Questions for Oral Answer

2. to the Prime Minister: When was his Chief of Staff first informed about the role of the GCSB in the Kim Dotcom case, and when were officials from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, including the Intelligence Co-ordination Group, the National Assessments Bureau, and the Security Intelligence Service first aware of the Kim Dotcom case?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister’s chief of staff was first informed of the role that the Government Communications Security Bureau played on Monday, 17 September. He had been alerted the previous Thursday that there was a potential issue of illegality relating to an operation that the Government Communications Security Bureau had conducted in relation to Kim Dotcom, but at that time was given no details of the role the Government Communications Security Bureau had played. His office advised the Government Communications Security Bureau that the director needed to directly brief the Prime Minister as quickly as possible face to face. That meeting was arranged prior to the end of the week and took place on Monday, 17 September, following Cabinet. I am advised that there was no involvement by any Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet agency prior to the arrest of Kim Dotcom. With regard to the Security Intelligence Service, I am advised that its involvement was limited to routine checks, which were made when Dotcom applied for New Zealand residency in 2010.

💬 Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that that was a detailed question, and I also appreciate the Minister’s answer. In respect of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, all he told us there was that it had no knowledge prior to the arrest. That does not really answer the question of when it was first aware.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister has gone to some trouble to answer the question with some particularity. When I read the question I made notes of the first part of the question—that the Minister should give a precise answer to that, because it is something that there should be a clear answer to. The second part of the question, asking when those various agencies were aware, is a matter that is far more vague. I think it would be difficult for me to try to pin the Minister down on that when there are further supplementary questions available. I think the Minister has made a pretty reasonable fist of answering that question.

💬 Grant Robertson: Can he confirm, in light of that answer, that his chief of staff did in fact find out about the Government Communications Security Bureau’s role on the Thursday before 17 September, not on 17 September as he told the House yesterday?

I can only repeat what I said in the first answer, which was that the chief of staff had been alerted the previous Thursday that there was a potential issue of illegality relating to an operation that the Government Communications Security Bureau had conducted in relation to Kim Dotcom. But at that time he was given no details of the role that the Government Communications Security Bureau had played.

💬 Grant Robertson: When—on what date—did the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet become aware of the Kim Dotcom case?

I am advised there was no involvement by any Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet agency prior to the arrest of Kim Dotcom. I presume they read the newspapers at some point.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does he think that ignorance of the law by the Government Communications Security Bureau and the police is an acceptable reason for what has occurred?

The Prime Minister has released a press release this afternoon that indicates his concern and disappointment at the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau and at the errors that have been made, and that is clearly laid out. There is also an associated statement from the director of the Government Communications Security Bureau, in terms of the actions it will be taking.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does he think that Justice Neazor is conflicted in reviewing the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau in this case, given that his normal role involves monitoring and working with the Government Communications Security Bureau, and is he in effect investigating his own actions here?

I think the role of Justice Neazor—who, I would point out, is a former Solicitor-General and a former judge of the High Court—is exactly the role that he has undertaken in doing this inquiry for the Prime Minister.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does he think that New Zealanders have a right to expect more of him as the Minister responsible for our security agencies than the casual, disinterested approach he has taken to this case?

I completely reject that assertion. The Prime Minister was advised and had the meeting on 17 September, and promptly called an inquiry, which has now been released today. It is pathetic to suggest that he was disinterested.

💬 Grant Robertson: What was discussed in the 15 meetings that the Prime Minister had with the Government Communications Security Bureau this year if it was not about cases that involve the United States Government, the FBI, and a range of New Zealand agencies?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister is able to answer, I call the Hon Steven Joyce.

Firstly, obviously, those are matters of national security. But, secondly, the member seems to be suggesting that the Prime Minister would involve himself in the operational control on a day-to-day basis of security services. That is a particularly disturbing—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, no. Order! The member asked a question that perhaps there was no way the Minister could answer, but that does not mean that the Minister goes on to that sort of material.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does he accept that as Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau he acts as the main democratic check for New Zealanders on our security agencies, and should he not be taking his role more seriously than to have 15 meetings where apparently he was not briefed about one of these operations?

