Oral Questions

1. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his answers to oral question No. 5 yesterday?

Yes.

💬 James Shaw: When he said yesterday that “it is going to take a long time for the world to heat up significantly, and it is going to take a long time to take the measures that might mitigate that.”, what did he consider to be significant?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to get into a technical discussion here, but I was just reflecting on the time spans covered by the climate change models, which run out for about a hundred years.

💬 James Shaw: Would he say that it is significant or insignificant that global temperatures will have risen by 1 degree by the end of this year, which is halfway to the agreed global limit of a 2 degree rise?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: It was in anticipation of that kind of temperature increase that the previous Government, with the then support of the Greens, put in place the emissions trading system, and the increase in the carbon price probably reflects the growing understanding that those temperatures are rising and that more mitigation will be required.

💬 James Shaw: Given that National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) has found that the 2013 drought, which cost the New Zealand economy an estimated $1.3 billion, was longer and more severe because of climate change, would he not agree that taking “the measures that might mitigate that.” is more urgent than he suggested yesterday?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that one can have a discussion about the degree of urgency around climate change policy without relying on individual weather events, where it can be difficult to connect one to the other, or to suggest to the public that some particular policy might avoid droughts in the future—I think that is unlikely. There are debatable points about how much urgency, and I guess that will be discussed at the Paris conference in the next few weeks.

💬 James Shaw: Given, then, that NIWA has also found that events such as the 2014 Northland rain storms, which cost $18 million just in direct insurance claims, are now twice as likely to happen because of climate change, would he not agree that taking the measures to mitigate that is actually more important than he suggested yesterday?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member could go through a list of individual events that point in the direction that the climate is warming up, but, as he knows, probably better than most, it is a global system and the impact of global action is what is going to be important, and that will be tested in the next few weeks in Paris.

💬 James Shaw: What advice has he received from Treasury about the economic impact of the more frequent and more severe floods, storms, and droughts that are already happening, or anticipated to happen, in New Zealand?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have not received advice specifically on that, although when I have looked at advice from other sources, it has been clear that there are some balancing effects, and that in some parts of the world we are going to see, for instance, more food production rather than less. In fact, Treasury’s advice is largely focused on the fact that New Zealand faces the prospect of giving up more economic growth per unit reduction in carbon output than any other developed country. This is one of the reasons why the Government is pretty careful about how it sets its targets, because the economic cost to us of any target that is similar to another country’s target is higher.

💬 James Shaw: How exactly does this Government’s economic strategy of “more roads, more cows, and more oil” fit with the urgent need to reduce our climate emissions in the next 30 years?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I suppose, in the first case, we want to be pretty careful about the negative effects of “no cows, no oil, and fewer roads”, which is the Greens’ policy. We are unlikely to go down that track, but as I have said before to the member, the principal tool for making complex trade-offs around climate change is the emissions trading system. It sends a price signal; that price signal is currently changing. It is a bit unfortunate that the Greens have abandoned what was a multi-party consensus and are heading off in the direction of a carbon tax.

Ministers—Confidence

2. to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all of his Ministers?

Yes. They are competent and hard-working Ministers.

💬 Andrew Little: Why does he have confidence in the Minister for Building and Housing given he used ministry funds to host meetings designed to promote Parmjeet Parmar’s candidacy in a possible by-election?

That is absolutely ridiculous. The Government makes—[Interruption] The Government has a HomeStart policy that will help thousands of young New Zealanders into their first home, and of course local MPs are turning up to promote the policy. We cannot help it if Labour is worried that Labour would lose a by-election in Mt Roskill.

💬 Andrew Little: Why did a ministerial staffer in Nick Smith’s office say in an email: “Parmjeet Parmar has also expressed a strong interest in hosting a road show as she is keen to raise a local profile in Mt Roskill in case of a by-election.”?

The National-led Government is in the fortunate position that its backbenchers like our policies. They know what they are and they want to promote them. I know that is not the case in the Labour Party, but it is the case over here.

💬 Andrew Little: Why does he have confidence in the Minister of Education when her officials intervened to change a damning independent report on education for toddlers and babies from the Education Review Office?

Of course there is confidence in the Minister of Education, who has done more than most Ministers of Education to focus on delivering the promises of public education to those who need it most and has the total backing of the Government in that respect. The member’s other allegations are just wrong.

