Questions for Oral Answer

1. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement: “The test is whether I can rely on the member’s word and he has given me assurance that he met the law … There is a statute of limitations and he has complied with the law”?

I stand by my full statement that “The test is whether I can rely on the member’s word, and he has given me an assurance that he met the law. The police have quite clearly said there was insufficient evidence. There is a statute of limitations, and he has complied with the law.”

💬 David Shearer: Does he accept the police findings, paragraph 40, that John Banks breached section 134(2) of the Local Electoral Act?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen the actual report, but, funnily enough, I have seen the New Zealand Herald today where it said the “Police concluded the report was ‘false’ but could not prove Banks had known when he signed it,”.

💬 David Shearer: Does John Banks enjoy his confidence not because he breached the Act but because he was not prosecuted for breaching the Act?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: He enjoys my confidence because I can rely on his word.

💬 David Shearer: Does he believe John Banks, or does he believe Simpson Grierson partner Greg Towers when he says in a sworn statement to police that “John Banks said that as much as [he] wished to publicly support Kim, that may backfire on Kim if it became known about the election support.”, given that Mr Towers would risk his career, including being disbarred as a lawyer, if he was found to be lying?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite possible that both men are right. I would note that in this morning’s Dominion Post newspaper it said that Greg Towers “also told the police he was unaware of any donation from Dotcom to Mr Banks’ campaign.” Support can take many forms. What I do know is that I have a caucus that supports me, and that leader—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The House will come to order.

💬 David Shearer: Does he believe John Banks, or does he believe—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will note that when you got to your feet Mr Key kept talking, but the sound system for him did not go off. So I want to know what is going on here, because you told us that that was a practice round—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sure that had he kept going, it would have gone off.

💬 David Shearer: Does he believe John Banks, or does he believe Kim Dotcom when he says in a sworn statement to police that he offered Mr Banks $50,000 and “Mr Banks immediately accepted my offer,” and that “Mr Banks then said to me that it would be better to split it into two cheques for $25,000 ... He told me it was because then he would not have to declare where it came from.”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to assess the merits of that, but what I do know is that the Local Electoral Act, as it was designed by the Labour Government, or at least not changed by it, made it quite legal for someone to solicit a donation and, in fact, to ask a donor to give those donations anonymously. I will be pretty sure that the Labour Party did that under the old laws for general elections all the time.

💬 David Shearer: Does he believe John Banks, or does he believe Wayne Tempero when he says in a sworn statement to police that he remembers John Banks saying “No, not one cheque, write two cheques out for $25,000 each.”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am just not in a position to judge that, but I accept John Banks at his word.

💬 David Shearer: In the interests of having a transparent ministry, will he ask John Banks to release his witness statement?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is not something I have ministerial responsibility for.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister asking one of his Ministers to release a document is something he has ministerial responsibility for when it goes to the ethics of that Minister.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister, in fact, does not have responsibility for that document, and the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to answer in that way.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. He does not have responsibility for that document. We are not saying that he has responsibility for that document, but he does have responsibility for the integrity of his Ministers, and it is within his power and responsibility as to whether or not he chooses to ask for that statement.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister has given one answer to one question. It is not beyond the wit of members to devise more questions to test the Prime Minister further on the matter.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If the Prime Minister had said “I’m not wanting and willing to do that.”, that would have been an answer that would have addressed the question. But to say that he has not got ministerial responsibility and, therefore, does not have to answer the question is, with respect, wrong.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Point of order—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the honourable Leader of the House.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: The convention that Mr Key, as Prime Minister, is entitled to rely on was well established by Helen Clark in the middle period of 2002, just prior to that year’s election, when, in fact, she was in a situation of having considerable disruption due to the breakdown of the Alliance, which was a party in the House at the time. It made it very clear that there are quite strong distinctions between a Prime Minister dealing with the ministerial responsibilities of Ministers and a Prime Minister as a leader dealing with the leadership or other issues relating to any other party. The Hansard will record all of that. I believe that Speakers’ rulings have been relied on, particularly by Speaker Hunt, in the past, and there is no case being made by the Opposition in this matter.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

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

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I would like to refer you to the precedent of Dr The Rt Hon Lockwood Smith and his questioning of Helen Clark on the Taito Phillip Field matter, where there were a number of documents that had to do with a commission, which was not her responsibility, that he questioned her about. The Speaker did not protect Helen Clark in those circumstances.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Speaker happens to have a reasonable memory of those matters, and following certain events yesterday he checked up on a number of those matters very exhaustively. In fact, if the member’s memory is serving him well, he will recollect that, in fact, the Government commissioned an investigation, and that I raised a number of questions around that document. That is a totally different matter. This is not a document that the Government has commissioned.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My recollection of those events was that the point that you were making in your questions was that the inquiries did not go far enough, and so you had leeway to ask the Prime Minister as to what other information was available that ought to be taken into account by the Prime Minister in judging the situation—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need to take this any further. The member should know I do my homework. [Interruption] Order! I do my homework very thoroughly. All the Hansards have been scrutinised from that period, I can assure the honourable member, and the questions all related, in fact, to content of that Government-commissioned report. Further supplementary questions can be asked, but the answer the Prime Minister gave to that particular question was not an unreasonable answer, because the Prime Minister does not have responsibility for that particular document.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, I have dealt with this matter, so I hope it is a new point of order.

