the Ministry of Science and Innovation or the staff working for the Department of Building and Housing policy unit would view the disestablishment of their agencies less than 2 years after they were significantly reorganised by his Government as amounting to significant restructuring; and if not, why not?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: There will be a range of beliefs across the Public Service, but what I do know is that the majority of public servants know that we do need some reform of the Public Service, and they also knew they were not going to get it under Labour.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has he had of overseas precedents for a Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I have read reports of a Ministry of Employment and the Economy, which is responsible for innovation, for the functioning of the labour market, for employment, and for economic development. It was the result of a 2007 merger of three Government departments and it has been very, very successful. It is in a country that Mr Shearer is very keen on, and that country is Finland.

💬 Chris Hipkins: How does he reconcile the Prime Minister’s statement that the establishment of this new superministry is not change for change’s sake when two of the departments being merged into the new superministry have already faced significant restructuring by his Government, or is he admitting that his Government got it wrong the first time?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Quite easily.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can the Minister tell us how he expects to solve problems, for example, offshore when we will have in our offshore bases in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2½ times to 2¾ times fewer people than, say, countries like Singapore and Norway in a modern commercial setting?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, that member must have some information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade old boys, because, quite frankly, the proposals are out for discussion and no decisions have been made.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He is the Minister; I am asking him. How does he think the problem is going to be better solved with dramatically fewer people and with a disparity of that type between those leading countries?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister’s answer, though, is a fair answer in saying that no decisions have been made and therefore he cannot comment on such alleged reductions. That is a reasonable answer from a Minister. I suspect the time may come when it will not be, but for the moment that is a reasonable answer from the Minister.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of a significant step change in 2008 in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which saw a significant investment made in our people and resources offshore, which now seems to be imperilled by his Government’s recent statements?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I am aware of is that that member secured a whole lot of funding to open embassies, which would shore up his own position, and we are now having to—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] There will be silence. The question asked was not an unreasonable question, and I do not think it deserved an abusive answer. I invite the Minister to answer the question within the Standing Orders because it was not an unreasonable question. I think the answer was heading down a totally unacceptable track.

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Would you like to ask it again?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is the Minister aware of the step change organised by yours truly in 2008 for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: Extra expenditure, you mean?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: —I beg your pardon—and a significant investment in both personnel and resources offshore for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and does he not understand that all the recent statements from the Government where the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is concerned imperil that investment?

💬 Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: I am aware that that investment might not be fit for New Zealand’s overseas strategic interests 4 years on from that member’s tenure as Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Better Public Services—Welfare Reforms

7. to the Minister for Social Development: How will the current welfare reforms support the Government’s better public services programme?

One of the 10 Better Public Services result areas is reducing long-term welfare dependency. The Government believes the investment we are making in welfare reforms will reduce welfare dependency, by moving to a future liability model; changing how we support people into work, and when we support people into work and work with different groups; making major changes to welfare system settings; and creating a new organisational structure to deliver these reforms.

💬 Tim Macindoe: What other result areas will welfare reforms contribute towards?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: We expect welfare reforms will also contribute towards supporting vulnerable children, by reducing child assaults and increasing participation in early childhood education; boosting skills and employment, by helping to increase the proportion of 18-year-olds with a National Certificate of Education Achievement level 2 qualification or similar; and ensuring New Zealanders can complete their transactions with the Government easily in a digital environment, by using an advanced version of our current payment card.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Has the payment card already led to efficiencies in the payment of benefits and other assistance?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. Since November 2009 we have saved taxpayers $6.4 million in those 2 years by putting special-needs grants for food on to payment cards. This is from a combination of staff time, administration costs, and Crown savings. In addition, it has also made it easier for retailers, has given us better data on that spend, has been more convenient for users, meaning less time spent at Work and Income New Zealand, and has freed up staff by saving up to 8 minutes per transaction.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Can she assure the House that her Government’s value-for-money or public services programme will not lead to the closure, or what she might call mergers, of any Work and Income offices?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: As the member would know, we have picked up the Community Link programme, which her own Government started, and we have actually merged a whole lot more services into Community Link over the last 4 years anyway. We have seen the Inland Revenue Department, housing and budgeting services, the Salvation Army in some cases, and different organisations actually merging into the same building as it is. It happened under her Government; it is happening under this one.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Release of Personal Information

8. to the Minister for ACC: Will she set up an independent inquiry to reassure all New Zealanders that ACC and its Ministers act with the utmost integrity when in possession of people’s intimate and sensitive information?