💬 Andrew Little: Why will the Government not release to taxpayers a taxpayer-funded New Zealand Trade and Enterprise report about sheep that were flown using taxpayer funds to die in a taxpayer-funded corner of the Saudi desert?

As I understand it, the key information in the report is commercially sensitive. There is no aspect—[Interruption] The circumstances to which the member is referring have been thoroughly investigated by the Auditor-General, and Cabinet is quite happy with the nature of those arrangements. [Interruption]

💬 Andrew Little: Well, their heads are somewhere. Why are New Zealand taxpayers funding secret research reports for the private benefit of Saudi sheikhs?

💬 Hon Members: Sheeps?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked; it will now be answered.

Maybe secret sheikhs and the sixth sheep. I do not know what the member is referring to.

💬 Andrew Little: So what steps will he now take to address the widespread and growing perception amongst New Zealanders that his Government is just corrupt? [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I did not hear the last word, but—the Hon Bill English.

That is simply not true. This Government is more open and more transparent than any previous Government. More of its official proceedings are published more quickly; more data is more open to anyone. The Government is fully transparent.

Services Sector—Productivity

3. to the Minister of Finance: What proportion of the economy is made up by the services sector, and how can the Government boost the productivity of this sector?

The services sector now generates around 70 percent of GDP. This includes retail, media, accommodation, construction, food services, and utilities, and, of course, services also contribute to goods production. It is a large sector, and therefore its productivity is an important driver of productivity in the economy. The Government, of course, is the largest provider of services, making up a bit less than half of the services sector. So we focus, as our contribution to productivity in the economy, on the productivity of Government services.

💬 Jonathan Young: Why is competition important to the services sector, and what steps is the Government taking to improve productivity?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: A number of steps: sharpening competition law, as announced yesterday; reviewing the Commerce Act to ensure that the sections preventing anti-competitive behaviour are appropriate; and improving the ability of consumers to drive competition themselves—for instance, in the electricity sector, but also significant pilots in the disability sector, where people who have long-term disability can control their own budget and make their own choices. This is a bit disruptive of traditional Government services, but it will improve the productivity of the services and the living standard for people with long-term disabilities.

💬 Jonathan Young: How have different components of the services sector been performing recently?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The latest BNZ productivity of services index shows that the services sector, which makes up 70 percent of the economy, has had 63 months of expansion, and in September recorded the highest rate of growth since 2007. The ICT sector has been growing at about 9 percent per year since 2008, and ICT exports have grown at 14 percent a year over the past 6 years. Tourism has been performing particularly well. Total tourism spend in the year to March 2015 was $30 billion, up more than 10 percent on the previous year.

💬 Jonathan Young: What are the main drivers of productivity in the services sector, and what steps is the Government taking to lift them?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: In its recent report Boosting services sector productivity, the Productivity Commission identified five drivers: competition, knowledge sharing through internationalisation, new skills development, innovation, and quality regulation. The Government is taking steps in each one of these areas—in particular, through the likes of the Rules Reduction Taskforce, where we are taking steps to cut red tape that prevents innovation in services—and also through the reform of Government services to promote innovation and more efficiency.

Overseas Investment—Silver Fern Farms

4. to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: As the Minister of Finance, can he comment on this astute observation about the Overseas Investment Office “They are under-resourced in my opinion.”, and what is he going to do about it?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure who made that statement, but many people could have and they are probably right. The Government is in the process of looking at an increase in fees paid by overseas investor applicants in order to improve the resources of the Overseas Investment Office.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: How can increasingly concerned Silver Fern Farms shareholders trust the Overseas Investment Office to forensically examine this latest deal when that same keen observer added “So when people say the Overseas Investment Office approves nearly everything put in front of it, that’s true.”, and what is he doing about it?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Silver Fern Farms shareholders can rely on the same process as anyone else involved in these transactions, and that is that the Overseas Investment Office has to apply the law, a law brought into this House, actually, by that member. If they believe that the law is not applied they can do what a number of other parties have done, and that is take the Overseas Investment Office to court and get the courts to tell us whether it did its job properly.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that same person, who happens to be the Prime Minister, says the Overseas Investment Office is under-resourced and that it approves nearly everything put in front of it, and the Minister of Finance is ultimately responsible for its funding, is he not alarmed that lawyers Harmos Horton Lusk formed the company that became Silver Fern Farms Beef Ltd a full year before proposals were put to shareholders; if not, why not?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think I would characterise the connection between those ideas as looseness of association. The Overseas Investment Office has the task of looking into all the commercial arrangements around any application that is made to it, and I am sure if there is anything nefarious in this one it will uncover it.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I seek leave to table a document showing the Minister has contradicted what Mr Key told the Chinese—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not need it further described. I need the source of the document and the date of the document.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is a publication, Rural News, not widely available to members.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Rural News—[Interruption]—Order! Rural News is very easily sourced by members.