I appreciate Mr Robertson is trying to obfuscate in this matter, but the reality is the Prime Minister was made aware on 17 September, and then called an inquiry.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does he take responsibility for the actions of the Government Communications Security Bureau, an agency for which he has ministerial responsibility?

The Prime Minister, of course, is the Minister responsible for the Government Communications Security Bureau, and as soon as the matters were raised with him, he called an inquiry. That inquiry has been announced today. It is exactly the right thing to do, and the member is being disingenuous by suggesting anything else.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if that is the Prime Minister’s answer, is he aware that the inspector-general is charged with also reviewing the manner in which the SIS interception warrants are sought, that he approved the inspector-general to lead the inquiry before he even ascertained whether the SIS was involved in the Dotcom case, and is that not new evidence justifying a full-scale inquiry into the matter, covering all departments and agencies involved in the case, in order to ascertain what has gone wrong and restore the public’s faith in these institutions?

That was a many-legged question. All I can say is that the report of the inspector-general is on the table today. It lays out clearly the mistakes made by the Government Communications Security Bureau and the actions to be taken by it.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware that in the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Report 2011, the inspector-general states specifically that “In particular the [inspector-general] assists the Minister to ensure that the activities of [the agencies] comply with the law”, and hence the inspector-general himself is implicated in the failure of the Government Communications Security Bureau to follow the law, so having the inspector-general do the investigation is a conflict of interest?

I reject the member’s supposition, and I would point out that the inspector-general has done exactly what is required of him, which is to have an inquiry into the matters that have been raised in regard to the Government Communications Security Bureau.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: I seek leave to table this document. It is not available online. It is very difficult to get hold of, actually. It is the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security Annual Report 2011, from which that quote came.

💬 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.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does the Prime Minister accept that the precedent for a Minister who is responsible but not aware of an issue comes from Denis Marshall in the Cave Creek situation, where the Minister resigned?

I appreciate what the member is trying to do. It is the job of a Minister to respond, as in this case, as soon as he was made aware of the situation, to call an inquiry, which has reported today, and actions are now being taken to correct the matters that have been identified.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware that under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act 2003 there is a much higher level of ministerial control required than of most Government agencies, and that section 8(3) says “The performance of the Bureau’s functions is subject to the control of the Minister.”—that is, the Minister has specific responsibilities around controlling the actions of the agency; he cannot just take a hands-off approach?

I am sure the member would understand that there is a fine line between actually taking control of the day-to-day operations—and I think it would be in fact a pretty disturbing suggestion that the Prime Minister would be required to do that. The reality is that all Ministers are responsible for the actions of their departments, and, when a department makes an error, to investigate that error and take remedial action. That is what has happened in this case.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware that under the Government Communications Security Bureau Act the Minister in charge of the Government Communications Security Bureau actually has to sign off personally the interception warrants, which means that the Minister knows the names and identities of the people who are having their communications intercepted? There is a much higher level of ministerial intervention into the operational and day-to-day activities of the Government Communications Security Bureau than for any other Government agency, the reason being that there is no other democratic oversight of the Government Communications Security Bureau.

I would point out to the member again that in this instance the Government Communications Security Bureau has made, as the Prime Minister has identified, two errors. They have now been investigated and they were investigated promptly once the Prime Minister was made aware of those two errors. Despite what the member suggests, I think it is difficult for any Minister to be aware of an error before it has been brought to their attention.

Prisoners, Employment Training—Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy and Better Public Services Targets

3. to the Minister of Corrections: What were the results of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012?

Targets set for prisoners engaged in education and employment under the strategy have been exceeded by more than 100 percent. During the course of the Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 2009-2012, the number of prisoners in vocational training, employment, and literacy and numeracy education increased to 7,529 from 5,359, an increase of 2,170, compared with the target of 1,000. There has also been a 33 percent increase in prisoners enrolled in literacy and numeracy programmes, of which 58 percent are Māori. All evidence shows that prisoners who are released with improved skills are significantly less likely to reoffend.

💬 Jacqui Dean: What are the next steps for the Department of Corrections to further improve the numbers of prisoners engaged in employment and training?

