Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement regarding her newly appointed welfare board that “I’m backing the board to guide the investment approach, I’m backing Work and Income to implement it”?

Yes.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Given the board is part of what she has called the biggest reforms in a decade, has she made simple decisions like whether the head of Work and Income will report to the welfare board or vice versa, given that just a few weeks ago, when asked this question in writing, she replied: “While the new Work and Income Board is being established, decisions on how exactly it will operate are still being finalised.”?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I have. The role of the board is to advise and support the chief executive, amongst other things.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Can the Minister assure the House that the resignation of the deputy chief executive and head of Work and Income is in no way related to the appointment of the welfare board, the imposition of Paula Rebstock as chair—again—and the lack of clarity around who is now responsible for what?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I absolutely can assure the House of that. I think it is absolutely clear that I as Minister and the chief executive are in those top roles, seeking advice and support from the board. I was saddened to hear of Janet Grossman’s resignation, but I wish her well in her future endeavours.

💬 Tim Macindoe: Can the Minister explain why she backs Work and Income to implement the investment approach and welfare reform?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I back Work and Income to deliver because it has proven that it can. It has delivered on youth unemployment numbers most recently by getting them down to around only 13,000 now on the youth unemployment benefit. It has delivered on Future Focus and has made savings already in that area. Last year it delivered to 82,000 people who went off benefit and into work. If it can deliver all of that in a very difficult climate, of course I back it to deliver further.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: What was the explanation the Minister was given as to why the head of Work and Income resigned, and did it justify her handing in her notice on Wednesday last week and leaving just 2 days later, rather than seeing out a notice period?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I know the member would like to see a conspiracy theory; there simply is not one. She handed in her notice because, as far as I was informed, her husband has had job opportunities in the UK and she wishes to return back there. That is the reason for it. It is a shame the member did not have the fortitude to actually ask these questions in the estimates hearing yesterday, because she may have got a more fulsome answer, as one can give at that time.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Supplementary—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear this supplementary question.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Is she satisfied that relocation fees paid for her now departing head of Work and Income, which were expected to be as high as $50,000, and the recruitment costs for this significant overseas appointment represented value for money, given her short stay and quick departure?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Any decisions around that are operational and are made by the chief executive.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Metiria Turei. [Interruption] Order, I want to hear Metiria Turei’s question.

Skycity, Convention Centre—Expressions of Interest Process

My question is to the Minister for Economic Development and asks: does he stand by his statement that he was “not at all concerned” about signing a deal with SkyCity—

Order! I apologise to the member. Could I ask both sides at the front here, please, to cease this cross-interjection. It is discourteous. The member may start again.

2. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement that he was “not at all concerned” about signing a deal with SkyCity for a convention centre, before the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the deal is complete?

Yes, I stand by my quote that I was not at all concerned about negotiations continuing, firstly, because there is no certainty that any deal will be concluded prior to the Auditor-General’s findings being released—and, indeed, as I have said a number of times previously, there remains no guarantee that a deal will be concluded at all—and, secondly, because the signing of any deal is not the end of the matter. There would likely be legislation required to go through the House. So there is plenty of opportunity to continue to look at things on the way through, and plenty of water to flow under the bridge.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, who today did another U-turn on a serious issue, saying that he would now be pretty cautious about signing up to a deal while the Auditor-General’s inquiry is under way?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, I am well aware that the Prime Minister said that he would be cautious, and I looked back at my transcript yesterday and I saw that I was pretty cautious, as well, and pointed out that there was a whole bunch of things that would have to occur and we would just step our way quietly through it. I cannot quite see the distinction the member tries to make.

💬 Metiria Turei: How does the Prime Minister’s new, cautious approach fit with the Minister’s comment yesterday—and I quote—“yes, certainly we don’t see any reason to delay negotiations”; and does not his comment demonstrate contempt for the Office of the Auditor-General?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In answer to the second part, absolutely not at all. Again, as I have said, the Prime Minister has also said—as have I—that there is no reason for negotiations not to continue, but we of course are taking a cautious approach on the way through it.

💬 Metiria Turei: What advice has the Minister received on the financial or legal impact on any deal signed with the casino should the Auditor-General find that the Government’s expressions of interest process is flawed?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have not sought or received any advice on that at this time, but again I would point out to the member that just because the Auditor-General seeks to proceed with an inquiry, as of course is his right to do so, does not mean that actually anything is being done wrong. In fact, I would quote to the member from the New Zealand Herald today, where at least three of the other tenderers are quoted. One of them, Ngāti Whātua, felt that calling for tenders again would be “a waste of taxpayers’ money”, The Edge said that the company “felt the tender process had been robust at the time.”, and ASB Showgrounds said that it had no concerns about the tender process and that “We’ve been involved in a lot of tenders. This one was done with the utmost efficiency.”