I am confident that the independent Privacy Commissioner’s review will outline the next steps for the ACC’s handling of personal information, and I encourage anyone with concerns or allegations around this to make a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner.

💬 Andrew Little: Is it correct that up to the time of the meeting in December 2011 of two senior managers from ACC, ACC claimant Bronwyn Pullar, and former National Party president Michelle Boag, ACC had no knowledge of the mass privacy breach of 6,700 ACC claimants?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I believe that the member is correct. I believe that ACC was not aware—from the report that it has given me, which I had released last Friday—of the nature of the alleged breach, and, consequently, it was not able to get that information back.

💬 Andrew Little: If ACC had no knowledge of the mass privacy breach, at the time of the December 2011 meeting, why did ACC send two senior managers to a meeting with an ACC claimant?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I suggest that that is going to come out in the Privacy Commissioner’s review, and I further note that ACC has sought the assistance of the New Zealand Police.

💬 Andrew Little: What actions were taken—between the time of the December 2011 meeting and 12 March 2012, when the mass privacy breach became public—by ACC to recover the wrongly released information?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That information has already been released in the report that was put on the ACC’s website last Friday. I am surprised the member has not read it, because it is quite clear in that report that—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Come on, this is Parliament. Answer here, not on a website.

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am happy to table it, if the member would like me to. It is quite clear that ACC wrote to the claimant and asked to get back any information that she had—confidential information that she should not have had in her possession—and that she had not given back to ACC.

💬 Andrew Little: What assurances can she give that the undertaking given on the ACC website that “any information” collected by the sensitive claims unit “is seen only by sensitive claims unit staff and in some cases an independent assessor.” is being observed?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Quite clearly, with the information that was inadvertently provided to the claimant, who then did not give the information back to ACC, there was some information relating to some sensitive claims unit claimants. I think that is an appalling breach, quite frankly, of their privacy. So I am not yet convinced that all the steps that need to be taken have been taken, and that is why not only is the Privacy Commissioner conducting a review of what has happened and the way forward but also there is going to be a review of all the processes to make sure that this does not happen again. But I would say to that member that over the years there has been the odd instance where there has been a privacy breach. This was one inadvertently made by ACC, and I do not think that anybody would think that the staff member, who had this spreadsheet attached to the email, did so deliberately.

💬 Andrew Little: How many other privacy breaches is the Minister aware of involving a former Minister for ACC writing on behalf of a single claimant, and a former president of the National Party and other people being involved in it?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am not aware of any in those particular circumstances. However, I am aware of a former Minister in the previous Labour Government releasing confidential information.

Business Growth—Government Initiatives

9. to the Minister for Economic Development: What actions is the Government taking to drive business growth in New Zealand?

For New Zealand to succeed and grow more strongly, we need more and bigger companies that can successfully compete around the world. That is why the Government is focusing its actions across a number of inputs into businesses to help those businesses to become more competitive. For example, in the innovation area the Government is investing significantly larger sums in science and research to help develop New Zealand’s knowledge base, and is building an ultra-fast broadband network to change the way companies do business. In the export markets area, the Government is working very hard to negotiate free-trade agreements to open up further new markets for exporters. It has set up a new agency to market international education on the country’s behalf, and it is running a series of ministerial trade missions to help companies take their products to new markets.

💬 Colin King: What action is the Government taking to accelerate implementation of the business growth agenda?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is taking many actions, including, as it announced last week, bringing various Government agencies closer together to assist in advancing our business growth agenda more quickly. Currently, for example, we have a number of smaller agencies spread across Government dealing with the issues faced by business. By merging a number of these agencies together into the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment we will achieve better coordination and better quality advice, and give businesses one agency to talk to. By merging together, this new agency will give the Government a greater ability to deal with important cross-agency problems such as innovation, developing skilled workforces, and lifting productivity and competitiveness.