💬 Grant Robertson: Which of his statements is correct: last week, when he said that the economy is “going through another softer patch, for the obvious reason of lower dairy prices.”, or a few months ago, when he said that dairy is a smaller part of the economy than most people think and that the overall performance of the economy depends on how the rest of the export sector does? Which is it?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, both things are right. As I pointed out in answer to an earlier question, tourism is now our largest export and growing quite fast, and the dairy sector is around 7 percent of GDP, so there is no doubt the drop in dairy prices has had a negative impact on the economy. The success of tourism and ICT will have a positive impact on the economy.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why would he rise in this House and say that I am responsible for this legislation, which is demonstrably false, and why would the Prime Minister claim that he cannot change the law because New Zealand First will not support the tightening of the Overseas Investment Act when not one person from the National Party has ever approached us on this issue? Why make—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: They must have made the mistake of going to the Northland office of New Zealand First. The member has never been happy with the fact that the current Overseas Investment Act was written under his sponsorship. We are enforcing—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is the second time that Minister has made that claim. I am not going to do the normal thing and call him what he is, but the fact is that he should answer the question and not tell falsities.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is responsible for his answer. He is answering it. If he is misleading the House, then there is—

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, he’s not allowed to lie.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Then there is an appropriate means by which that can be addressed subsequent to the answer given. Does the Minister have anything further to add?

Question No. 5 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek leave for this question to be answered by the Minister of Finance, for whom it was originally set down.

No—I was unaware that it had been transferred, but if it has been transferred, that is the decision—[Interruption] Order! If the member wants to stay to ask the question, he had better not interrupt in that vein. The member can proceed if he so wishes; otherwise, we can move forward. [Interruption] Order!

Dairy Industry—Milk Price Forecasts

5. to the Minister for Primary Industries: Does he agree with the advice of the Prime Minister in regard to dairy prices made in November last year when the average price at the global dairy auction was US$2,561 a tonne for farmers not to get too worried, and that the price would bottom out soon and start climbing again; if so, can he advise what is the latest average price at the global dairy auction?

Yes. The very good point the Prime Minister was making is that global commodity prices are indeed volatile. They go up and they go down, but the medium to long term outlook for dairy is very positive, with growth in key markets in Asia. The latest average price at the Global Dairy Trade auction overnight was US$2,345, which is 29 percent higher than the August low. As we all know, prices have been affected this year by international factors beyond our control, including growth in the overall supply, trade sanctions by Russia, and the EU lifting its dairy quota.

💬 Grant Robertson: In light of that answer, does he further agree with the Prime Minister that “The biggest indicator you would see, if there really was a long-term systemic problem, would be a reduction in land prices”?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: Land prices, as we know, go up and down, but the important point is that the long-term outlook for dairying is extremely positive. Just a few months ago, the Labour Party was calling it a crisis in the dairy industry, and, actually, prices are higher than when Labour was calling it a crisis.

💬 Grant Robertson: Does he now agree with the Prime Minister that there might be a systemic problem, with today’s Real Estate Institute of New Zealand dairy farm price index noting a 19 percent fall in prices for dairy farmers?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: The dairy prices are volatile, but the long-term outlook for farm prices is very strong because we have only a limited supply of land. As a result, prices will go up and down. That is something that the Labour Party does not seem to understand. Land prices go up and down, but the important point is that the medium to long term outlook for the dairy industry is incredibly strong. Farmers are taking a long-term view.

💬 Grant Robertson: Was the Prime Minister correct when he said: “The biggest indicator you would see, if there really was a long-term systemic problem, would be a reduction in land prices”?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: I agree with the Prime Minister’s comments, but, importantly, what I have said is that you need to take a long-term outlook. That is why Labour, day in and day out, extracts a small subset of figures and gives them profile. In actual fact, what the member should be doing is looking at the long-term outlook for dairying. Because we have significant free-trade deals with Asian communities, and because we are supportive of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which that party will not even support, which—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon Damien O’Connor: If global dairy trade is supposed to be global, why have the seven other companies who have used the platform withdrawn, leaving Fonterra as the only company trying to flog off its commodities on a Fonterra-owned but Boston-based trading platform?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: In so far as there is ministerial responsibility, the Hon Nathan Guy.

