Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers
Yes.
Hon Phil Goff: Why, then, did the Prime Minister engage in the sham of having a select committee go around marae in Auckland consulting on the issue of Māori seats on the proposed Auckland Council if he intended to make a decision before that select committee had deliberated or reported back to the House?
Hon JOHN KEY: It was not a sham.
Hon Phil Goff: How can it not be a sham, when the Prime Minister has made the decision without taking account of a select committee that has not even deliberated on the issue or reported back to the House, notwithstanding the promise made to people that their submissions were being listened to in good faith?
Hon JOHN KEY: We have heard from those groups directly. We have read the submissions—
Hon Phil Goff: Ha, ha!
Hon JOHN KEY: The Leader of the Opposition may not like it, but on numerous occasions I had meetings with mana whenua groups and Māori groups around Auckland. In the end, we reached a conclusion that we think is in the best interests of Auckland.
Hon Phil Goff: How is the rejection of Māori seats compatible with the Prime Minister’s statement that “The Government is not so arrogant that it won’t listen to the submissions that are made before or during the select committee process,”, given that 60 percent of the submissions on this issue were in favour of Māori seats, and only 20 percent were against them?
Hon JOHN KEY: We listened to the submissions. That does not mean we have to agree with them. When it comes to listening to submissions and not agreeing with them or listening to the public, I am looking at the Leader of the Opposition, who was previously part of a Government that was the absolute maestro when it came to doing that.
Hon Phil Goff: Why did the Prime Minister back down from his earlier support for having Māori seats, which he said could be introduced as an amendment to the super-city legislation, or, when he indicated his intention to introduce an amendment, was he just telling the Māori Party what he thought it wanted to hear at the time?
Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I caution the member about making assumptions that are not necessarily factually correct. Secondly, I make the point that what the Government is proposing in Auckland happens to be identical with what was passed by the previous Labour Government 6 years ago. If it was so bad back then, why did it not change it when it had the chance?
Hon Phil Goff: Was the threat of the ACT Party leader to throw his toys out of the cot and resign his position on the question of the Māori seats the reason why the Prime Minister chose to prefer that view and ignore the view of the Māori Party on the issue; if not, what was the reason?
Hon JOHN KEY: No; it was a factor, but, as I said yesterday, not the dominant factor.
Hon Phil Goff: Will National members of Parliament with strong views on the issue who oppose Cabinet’s decision be given the opportunity to cast an individual vote on the issue in the legislation, as Georgina te Heuheu did in 2001 on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Māori Constituency Empowering) Bill?
Hon JOHN KEY: No, because the Auckland governance legislation is a Government bill. If ever there was a caucus that wanted to have split votes, it is the Labour caucus when it comes to its leadership, from what I can tell.
Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave of the House to table two documents. The first is from Hansard and is a speech from Georgina te Heuheu, proclaiming that the National Party gave its members the right to do such—
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table a Hansard document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table the second document, which is from Stuff.co.nz, where Mr Key says: “The Government is not so arrogant that it won’t listen to the submissions—”.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table something from Stuff.co.nz. Is there any objection? There is objection.
John Boscawen: Has the Prime Minister listened to the 1.5 million Kiwis who voted no in the referendum, who were not seeking comfort from the Government but a law change so that a light smack is not a criminal offence; if not, why not?
Hon JOHN KEY: Yes, I have, and yesterday I announced a number of initiatives that I think will go towards giving great comfort to New Zealand parents. They include a full review of police procedures, a full review of Child, Youth and Family procedures, and a full review of the procedures that involve the transfer of referrals between Child, Youth and Family and the police. A number of other initiatives are around reporting, to ensure that New Zealand parents have clear and unbiased information. I think New Zealanders will welcome those steps as we look to refine the law.
Hon Heather Roy: Does the Prime Minister accept, in listening to the people, that it is Parliament’s job to make the law and the job of the police to enforce the law, and that the issue in the referendum was the law itself and not the behaviour of the police?