💬 Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Better Public Services targets for the Department of Corrections will see a 25 percent reduction in reoffending by 2017. This will lead to 600 fewer prisoners and 4,000 fewer community offenders being reconvicted every year, and 18,500 fewer victims every year. Over the next 5 years nearly 3,000 additional prisoners will be in education and employment training, while 7,500 prisoners and community offenders will be given support to find real jobs in new partnerships with employers and industry.

Dotcom Case—Government Communications Security Bureau Actions and Confidence in Minister

4. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in the Minister for the Government Communications Security Bureau (GCSB) given the Prime Minister’s statement that the GCSB unlawfully intercepted communications in relation to Kim Dotcom; if so, why?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes; because as soon as the Minister was made aware of the issues in question he called for an urgent inquiry by the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, and that inquiry report has been released publicly into the House today.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: How can he be confident that the Minister responsible for the GCSB is fulfilling his statutory functions to control the Government Communications Security Bureau under section 8(3) of the Government Communications Security Bureau Act, given that the Minister was unaware of the bureau’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom case until last week—a case that began in December of last year?

It is important to point out the outcome of the report, which may assist the member with his—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: We know what the outcome is. Why didn’t he know?

If Mr Peters knew the outcome he would know that that question was not actually the correct interpretation. Firstly, there were two mistakes. The Government Communications Security Bureau originally relied on police information about the residency status of the people in question; it did not check further. Secondly, the error was compounded, after its operation was concluded, simply by a wrong interpretation of the law. Those are two very significant errors that have been identified in the report by the inspector-general. As the member will see, the Government Communications Security Bureau is taking action in regard to those matters.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the member for his next question, the Minister’s answer did not actually answer the question that was asked. The question asked about the role of the Minister in relation to section 8(3) of the Act in respect of, as the member asking the question alleges, the control of the Government Communications Security Bureau and how he sort of justifies that requirement of the Act—or how he lines up that requirement of the Act against the claimed unawareness of any involvement of the bureau since November last year, or some time. In order to clarify the situation—because I do not want to destroy the member’s question—I think I should invite Dr Russel Norman to repeat his question, because these are serious matters. The member has not made any outrageous assertions in his question, at all. He has cited the Act. He has asked how the member justifies what has happened, given the requirements of the Act. I ask Dr Russel Norman to repeat his question.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: How can he be confident that the Minister responsible for the GCSB is fulfilling his statutory functions to control the Government Communications Security Bureau under section 8(3) of the relevant Act, given that the Minister has told us that he was unaware of the bureau’s involvement in the Kim Dotcom case until last week—a case that began in December of last year?

I think that a different way of putting the answer is that the Government Communications Security Bureau was operating under the assumption, I think, that it did not need to advise its Minister, because of its interpretation of the residency status of the person involved. Obviously that has proven to be incorrect.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: How can he be confident in the Minister’s oversight of the Government Communications Security Bureau when the inspector-general of Intelligence and Security, in his annual report of 2011, raised concerns about the operation of Government Communications Security Bureau authorisations to intercept communications, and, so far as we are aware, the Minister has never taken any action to follow up with the bureau why the inspector-general has raised these concerns in his last report and what the Minister has done about it?

I am not able to answer that particular element of the member’s question today, but what I would point out is that in response to the Government Communications Security Bureau raising the issue, and the errors that it has made, the Prime Minister moved very swiftly to act on these matters and called an inquiry immediately, and that inquiry has reported today.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: Is the Minister aware that in relation to the Government Communications Security Bureau there is no standard parliamentary select committee oversight, and the Official Information Act effectively cannot be applied, because the bureau has a defence for not releasing the information under any circumstances, so the sole democratic oversight for that organisation lies with the Minister responsible; and does he believe that the Minister responsible is taking that responsibility seriously enough when we find out he does not know about the Kim Dotcom case, which started in December?