Housing Quality and Availability—Māori Child Health Concerns

10. to the Minister of Housing: Is he concerned that poor quality and overcrowded housing is contributing to high rates of infectious and respiratory diseases among Māori children?

Yes. That is why this Government has, over the last 4 years, invested in more than 55,000 upgrades of State houses, including more than 32,500 upgrades relating to insulation, energy efficiency, and heating. The Government is also committing to the insulation of all State houses, where practical, by the end of 2012-13.

💬 Holly Walker: What specific steps is he undertaking to reduce household crowding, given that the incidence of rheumatic fever—an entirely preventable disease for which household crowding is a major risk factor—has increased rapidly under his Government’s watch, especially amongst Māori children?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: When we took over the housing portfolio, we discovered that a third of the State houses across New Zealand were in the wrong place, of the wrong size, or in a serious state of disrepair. We are currently going through a reconfiguration of State houses, meaning that where there are larges houses with one or two people in them, those tenants are being offered smaller houses, so we can shift larger families in. We have discovered that at every turn, though, every time we try to shift one person out of a large house or redevelop a quarter-acre or half-acre section, other parties in this Parliament oppose it.

💬 Katrina Shanks: What other initiatives has the Government implemented to help increase the quality of people’s housing?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Government has also introduced the very successful Warm Up New Zealand campaign to assist renters not in State houses and homeowners with insulation and clean heating. My very close colleague the Minister of Energy and Resources informs me that this has resulted in the retrofitting and insulation of 140,000 homes, of which 77,000 belong to people on low incomes. I would like to congratulate that Minister and also acknowledge the help that he has had from Hekia Parata and Gerry Brownlee.

💬 Holly Walker: Does he consider that housing availability is at crisis point in Auckland and now Christchurch, with families reporting doubling up in houses, sleeping with whole families in single rooms, and housing family members in cars and garages due to a lack of affordable State and private rental housing?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Yes, we recognise that there are pressure points, particularly in those two cities. In Auckland we have announced that we will be increasing the number of State houses there, but of course there are other areas of the country where we do not require State houses. Unfortunately, other parties in this Parliament oppose our selling State houses in areas of low need and rebuilding houses in areas of high need. They oppose our shifting people out of large houses, and even when vandals and gang members abuse their neighbours, the other parties oppose us in this Parliament. We are looking at the problem. We want to house the right number of people in the right-sized house, and that is what we are doing.

💬 Holly Walker: Why will his Government not address this housing availability crisis, reduce the incidence of infectious diseases, save millions of dollars in health care costs, and create up to 9,000 new jobs by adopting the Green Party’s plan to build 2,000 new State and community houses by 2014?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I think I made it clear that we are going to insulate, where practical, every single State house in this country—up and down this country—by the end of 2012-13. Furthermore, we are reconfiguring the State housing stock, so that we do not have single people rattling around in four bedrooms and other families crowded into two. The Green Party opposes every single practical move that other New Zealanders see as sensible, including redeveloping half-acre and quarter-acre sections. That is what we are doing. The Green Party opposes it, and I cannot do anything about that.

💬 Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague’s question was specifically about whether or not the Government would take up the suggestion of building 2,000 more State houses. The Minister’s answer was an interesting one, to another question about what the Government was going to be doing instead of that. He did not actually address the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is something of a shame that the member’s colleague did not leave the question at that point, instead of inviting the Minister to comment on Green Party policy. It is a dangerous move for members asking questions to invite comment on their own party’s policy. The Minister, clearly, in answer to the first part of the question—he had better correct me if I am wrong—said that no, the Government’s strategy was to do other things than build a whole lot more State houses. If that is not a correct response to the first part of the question, then the Minister had better correct that. But on the second part, he was simply offering his views, as invited, on the Green Party policy.

💬 Holly Walker: I seek leave to table the key findings of a University of Otago report on the health of Māori children and young people, which shows that Māori children are 23 times more likely to contract rheumatic fever than non-Māori children.

💬 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.

Road Safety—Changes to Give-way Rules

11. to the Associate Minister of Transport: What is the Government doing to raise awareness about upcoming changes to the give way rules?