Hon JOHN KEY: I think what people can draw from the way that the law is currently working is that it is fulfilling the intentions of Parliament; that is, we are not yet seeing cases where good parents are being criminalised for lightly smacking a child. Yesterday I made it quite clear that we intend to document or record from the police, on a 6-monthly basis, that information on an unbiased basis. It is my view that that unbiased and unfiltered information should find its way into the public domain. If there are any cases that demonstrate to me that the law is not working, I will personally ensure that we change the law immediately.
Financial System—Stability
2. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What steps has the Government taken to ensure the stability of the financial system?
In October last year the New Zealand Government guaranteed retail deposits of New Zealand financial institutions. Over 80 institutions accepted that offer. In total, over $120 billion of deposits from around 3.5 million depositors are covered by the guarantee. The guarantees are due to terminate on 12 October 2010. Today the Government has announced that it will be offering a revised retail guarantee scheme that will extend to 31 December 2011.
Craig Foss: In what ways will the revised guarantee scheme differ from the scheme currently in place?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Financial conditions have stabilised since last October, and, accordingly, the need for support is now less extensive. The significant changes from the existing guarantee scheme will include the following: fees paid by institutions will be graduated to reflect their risk and will apply to all funds guaranteed; the limit on eligible funds guaranteed will reduce to $500,000 per depositor for banks and $250,000 for all other institutions; deposit-taking institutions will require a minimum credit rating of BB or higher to participate; and collective investment schemes will not be eligible to participate. All depositors currently benefiting from a Crown guarantee will continue to have their deposits covered until 12 October 2010. Whether they are covered beyond that date will depend on whether their institution joins the revised scheme.
Hon Jim Anderton: Is the Minister satisfied that every company receiving a Crown guarantee meets the published policy guideline requirement that the individuals controlling it have the relevant business experience and the track record of meeting payments as they fall due and of maintaining solvency?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Under the existing guarantee, the Crown has the power to appoint inspectors where the Crown believes that institutions are not meeting all the requirements of the guarantee. I point out that the non-bank institutions covered by the current guarantee will, in the next 6 months or so, have to meet the requirements of the non-bank regime that were put in place by the previous Government. That will require all those institutions to acquire a credit rating and meet capital requirements. They need to get on and organise their affairs appropriately.
Craig Foss: Why has the Government announced the changes at this time?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government wants to strike a balance between ensuring financial stability, reducing the distortions to market conditions, and reducing the risks to the taxpayers, who have so far paid out around $68 million under the guarantee. Today’s announcement provides certainty and means that over the next 2½ years depositors and institutions can make an orderly transition from the guarantee back to normal market conditions. The scheme will be legislated to cease at 31 December 2011.
Hon Jim Anderton: Can the Minister tell the House what it is about FAI Finance—wholly owned by the Hanover Group—that gives him confidence that the entity controlling that company has maintained solvency and displayed financial acumen; or is a 5 year, billion-dollar, so-called debt restructuring plan in order to avoid bankruptcy a good example of financial acumen?
Mr SPEAKER: In inviting the Minister to answer that question, I am not a 100 percent sure about the Minister’s responsibility for the particular financial institution. But insofar as it relates to the guarantee, I am sure the Minister can answer.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will not be commenting on individual institutions, simply because the task of supervising the institutions is delegated to the New Zealand Treasury. Any institutions who are covered by the guarantee need to focus on getting their affairs sorted out—firstly, to meet the requirements of the non-bank regime, which will be introduced over the next 6 months, and, secondly, to prepare for a transition to the extended guarantee. Then they will need to prepare for a time past 2011 when there will be no guarantee. Some of those institutions may find that a challenge, but the intention of the guarantee is to protect the depositors on the way through.
Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister expect the major banks to participate in the extended retail scheme; if not, given the ongoing benefits to the banks flowing from the wholesale scheme, has he indicated his wish to see official cash rate cuts fully passed through into short-term interest rates?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have not drawn any particular connection between the official cash rate and whether the banks take up, because both those decisions are made by other people. The official cash rate is set by the Reserve Bank, and the banks themselves will make their own decisions as to whether to take up this guarantee. My understanding on the wholesale guarantee is that there are indications in the financial markets that they would be willing to lend to non-guarantee issues by the banks, and that is a sign of progress towards stability.