I think we are all very aware of the unique nature of the Government Communications Security Bureau agency. I think it is, indeed, indicative of and underlines the Prime Minister’s view of his responsibility in this regard that when the matter was brought to his attention he immediately called an inquiry into that matter. He has advised the public, and the inquiry has been reported. I would say that that underlines how seriously he takes his role in this regard.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Given that for months the only person in authority in this country who seemed not to know about Kim Dotcom was the Prime Minister—

💬 Hon Dr Nick Smith: Not true.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is true, for God’s sake—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please just ask his question. [Interruption] No, order! The member will please ask his question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, “Young Nick” keeps on shouting out. It is very—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will just ask his question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know he wants to get back into Cabinet. Given that for months the only person in authority who did not know about Kim Dotcom or that plush mansion just down the road from the Prime Minister’s electorate office was the Prime Minister, why is he settling on a narrow inquiry into just the Government Communications Security Bureau, when five other agencies all responsible in some way to him never ever told him?

All I can do is point out to the member, who claimed he had read the report from the inspector-general—but I now have my doubts, given his question—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We do not want interpretation from that amateur. The fact is I have got two copies of the report—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member knows that is totally outside the Standing Orders and he is skating on thin ice. [Interruption] Order! The member’s question was not the most simple and direct question I have ever heard in the House and the Minister is doing his best, I think, to answer it.

I bow to the member’s obviously very, very long time in the House, but my understanding of it is very simple in relation to this matter: the Government Communications Security Bureau made two errors in relation to this particular matter, and when it drew them to the Prime Minister’s attention, he immediately called an inquiry. I am not quite sure what the member is asserting the Prime Minister should do in this regard, but the bureau obviously made a serious mistake, which is now being investigated.

💬 Dr Russel Norman: As I do not believe that the Government has tabled this report, I seek leave to table the report from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think that is publicly available right now. We will not bother with that.

MediaWorks—Payment of Radio Broadcasting Licence Fees

5. to the Prime Minister: Did MediaWorks have discussions with him in relation to their application for a deferment of their radio broadcasting licence fees; if so, what was the outcome?

on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister has had no formal meetings with the board, senior management, or representatives of MediaWorks to discuss their radio broadcasting licence fee. On one occasion in 2009 he ran into a Mr Brent Impey at a social event in Auckland, where he briefly raised the issue with the Prime Minister. He passed his comments on to the responsible Minister.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did one Steven Joyce present a paper to Cabinet on 12 October 2009 proposing the deferred payment scheme, given that both the Ministry of Economic Development and Treasury had advised that the Joyce scheme would expose the Government to unnecessary financial risk? In short, why did the deal go ahead?

I am sure the member is aware that Cabinet makes its decisions on a weekly basis. I would point out that the matter he refers to was the subject of a Government announcement on 22 October 2009.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked whether the Prime Minister was aware of one Steven Joyce presenting a Cabinet paper to Cabinet on 12 October 2009. Could we have an answer to that?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, well, sadly, the member did not finish his question there. He then asked: “Why did the proposal go ahead?”, and that is the bit the Minister answered.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, if that is the case he answered neither question, then.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Could I have an answer to at least one question?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! He answered the last part of the question. The member asked why it went ahead and, if I heard the Minister correctly, he said it was because Cabinet decided it should. That is a perfectly proper answer to the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I put the rider on it: given that both the Ministry of Economic Development and Treasury had advised against it, then why? We have had an answer to neither question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Well, forgive me; in my view the Minister answered it. He said it was because Cabinet decided—and Cabinets often, in my experience, decide on matters contrary to advice from all sorts of departments—and that was the Minister’s answer.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has he received any reports regarding the financial trouble of GR Media Holdings, the parent company of MediaWorks, which recently posted a $305 million loss; and is he concerned about how this will impact on MediaWorks’ ability to pay back tens of millions of dollars of hard-earned taxpayers’ dollars?

No, and I suggest that if he wants the specifics in this matter he might put the question down to the responsible Minister. But I am aware that this particular payment is completely up to date.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, what responsibility does he intend to take—or what responsibility does Steven Joyce intend to take, as the Prime Minister extracted from him—if this company goes belly up as the market says it is, and tens of millions of dollars are lost to the New Zealand taxpayer, despite his mates’ rates arrangements?