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: The Government does not have a role in deciding which companies participate on the Global Dairy Trade. That is indeed a decision for private businesses to make. For the member to stand up and say that it is all about Fonterra’s commodities, well, Fonterra knows that it has got challenges in front of its own business model, and it needs to look at long-term, value-add contracts.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Minister, if the issue of trade is so important, why is there a boycott to the second-biggest importer of dairy products in the world, namely Russia, which he goes along with, as does the Prime Minister?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: I am surprised that the member is alluding in the House this afternoon to the fact that New Zealand should be there negotiating a free-trade agreement with Russia. That does not make sense—that does not make sense.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: You were, and you are. What a fool.

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: The member should realise that just recently Fonterra has had some plants relisted into that market.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Oh! What did your Prime Minister say?

💬 Hon NATHAN GUY: The member does not seem to understand the wider geopolitical issues of right now. If the member was supportive of free-trade—

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

Investing in Educational Success Programme—Progress

6. to the Minister of Education: What progress has been made on the Investing in Educational Success initiative?

I was pleased to announce this morning that the number of communities of learning have more than doubled, including more than a quarter of a million of our children and young people—and in every region. Communities of learning now cover 793 schools—almost a third of all schools—only 1 year after introduction. This is significant progress in this Government’s $359 million Investing in Educational Success initiative and reflects that schools across New Zealand are driven to provide the best possible educational achievement for their students. These latest communities include schools in Northland, East Coast, Taranaki, and Wellington, meaning that we now have every region in the country involved in this enormously exciting initiative.

💬 Dr Jian Yang: How do communities of learning assist students and teachers?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: Communities of learning put kids and their achievement at the centre of a joined-up pathway from early childhood to schooling, and on into tertiary options. They set common achievement challenges and receive additional funding to enable teachers and principals to share expertise and best practice to meet them. We know that quality of teaching and leadership are the biggest in-school factors for lifting achievement. The involvement of families and communities is also vital, and communities of learning will help everyone to play a part in helping our kids to succeed.

💬 Chris Hipkins: How much of the $53.1 million underspend in primary education last year, a significant factor in the Government’s momentary claim to surplus, was due to delays in the roll-out of the Investing in Educational Success initiative?

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: The roll-out of this policy began on 1 July 2014. We have not yet completed this financial year. We are ahead in terms of the numbers forming, but we are being very prudent with the resources available.

💬 Chris Hipkins: It’s not what the annual report says—read the annual report.

💬 Hon HEKIA PARATA: I do read the annual report, and I think we commended it to you in the written parliamentary questions.

Question No. 7 to Minister

I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet because we are about to hear a point of order.

💬 JULIE ANNE GENTER: I seek leave to have my question transferred back to the Minister of Finance, as he is ultimately the Minister responsible for the funding of rail infrastructure.

I will not be putting the leave. Can I ask members to please have a look at Speaker’s ruling 169/5. Does the member wish to continue?

Transport Infrastructure—Railways

7. to the Minister of Transport: Does he agree with the Secretary to the Treasury that “there could very well be some merit” in evaluating and funding rail infrastructure on the same basis as State highways and other transport infrastructure?

Yes, to some extent, although I note it was a very qualified statement by the secretary.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Why is rail infrastructure not eligible for funding from the National Land Transport Fund when it benefits road users and the country as much, if not more, than highway expansion and also decreases carbon pollution?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: It does in fact receive money from the National Land Transport Fund—just last week I was at a park-and-ride opening in Ōtāhuhu—but primarily rail is funded from the centre through Crown appropriations.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Why is his Government spending over $1 billion a year on highways—and that funding is ring-fenced—with low economic efficiency that increases carbon pollution, when it could be investing that money in the rail network, which complements the road network, moves freight more efficiently, and reduces pollution?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: The reason we invest so heavily in roads is that they are great for the economy and for people, but we also invest, and have over the time we have been in Government, billions of dollars in rail. We have got a proud record of that.

💬 Julie Anne Genter: Is he aware of any country in the world besides New Zealand that is looking at scrapping electric trains and replacing them with diesel trains because of lack of funding?