💬 Metiria Turei: Is the Minister concerned that the Auditor-General will inquire into the inadequacy of his assessment of the full costs of the casino deal, including the costs of increased gambling and increased gambling harm in Auckland City?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Not at all. I am very, very confident in the process and confident in the way it has been handled by the ministry.

💬 Metiria Turei: Will the Minister take the responsible course, demonstrate genuine respect for the Office of the Auditor-General and fiscal responsibility for the public of New Zealand, and confirm that his Government will not proceed with the casino deal until the Auditor-General has completed her inquiry?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am happy to confirm that the Government sees no reason why the negotiations cannot continue in parallel. They have been going on for some time. I also confirm for the Greens that we of course have respect for the Office of the Auditor-General in this regard, and also that the Government is very keen, obviously, to progress with a range of things. I appreciate that the Greens pretty much want all of them stopped, but we are continuing to progress a number of initiatives to create jobs and growth for New Zealanders.

💬 Grant Robertson: Can the Minister tell the House that all those businesses that were approached or tendered under this process were given the same information and instructions about what was required in a tender document?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can confirm that the Ministry for Economic Development conducted a robust process. It conducted a number of expressions of interest. I do not know the exact detail the member refers to, but I am confident that the ministry conducted a robust process that was fair to all parties.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree that a convention centre built under any other deal would also result in more jobs for Auckland, which is a good thing, but without the subsequent harm caused by increased gambling from this casino deal?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Of course a convention centre creates opportunities for jobs. In fact, there was a previous one done in Auckland with the support of the Green Party, which was a confidence and supply partner of Labour at the time. It was a deal that was struck under the supervision of the Labour Government back in 2001, where an organisation called Skycity was given the opportunity to build a convention centre in return for increased poker machines at the time. In fact, it was opened by then Minister Mark Burton, and also was supported by the then Prime Minister, Helen Clark, who said proudly: “In Auckland, Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre, and Auckland City has rebranded and upgraded its convention facilities … Here in New Zealand it has been pleasing to see continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure.” [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been called—the Hon Trevor Mallard.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister should be warned about his answer in that that negotiation was done by—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat immediately. The member will resume his seat. That is a direct abuse of the point of order process—

💬 Hon Member: Again!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! And there will be no comment on my right, either. I will not tolerate the point of order process being abused like that. When I get to my feet members will resume their seats. I will not tolerate that kind of abuse.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the Minister aware that the negotiation around that was done by the chair of the Casino Control Authority, the well-known Tory Judith Collins?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I appreciate that Mr Mallard is quite tribal, but she, of course, was doing so under the Labour Government of the time. It was, in fact, signed off by the acting chair of the Casino Control Authority. The point is that the Prime Minister and the Labour Government welcomed the deal, welcomed the investment, and thought it was fantastic, and, once again, what they will do in Government they say in Opposition they will not do—which just goes to show it is just politics they are playing.

Economic Recovery—Economic Programme

3. to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government assisting households and competitive businesses through these tough world economic times?

The Reserve Bank reminded us again this morning just how tough world economic times are: “Economic and political stresses in the euro area have been rising,” and “the euro area [is projected to] remain in recession for the rest of 2012 and recover only modestly thereafter.” However, with responsible fiscal management the Government is very focused on getting its own books in order, and one of the benefits of that is the official cash rate being lower than it otherwise would be if Government borrowing was higher and debt was rising unsustainably. Lower interest rates flow through to cheaper borrowing costs for households and businesses, which saves millions and millions in extra interest costs.

💬 Maggie Barry: What else is the Government doing to assist households and competitive businesses?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is implementing its comprehensive business growth agenda, which the Opposition would like to stop, in order to provide the right environment for competitive businesses to get ahead. The Government is working hard to make New Zealand an attractive place to do business. We have improved the country’s tax structure; we are taking steps to increase investment in science and innovation; in the skills area we are training more university students than ever before; we are investing heavily in core infrastructure, like roads, rail, and broadband; and we are moving to provide easier access to capital, natural resources, and export markets. All of these initiatives are ones that are opposed the strongest by those who complain the loudest—

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I invite the Minister to table that answer, which he was clearly reading out.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer was somewhat lengthy. I accept that.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is it correct that the Reserve Bank has reduced its forecasts for growth in New Zealand’s GDP to an even smaller fraction of the average growth rates projected for our 16 main trading partners, has decreased its forecasts of underlying productivity growth, and has forecast an increased external deficit and rising net international liabilities; if so, is he ready to accept that it was unwise of the Prime Minister to title his pre-Budget speech “Budget 2012—sticking to a plan that’s working”?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I do not agree with the member at all. The last two matters that he raises have been in most of the summaries going forward. In terms of the first two, I think the point that is being made once again by the Reserve Bank is just how volatile it is to do forecasts at this time. I would note that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is in the difficult position of having to produce a Monetary Policy Statement ahead of the Greek elections this weekend, which could have a significant impact on the short to medium-term economic prospects for the whole world.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: It’s all about Greece.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I appreciate, again, that the Opposition likes to pretend that the world does not exist, but out here in the real world it actually does exist, and the Government responds appropriately to it.