The Government is investing $1.2 million in an intensive public awareness campaign, including leaflets, television and radio ads, web resources, published articles, and media releases. The New Zealand Transport Agency resources have been available since February for councils, police, the Automobile Association, driving instructors, and other key organisations to ensure a consistency of message. It is very important that drivers take extra care at intersections once the give-way rules change on 25 March.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: How many people have been reached by the public awareness campaign?

💬 Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: The public information campaign was launched on 15 March, and will run for 17 days. It is estimated that TV ads will reach 90 to 95 percent of road users at least once, and 80 to 85 percent of road users at least three times, and that print, radio, and website advertising will reach at least 70 percent of road users.

💬 Jami-Lee Ross: What messages are being promoted by the campaign?

💬 Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: That is an excellent question. The advertising focuses on highlighting the date of the change, and provides a simple overview of the new rules, with the following key messages. At cross-intersections—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Who wrote this rubbish?

💬 Hon CHRIS TREMAIN: You might want to listen to this, Trevor, so you do not get yourself into trouble. At cross-intersections, if you are turning right, give way. The second rule is, at T-intersections, “The top of the T goes before me.” Simple stuff, Trev; even you should be able to understand that.

Maternity Services—Minister’s Statements

12. to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements as Minister of Health?

Within context, yes.

💬 Barbara Stewart: How does he reconcile his statement of 5 May 2011 that he is committed to providing “the best possible services to protect the safety of mothers and babies,” with the latest news that Wanganui mothers have to drive to Palmerston North to have their babies?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: The member is confusing the current status of a consultation that is under way in both the Whanganui District Health Board and the MidCentral District Health Board, which is in response to very longstanding concerns about the provision of maternity services in Wanganui. Communities have had an opportunity to have a say, and the board will be considering that within, I think, the next couple of months. The board’s priority and my priority is that the safety of mothers and babies must be paramount.

💬 Barbara Stewart: What instructions is the Minister giving to the Whanganui District Health Board to ensure that safe delivery facilities are available to mothers-to-be in the Wanganui district and its surrounds?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: The Whanganui District Health Board, as the member will know, has had a long history of difficulty of obtaining obstetric support—having enough obstetricians to be able to ensure that it can continue to provide the sort of quality service that we would want. As a result, doctors, nurses, and midwives from the area have worked on a proposal that they think will provide improved safety and quality for mothers. That is being consulted on. My advice to the Whanganui District Health Board and MidCentral District Health Board is that the Government’s major concern is that the safety of mothers and babies should be paramount, and we expect that in all their considerations.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any requests or entreaties from the Whanganui-based Minister for Whānau Ora offering to return $5 million from Whānau Ora for family reunions and the like—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Leave it to Barbara. She’s much better.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I beg your pardon?

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Leave it to Barbara.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I just ask the member to resume his seat for one moment—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh, I see, a new Māori best friend wants—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I ask the member to resume his seat for one moment. Members know that if they make interjections at inappropriate times, members on their feet are likely to respond, and it is not helpful. The Rt Hon Winston Peters may commence his question again.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Minister received any requests or entreaties from the Whanganui-based Minister for Whānau Ora offering to return $5 million from Whānau Ora for family reunions and the like back to the health budget so that women in Whanganui, and Māori women as well, may have a safe birth in their own town rather than having to travel miles to Palmerston North?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: No, the Minister has not specifically made that point to me, but I think Mrs Turia has reflected the concern of a lot of people that it does sound a big ask to ask significant numbers of women to travel to Palmerston North to have their babies. But at the same time we have a service in Wanganui that we want to be able to make sure we can give an assurance of quality and safety. That is why the doctors, the nurses, and the midwives have worked on a plan that is being consulted on that they think can provide long-lasting surety to those mothers and babies.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek to table a report from the Office of the Auditor-General dated 15 June 2011, page 3, showing $5 million going from Vote Health to Whānau Ora.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I presume this is a document that is actually available to all members as part of the Auditor-General’s reports to Parliament, is it? Can I just check with the right honourable member, because we do not table documents that are available to all members. Can he just confirm for me whether or not that is the case.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: This was an Office of the Auditor-General briefing to the Māori Affairs Committee. Presumably if they all went to their colleagues they could get a copy, but it is not generally—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Briefings to parliamentary committees are available to all members. We do not seek leave to table those.