I have tried to draw the member’s attention to the Government announcement on 22 October 2009, and perhaps if I could quote a couple of things from it in relation to the matter that the member raises. Firstly, it was made clear that this is a commercial arrangement that was entered into at the time to allow the whole radio industry some short-term flexibility of payment terms. Given the very prominent, at that stage, global financial crisis, it was available to all companies that had renewals falling at the time of the height of the global financial crisis.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a paper that sets out that the whole of the industry, about which Mr Joyce speaks, is $300,000 to the rest of the industry and the rest—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Could the member identify the document?

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, I will get it from the library shortly.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I will get it from the library shortly. I have got time.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No, we no longer seek leave to table documents that do not exist.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thought that the point the Rt Hon Winston Peters was making was that the document exists. I thought that under the Standing Orders we had until the end of play to table documents that we could seek leave—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We are not going to play around with the Standing Orders at all. In this House it used to happen that leave was sought to table documents that did not exist, and we are not going to have members seeking leave to table documents that do not exist and then going to the library to try to assemble a document that might match that.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, I have seen the document—that is why I know the figures—but I have not got it with me. I thought it would be in my papers today, and it is a bit remiss of me in not having it here. All I am saying is I know the document exists. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! A point of order has been sought. As Speaker I must take the member at his word. The member says he has seen this document, and therefore he is telling the House that the document exists. Leave is sought for the tabling of that document. Is there any objection?

💬 Hon Member: What is the document?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The document is a document from the library. The member needs to be able to tell the House what the document is.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I am at liberty to say my research unit got the information I believe, I am certain, from the library. That is why I have got the figures already. I mean, these are not hidden; they are known. The Government actually made the report on the given day.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Now the member is debating. Seeking leave to table documents is now a very precise operation. I think we do not know enough about this document for me to seriously seek leave from the House.

Oil, Gas, and Mineral Resources—Legislation and Initiatives

6. to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What steps is the Government taking to encourage the development of New Zealand’s oil, gas and mineral resources?

Yesterday the Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown Land) Bill passed its first reading in this House. The bill is a significant step in the Government’s commitment to promote responsible exploration and production of oil, gas, and mineral resources. The bill will also ensure that the country receives a fair financial return for those minerals so they can contribute more to our economic development, as well as providing New Zealanders with greater confidence in how the Government allocates rights to resources and how it is managing and regulating those rights.

💬 Jonathan Young: What reports has the Minister seen on the potential of the oil, gas, and minerals sector?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I have seen a report from the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment that shows that New Zealand is set to earn more than $3 billion in royalties from oilfields and gasfields already in production. If patterns of exploration and development increase, future royalty income could generate up to $12.7 billion for New Zealand. This is new money that can be invested in schools, hospitals, and roads. This is why the Government wants to realise the economic benefits from developing our oil, gas, and mineral resources in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.

💬 Jonathan Young: What other work is the Government progressing in relation to ensuring a strong regulatory regime for oil and gas exploration?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The Government recently passed new environmental legislation that will allow us to carefully manage development in an environmentally responsible way of our enormous resources that lie in our oceans. We also recently reviewed New Zealand’s marine oil spill preparedness and response capability. The Government is also currently reviewing the health and safety regulations that apply to petroleum operations and is reviewing the minimum insurance requirements for offshore installations. I wait with interest for the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment’s investigation into hydraulic fracturing. So, as you can see, there are several reforms going on at the moment that will ensure that we have a more robust but progressive regulatory regime.

💬 Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora tātou. Does the Minister agree with the submission of Ngati Porou, in response to the review of the Crown Minerals Act that preceded the legislation he mentioned earlier, that “the Crown is proposing what Ngati Porou considers to be the progressive removal and/or softening of environmental protections and the already limited protections available to iwi.”; if not, why not?

💬 Hon PHIL HEATLEY: No. The Crown’s obligations to iwi and to the environment are already significant. Processes for discharging those obligations are established through the minerals programmes. Those obligations and principles set out in the minerals programmes are sound and broad enough to take care of what the member raises.