Hon David Cunliffe: Why has the Government failed to take any steps to help reduce interest rates, which was identified as a key concern for small businesses in a business confidence survey from Research New Zealand—the same survey that said that 99 percent of small businesses thought that the Job Summit was a waste of time?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In this context the overriding consideration has been to ensure that credit markets do not freeze up. I believe that the action taken by the previous Government in issuing these guarantees was an important part of that. The measures the Government has taken to help reduce interest rates have been primarily around restraining its own spending and its own debt requirements. The rationale for that was all laid out in the Budget.
Health Care—Policy
3. Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) to the Minister of Health: Does he still stand by his policy to deliver better, sooner, and more convenient health care?
Despite the fact that the previous Labour Government left the new Government with $160 million of unfunded services to fill, and stripped $150 million out of the health budget pre-election, yes.
Hon Ruth Dyson: If the Minister is happy to take the credit for the increase in elective surgery over the last 12 months, will he now be prepared to take the blame for the 12 percent increase in people waiting longer than 6 months for their first specialist assessment, which is a 12 percent increase since he became the Minister?
Hon TONY RYALL: I am not in a position to confirm or otherwise what the member has said in her question. I observe that often the member does not have the right story, but I can tell her that we are certainly working hard to improve access to first specialist assessments and elective surgery.
Hon Ruth Dyson: If the Minister is happy to take the credit for the increase in elective surgery over the last 12 months, will he now be prepared to take the blame for the 15 percent increase in the number of people who were promised treatment but did not receive it within 6 months, a 15 percent increase since he became the Minister?
Hon TONY RYALL: We would have to check those numbers from the member, but I can tell her that I am not interested in culling 30,000 patients off the waiting list, as the previous Government did. I can tell the member that what matters to those people on the waiting list is that they have more chance of getting an operation. I can tell the House that there have been more people getting elective surgeries in the last 6 months than at any other time in history.
Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has he seen related to the delivery of better elective services?
Hon TONY RYALL: I have seen reports to indicate that, based on preliminary information, around an extra 12,000 patients had elective operations in the last financial year, and a part of this successful year was under the previous Government of the party opposite. Amongst the biggest increases were in the Bay of Plenty at 14 percent, in Tai Rāwhiti at around 21 percent, and in Whanganui with a 23 percent increase. In brief, the Government had a goal of increasing elective surgery discharges by an average of 4,000 a year, from 118,000 to a total of around 130,000 over our 3 years, and this was achieved by the end of June.
Hon Ruth Dyson: If the Minister is happy to take the credit for the increase in elective surgery over the last 12 months, will he now be prepared to take the blame for the 20 percent increase in people who should have received treatment and who have not received treatment, a 20 percent increase since he became Minister?
Hon TONY RYALL: Those figures would have to be checked, but I can say that it is difficult making comparisons in some of these areas because it was the previous Labour Government that culled 30,000 people off those waiting lists. What really matters for patients is that they have more opportunity to get operations, and they certainly have that under the National Government.
Dr Paul Hutchison: What reports has he seen in relation to the increase in elective surgery, particularly relating to the complexity of those operations?
Hon TONY RYALL: I have seen a range of reports, but one in particular where the member opposite suggests the increase was achieved by doing “lots of minor surgery, rather than to improve case-weighted numbers, which give a true picture”. I am advised that case-weighted delivery has increased significantly. The average case weight is higher than the average of the 7 years since district health boards began. This increase, particularly in the second half of the year, reflects the Government’s very clear expectation of district health boards to provide more elective surgery for more patients to help improve patients’ lives.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first is to table the correct figures, given the Minister’s incorrect answer last week—
Mr SPEAKER: The member must not use that kind of language in seeking leave to table a document. All we want is a description of the document.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I am seeking leave to table the correct figures showing that the—
Mr SPEAKER: I am unaware of any document entitled “The Correct Figures” unless it is one that has been made up. The document, if it is a genuine document, must come from somewhere, and what we want to hear is a description of where the document has come from so that the House can make up its mind.