💬 Hon SIMON BRIDGES: I would have to do a Google search.

Homelessness—Families

My question is for the Minister for Social Housing—[Interruption]

Order! I am very tempted to be asking that Minister to leave the House. The question has been called. There is no need to interject like that.

8. to the Minister for Social Housing: Is she embarrassed that families are living in cars?

No, but I do not think it is acceptable for people to be living in cars, and that is why the Government is pursuing a social housing reform programme to increase the number of social houses.

💬 Phil Twyford: Will she commit to a nationwide strategy to end homelessness, properly resourced with houses and the funding for support services to help people get their lives back on track?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: That is simply what we are doing with our social housing reform programme.

💬 Phil Twyford: Is she seriously describing the current policies and funding commitments as a nationwide strategy to end homelessness?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I certainly am, and I certainly also see it as a way to make sure that we are looking after New Zealand’s most vulnerable, not just in homelessness and those going into State houses but equally in affordable housing—making sure that people have opportunities on the housing continuum, from $2.5 million in just the last few months on emergency housing, through to 20 percent social housing on Crown land, through to a number of other measures that we take seriously.

💬 Phil Twyford: When almost half of our homeless are children, how can she justify allowing so many of them to remain on the streets?

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am not justifying anything. What I am saying is that we have a social housing reform programme that is seeing success, that we need to have more of it, that it is unacceptable for those children to be living in those circumstances. If you take Auckland alone, you have got a population increase of around 40,000 in just the last 12 months. As we know, the building of new homes is not keeping up with that population increase. However, we are seeing a record number of building consents since 2009, and we are equally seeing more than 800 houses for Housing New Zealand contracted out and under construction just in the next 12 months.

💬 Phil Twyford: Is she ashamed of the fact that if National stopped its State house sell-off and used the 2,000 vacant State houses, it would be enough to house the homeless, but she just does not have the commitment to do it, and if she is not ashamed of that, why—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question has been asked.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: I think it is good that we get a few facts on the table. Housing New Zealand houses are at the highest occupancy they have ever been at, at 98 percent. Equally, with those 2,000 houses that are vacant, we have—

💬 Phil Twyford: 1,000 fewer on your watch.

💬 Hon PAULA BENNETT: Can I just give you some answers, because you are asking the question. Three hundred and twenty-two of them are vacant because of meth contamination. We have also reduced the vacant turn-round times significantly: from the 50 days that it used to be, to an average now of 34 days. We are doing the work that needs to be done, because the member is the first one to say that these houses are cold and need to be refurbished. So between the vacancies, we are actually refurbishing them and doing exactly what is needed. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I say to both members that if they want to have a further conversation, go to the lobbies.

Paparoa National Park—Pike River Memorial Track

9. to the Acting Minister of Conservation: What are the benefits of the Pike29 Great Walk, and the extension of the Paparoa National Park that takes effect today?

The 3,971 hectare extension to the Paparoa National Park ensures that the mine site is properly respected, but is also accessible for the families and loved ones of the 29 miners. It is also a significant gain for conservation, in that it includes rich podocarp and beech forests and is home to the great spotted kiwi, to whio or blue duck, to kaka, and to kakariki. The new track is the first Great Walk in more than 20 years, and the only one exclusively on the West Coast. It makes up stunning views from the limestone gorges of the Pororari Valley, stunning views from the Moonlight Range of the Tasman Coast and the Southern Alps, and it also will give people an experience of the rich mining history of the West Coast, through to the community of Blackball.

💬 Joanne Hayes: Who initiated the idea of the Pike29 Track, and what will be the next steps from here to create this new Great Walk?

💬 Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The track was first proposed by the Pike families group and its spokesperson, Mr Bernie Monk. I visited the site and met with the families, both in person and in conference calls, and there was overwhelming support for the venture, albeit it is inevitable across such a group of families that there will be some differences of view. The track will require changes to the Paparoa National Park Management Plan, and consultation on that will begin shortly. The Department of Conservation will also start the process of design and procurement. Cabinet has provided a budget of $10 million for the track to be constructed, as well as ongoing maintenance funding of $350,000 a year in the department’s baseline.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This question is set down to the Acting Minister of Conservation. I just seek some clarity from you as to the basis on which a Minister can be acting when the primary Minister is in the House.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I will allow the Hon Gerry Brownlee. I do know the answer.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is not uncommon that if there is any possibility of there being any conflict of interest, then a Minister will hand that responsibility to another Minister. That is the simple explanation. There is nothing being hidden here.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: And indeed the announcement made at the weekend, I noted, was in the hands of the Acting Minister of Conservation.