Jobs—Statistics

7. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement “the Government is doing everything it can to give businesses the confidence to invest, grow and create new jobs”; if so, what was the net change in filled jobs in the private sector from December 2008 to December 2011 according to Statistics New Zealand’s Quarterly Employment Survey?

on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Yes, the Minister does stand by that statement. The official measure of employment and unemployment, which is the household labour force survey, shows that 57,000 more New Zealanders are in a job now than 2 years ago. In contrast, the quarterly employment survey, which the member raises, has a number of gaps. It does not include agriculture, for example, which is reasonably significant in the New Zealand context, or the self-employed, which is also significant, and it excludes around half a million jobs in the economy. With that in mind, over the period the member has selected, that survey reports that the number of filled jobs fell by 30,000, but it is also important to note that that loss happened in just one single quarter at the height of the recession, and then there was the global financial crisis.

💬 Hon David Parker: Why does he prefer the measure of the household labour force survey, when just about everyone other than him knows that it counts someone who has three jobs, each of which could be just an hour long, as three more people employed in New Zealand?

Actually, the member’s changing choice of documents is quite amusing. It is interesting to note, though, that the reason we choose it is that it is the official measure, but do not take our word for it. Between 1999 and 2008 the number of press releases issued by the previous Government that mentioned the household labour force survey was 78. The number that mentioned the quarterly employment survey, which the member refers to today, was two. So I think the previous Government was in favour of the household labour force survey, as well.

💬 Hon David Parker: Given his preference for the household labour force survey and given that it now shows there are 162,000 people unemployed as of June 2012, does it concern him that on that measure there are more unemployed New Zealanders now than at any other point under this Government?

I am not sure about the veracity of the last statement that the member made in that question, but what I can say to him is, obviously—

💬 Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A member is not allowed to question another member’s veracity. The member made a statement in this House. He can say he does not agree with it, but he cannot question his veracity.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: To disagree with “the veracity of it” I think is getting too precious altogether. I have never known the honourable member himself to be quite so precious, to be fair.

As I said, I am not sure about that last statement that the member has raised, but I can say that of course the Government is very keen to have more New Zealanders employed. We are actually doing pretty well relative to the rest of the world. I appreciate that we are not doing well compared with “Planet Labour”, but we have had, of course, the global financial crisis, we have had the Canterbury earthquakes, and, actually, we are making good progress. And I note that in the business confidence survey released today, something like 26 percent of businesses were expecting an increase in activity over the next 12 months, and that is very encouraging for jobs in this country.

💬 Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing that according to the household labour force survey unemployment is now 162,000, and that it is the highest it has been under this Government.

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

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

💬 Paul Goldsmith: Could the Minister please remind the House what is the official measure of unemployment?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The question actually should be, I guess, “What is the official measure of unemployment?”. What the member said was not actually a question. I invite him to actually pose it as a question.

💬 Paul Goldsmith: What is the official measure of unemployment?

The official measure of unemployment and employment is the household labour force survey, which shows some 57,000 more New Zealanders are in a job now than there were 2 years ago. That is a good-news story for New Zealand. As I said to the House before, the further good news is that business confidence in terms of own expectations is growing very significantly. Actually we are coming out of the global financial crisis, which I know did not occur on “Planet Labour”, very well.

💬 Hon David Parker: If he came to this House prepared to say that the official measure of employment and unemployment is the household labour force survey, why could he not answer my question, which asked him directly whether it was now showing unemployment at 162,000, and confirm that that is the highest it has been under his Government?

The point is that I acknowledged in the answer that it is higher than we all would like—I think everybody in this House—but the Government is working very hard to improve the confidence of New Zealand businesses. As I say, the business confidence survey that came out today is another indicator that that is occurring. It is a very difficult time for the world, but in New Zealand we have had a GDP growth rate of 0.6 percent in the last quarter, which is one of the best in the world and is equivalent to that of Australia. In the first quarter we had a very good GDP growth figure as well. So, yes, it is tough, but we are growing and that is positive.

💬 Hon David Parker: Does he still stand by the promise made during the 2011 election campaign to create 170,000 more jobs?

Yes. I would note that we are actually making some pretty good progress, with 57,000 new jobs over the last couple of years.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was whether he stood by the promise at the election to create 170,000 more jobs—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister said yes, he did.

Television, Switch-over to Digital—Hawke’s Bay and West Coast

8. to the Minister of Broadcasting: What percentage of households in Hawke’s Bay and on the West Coast of the South Island are expected to go digital ahead of the digital switchover in these regions on 30 September 2012?