Hon Ruth Dyson: These are documents in answer to a written question last year and this year, showing that the increase in elective surgery procedures is double that—
Mr SPEAKER: The member cannot use the seeking of leave to table a document to make a point about figures. I take it the member is seeking leave to table the answer to a written question?
Hon Ruth Dyson: Two written questions.
Mr SPEAKER: The member should have made that clear from the outset, because the House can then make up its mind about whether it wants to give leave to the tabling of answers to written questions. If we could get the date of the answer to the written question and the subject of the question, then the House can probably make up its mind, but I do not want any further wasting of time.
Hon Ruth Dyson: Written question No. 4481 (2008) and written question (2009), both relating to discharge procedures.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those two answers to written questions. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table a document printed from the Ministry of Health’s website showing there has been a 12 percent increase in the number of people waiting longer than 6 months for their first specialist assessment.
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.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table information from the Ministry of Health’s website showing that the number of people who were promised treatment, but did not receive it within 6 months, has increased by 15 percent.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table information from the Ministry of Health’s website showing there has been a 20 percent increase in the number of people who should have received treatment and who have not, since Tony Ryall became Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the minutes from the Otago District Health Board showing that in May the district health board was running 4 percent below its plan for the month for case-weighted discharges of elective surgery.
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.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table a document from the Otago District Health Board showing that in the following month the board was running 5 percent below its plan for the month for case-weighted activity.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Ruth Dyson: I seek leave to table the minutes of the Northland District Health Board where the health board states: “The Minister of Health is focusing on patients’ numbers rather than case weights.”
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Auckland—Electric Rail System
4. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Is he confident that at least part of Auckland’s electric rail system will be rolling in time to help move the 75,000 international visitors and countless Kiwi fans expected for the 2011 Rugby World Cup?
No, and it was never going to be the case. The Auckland metro rail electrification project has always been, and remains, due for completion in 2013.
Keith Locke: As Auckland’s regional fuel tax was cancelled in March, how will the purchase of the electric railcars be funded; and if the funding decision has not yet been made, when will it be made?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The funding decision for the half-billion dollar electric trains has not yet been made because agency officials are working on the scope of the project and on the funding for it. When that has been completed to the satisfaction of me and the agency concerned, the decision will be made.
Nikki Kaye: What work is under way to improve Auckland’s railway network in time for the Rugby World Cup?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government has made a commitment to enhance significantly the public transport infrastructure around Eden Park, particularly for rail travel, in time for the Rugby World Cup. That work includes redevelopment of the Kingsland Railway Station and Morningside Railway Station. In fact, the Morningside station is now up and running; I as Minister opened it on 7 August. Other projects include track crossovers at the Kingsland station to enable trains to run to and from the central business district from both of Kingsland’s platforms, a major new signalling system between the Britomart and Kingsland stations, and improvements at the Newmarket junction. All of that work is part of the substantial sum of $1.6 billion that the Government has committed to investing in the Auckland rail network.
Keith Locke: Can the Minister guarantee that the 140 electric railcars, which are needed, will be purchased as originally planned?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot. Once we put the agencies together in a room—which is something that should have happened a long time ago—we discovered a number of potential overruns with the project, totalling up to around $200 million. These include the lack of any significant contingency planning at all for the project, potentially between $50 million and $150 million of additional base infrastructure requirements, and potentially up to $30 million of platform extensions. We have therefore decided, in working with the agencies, that we need to make sure that the scope of the project is properly done so that we can ensure 10-minute frequencies across the network once the project is complete.
Hon Darren Hughes: What leadership is the Minister taking to remove any of the so-called stumbling blocks that he has outlined today that are preventing the purchase of 140 new electric railcars for Auckland, something has already been delayed while he has been the Minister, creating the distinct impression that this Government is not committed to public transport, at all?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am encouraging the officials to use their calculators properly and carefully, which is something that did not appear to have happened under the previous Government.