💬 Hon David Parker: I would ask you to go through those Hansards again, because I think that what you just said to the House is not correct. You said that all of the questions to the Prime Minister arose out of what was in the report. I have a clear recollection of those times, and your questions were addressing what was not addressed in those reports, which was one of your main criticisms at the time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to take this matter any further. The member is litigating a matter I have already ruled on and I suggest he does go back and look at it as carefully as I have.

💬 David Shearer: Is the handling of the John Banks case consistent with his undertaking to lift the standard of ethics in Government?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: At one level, yes, because that would not be hard compared with the previous Government. At a second level, let me summarise the situation. My office has relied on the word of the member. The police in their statement have made it quite clear that there was insufficient evidence. The police have also made it quite clear that although the return may have been false they could not prove that John Banks had known it was signed in that particular way. And we know that the law was very loose. So although the Labour Party might think this is the biggest—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, there has been sufficient answer.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, Grant Robertson, and it will be heard in silence.

💬 Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table paragraphs 39 and 40 of the police report, which says that the police concluded that the elements of section 134(2) were met for a prosecution of Mr Banks.

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

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 2, Paul Goldsmith. [Interruption] I beg your pardon, I missed Metiria Turei. I do apologise. Supplementary question, Metiria Turei.

💬 Metiria Turei: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and happy Suffrage Day to you. Does the Prime Minister accept the finding of fact—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Metiria Turei, supplementary question.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister accept the finding of fact in the police report of 26 July 2012 that “Police have established that on 9 June 2010 Mr John Banks personally solicited a donation from Mr Kim Dotcom.”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not in a position to judge that, but I know that the local electoral law in the way it is crafted would mean that it is quite legal to do that. You see, if members do not like other members complying with the law, they are free to think that way, but actually the test is whether you meet the law.

💬 Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very clear. The Prime Minister has said previously that he read that particular report, and he has not addressed the question, which is very simple: does he agree with the police finding of fact that John Banks solicited a donation from Kim Dotcom, in a report he has read. He has not addressed that question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Prime Minister answered the question in so far as he pointed out that to have done that is perfectly legal under the current Act. He does not have to agree with the member, but he pointed out that there is nothing wrong with having done that, under the current law.

💬 Metiria Turei: I seek leave to table a copy of the 26 July 2012 report from the police stating that the police have established that John Banks personally solicited a donation from Kim Dotcom.

💬 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.

💬 Metiria Turei: Did John Banks tell the Prime Minister or his office earlier this year that he was not aware that Kim Dotcom made a donation to his mayoral campaign?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I have told the House earlier, Mr Banks assured me, through my chief of staff, that he had fully complied with the requirements of the legislation.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I go back to the honourable member, that is not exactly what the question asked. The member may repeat her question if there is some doubt as to that.

💬 Metiria Turei: Did John Banks tell the Prime Minister or his office earlier this year that he was not aware that Kim Dotcom made a donation to his mayoral campaign?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I was not party to the conversation, but to the best of my knowledge he was unaware of donations that were made. That is why they are anonymous. At the end of the day, you can solicit them and you can have your own supposition, but it does not mean that you actually know.

💬 Metiria Turei: Does the Prime Minister not think that if John Banks was being genuinely honest with him, he would have told him that he solicited a donation from Mr Kim Dotcom, as the police found in their finding of facts?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, I do not think you can draw that conclusion. What you can draw as a conclusion from the police report is two things: first, there was insufficient evidence, and, secondly, although the return was false, the police themselves said they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that, when he signed it, because it was put together by another individual, whom Mr Banks relied on.

💬 Metiria Turei: Is not the Prime Minister’s denial just his dancing on the head of a pin, when most New Zealanders believe that John Banks was dishonest in his communication to the Prime Minister, and are not New Zealanders right to expect more from the Prime Minister?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No, but I think there is a genuine misunderstanding of what is actually permissible under the Local Electoral Act.

💬 Hon David Parker: In light of that answer and the answer given about three supplementary questions earlier, is it the Prime Minister’s position that it is legal under the existing local electoral donation laws for a member to solicit a donation, to know that a donation was made by someone whom they solicited it from, but then to declare that it was anonymous?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The member is asking for a legal opinion, and I am not in a position to offer that. But what I can say is that, in my understanding of the way that it was put by the member, that would not be legal. It is quite legal to go and to ask for support. It is quite legal to give indications of how that could be made anonymously, but in the end the point there, of course, is that one never really knows. There were many donations made, as I can see from newspaper reports. As for the $25,000 donations, it is impossible to know who they came from. Lots of people tell organisations that they will give money. They do not necessarily always do so.

💬 Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table paragraph 38 of the police report, which states: “Further analysis in respect of the evidence collected in the investigation established that the return was wrong in content as the donations for Skycity, Dotcom … should not have been recorded as anonymous.”

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that page from that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. The Rt Hon Winston Peters, supplementary question. [Interruption] Order! I want to hear—[Interruption] Order! I must be able to hear the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Does the Prime Minister accept that the police report says that the elements for a prosecution were established; if so, why is he claiming in this House to be able to trust Mr Banks’ word?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I have not seen the report, so it is possible. I do know that the police statement that they put out, which summarises the report, said a couple of things, one being there is insufficient evidence, but what I also know from the report this morning is that the police concluded that the return was false. So, on that basis, yes, the member may have some validity there, but they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that when he signed it. What the police are quite clearly saying is that on the main charge of whether there could be a position where—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: —that the situation was knowingly, by Mr Banks, false, there is no claim of that by the police.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If you have 42 donations, all of which were anonymous, all of which were forgotten, would you then trust that man’s word in this House, if he gave it to you?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Speaker should not be involved in the question in that way. I invite the right honourable gentleman to reword his question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If the Prime Minister is aware that there were 42 donations, all of which were substantial, all of which were anonymous—that means the whole lot were all regarded as being anonymous—why would the Prime Minister then trust the word of Mr Banks on this issue?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The question, at heart, is whether the member complied with the law. That is the assurance he has given my office, and I accept that.