New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—Saudi Agri-hub Report

10. to the Minister for Economic Development: Does the withheld NZTE-funded report on why most of the lambs died on the taxpayer-funded farm in the Saudi desert confirm or disprove the statement by Hon Nathan Guy on 18 June 2015 that he thought the lambs could have died in a sand storm?

on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development: The information sought is commercially sensitive and was provided to New Zealand Trade and Enterprise with an obligation of confidence. I do not think it is in the public interest to provide it to the House. I would note that at the time the Minister for Primary Industries made it clear that he understood the mortalities could have been due to a sandstorm but that he did not have the full details. Brownrigg Agriculture issued a press statement later that day, which indicated the mortalities were due to a rain storm and a range of illnesses.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would ask for your assistance. This is an area of public interest—funded by the Government, overseas, New Zealand Trade and Enterprise—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can I have the point of order, please.

💬 Hon David Parker: I think the Minister does have a responsibility to answer to this House, and I would ask that you request him to do so.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Can I ask the member to familiarise himself with Speakers’ rulings, and particularly Speaker’s ruling 193/3, “Obligation to answer”. An answer must be given “if it can be given consistently with the public interest”. In this case the Minister has responded on two points: one, it is not in the public interest; and, two, it is commercially sensitive. That is his opinion. It is certainly what he is allowed to say, and it addresses the question.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. There must be a point where those claims just are not credible, and so what I am asking you to do—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. The Minister has given an answer. It may not be to the satisfaction of the member. My job is to see whether it has been answered and addressed in accordance with Speakers’ rulings. I have done that. I have gone so far as to reference it to the member. That is the end of the matter. Proceeding with further supplementary questions is the best way forward for the honourable member.

💬 Hon David Parker: If it was not a sandstorm in the desert that killed the lambs, does the report show whether poor maternal ewe health caused by heat-stress or an unsuitable diet contributed to the 80 percent lamb death on the farm in the desert funded by the New Zealand Government?

On behalf of the Minister, I have not seen the report, so I cannot answer the details of that.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Standing Orders are clear that when Ministers come answering on behalf of other Ministers they should inform themselves of the details. Also, this is the Minister for Primary Industries, who was willing to answer questions at the select committee, and yet comes here contriving to be ignorant of the answers.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Very, very soon we will be moving to the next question. The Minister is responsible for his answer. If he rises and says he has not seen that particular report, then I must accept his word. If the member has other information or feels that this is a case of misrepresentation, then there is a very appropriate course of action, but it does not involve raising it on the floor of the House. We will proceed with further supplementary questions—[Interruption] Order! I am on my feet. We will proceed with further supplementary questions, but if there are any more of what I consider to be pointless points of order, I will not hesitate to move to the next question. I am trying to assist the member, but he must accept the answers that are given, if they are in line with the Standing Orders and Speakers’ rulings.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the primary question, which references the report in question that my colleague David Parker is asking about. In his answer to the primary question the Minister said that he did not believe it was in the public interest for him to make further comment on the report. How could the Minister make that claim if he has not read the report?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: That is for the Minister to judge and for the public of New Zealand to judge. That is the answer—[Interruption] Order! That is the answer that has been given by the Minister. It may not be satisfactory to members on my left-hand side. They will judge that. The public of New Zealand will judge that. The way forward is further supplementary questions.

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. A fresh point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: I would be grateful.

💬 Chris Hipkins: A fresh point of order, and it is purely for a matter of clarity, because the Minister is answering on behalf of another Minister. Is he answering that the Minister has not read the report or he as the acting Minister has not read the report? That is just for the purpose of clarity, so that we can tailor our supplementary questions accordingly.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: The member, in answering, should have addressed the question by answering on behalf—he did not. I will allow the Minister to clarify, because I would judge that he is answering that as the Minister for Primary Industries, not as the acting Minister for Economic Development. But I will allow the Minister—

I was answering on behalf of the Minister for Economic Development.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Then that statement has been made.

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept your ruling that according to early Speakers’ rulings it is for a Minister to decide whether something is in the public interest.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Can I have a point of order then?