Keith Locke: Can the Minister guarantee that ONTRACK’s electrification plan “extending from Papakura in the south to Swanson in the west, and including the Onehunga branch line and the future Manukau link” will still proceed; if not, which parts of the network will not proceed?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The half a billion dollars that was allocated under the previous Government for the electrification of those lines remains in place, and provided that it can be done within that sum of money, it will, of course, proceed to the full extent.
Keith Locke: Will it not be embarrassing if international visitors to the 2011 Rugby World Cup see that we have been fluffing around with the electrification of Auckland’s rail system, particularly when it is very obvious that we need it to get people around Auckland, and to counter the effect of higher oil prices?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If that is the member’s view, then probably he should have worked with the previous Government, which the Greens were involved with, to ensure that the planning occurred to enable it to be done by 2011, but it was scheduled for 2013, and it is on schedule to be done by then.
Auckland, Local Government Reform—Māori Representation on Auckland Council
5. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he consider advisory boards a good substitute for Māori seats on the Auckland City Council, like the Hon John Key, who said: “I do not accept the view that some sort of advisory board or some sort of participation board would be a sop.”; if not, why not?
Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. I have made my views well known to the Prime Minister and the public, as the co-leader of the Māori Party. However, as a Minister I have no responsibility for this issue.
Hon Parekura Horomia: Has he received any reports from National Party Māori MPs signalling their intention to cross the floor and support a Supplementary Order Paper that would establish Māori seats on the Auckland Council, seeing that the Prime Minister has not listened to him?
Mr SPEAKER: Before I invite the honourable Minister to respond to that question, I say I am not sure of the responsibility the Minister has for the views of members of the National Party—
Hon Darren Hughes: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes on the matter.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have raised this point of order with you on several occasions, because we are often the victim of the ruling you are considering making, when questions from Government backbenchers ask Ministers whether they have received any reports about comments, statements, or actions by members of Parliament who are in the Opposition, and that then opens it up for the Government to have a whack at the Opposition. You have ruled that because those Ministers have been asked whether they have received any reports, that is in order, and that is what the Hon Parekura Horomia has done, as well, on this occasion.
Hon Rodney Hide: Mr Hughes would be right, except for one point: the reports that get asked for have to relate to the Minister’s portfolio. Unfortunately for the Hon Parekura Horomia, the reports he is seeking from the Minister of Māori Affairs bear no relationship to that Minister’s portfolio. The Minister would not be receiving such reports in his capacity as the Minister of Māori Affairs. He has no responsibility for such reports in this House.
Hon Darren Hughes: I think this goes back to a point that was made right at the beginning of the year about what the ambit of the Minister of Māori Affairs is. We have five, six, seven, maybe eight quotes from the Minister of Māori Affairs, who has said he wants to take a role on the leadership of Māori issues and make representations on Māori issues, and he has particularly tied it to this issue. In fact, there are Cabinet papers, I understand, in the names of the Minister of Māori Affairs and the Minister of Local Government together, who have been taking ministerial responsibility for this issue. Clearly, both Ministers are acting on this issue within both their portfolios. I would be happy to come back to the House very shortly with quotes from the Minister of Māori Affairs where he talks about his dual role, both as co-leader of a party—which, clearly, he cannot be questioned on in here—and as portfolio Minister of Māori Affairs, in which he says he will be taking a clear role in resolving this issue.
Hon Rodney Hide: Again, I am afraid that Mr Darren Hughes is wrong. He is seeking reports about the behaviour of MPs in another party. Mr Sharples, as Minister of Māori Affairs, has no responsibility for that even on a particular bill that he may be shepherding through the House, let alone on a bill that he is not.
Mr SPEAKER: I think that I have heard sufficient on this. I have been listening to the helpful advice, because it has been helpful advice, of the members who have contributed, while I pondered what I freely acknowledge is a difficult issue. The dilemma I have with the question is that it did not ask the Minister whether he had received reports in relation to his ministerial responsibility; it asked specifically about letters from members of Parliament to do with something that may not have been his responsibility. I am sure that the Hon Parekura Horomia could phrase a question that did ask whether the Minister had received any reports in the area of his ministerial responsibility relating to the matter. I invite the member to see whether he can reword his question to bring it within the Standing Orders.