Skycity, Convention Centre—Expressions of Interest Process

4. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does he stand by his statement that “the Auditor-General’s process will not impact on the Government’s negotiations with SkyCity”; if so, why?

Yes, I do stand by that statement, because there is no practical reason they cannot continue in parallel. I do appreciate that the member always wants to slow everything down when it comes to jobs and growth, but we want to progress things as much as is practicable.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Has the convention centre tender process fully complied with Treasury’s Guidelines for Contracting with Non-Government Organisations for Services Sought by the Crown, with the Auditor-General’s Procurement guidance for public entities, and in particular with the requirements for “Clear ethical standards, which address conflicts of interest and promote required standards of public sector conduct, minimising exposure to the risk of litigation, and meeting the overriding considerations of openness, lawfulness, and integrity.”?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I thank the member for the speech. I have no concerns about the process.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Can he confirm that the earlier decision in 2001 was carried under the signature not of the then Minister, Mark Burton, but in fact of the then chair of the Casino Control Authority, his very close colleague the Hon Judith Collins, and can he further confirm that that decision—I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to say—involved no change in the law?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Actually, my understanding is the decision was signed by the acting chair at the time, P J Dew, on behalf of the Government of the day and the Casino Control Authority.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Oh, a technicality.

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Oh, it is a technicality now, says the member. Oh, it is a little technicality now! Having decided that he would raise it, it is a technicality. I appreciate that Labour is now embarrassed, not only that it allowed Skycity to build—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister’s answer was fine to that point, but he was embarking on a speech himself at that point.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: Has any other party been offered a change in the law in any other commercial relationship in which he, his office, or his ministry have been, or are, involved?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have no idea what the member is referring to. What I can say in relation to the casino law is that it was changed after that decision the Labour Government made, so it not only allowed it to occur, but it then pulled the ladder up—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister should be responsive when the Speaker gets to his feet. The Minister answered the question. He said he was unaware of any such circumstance, and the rest was all superfluous.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table Treasury’s 2009 Guidelines for Contracting with Non-Government Organisations for Services Sought by the Crown.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table the Controller and Auditor-General’s 2008 good-practice guide Procurement guidance for public entities.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a 2010 email from the office of the Hon Gerry Brownlee, advising the makers of the Hobbit films, before the public was allowed to know, that the so-called positive developments in industrial laws would soon be announced by the Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a 2011 Buddle Findlay report, providing information about Steven Joyce’s offer of a long-term 10-year regulatory holiday for Telecom New Zealand.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Hon David Cunliffe: I seek leave to table a 2011 Journalism, Media and Democracy Research Centre report, which discusses the shady Government loan to MediaWorks, a company that Mr Joyce owned until recently.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table—[Interruption] Order! A point of order is being considered, and I understand the member is seeking leave to table a document that contains certain words. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Scott Simpson: Has he seen any reports endorsing convention centre deals in return for gambling concessions, including extra machines?

💬 Hon STEVEN JOYCE: In fact, I have, and as I rise I would say that the member opposite has just illustrated all the things that he does not want to do to create jobs in New Zealand. But I have seen a report from 2004 stating: “Here in New Zealand it has been pleasing to see continuing investment in the quality of our tourism infrastructure. In Auckland, Sky City has pumped $140 million into its new Convention Centre,”. This, of course, was in reaction to Skycity’s 2001 deal with the Government of the day that resulted in 230 extra gaming machines in return for Skycity’s current convention centre. I let the members draw their own conclusions about the relationship between 2001 and today. But it might help to note that the quote was from a former Labour Prime Minister, one Helen Clark.

Employment Programmes—Job Streams Package

5. to the Minister for Social Development: What announcements has the Government made today on employment assistance?

This morning the Prime Minister and I have announced a simpler, more flexible, business-focused package of employment programmes called Job Streams. It takes an investment approach, where the support will be individually targeted, and will cost $62 million for the next financial year. We are doing more of what works, less of what does not, and making it easier for businesses to hire young people and others.

💬 Hon Tau Henare: Who will be able to find work using the new Job Streams package?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Rather than spread employment support thinly across all groups, this new approach will target those most at risk of remaining on welfare long-term, particularly young people, but is also available to those on the DPB and also those on the sickness benefit. When this package comes into effect from 1 July this year, priority will be given to young people who are at high risk of long-term benefit dependence.

State-owned Assets, Sales—Mixed Ownership Model Bill

6. to the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Does he stand by all his statements with regard to asset sales?

on behalf of the Minister for State Owned Enterprises: Yes, absolutely, within the context they were given.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Does he stand by his statement regarding asset sales that “This legislation and debate is about debt … it is about controlling our nation’s debt.”, and given that according to Treasury and the Budget Policy Statement selling assets will increase the deficit and debt in the long term, leaving the country worse off, will he accept Labour’s proposed amendment that prevents the sale of State-owned enterprises with control of water resources, given that his Government’s own support party United Future has pledged not to sell our water resources off?