It is expected that around 96 percent of Hawke’s Bay and West Coast households with TVs will have gone digital by the end of the month. At the beginning of the year the conversion rate in Hawke’s Bay was just 80 percent. Thanks to the effort of the Going Digital team, there is a high level of awareness in these regions, which are now approaching 100 percent.

💬 John Hayes: What is being done to promote awareness in the next region to go digital?

💬 Hon CRAIG FOSS: The rest of the South Island will have its digital switch-over at the end of April next year. The digital switch-over awareness campaign has been rolled out across the South Island through community advisers and local advertising. People who may be eligible for the targeted assistance package are already being contacted directly.

Question No. 9 to Minister

I seek leave to hold over my question until the Minister for Social Development is available to answer.

Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.

Welfare Reforms—Minister’s Statements and Commentary

9. to the Minister for Social Development: Does she stand by her statement that “The National-led Government’s initiatives will modernise welfare to better suit New Zealand’s needs and make welfare work”?

on behalf of the Minister for Social Development: Yes, within context.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: What evidence did she use before deciding to target beneficiaries with her social obligations that they enrol their children with an early childhood educator and general practitioner, given that she has said: “we don’t know the exact percentage of which are not enrolled in early-childhood education or enrolled with a GP.”?

I think, as the various Cabinet papers and speeches that the Minister has made will make clear, the Minister is aware of all the evidence that suggests that early childhood education does help improve children’s ability to enter the school system and to get the rudimentary understandings that they need. We all know that being enrolled in a general practice does mean a child is more likely to have had their immunisation, to have had primary care, and, certainly, the B4 School Check.

💬 Jacinda Ardern: What is her response to prominent economist Gareth Morgan, who said of her bill that “National’s reactionary populism is a giant step backwards in policy sophistication and is depressing.”?

I do not think the Minister would be too concerned at that commentary from Mr Gareth Morgan, because I think the Minister is very well aware that the work she is doing is to make sure that all the incentives align on rewarding work and independence, and that, for those who are most vulnerable, we have services and obligations and expectations in order to help them to get into work, and to ensure that their children are being supported as well as the Public Service can.

National Certificate of Educational Achievement—2011 Results

10. to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on the 2011 NCEA results?

I have received the final report on 2011 school-leaver qualification data for National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA) results, and I am delighted, as I am sure all members of the House will be, with the improvements across the board. Last year nearly 72 percent of all school-leavers attained at least NCEA level 2, compared with 69 percent in 2010 and 66 percent in 2009. That is up 6 percent in the last 3 years. I am delighted with this result and I know we can do better, and I look forward to further increases next year and in future years.

💬 Simon O’Connor: What does the 2011 NCEA level 2 data show about the outcomes for Māori and Pasifika school-leavers?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: I am happy to say that the data shows we are already making a significant impact on the number of young Māori leaving school with NCEA level 2. Last year 51 percent of Māori students left school with NCEA level 2, up from 44 percent in 2009 and 48 percent in 2010. That is up 7 percent in the last 3 years. Similarly, 63 percent of Pasifika students left with NCEA level 2, compared with 59 percent in 2010 and 56 percent in 2009. That is up another 7 percent in the last 3 years. Although this is a very good result and shows we are on the right track, our Government has much higher aspirations for our young people. We think we can do much better, with a clear focus on lifting achievement for five out of five learners.

Courts—Law Commission Recommendations for Trial Processes

11. to the Minister of Justice: Will she give full consideration to any recommendations the Law Commission makes on alternative trial processes when the Commission reports back?

Yes.

💬 Jan Logie: Can she confirm that the alternative trial processes report is no longer on the Law Commission’s work programme and is on hold indefinitely, despite submissions being called for only 7 months ago and there having been decades of research showing that change is urgently needed to protect sexual abuse victims in our courts?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I can confirm that the Law Commission has a great body of work that it is working through. This report is not the highest priority that it has. I would have to say to the member that I share her concerns for, particularly, the victims of violent sexual abuse. However, we cannot have a system where there is a civil system, or one particular system, for those victims and those who are accused, and then a completely different system for someone who is accused of another terrible violent crime such as murder or kidnapping.