💬 Grant Robertson: Further to that answer, does the Prime Minister understand that filing a false return is a breach of the Local Electoral Act, and that that is what the police have found that Mr Banks did?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It could be, but as the police themselves said—

💬 Grant Robertson: It could be!

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, it could be, but, as the police said, it is a lesser offence and it was outside the period of time. They also went on to say that although they concluded that the return was false, they could not prove that Mr Banks had known that. So if you want to go after the person who put it together, that might be right, but not Mr Banks.

Better Public Services—Targets

2. to the Minister of Finance: What is the Government doing to deliver better public services within its wider economic programme?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before the Minister answers, please, a little less interjection from my left.

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: The delivery of higher-quality public services is one of the Government’s four priorities for this term. It sits alongside responsibly managing the Government’s finances, building a more competitive economy, and rebuilding Christchurch. The Government’s Better Public Services programme sets ambitious targets in five key areas, which include welfare dependency, education, health, crime, and the economy. The Government aims to achieve these targets with little or no new money and under a lower cap on core government administration. New Zealanders care about the quality and the success of the public services they receive, and they also deserve value for money.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: What are some examples of the results targets under the Better Public Services programme?

Our education targets include increasing the proportion of 18-year-olds achieving National Certificate of Educational Achievement level 2, and increasing the proportion of children in early childhood education. We have set goals of a 20 percent reduction in violent crime and a 15 percent reduction in overall crime. We have also set a goal of having 70 percent of transactions with government performed online, and we are aiming to lower benefit dependency and increase immunisation rates. We aim to achieve all of these results by 2017.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: What progress has been made in delivering better public services?

Over the last few months the Government has launched action plans for each of the 10 result areas. The recently announced welfare reforms will encourage families to enrol children in early childhood education. Justice agencies will work as one operational unit, aiming to reduce reoffending by 25 percent. The police report good progress in reducing crime and reoffending. We have also introduced legislative changes to the House to improve cross-agency collaboration and use of shared services. These efforts are focused on—

💬 Grant Robertson: I seek the leave of the House for Dr Coleman to table his statement and sit down.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Even though it is not a strictly valid point of order, I think the point the member is making is that these answers are too long.

Too long for what?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Too long for what? You want accuracy.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! In the Speaker’s opinion they are too long—that is what. They are too long. There has been a tendency in recent weeks for Ministers, in responding to questions from their own colleagues, to give speeches rather than succinct answers. It is not good enough. We want succinct answers. I do not—

💬 Hon Christopher Finlayson: Succinct!

💬 Mr SPEAKER: It is not a difficult word—succinct.

State-owned Assets, Shares—Consultation with Māori on “Shares Plus” Proposal

3. to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Does he agree that “Consulting involves the statement of a proposal not yet finally decided upon, listening to what others have to say, considering their responses and then deciding what will be done”; if so, how do the Government’s consultation hui about the “shares plus” proposal align with this definition?

Yes; and totally. Is that succinct enough?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I come back to the honourable member, it might be, but it is not a good enough answer to a primary question. The Minister will now give a considered answer, because the Standing Orders actually require a Minister to give a constructive answer to a primary question—[Interruption]—I am on my feet; Ministers should just take a deep breath for a moment—where there are no words in that question that are in any way provocative. There are no such words in the question whatsoever. I do not believe that is an acceptable answer to the House. I accept that it is an answer, but it is not acceptable, given the Standing Orders, in that Ministers are expected to provide information in answering questions, and that answer did not provide any information.

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: “Succinct” is obviously elastic.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The Minister will desist from that line of action. He will just treat the House with the respect it deserves.

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The quote draws on the finding of the Court of Appeal in 1992 in a case involving Wellington International Airport, reported I think in [1993] 1 NZLR 671. What that decision confirms is that the party consulting can have a working plan in mind, and that is the position here. The Government has a preliminary view on “shares plus” and a working plan based on that preliminary view, but it has an open mind and is willing to change its mind if submissions are persuasive—succinct and to the point.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister support the view of the Deputy Prime Minister that “The Government has already said that such a shareholding would be unattractive, unnecessary, and unworkable …”; if so, what assurance can he give Māori that the Government is not entering into consultation with a predetermined outcome in mind?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I can give that member and the House an assurance that the Government has an open mind. As I said, the Government has formed a preliminary view about “shares plus”, and that view is noted in its letters on the Treasury website, and it is in that context that the Deputy Prime Minister’s comments are to be understood. Again, the view is preliminary, and the Government is consulting in good faith in order to hear whether there are other views about “shares plus”.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister agree with Māori lawyer Joshua Hitchcock that “In many respects the Government is treating this as a pro-forma exercise of consultation. It is merely ticking the boxes to satisfy the Court in the event of a challenge to the sale process that it has followed due process.”; if not, why not?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I certainly do not. It is not a matter of simply ticking boxes, and Governments have learnt a lot since the decision of the Court of Appeal in 1993. The Government has a preliminary view. It wants to test that view, and that is why the Deputy Prime Minister—and next week the Deputy Prime Minister and I—will be having these hui, one of which was very well attended in Taupō today. The Government acknowledges it may not have thought of everything. It wants to hear other views, and then it will make a decision, and that is why we will have a consultation.