I think there were about four legs in that question. I certainly do not agree with his characterisation of Treasury’s view of the mixed-ownership model.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Given the deficiencies outlined in the Mixed Ownership Model Bill, will he accept Labour’s proposed amendments that would make these companies subject to the Official Information Act and allow oversight by the Ombudsman in order to safeguard the public interest; if not, why not?

I do not accept the supposition in the first clause of that member’s question.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Will he accept Labour’s proposed amendment that would prevent New Zealand - based energy-generating assets from being sold offshore; if not, why not?

It is important for the member to note that the Government at all times is going to hold on to at least 51 percent of these State-owned enterprises. I appreciate that seems to be something he is determined to miss, but, nevertheless, it happens to be the case.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was an extremely straight question. It simply asked—

I think the answer is no.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Well, if the answer is going to be given, it should be given in the proper way, I would put to you, Mr Speaker. It asked a very straight question. It required a straight answer.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point of order is a perfectly fair point of order. If I recollect his question correctly, though, he asked whether the Minister would support a Labour Party amendment that would prevent State assets from being sold overseas. The Minister answered that, as I heard him. The Minister pointed out that the assets could not be sold overseas, because over 50 percent of the ownership remained with the Government. So the majority ownership of the assets would remain in New Zealand hands. That was what he said—that the Government was retaining over 50 percent and therefore they could not be sold overseas. That was the problem with the wording of the question. I accept that it looked simple but it actually left an out for the Minister.

Bail Legislation—Reform

7. to the Minister of Justice: What is the Government doing to protect New Zealanders from people charged with serious crime?

This Government is delivering on its promises to reduce crime and protect New Zealanders from serious offenders by making it harder for those charged with serious crimes to get bail. The Bail Amendment Bill, which is currently before the select committee, reverses the burden of proof in bail decisions for those charged with murder, serious sexual offences, and serious class A drug-dealing offences. The presumption of bail for 17 to 19-year-olds will no longer apply for those who have previously been sentenced to prison, and the police will have new powers to deal with under-17-year-olds who breach their bail conditions. I am looking forward to receiving the report from the select committee and moving these important legislative changes through this House.

💬 Louise Upston: How are the bail law changes contributing to the Government’s focus on putting victims at the heart of our justice system?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We are delivering on our promise to put victims at the heart of the justice system. The changes in the Bail Amendment Bill will provide better protection for victims by requiring those charged with murder and other serious offences to be retained in custody unless they can show reasons why they should be allowed out on bail. We know that 6 percent of adults in this country experience 54 percent of all crime. There is a small group of people who are victimised five or more times. Often they are personally connected in some way to the offenders. One of the key focuses of the justice sector is on providing support for victims generally, but particularly for those who are the victims of serious criminal offences.

Schools, Class Sizes—Secretary to the Treasury’s Statements and Advice

8. to the Minister of Finance: Does he have any concerns about the public statements of the Secretary to the Treasury; if not, why not?

Generally no, because it is the job of the Secretary to the Treasury to give his best advice, and the Government then considers that advice. Of course, that does not mean that the Government always agrees with that advice.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he advise the House as to what Mr Makhlouf’s academic credentials are, to lead the public on education reform such as increasing class sizes?

I do not have the details of Mr Makhlouf’s credentials in the House today, but I point out to the member, as a longstanding observer of this House—as I am sure he has been, from within the House—that Treasury secretaries all the time provide opinion, second opinion and first opinion, on Government advice, and Governments choose, as they do, what to accept and what not to accept.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Was the timing of Mr Makhlouf’s public statements in support of larger class sizes a coincidence, or was Mr Makhlouf acting as a mouthpiece of this Government?

I think that the Minister of Finance addressed these issues in the House the other day, and, in particular, in relation to the timing of that speech. He was asked at the time whether the Secretary advised him of his intention to give a speech. He responded that he could not recall whether he had or not, but he would have given the speech on the basis of evidence that came out of educational research.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he not see a suspicious coincidence between Mr Makhlouf’s policy advice and the National Party’s obsession with increasing class sizes, given that the previous Minister of Education touted this policy in 2009?

I am sure that member is capable of seeing conspiracies in a number of places, and I would point out that Mr Makhlouf is not the only person who has proposed slight increases in class sizes—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A conspiracy is when two or more agree to break the law. I trust that this member does not understand what the word “conspiracy” means. It had nothing to do with this question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the member’s point of order is reasonably raised. In answering a question the Minister should not imply that the questioner has some conspiracy theory or otherwise. I do not think there is any great need to get too excited about this issue. The member asked a question that, I accept, had a bit of political loading in it, but some attempt to answer it before alleging a conspiracy theory would be helpful.