💬 Jan Logie: If she shares my concerns, why is this work programme on hold indefinitely, despite only 13 percent of sexual violence cases resulting in a conviction and one in five complainants backing out before the case is over?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, of course I share the concerns that the member has for victims of crime. However, that does not mean that we should victimise others by way of having one particular trial process for one strand of offences, and completely different trial processes for other strands. I know that there has been quite a lot of work that has been done from various quarters on this, but at the end of the day we have a system where we have a common law system, and there is work that is being done and has been done, particularly around child witnesses. That work is ongoing. It is currently with parliamentary counsel for drafting. But this is not something where I believe we could have—and I could note some of the comments that Mr Charles Chauvel has made on this very issue, when he has said, and certainly the Labour members have said, on the Victims of Crime Reform Bill: “We are mindful of the wisdom of warnings from the Chief Justice and others that any change”—

💬 Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am delighted that the Minister sees fit to quote me with approval, but is it relevant to answering the question?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I think there is no need to be quoting. The Minister is not responsible for what Mr Chauvel may have said.

💬 Jan Logie: Why is it off the programme when you share my concern, when in the submission in the Law Commission process the inquisitorial aspect was only one small part of that whole piece of research, and when one Crown prosecutor describes the system as “brutal” and says “every aspect of the complainant’s character and conduct is questioned and exposed, and the likely outcome is not guilty.”? Considering this, will she request the Law Commission to put this work back on its programme and report back with recommendations by the end of the year?

💬 Hon JUDITH COLLINS: No.

Schools, Canterbury—Consultation Timetable for Proposed Closures and Mergers

12. to the Minister of Education: What is the consultation timetable for the Christchurch schools she proposes to close or merge, including the date of the proposal announcement, the date submissions close and the date of her final decision?

I announced the proposal on 13 September, and I refer the member to the indicative phases and time line for consultation set out in schedule B, also released on 13 September. The schools that are affected by specific proposals to close or merge will shortly receive details of the formal consultation process and time lines that apply to them. In my view, they should be the first recipients of that information.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Does she stand by all of the information handed out to schools following the announcement on 13 September; if so, why has she decided to send letters to school boards formally initiating the process around mergers and closures, when the time line handed out to schools at her announcement suggested that that would not happen until November-December, after the open consultation process she initiated?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, I do.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Why does the Minister stand by the information that she handed out at the consultation meeting, given that she is no longer adhering to the time line that she herself specified?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: As I answered in the answer to the primary question, they are indicative time lines.

💬 Chris Hipkins: How many schools will she be formally writing to over the next fortnight to formally begin the legislative consultation process around school closures or mergers?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Thirty-nine.

💬 Chris Hipkins: Is it correct that the current proposed time line for a closure is that on 5 October a letter from the Minister will be sent starting the consultation period, 21 November will be the deadline for a return from the school, on 30 November the Minister will accept or reject proposals, and on 13 December the announcement will be made; if not, what is the time line?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, it is not correct—no more so than the paper tabled by the member yesterday.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: Will the Minister personally read every submission she receives on the proposed merger or closure of Christchurch schools?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: As part of her finer-grained consultations that will be part of the formal consultation process required to close or merge schools, will the Minister be making herself available to meet with parents and students to hear their views on her proposals and listen to their possible alternative proposals?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Under the Education Act there are specific requirements for the time line and the process. This process is run by my officials in the Ministry of Education. I will be as available as it is reasonable and appropriate to be.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Trevor Mallard—Dr Megan Woods.

💬 Dr Megan Woods: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think everybody can guess my point of order. I asked a very straight question: will the Minister be making herself available—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! [Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. The Minister answered that. She said she would make herself available as much as is possible, given her ministerial workload. One cannot expect much more of an answer than that.

💬 Nicky Wagner: Can the Minister assure the people of Canterbury that this is a genuine consultation period?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: I can. I am absolutely committed to genuine consultation. No decisions have been made. These proposals represent a $1 billion investment over 10 years. That will mean that Christchurch will have the most modern education system of any city in the country. It is not about simply putting back exactly what was there but about focusing on what can be done better. Thank you.