💬 Hon Peter Dunne: Given the terse and succinct nature of the Minister’s answer, could he elaborate on what the Government’s preliminary view is?

💬 Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes. The Government’s preliminary view, as set out on the website and in Treasury papers, and in the view of the Deputy Prime Minister, is that there are more minuses than pluses with “shares plus”. Take, for example, the suggestion that minority shareholders could have some say in the appointment of directors to the company, who would then act on the wishes of the minority shareholders. Well, in terms of company law, that is quite problematic because directors, once appointed, owe a duty to the company, not to the people who put them there.

Exchange Rate—Economic Measures

4. to the Prime Minister: What did he mean in his reported statement “we’re considering what we can do to resist a rising exchange rate”, and how does he reconcile this statement with that given by the Associate Minister of Finance on behalf of the Minister of Finance yesterday to the effect that the New Zealand Government has absolutely no way of influencing the New Zealand dollar down?

I meant that the Government is taking a number of steps to help take pressure off the exchange rate and to help the economy adapt to a relatively high currency. They include getting back to fiscal surplus so that the Government is not borrowing heavily and pushing up interest rates, encouraging households to save, and putting the right settings in place to help New Zealand firms become more competitive. The Associate Minister correctly referred to the fact that with a floating exchange rate there is nothing the Government can do to permanently bring down the value of the dollar without also having undesirable effects show up elsewhere in the economy.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he considered any alternative counter-inflationary measures to curb excessive bank lending and thereby ease the pressure on the exchange rate caused by interest rates?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: My understanding is that Alan Bollard in his capacity as Governor of the Reserve Bank has actually moved in that area. There have been quite a number of changes over the last few years whereby the Reserve Bank now has much greater capacity to limit the loan-to-value ratios that banks have and their capital requirements under Basel III.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does the Prime Minister agree with the outgoing Governor of the Reserve Bank that if the objectives of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act were wider and included more than giving primacy to inflation, like the level of a competitive exchange rate, the decisions taken by the Reserve Bank would be different, and the exchange rate—and these are not his words; they are mine, so I do not want to attribute them to him—might be lower?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: With the greatest respect to that member, I think he is actually misquoting Alan Bollard. The member will be aware that Alan Bollard as Reserve Bank governor was before the Finance and Expenditure Committee. In fact, what he said about the current legislation is that it is “completely fit for purpose”. So in my view, and knowing a number of discussions I have had with the governor in the 4 years I have been Prime Minister, he has concluded that, in fact, New Zealand has world-leading legislation when it comes to the way that we manage the exchange rate and inflation targeting. Interestingly enough, also, that member will know that, because he was part of a Government that had Charles Chauvel chair the Finance and Expenditure Committee in 2008, and what that select committee found was the following. It found that New Zealand’s monetary policy approach is now standard among small, open, developed economies, and is regarded as “world’s best practice. We are advised that there are more than 20 countries now using a similar approach to monetary policy.”

💬 Hon David Parker: I do not deny the Prime Minister’s quote, but I was not referring to that quote. I seek leave to table the transcript of Dr Bollard at the select committee where he acknowledged the point that I made in my question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I understand that this document is publicly available from the select committee.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My other point of order would be, then, that the Prime Minister obviously has not addressed—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Order! The Prime Minister absolutely did address the question. He answered it quite explicitly in that he—[Interruption] Order! The member in asking his question acknowledged towards the end of his question that he may have used words that were not exactly Dr Bollard’s words. In answering the question the Prime Minister pointed out what Dr Bollard had said to the select committee, and although it may not be exactly the answer the member expected, it is certainly an answer to that question.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It goes to the availability of the transcript. My understanding is that the transcript is not available until the report back from the select committee—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Let me just check that fact.

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: —and it has not been reported back yet.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member is correct there, and therefore I will put it to the House. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Having regard to the Prime Minister’s marvellous ideological theory of doing nothing about the soaring New Zealand dollar rate, at US82c or US83c, has he considered the use of capital controls as a means of reducing the inflow of “hot” money, which is causing our high dollar?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Look, I think from time to time it would be fair to summarise that the Reserve Bank and Treasury always look at those broader issues as they look at the general view about whether the policy targets agreement that is set between the governor and the Minister of Finance is working appropriately. What I think the general conclusion is—although I might have to go back and have a look—is that it is very difficult to put capital controls on a country like New Zealand, which is a large capital importer and relies on that capital to fund so much of its domestic investment. It may be possible in places like Singapore. It is actually not possible in a place like New Zealand, I think, easily.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: That being the case, why did he say that the Government is “considering what it can do to resist a rising exchange rate”, when it is clear from his previous three answers that he never intended to do anything, whilst on average 100 manufacturing jobs are being lost every week, and the high dollar has cost exporters a total of over $10 billion since 2009?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I accept the member does not have it, because he got that out of a Wall Street Journal approach, but if the member wants me to give him the full transcript of the entire conversation that I had with the Wall Street Journal, I am more than happy to do that. What I went on to actually say, or did say as part of that overall discussion with that journalist, was that I do not believe that intervention is a mechanism that works, and that New Zealand is broadly happy with the policy targets agreement that we have got. What I basically said was that there are only certain things that the Government can control. They are the things like the inputs for businesses. Whether it is reforming the Resource Management Act, tax reform, or employment law reform, all of those things do take the pressure off our exporters. And the reality is that if the member really thinks that he can get the New Zealand dollar down while it remains a floating exchange rate, then he needs to go away and read a few books. I will give him a clue: it does not work.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest respect, I have read a few books, including about Merrill Lynch—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Order! The member will resume his seat. I cannot for the life of me see what that has got to do with the proceedings of this House. That is not a point of order, and the member will not pursue—he cannot disagree with the Prime Minister’s answer by way of point of order. The Prime Minister answered the member’s question in a very fulsome way. He referred to the quote that the member had used in his question, and he went on to explain how that quote fitted into an interview the Prime Minister had given. I think he probably went a bit far at the end there, but you cannot litigate the answer by way of point of order.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not litigating the answer at all. The answer was fine, until he started recommending that other members of this House read books. That was when he was out of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I accept that he should not have done that, indeed, but worse things happen across the floor of the House than that, unfortunately. But I accept the member’s point. The Prime Minister should not have added that. [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. Interjections from—the honourable gentleman is better than some of his interjections today. [Interruption] Order! I cannot hear what the right honourable gentleman is seeking. Is this a supplementary question?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: No. I wish to table a document, given that the Prime Minister disputed what my authority was. I wish to table this National Business Review, dated 17 April 2012.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we do not table press clippings from newspapers.