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would just point out that the member actually asked about conspiracy in his question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Oh, I beg your pardon.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was as to whether or not he saw a suspicious coincidence between—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order, order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Hansard will prove—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I have got the question written down here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will resume his seat.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, do you want to hear the full facts?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am not going to let this carry on. What I will do to avoid any—[Interruption] Order! The member does not grumble away from his seat like that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Mr Speaker—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am about to invite the member to repeat his question, so I suggest he have a little more confidence that the Speaker is not unreasonable.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am so grateful for that reassurance. My supplementary question was and is now: can he not see a suspicious coincidence between Mr Makhlouf’s policy advice and the National Party’s obsession with increasing class sizes, given that the previous Minister of Education touted this policy in 2009, sans the word “conspiracy”?

No, I cannot see a “suspicious coincidence”. The reality is that any number of people have suggested that a small increase in class sizes is something that might be appropriate, and the example I would give the member is that in fact Professor Hattie was on Q+A just this last weekend, I think, saying exactly that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does it concern him that the secretary has publicly dismissed the findings of a report by the Attorney-General into his department’s mismanagement of the Crown Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme and then refused to conduct or request an inquiry into this mismanagement; if not, why not?

I do not know that I accept the member’s characterisation of what Mr Makhlouf has done. I think Treasury takes very seriously its role under the deposit guarantee scheme. What the member does not seem to understand is that once the rather drastic decision had been taken, in late 2008 by the previous Government, to have the deposit guarantee scheme—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Not the extension.

—it was quite a fraught process. Well, if the member thinks that not having an extension would have been the answer, I think that probably what would have happened is that automatically a lot of finance companies would have gone bust at that time.

Trans-Pacific Partnership—Investor-State Dispute Provisions

9. to the Minister of Trade: Will New Zealand follow Australia and refuse to sign up to the investor-state dispute provisions of the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement; if not, why not?

The New Zealand Government will obviously make up its own mind about what it signs and what it does not sign at the end of this negotiation, when all the facts are on the table, when and if the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiation reaches a successful conclusion.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was not whether New Zealand would make up its own mind; I am sure it will. My question was “Will New Zealand refuse to sign up to the”—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept that my eyesight is not great without my glasses, but if I see the question, it says “Will New Zealand follow Australia and refuse to sign …”, and the Minister answered that.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Why is his Government willing and open to signing investor-State dispute provisions in this trade agreement, when Australia refuses to do so because, as it says, these provisions “constrain the ability of Australian governments to make laws on social, environmental and economic matters ...”?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: I can assure the House that the Government will sign an agreement that makes sense, and that agreement will be following very carefully the very sensible provisions of the previous Government, aided by the same advisers who are advising me as the Minister, for clauses that will protect New Zealand from illegitimate use of such a clause.

💬 Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Can I take it from that answer, for clarity, that he will assure the House that any concluded Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement will include safeguard provisions that will protect New Zealand’s sovereignty, similar to those Labour negotiated as part of the New Zealand - China free-trade agreement, which ensures New Zealand can legislate and regulate for the public good?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: Absolutely.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Why is the New Zealand Government and why was the previous Government so confident that they can negotiate clauses that will protect their ability to make laws on social, environmental, and economic matters, when the Australian Federal Government has made a very clear statement that it believes that is not possible with investor-State dispute mechanisms, and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade of the Australian Federal Government has made exactly the same statement?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: Because I have great confidence in the professional ability of our negotiators, and because our negotiators on the question underlying the issue did not make the same tragic error as Australian negotiators made many years ago in the Hong Kong - Australia investment treaty.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Why is it that the Australian Federal Government has stated publicly in April 2011 that it will not sign up to investor-State disputes provisions, because these provisions “would confer greater legal rights on foreign businesses than those available to domestic businesses.”, while the New Zealand Government continues to go down this track?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: Well, I cannot speculate on what the member’s ultimate political ambitions are, but my ambitions do not include speaking for the Australian Government.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I just do not believe the Minister addressed the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The dilemma is that, if I recollect the member’s question correctly, it asked the Minister why he thought the Australian Government took a certain approach to investor protection clauses and agreements. The Minister said in answer that he did not pretend to be able to explain why the Australian Government chose to do things, and that is an absolutely reasonable answer to the question. If the member thinks about it—and I am very happy to check the transcript to make sure that I am not in error—I think that is what the member will find.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: What position, if any, does the New Zealand Government have on the Australian Federal Government’s refusal to accept investor-State dispute settlement provisions within the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: Well, I have already answered that question in the previous supplementary answer, but let me just say for the House that this Government, as I am sure many other members of this House do, stands solidly behind the Australian people and the Australian Government in protecting themselves against what we think is an unwarranted claim.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This was a rather different question. This question asked how the New Zealand Government would approach the Trans-Pacific Partnership if the Australians refused to have an investment protection clause in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. That is something that does affect the New Zealand Government. That is not an unreasonable question to be asked. I invite the Minister to answer it.