💬 Hon David Parker: I ask you to reflect on whether it is right for you to say that it is fair for the Minister to say that he had not read the report, given that the report is in the primary question.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I did not say it was fair for the Minister to say he had not read the report. I am saying that the Minister did state that he had not seen the report. The Minister is responsible for the answer, not me as Speaker.

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

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, we are now—

💬 Hon David Parker: There are Speakers’ rulings on this.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Well, if the member wants to quickly refer me to one I will have a look at it.

💬 Hon David Parker: Yes, Speakers’ rulings say—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Number?

💬 Hon David Parker: Yes, I will give it to you.

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: 192.

💬 Hon David Parker: Speaker’s ruling 168/1 actually, Mr Brownlee. Speaker’s ruling 168/1—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I require silence from my right-hand side.

💬 Hon David Parker: —says that “Ministers should be in a position to answer supplementary questions.” Given that this was about a New Zealand Trade and Enterprise - funded report, the Minister answering on behalf of the other Minister should be in a position to answer questions about the New Zealand Trade and Enterprise - funded report, otherwise it is pointless asking questions.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Minister is in a position to answer the questions—[Interruption] Order! He is then not answering them to the satisfaction of the member. That frequently happens in this House. Does the member have a further supplementary question?

💬 Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is the Speaker now making a ruling—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 Hon David Parker: I am asking for a ruling as to whether you are making a new ruling as Speaker that Ministers do not need to have read the report in the primary question and can now just say “I didn’t read the report, therefore I don’t need to answer.”?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: No, I am certainly not saying that and the member is now trifling with the Chair and wasting time. I am certainly not saying that Ministers can come to the House ill prepared. If they come to the House ill prepared that is for the members of the Opposition to judge and it is for members of the public to judge. If the member has a further supplementary question I will hear it, but otherwise I am very tempted to move to the next question immediately.

💬 Dr David Clark: What a hopeless Government.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I do not want another interjection from that member this question time. It has been consistent—

💬 Hon David Parker: Supplementary—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am on my feet. There have been consistent interjections from the member. That will be the last one for this question time.

💬 Dr David Clark: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have ruled.

💬 Dr David Clark: Point of order.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: What is the point of order?

💬 Dr David Clark: I have been out of this Chamber for most of question time. I cannot accept that comfortably. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I apologise to the member. I have been hearing interjections from that area. I did not realise the member had not been here, so if it was not him it is somebody in his very near vicinity and I immediately apologise to the member. [Interruption]

💬 Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If it is a genuine fresh point of order, I will hear it. But if it is the member continuing to waste the time of this House, I will take a very, very dim view.

💬 Chris Hipkins: A different issue. You just warned a member that if he would interject further you would ask him to leave the Chamber. While you were on your feet doing so, there was significant interjection from the Leader of the House. Does the same standard apply to him?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: There has been significant interjection from both sides of the House through a number of points of order. To sort out one side at this stage I do not think would be appropriate. I should perhaps be dealing—[Interruption] Order! If I addressed Dr David Clark the wrong way, I have apologised. That is the end of that matter.

💬 James Shaw: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you could help me with this. In reference to the Speaker’s ruling that you just referred to, Mr Parker said that Ministers should come prepared to respond to the primary question, and you said that if they were not prepared then that was a matter for public judgment. Does that mean that when the Speaker’s ruling says that they should come prepared that there is no consequence if they do not—other than the court of public opinion, so to speak?

💬 Mr SPEAKER: If Ministers come ill prepared and do not answer questions to the satisfaction of this House, the public are also watching and they will then judge the performance of Ministers. It has been like that ever since I arrived here.

💬 Hon David Parker: Given that his Government was warned that flying heavily pregnant sheep to a farm in the hot desert was risky, why did he allow his Government department to proceed with, and fund, this ludicrous plan?

This is about a food security partnership and an agri-hub to showcase New Zealand technology. It is a prudent long-term investment that this Government has decided to make.

💬 Hon David Parker: Is it the ultimate shame of this whole saga that even after dishing out the $4 million bribe, building a $6 million farm in the desert—

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: You can’t say that.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! I will determine that, but if it is an inflammatory type of question it will possibly get an inflammatory answer. Carry on with the question.

💬 Hon David Parker: —and spending a million dollars flying sheep, his Government has now admitted that the deal will not even get the free-trade agreement that he was wanting to get across the line completed?