Health Targets—Progress

5. to the Minister of Health: What progress is the Government making with National Health Targets?

We have obtained a fourth year of record increases in elective surgery, which means that 95,000 more elective surgeries were performed in the last 4 years compared with the number performed under the previous Government. In the past 4 years, 12,300 more patients have received orthopaedic operations, including hip and other joint replacements. On top of this there were an extra 6,800 ear, nose, and throat operations, 13,800 more general surgeries, 4,300 more operations for children 9 years and under, and 14,800 more ophthalmology operations.

💬 Dr Paul Hutchison: What other good performance can he report on elective surgery?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: I would like to thank the member for the opportunity to answer that question. Over the next 4 years we are investing tens of millions of dollars to maintain our record levels of elective surgery and further reduce waiting times for patients. At the end of June this year, excluding Canterbury, only 150 patients across the nation were waiting over 6 months for a surgical first specialist assessment or for elective surgery. Timely operations, as the member will know, make a big difference to being able to live a full and happy life, and this Government is committed to providing more New Zealanders with the surgery they need.

Child Poverty—Prime Minister’s Statements

6. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement that “… I am prepared to commit Government resources to try to lift children out of poverty”?

I stand by my full statement in the context in which it was given. I also note that at the time I went on to say that a decent education was important and that this Government’s investment in national standards was an important step in that regard. It is a shame that the member’s party is so confused about what its position is—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, no; again, there were no words in the primary question that were provocative. That is unfair.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Does he also stand by his statements that child poverty needs to be measured and that his Government “will bring a special focus to improving the results of public services for New Zealand’s vulnerable children”?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, I am not sure which quote the member is referring to, but I certainly know that in the past what I have said is that there are a number of measures for child poverty. Personally, I think you actually need a number of measures. They can include everything from household indicators to health indicators or to education, welfare, and housing indicators.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Does he support the concept of a bill to aim to reduce child poverty by requiring the Government to do the very things he has already indicated support for—namely, measure poverty using a range of measures, set targets to reduce it, and report to Parliament on progress?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: If the member is talking about her bill, no, I do not think we are likely to support that.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: Why is he happy to spend $1 million to measure the cost of welfare, to set targets to reduce it, and to report on progress via a board, but he will not do the same for child poverty?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, because, firstly, we spend about $14 billion a year on welfare, so I think it is important that we get good measurements and look to make some changes there. But I think, secondly, it comes back to the point I made earlier. I do not think a single measure for poverty would be the right way to go, and we have a range of measures already.

💬 Sue Moroney: Does he have a view on what Kate Sheppard and the women who won the right to vote 119 years ago today would think about child poverty in New Zealand in the year 2012?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not sure I would be quite so presumptuous as to assume I know what women of the day were thinking. I am sure they celebrated the chance to vote, and we celebrate alongside them.

Child Protection—Child, Youth and Family and Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāpuhi Memorandum of Understanding

7. to the Minister for Social Development: How will the recently established partnership between Child, Youth and Family and Te Rūnanga A Iwi O Ngāpuhi better protect children?

We have recently signed a formal memorandum of understanding between Child, Youth and Family and Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāpuhi agreeing to work closely together to protect children. I want to commend the parties for this partnership. Ngāpuhi are the first iwi to reach this milestone. It is an unfortunate reality that home is not a safe place for some children, and I believe iwi have an important role to play in decisions about these children and their care.

💬 Mike Sabin: How will the partnership support vulnerable families?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: This partnership will support a number of joint initiatives as together we take responsibility for this group of vulnerable children. This includes earlier intervention, particularly with vulnerable Ngāpuhi whānau, more open discussions, joint decision-making for care placements, and greater information-sharing.

💬 Mike Sabin: How does this agreement work better to support vulnerable children in need of care and protection?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: A part of the purpose of this agreement that I am particularly proud of is something that we are working on with iwi across the country to achieve. It is pre-approved iwi caregivers, where iwi play a role in identifying safe whānau and families, and if we have to remove a child, particularly in an emergency situation, they are immediately placed with extended whānau. They have been through Child, Youth and Family checks, we know where they are, and they can then play a vital part in where that placement in the future might be.