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: The New Zealand Government will make up its own mind about what is in the balance of New Zealand’s interests when all the facts are on the table, and we are far from that point.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Will the Government release the text of the Trans-Pacific Partnership or release New Zealand’s negotiating papers that it circulated to the other Governments in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations prior to signing up to the Trans-Pacific Partnership so that the New Zealand public can see what is in the agreement and can see the positions that the New Zealand Government has taken in the negotiations?

💬 Hon TIM GROSER: No, and certainly not without the consent of our negotiating partners.

Early Childhood Education, Teachers—Funding

10. to the Minister of Education: Do any of the thousands of reports she referred to in Oral Question No 8 yesterday support the Government’s decision to cut funding for 100 percent qualified staff in early childhood education as a means of lifting student achievement, and if so, what are the names of five of these reports she has read?

The thousands of reports I referred to yesterday testify to the effect of quality teaching on raising student achievement. One commentator whom we have heard quoted a lot is Professor John Hattie—Visible Learning. This book summarises 800 meta-analyses and 52,000 studies. Ben Levin talks about 5,000 different ways to change schools. However, within the international research literature I understand there is no evidence to support the premise of that member’s question that 100 percent of the staff in early childhood education services must hold a tertiary qualification in teaching as the single determinant in raising achievement. I have here eight reports by the New Zealand Education Review Office, which, indeed, discuss what the range of contributions are to quality education and the diverse provision that New Zealand parents have come to expect. Moreover, I am not sure that “student achievement” is an appropriate framing for early learners. Our Te Whāriki curriculum, which is itself a world-leading approach ushered in by a former Minister of Education, sets out that what we want for our early learners is that they are confident, competent communicators who are eager to learn, and student achievement is more appropriate for the next parts of the education system.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was on notice and it specifically asked whether any of the reports she had referred to supported the Government’s decision to cut funding for 100 percent qualified staff in early childhood education. That question was not answered.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] No, I do not think I need any assistance on this, at all. I looked into this question very carefully prior to question time today, because I found the question quite difficult to understand. I went back to the transcript of question No. 8 yesterday, to make sure I did understand the question. Given the transcript of the answers to oral question No. 8 yesterday, and today’s question on the Order Paper, it is my view the Minister answered this question.

💬 Sue Moroney: When she said on 16 May 2012: “our National-led Government is committed to improving the quality of teaching …”, had she forgotten that it was the National-led Government that had cut funding for qualified staff in early childhood education in 2011? [Interruption]

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I answered in the primary response, in the case of early childhood education, international research—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It probably should not be necessary for me to come to your defence, but to have the Minister for Social Development saying that you are so far out of touch—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member should not be interjecting that “you” are anything. I fully accept the point made by the Hon Trevor Mallard. The Speaker may well be out of touch, but that is not relevant to these proceedings. [Interruption] No, no. Order! I do not think we need to waste more time on this. I call Sue Moroney. I beg your pardon—the Minister was answering the question.

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I said in my answer to the primary question, in the case of early childhood education, international research literature does not support the premise of that question that 100 percent of the staff in early childhood education services have to hold a tertiary qualification in teaching in order for student achievement to be lifted.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been called.

💬 Sue Moroney: The question was very straightforward and it did not make any reference to 100 percent qualified staff. The Minister just answered a question that talked about 100 percent qualified staff. The question—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Given the gap that occurred between the member asking the question and the answer given, I cannot be clear in my own mind now exactly what the member asked. I invite her to ask her question again.

💬 Sue Moroney: When she said on 16 May 2012: “our National-led Government is committed to improving the quality of teaching …”, had she forgotten that it was the National-led Government that had cut funding for qualified staff in early childhood education in 2011?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yet again, in the case of early childhood education there is no international research that supports the premise that 100 percent of staff in early childhood education services have to hold a tertiary qualification in teaching.

💬 Sue Moroney: Will she give parents an assurance that the $114 million hole created in the education budget from her proposal to increase class sizes will not be taken from early childhood education funding?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: First of all, can I clarify that actually our proposal was to change the funding formulas, because class sizes are actually set by the schools. Second of all, can I say—[Interruption] It is a little technicality that may have passed you by. As I have answered before, the $114 million as a last resort will be a pre-commitment against Budget 2013, but in the meantime we will look for savings within Vote Education from those things that are not giving us as much value as others. [Interruption] Well, I am answering the question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member did ask whether or not the seeking of savings to cover a $114 million alleged hole in the Budget would come from early childhood education. The question was a fairly straight question asking that. I accept that from the Minister’s answer one could possibly derive an answer to the question, but I may be wrong, and I think the Minister should clarify, for the Minister’s own safety.

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: The answer is no, and that reflects—[Interruption] So we will not be making cuts, just in case the members did not understand that. It actually reflects this Government’s continual raising of the investment in early childhood education. It has risen threefold in the period that we have been in Government. That is a 32 percent increase, and, in fact, if I had quickly to hand—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the Minister has now answered the question quite clearly.