I refute those allegations. This is about a food security partnership, an agri-hub, and this is about showcasing 30 New Zealand companies and their goods and services and what we have to offer to the Gulf State. [Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! Before I call the member for his supplementary question can I ask that members on my left-hand side also listen to the answer.

💬 Hon David Parker: How much extra trade with Saudi Arabia in New Zealand agricultural products and services has resulted from the demonstration farm in the desert, excluding, of course, the $12 million of taxpayers’ funds that have already been spent?

What that member does not seem to appreciate is that this is about a long-term investment—[Interruption]—that we are prepared to make, a food security partnership, showcasing New Zealand technology—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! There is just no point in continuing with an answer.

💬 Hon David Parker: Given the Minister’s recent experience with inflatable sheep, did he consider using them because they might have a better survival rate?

What we have seen this week is that Labour’s books are in tatty shape and they are very under-inflated.

Flag Referendums—Cost

11. to the Deputy Prime Minister: Is he confident that the money spent on the Flag Referendum is appropriate and lawful?

Yes.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Perhaps the Minister can explain how much was spent on this advertisement in the Air New Zealand inflight magazine last month, containing only four of the options, which meant it was a total waste of public money?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: All the advertising and publicity is under the control of the Flag Consideration Panel to ensure that it is independent of the Government. I am happy to take that issue up with the member, but it is quite possible that some of the material was produced before Parliament’s somewhat sudden and unexpected addition of a fifth flag. [Interruption]

💬 Hon Gerry Brownlee: Air New Zealand’s man on the inside.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order—to Mr Brownlee.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: In your case it would be a blessing.

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Now we will have the question.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why was it necessary for the Electoral Commission to advise New Zealanders that they should not cast an informal vote, which is their choice if they want to have it, or to spend, in a desperate 24-hour flag-athon with Newstalk ZB and the New Zealand Herald, such huge amounts of money just because they are two leading media handmaidens in New Zealand?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not sure just what the member is referring to, but I do not think there is any question about the lawfulness of the spending, as he asked originally.

💬 Rt Hon Winston Peters: Can he explain to New Zealanders why there is no silver fern in any of the alternative flag options, or is this a deliberate deception given this is Fraud Awareness Week?

💬 Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not want to oversimplify the explanation but the reason there is no silver fern in the alternative flag options is that there is no silver fern in the alternative flag options.

Food and Beverage Industry—Sugar and Food Labelling

Question No. 12—Ian McKelvie.

My—[Interruption]

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order!

💬 IAN McKELVIE: Apologies, Mr Speaker. I cannot hear myself think. My speaker is to—[Interruption]

Order! We are nearly there. One question to go. Question No. 12—Ian McKelvie.

12. to the Minister for Food Safety: What initiatives has the Government put in place to encourage the food and beverage industry to reduce the sugar content of their products?

Last year the Government introduced voluntary front-of-pack labelling called the Health Star Rating system. These labels make it easy for shoppers to understand the nutritional value of the food that they are buying, so that they can make healthy choices more easily. This has created a competitive environment in which the industry has reduced sugar in order to obtain more stars.

💬 Ian McKelvie: How has the industry responded to this labelling system?

💬 Hon JO GOODHEW: Very well. Already there are more than 600 products on supermarket shelves. They are using these labels already. The number of products being rolled out with new labels is growing so fast that the product lists are almost out of date when I receive them. Well over 1,000 products will be on the shelves by the end of the year, and that will continue to increase as the phasing-in periods for the new labels come along. Very important, more than 95 percent of all juice and non-alcoholic drinks will soon have the Health Star Rating labels, and our two largest supermarket chains are rolling the labels out on their home-brand products and the bulk bin sections of their stores.

💬 Ian McKelvie: How are these labels encouraging the food industry to reduce the sugar content of these products?

💬 Hon JO GOODHEW: The voluntary system has encouraged food businesses to look carefully at their recipes in order to reduce sugar, fat, and salt to improve the nutritional content. Many of our staple products, like breads and cereals, now contain less sugar. This is just far too much good news for the Opposition to possibly contemplate, it seems. Due to this initiative, 70 percent of all breakfast cereals have been reformulated to reduce sugar content—and they did it voluntarily, members of the House. Nestlé last night announced on television—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Bring the answer to a conclusion.

💬 Hon JO GOODHEW: —that it has doubled the fibre level—

💬 Mr SPEAKER: Order! The answer is going on too long.