Health Care—Women and Children

8. to the Minister of Health: Is he satisfied that New Zealand women and children are receiving better, sooner and more convenient health care?

Certainly, yes, overall, in no small part due to the extra $2 billion of funding that this Government has invested into public health services. Just one example is the Government increasing funding for maternity services by over $114 million over 4 years, and in the last Budget it invested $14 million in section 88 fee increases for lead maternity carers.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: In light of that answer, is he aware that in 2010 more than one-third of all pregnant Pasifika women, just over one-sixth of pregnant Asian women, and nearly one-sixth of pregnant Māori women were not seen by a community-based lead maternity carer at all during their pregnancy; if so, how do the numbers that he has just cited to us aim to improve those rates of midwifery care?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is doing quite a lot to make sure that we can improve maternity care. What we know is that a large number of women in some parts of the country have their midwifery care provided by the midwives who work in the public hospitals, and that is a model that in some areas of the country the district health boards are trying to move towards greater community provision. But the Government certainly is working to support good-quality maternity services. We are working very actively with the profession in our maternity quality and safety programme, which is achieving a lot for the profession and for New Zealand women and babies.

💬 Hon Maryan Street: Is he aware that 5,000 extra children have been admitted to hospital in the last 3 years for preventable conditions such as skin infections and respiratory illnesses; if he is, to what does he attribute this increase in avoidable hospitalisations, and what is his strategy to address it?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: The Government is acting in a whole lot of areas in order to improve child health. For example, the Government has announced a quite significant increase in the amount of funding made available for the free children’s after-hours programme. What we know is that for free doctors’ visits for children under 6 in the last year of the previous Government, $3 million was spent, and for free doctors’ visits for children under 6 today it is seven times higher, at $21 million.

💬 Moana Mackey: If things are so great and he is doing so much, then why are Māori babies still five times more likely to die from sudden unexplained death in infancy than European babies, why are Māori and Pasifika mothers still more likely to have stillbirths and neonatal deaths than European mothers, and why are preterm birth rates significantly higher for Māori and Pasifika babies, and what is he doing to address these issues?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: Well, I would have to say that that is not a new circumstance that the member can blame on any one party in this House. We are working very closely with the district health boards and the midwifery profession to improve those outcomes. And the Government is taking action across a whole lot of preventative health areas that can help support that—for example, our dramatic action to reduce the level of smoking, which does have a dramatic impact on maternity outcomes.

💬 Sue Moroney: Has he had any submissions or official representations on the issue of Pasifika, Asian, and Māori women’s access to community-based lead maternity carers from the Minister of Women’s Affairs; if so, has he acted on that advice?

💬 Hon TONY RYALL: I have got to say that the Minister of Women’s Affairs and I are discussing matters on a very regular basis. In fact, as recently as yesterday afternoon the Minister of Women’s Affairs and I were discussing a whole range of health issues in respect of women.

💬 Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very specific. I asked whether there were any submissions or official representations from the Minister of Women’s Affairs. The Minister spoke about some talks he had with her, but I am not sure of the answer to my question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think the Minister did say that he had representations from the Minister and that he has discussions with her. Verbal representations are no different from written representations, so I believe that he did answer the member’s question.

Vehicle Licensing Reform Project—Discussion Document

9. to the Associate Minister of Transport: What recent announcements have been made by the Government in relation to New Zealand’s vehicle licensing system?

Today I launched at Parliament the Vehicle Licensing Reform discussion document. The reform project, jointly led by the Ministry of Transport and the New Zealand Transport Agency, is looking at ways to improve the warrant of fitness, certificate of fitness, annual licensing, and transport services licensing systems. The key question for this Government is whether we can make these systems simpler and better in order to save Kiwis time and money while still maintaining safety on our roads. I invite the public and interested stakeholders to make a submission and have their say on systems that affect the vast majority of New Zealanders.

💬 Scott Simpson: Given that the Government is seeking ways to make these systems simpler and better in order to save Kiwis time and money, what are some of the options presented in the discussion document?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: In relation to warrants of fitness, there are several options in the paper.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Simon says.

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: Well, New Zealanders do care about this, Mr Peters. One option is looking at changing the frequency of inspections—for example, yearly inspections for vehicles up to 12 years old, and 6 monthly thereafter, or inspections only at change of ownership. These are not preferred options, and there may be others. What we know is that New Zealand’s inspection frequency in this area is higher than that of most other OECD countries.

Prime Minister—Statements

10. to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his statement, “I do not know so much about ‘Planet Key’, but my expectations are it would be a lovely place to live, it would be beautifully governed, golf courses would be plentiful, people would have plenty of holidays to enjoy their time, and what a wonderful place it would be”?

Yes. But I feel that I was remiss in not adding that the only place you would find the greens would be on the golf courses. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Metiria Turei’s supplementary question. [Interruption] Order! On this occasion it is the National members who are being unreasonably loud.

💬 Metiria Turei: On “Planet Key”, his idea of nirvana, are 270,000 children living in poverty while their mums earn $13.50 an hour cleaning the toilets on his plentiful golf courses?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. We would not have toilets on “Planet Key”. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Someone will be going if they are not silent while I am on my feet. [Interruption] Look, the House will come to order, and that includes braying like a jackass when I am on my feet. That is not acceptable.

💬 Metiria Turei: On “Planet Key”, his version of nirvana, would women receive equal pay for equal work, and pay equity for equivalent work, so that women, too, can enjoy plenty of holidays with their families?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: No. People would not be working; they would be having a great time with leisure.