💬 Sue Moroney: In response to that last answer, then, does she see the continual raising of funding as being the funding freeze that was put on all subsidy rates in early childhood education in Budget 2012, which will mean increasing fees for parents?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Any decision that an early childhood education centre makes in response to the reprioritisation is essentially up to the centre itself. We have targeted equity funding at priority groups. This will encourage participation from groups less able to afford it. Early childhood education fees remain about 25 percent lower in real terms than they were in June 2007—and I am happy to show members that graph—and that is based on affordability calculated by comparing early childhood education fees with average earnings. Recent research has shown that the current 20 hours’ early childhood education rates more than meet the average cost of delivering high-quality early childhood education.

Cybersecurity—Cyber Security Awareness Week and Contract with Huawei Technologies

11. to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: What action has the Government taken to raise awareness of cyber security risks?

This week I launched New Zealand’s first ever Cyber Security Awareness Week, which was developed by NetSafe in partnership with the Government. More than 2,000 New Zealanders are affected by cyber-crime every day in the form of computer viruses and malware, credit card fraud, online scams, phishing, and identity theft. It is estimated that cyber-crime costs this country around $625 million a year. The week is designed to raise awareness amongst New Zealanders and small businesses of the simple steps they can take to protect their personal, financial, and business information online.

💬 Ian McKelvie: What are some of the steps that New Zealanders can take to improve their cybersecurity?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Well, actually, there are some basic things that everyone can do to greatly improve their cybersecurity, and these are the messages that are being highlighted through Cyber Security Awareness Week. These include having good anti-virus programs and updating them regularly, having proper password protection, ensuring important data is regularly backed up, and securing wireless connections. It is important that we make sure that New Zealanders are aware of the dangers, but equally important that they know about the simple precautions that will allow them to connect with confidence and enjoy the full potential of the digital world.

💬 Clare Curran: Is she aware of concerns raised by members of the United States House of Representatives Intelligence Committee this week regarding the possible national security threat posed by the potential expansion of Huawei into the US telecommunications infrastructure; if so, has she received any reports about the national security implications of the all-of-Government mobile phone procurement contract recently signed by Steven Joyce, which includes services provided by Huawei?

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: As that member is well aware, we do not comment on matters of national security, but I can assure her that we take network security very seriously.

💬 Clare Curran: I seek leave to table an article published on 13 June in Computerworld, titled “US lawmakers quiz ZTE, Huawei over spying concerns”.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Clare Curran: I seek leave to table a media release by representatives from the US intelligence committee about concerns about the investigation of Huawei and ZTE.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Clare Curran: I seek leave to table the correspondence between the US House of Representatives select committee on intelligence and the chairman and senior vice-president of Huawei Technologies.

💬 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.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You would have heard the Minister’s answer. She said: “we do not comment on issues of national security”. However, the very point that the member is asking about is that given Steven Joyce has signed a document that says it is not a matter of national security, why, then, can the Minister not answer the question? Mr Joyce and National have assured us that Huawei’s involvement is not a matter of national security. Therefore, why can the Minister not answer the question she has been asked?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have got to think back now to the answer given by the Minister and the question that was asked, but if I recollect correctly—and I do not claim to have this absolutely right—the member first referred to whether the Minister had seen a report from the US committee, and whether she had concerns about this security matter. That is why, in answering, she said she does not comment on security matters. I cannot second-guess a Minister on an issue like that. If a Minister says that it is not their practice to comment on matters of national security, and she sees this as being in that category, as Speaker I cannot second-guess that and say that I disagree with the Minister and I think she should answer. I cannot do that; it would be most unreasonable.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. But you see our quandary here. We have had a series of questions on this before, and we have been assured by the Prime Minister and Mr Joyce that there is no issue of national security involved here. So our quandary is that, when any of us raise questions, we are stopped by a statement that she will not comment on issues of national security. That is the issue. We are assured that there are no such issues in the involvement of this Chinese company, and that is why the question is being asked of that Minister.

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Amy Adams, briefly.

💬 Hon AMY ADAMS: If the members wish to ask questions of the responsible Ministers around that particular contract, they are welcome to do so. They have directed it to me, in my capacity as the Minister for Communications and Information Technology, and I am responding in that capacity—that I do not comment on matters of national security. That has been the longstanding practice of this, and many previous, Governments.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard, briefly.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I think that generally we defer to you on memory of questions, but I think on this particular one it was not a matter of whether the member asked whether the Minister had concerns, but only whether she had received reports on it. That, I think, is different.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will check it out, because that is not my memory. I fully accept I may have it wrong, but I will check that out. I think we cannot take this matter any further today, because I think the Minister’s contribution to the discussion on that point of order was a reasonable point the Minister made. We cannot take it further today, but I will check to see whether I got that wrong, because I suspect that it went beyond just whether or not she had received reports. It certainly started that way.

💬 Clare Curran: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether she was aware of concerns, and then asked whether she had received—if so, had she received any reports. I am happy to table—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member acknowledges that she asked whether the Minister was aware of concerns around security issues, and she said—[Interruption] Order! I think we cannot take that one further today.