💬 Metiria Turei: Back in the real world, where 150,000 children—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has every right to ask her question, and I want to hear it.

💬 Metiria Turei: Back in the real world, where 150,000 New Zealand children in beneficiary households live in severe poverty, why does he consistently refuse any solution to bring them out of that poverty, including a targeted child payment, which would help these children to be fed as they deserve to be?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Here in New Zealand—if that is what the member is referring to—in fact, this Government has done a great deal to try to help at-risk young children. That includes, in the worst of times, maintaining large recycling of payments through the likes of Working for Families. We have set a target to make sure that 98 percent of youngsters get into early childhood education. We have been increasing the numbers of youngsters who are going into early childhood education. We have set a target of having 95 percent infant immunisation rates. In fact, again we have been seeing immunisation rates go up. We have set a target to reduce rheumatic fever by two-thirds, and, again, we are starting to see that reduction. We are undertaking significant welfare reform, because we know that about 220,000 children are growing up in welfare-based homes, and we know the fastest way out of poverty is to get into paid employment.

💬 Metiria Turei: Why should 150,000 poor, hungry children have to wait for him to deliver the 87,000 jobs that their parents would need to get off the benefit before he will step up and do something for them? Why do they not deserve to live in a wonderful place too?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think it is really important to understand that businesses deliver jobs, so what the Government is focused on doing is making sure that we have the environment that encourages people to create jobs. We have seen 50,000 new jobs created in the last couple of years. We have also seen that member resist every measure that this Government has taken to deliver an environment that would be more conducive to job growth. If the member wants to follow her policy prescription, she had actually better get used to signing up to a whole lot more kids not having parents who are working.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: When he said that he would not support Labour’s Child Poverty Bill because “it needed a range of measures of poverty”, had he actually read it, given it includes four measures of poverty, or is it in the same reading pile as John Banks’ police file?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It certainly deserves to be, but, no, I have actually, funnily enough, read a little bit of it. What the member, I think, actually goes on to say is that there should be social obligations in it—something she was bagging National for when it was doing it. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I want to hear Metiria Turei.

💬 Metiria Turei: Will the Prime Minister show these kids that he cares about them and support my bill for a child payment for the 150,000 New Zealand children who, unlike his mates on “Planet Key”, do not get a holiday from poverty?

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I really take offence when the member says that we do not care about these young New Zealanders. This Government spends a huge amount of time, money, and energy focused on those young New Zealanders and on trying to give them help. If the member thinks that that will be resolved without giving them a decent education—because she does not support all the measures that this Government has taken to lift education standards—then she is dreaming. If the member thinks that that can be achieved by a universal payment, as I said to the member some time ago, she comes into this House and she bags this Government because she argues that we have people who are well off, and then she wants to give the same millionaires yet more money to raise their kids. She is barking mad if that is what she thinks.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that last statement. That is totally unfair. The Prime Minister should withdraw and apologise for that last statement.

💬 Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I withdraw and apologise.

Employment, 90-day Trial Period and Changes to Minimum Wage—Effect on Women

11. to the Minister of Labour: How have employment law changes relating to the minimum wage and 90-day trial implemented by the Government improved the working lives of New Zealand women?

This Government is focused on creating labour market and economic conditions that help create more jobs and higher wages for all New Zealanders, including women. The member should really be aware, however, that we have not made any changes to the minimum wage legislation. However, we have increased the minimum wage each year at a sustainable and responsible rate to ensure that purchasing power is retained without throwing jobs on the scrap heap. In terms of the 90-day trials, research by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research has previously told us that 90-day trials led to 13,000 new jobs in small and medium sized businesses. Many of these 13,000 will, of course, be filled by women. New data now confirms that extending 90-day trials to all businesses has been a great success, and is especially beneficial for young people and the long-term unemployed, including women.

💬 Darien Fenton: If, as she claims, her 90-day trial period has been so successful, why are there now 26,000 more women unemployed than when the policy began, and why cannot she find any real women to talk about it and support it?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I know of a lot of real women who can actually sing the praises of the 90-day trial period. But can I just correct the member. There were actually 3,000 more women in employment in the June 2012 quarter than in the previous quarter. That is more women, not fewer.

💬 Darien Fenton: Does she agree that the working lives of the 60 percent of working women who rely on the minimum wage will be improved with a $15 minimum wage, or is she determined to keep women in their place in low-paying jobs in the service sector?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: I do not think anybody is suggesting that life on the minimum wage is that easy, and these are difficult economic times. But actually, on official figures in our advice, if we immediately jumped to Labour’s $15-per-hour policy, that would see up to 3,350 women lose their jobs—thrown out of a job, on the dole. That is not a good look on Suffrage Day.

💬 Darien Fenton: How will her plans to make it harder to settle collective agreements and to allow employers to pay new workers less than the collective agreement on a job improve the working lives of women, or is the plan really about driving wages even lower?

💬 Hon KATE WILKINSON: In answer to the second part of that question, to be succinct, no.

Retirement Savings—Trans-Tasman Portability

12. to the Minister of Revenue: What progress has the Government made towards making retirement savings portable between New Zealand and Australia?