Accident Compensation Corporation—Inquiry into Release of Personal Information

12. to the Minister for ACC: What meetings or discussions did she have with the Chair or Chief Executive of ACC between receiving the 16 March report relating to the Pullar affair and ACC laying a complaint with the Police and did she in any of these meetings or discussions either suggest, encourage or agree to ACC laying the complaint?

The question is misconceived, as the matter was referred to the police on 13 March, which was 3 days before the 16 March report. The 16 March report clearly states, on page 3, that the matter was referred to police on 13 March, the same date as the story appeared in the Dominion Post. I called a meeting of the chair and the chief executive on 14 March to be briefed on what was known about the privacy breach, a day after the matter was referred to police.

💬 Andrew Little: What discussions—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right—[Interruption] Order! I apologise to the member. The member has a right to ask supplementary questions, and I want to hear them. Ministers should not be interjecting so much.

💬 Andrew Little: What discussions did she have with the chair or chief executive officer of ACC between seeing the media reports, which started on 12 March, relating to the Pullar affair and ACC laying a complaint with the police, and did she in any of these discussions either suggest, encourage, or agree to ACC laying the complaint?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member is again wrong. The story was on Tuesday, 13 March. The first time that I knew about the issue was when I opened up my emails and found that there was a story in the Dominion Post. I had a text from Mr Ralph Stewart telling me there was a very bad story on the Dominion Post front page, and asking could he ring me, and he advised me that there was this situation. That day Mr Stewart referred the matter to the New Zealand Police. I had no discussions with him about referring it to the police. It was his decision. And, in fact, to say otherwise is quite wrong.

💬 Andrew Little: Did she, in a conversation with the ACC chair or chief executive officer, describe the conduct of Ms Pullar and Ms Boag as extortion or blackmail?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not believe I did. I can tell that member, though, that the actions were referred to the police before this matter was discussed with me as to what had actually happened. Mr Stewart, on Tuesday morning, 13 March, knew only a little bit more about the matter than I did. He was the new chief executive officer. He had not been involved in all the many actions with Ms Pullar all the way through for years and years and years, as previous ones had been. He had to find out the facts, and he had reports from the senior managers.

💬 Andrew Little: What was the nature of the comments she made about referral of the matter to the police in any discussions she had with the chair or chief executive officer of ACC up to the time the complaint was laid with the police?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I have made it perfectly plain. The matter was referred to the police without reference to my input. And the fact is—I have said it so many times now—I think that member should stop coming down to the House with his pre-prepared questions.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not whether it was referred without taking consideration of the Minister’s input. The question was what was the Minister’s input.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the Minister has made it pretty clear she had no input. That is what I understood she has told the House. That brings to a close questions—I beg your pardon. Supplementary question, the Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Hold the phone!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: My apologies.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Being that she is a trained lawyer, is she aware of the crime of unlawful possession, which is the exact position of Brownyn Pullar, not in receiving the information but in remaining in unlawful possession of it, and what is she going to do about that, given that her friend Michelle Boag and she had obviously raised this with ACC?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Look, as Minister for ACC I have no responsibility for the actions of either of those two persons referred to by the member. That is simply not something that I can comment on.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Is she aware of the similar or analogous case of a man called Gao, who received $9.9 million too much in his Westpac account and then remained in unlawful possession of it, and dealt with it—

💬 Hon Steven Joyce: What’s this got to do with ACC?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I used the word “analogous”, which means I am giving you an identical case of unlawful possession—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. I need to hear from the member the start of a question of some relevance to the Minister. The Minister has no responsibility whatsoever for the law surrounding unlawful possession, and no responsibility whatsoever for a man whom Westpac may have inadvertently given money to. I accept the member may have a question there, but I do want to hear the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, perhaps I could help if I ask why all number of heads in ACC are rolling, when you have a case so analogous to Gao’s case of receiving legally but remaining in unlawful possession of $9.7 million, and also Justice Young’s decision regarding the same thing—receiving a document from ACC and not dealing with it properly—when, in fact, it is clear from this letter that Michelle Boag wrote that they intended to use it against ACC to bring things to a satisfactory conclusion. Is the Minister prepared to see these heads roll—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will invite the member to have one more go, but I have heard clearly two questions there, and only one supplementary question can be asked. The member started with a supplementary question, and that was fine, but then he proceeded to make another statement and then commenced another supplementary question. Members cannot do that. I will invite the member to please ask one supplementary question, and give the Minister a chance to answer it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, given the circumstances—now that you know what it is about—of someone receiving documents legally but thereafter retaining those documents in an unlawful way, why is she prepared to see ACC officers’ heads roll and not go for the person who is acting illegally, namely Bronwyn Pullar?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In terms of ministerial responsibility I can advise the member that, of course, if he reads the report, which is on the ACC website, as to the actions that they took around the privacy issue, they actually referred that matter to the New Zealand Police.