There has been very good progress towards implementing a trans-Tasman retirement savings portability scheme, which strongly reflects our aim of achieving a seamless trans-Tasman economic environment. New Zealand passed legislation implementing savings portability in 2010, and yesterday the Australian Government released its draft legislation for savings portability, which would mark the near completion of the necessary legislative steps so that portability can go live in 2013. Under that scheme New Zealanders will be able to transfer savings between approved Australian superannuation funds and their KiwiSaver accounts. That will be particularly good news for KiwiSavers because it makes it easier for Kiwis returning home from Australia to bring their retirement savings with them.

💬 Todd McClay: What benefits will retirement savings portability bring to KiwiSavers?

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: As I said, it is important as part of helping the free movement of people between Australia and New Zealand. It removes a barrier to New Zealanders returning home. It enables them to consolidate their financial affairs in New Zealand, and that in turn will bring down the cost of managing a number of the retirement funds and so increase the amount they have got available to draw upon in their retirement. The Australian Taxation Office has noted that the amount of lost accounts in the Australian superannuation system is presently about $16.6 billion. Much of that money could belong to New Zealanders who have returned home, and the new portability rules will enable those funds to be recovered, brought back to New Zealand, and consolidated into people’s own KiwiSaver accounts here.

💬 Todd McClay: How will retirement savings portability strengthen economic ties between Australia and New Zealand?

💬 Hon PETER DUNNE: It is part of the range of moves towards establishing a single economic market between Australia and New Zealand. What this will do is improve labour market mobility between both countries, because it will give people some security about the nature of their retirement savings. It is interesting to note that the productivity commissions on both sides of the Tasman supported the scheme because they saw it as a key part of strengthening our trans-Tasman economic relationship.

Questions to Members

Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill—Report-back Date and Submissions Received

1. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Chairperson of the Local Government and Environment Committee: When will the Local Government Act 2002 Amendment Bill be reported back to the House and approximately how many written submissions have been received on the Bill?

The bill is due to be reported to the House on 5 November 2012. The deadline for submissions was 26 July 2012, and the committee has received 667 written submissions on the bill. That figure includes supplementary submissions.

💬 Andrew Williams: What has been the general consensus—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There was an unfortunate comment from, I think, the chair, or, certainly, through the chair’s mike, which was that you should know because you are on the committee. Mr Speaker, that is clearly not the case.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! This is not helping the good order of the House. I did not hear. The member gave, I think, a comprehensive answer to the question asked, and I think we should proceed.

💬 Andrew Williams: What has been the general consensus of most submissions by local authorities and Local Government New Zealand?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member is now asking about the nature of submissions. That is a matter for the committee. The member may now go on to question No. 2.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Purpose

2. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: What is the intention of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill?

The intention of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill is to amend section 8 of the principal Act to give the Reserve Bank a broader ambit when implementing monetary policy. The bill would mean that the Reserve Bank would have to consider a much wider range of counter-inflationary measures, which about 50 other economies are doing, I might add, as well as supplementary tools for managing the exchange rate.

💬 Andrew Williams: What additional tools could the Reserve Bank use?

That is an excellent question. Such tools would include tightening capital controls, which would reduce the inflow of so-called “hot” money and lead to a depreciation of the exchange rate. Another option is the introduction of a cap on the New Zealand dollar, which would require the Reserve Bank to sell New Zealand dollars and purchase foreign assets when the dollar reaches a certain threshold, which it is now well past and is damaging the New Zealand export sector.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Effect on Policy

3. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: How will the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill help the Reserve Bank pursue a balanced macro-economic policy?

Another very pertinent question. The Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—[Interruption] Well, if I represented the rural parts of this country, I would take notice about this, because it is certainly damaging them right now. The bill would require the Reserve Bank to incorporate into its monetary policy the goal of achieving a stable and competitive exchange rate. The effect of a stable and competitive exchange rate would be a more productive export sector, which would increase national income and get more New Zealanders into real work.

💬 Andrew Williams: What is the outlook for New Zealand without a balanced macroeconomic policy?

This is a great question. The answer is more of the same—more of the same—only worse: hundreds of manufacturing jobs being lost each week; more manufacturing closures; cutbacks and relocations offshore; more farmers sliding into economic difficulty, where one in five is currently now; well over 50,000 New Zealanders going now, every year, to Australia; a worsening balance of payments crisis, as evidenced today, as evidenced this very day by the current account deficit reaching 4.9 percent and heading towards 7 percent—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I think the answer has been of sufficient length.

💬 Brendan Horan: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I move that the House burst into spontaneous applause for this bill, which will save our—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! That is not assisting with the good order of the House.

Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill—Timing

My question is to the former Treasurer, the Rt Hon Winston Peters. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Andrew Williams, question No. 4.

To the former Treasurer—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has to be to the promoter of the bill.

4. ANDREW WILLIAMS (NZ First) to the Member in charge of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill: Why is the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill needed now?

New Zealand’s dollar is heading for parity with the US dollar. Our current account deficit is forecast to reach almost 7 percent in the next 2 years. As we know, an average of 100 manufacturing jobs are being lost each week and the high dollar is estimated to be costing exporters well over $2 billion a year. We need to have a serious public debate about the future of monetary policy, and, in particular, the historically high dollar.

💬 Andrew Williams: What is the international context of the bill?

That is a superb question, because this House has heard that we cannot take measures—except, around the world, Governments and central banks are placing greater emphasis on their exchange rate. The United States right now, for example, recently began its third round of qualitative easing. So has the United Kingdom. The European Central Bank has cut interest rates. Singapore, Japan, and Switzerland are actively trading against their respective currencies. Other countries such as Brazil and Canada are operating capital controls, whilst we resemble Spain.