Hon Parekura Horomia: Has the Minister of Māori Affairs had any reports from other members wishing to cross the floor on this matter, seeing that Rodney Hide and the Prime Minister are not listening to him?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not see how that is within order, at all—
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning the Minister of Māori Affairs was in the media as Minister of Māori Affairs, calling for there to be a free vote on this issue, which directly affects Māori people in our country, particularly in Auckland, and for which the Minister himself has publicly, on repeated occasions, said is part of his ministerial responsibility to advocate for. So his responsibility in this area as an advocate is well established. He attended Cabinet yesterday to lobby on this particular issue, and this morning he has called for there to be a vote on the very point that my colleague is now asking whether he has received any reports on.
Mr SPEAKER: I am not unsympathetic to the point the honourable member is making. The dilemma is that if he reflects on the question that the Hon Parekura Horomia just asked, he will realise that it did not remotely meet the Standing Order requirements. The Minister has no responsibility, whatsoever, for possible reports about members crossing the floor of the House. Neither does he have any ministerial responsibility for what the Prime Minister may have said. I am not saying the Minister cannot be questioned, at all—the Minister most certainly can be questioned—but the questions must come within the Standing Orders. That is why I invited the Hon Parekura Horomia to try to bring his question within the Standing Orders. The last question—and I ask members to forgive me, but we cannot allow this to go on for too long—was just nowhere near to complying with the requirements of the Standing Orders.
Hon Parekura Horomia: Will the Minister of Māori Affairs be calling for a personal vote on this very important matter to this nation?
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Yes, I will be calling for a conscience vote.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Kia ora tātou. What response does the Minister of Māori Affairs have to Tukoroirangi Morgan, who stated that Tainui would not take part in any advisory board, because “Giving Maori people the crumbs at the second level is a nonsense and we’ve made it quite clear we are not interested in being a tekoteko … or tonotono … —people who are subservient to the top table.”?
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I believe that Mr Morgan is correct in saying that Māori representation at this level should not be symbolic or subservient.
Hon Parekura Horomia: What does he say to Tau Henare, who last week in an email called on his caucus to let National MPs cross the floor and vote for the Māori seats, and today is reported as saying “Why should I sacrifice”—
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to resume his seat for a moment. Clearly, no Minister has any responsibility for what a backbench member might say. [Interruption] I am ruling on the matter. There will be silence in the House. [Interruption] Order, I say to National backbenchers. I realise that this is a difficult area, and there is no way in the world that I am trying to prevent the member from questioning the Minister; some Minister has to have responsibility for these issues, so I am not trying to prevent the member from questioning the Minister. But, clearly, no Minister has responsibility for what a backbench member may say. This question cannot go on for too long, but I invite the member to ask a supplementary question that is in order.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you for hearing our submissions on this. The supplementary question that you allowed previously asked what the Minister said to a quote from Tukoroirangi Morgan; a quote from that person was given, and the Minister responded to it. Mr Horomia started his question by saying “What does he say to Tau Henare, who last week”, and then explained what the quote had been. In April 2009, in question time, Dr Sharples said: “As the Minister of Māori Affairs I have an interest in all the affairs that affect Māori and I have a responsibility to reflect their views.” We are trying to question him on an important constitutional point. A quote from a certain individual was put to the Minister for him to comment on, he did that, and we did not object to it. Now exactly the same thing is happening, and you are considering ruling it out.
Mr SPEAKER: I may have—
Hon Simon Power: There’s no ministerial responsibility.
Hon Annette King: There wasn’t for Tuku Morgan, either.
Mr SPEAKER: There will not be interjections. I may have misheard the previous question. I apologise to the House if I misheard it. I had understood that it was about some correspondence between Mr Morgan, from Tainui, and the Minister of Māori Affairs. I might have misheard; I apologise if I did. If it was my error, I am sorry, but, clearly the Minister cannot be responsible for what either private citizens or backbenchers say. I allowed the question, but perhaps I was in error in doing that. I apologise; I misheard it. Clearly, the Minister has no responsibility for what a backbench member says—none whatsoever. It is not difficult, in my view, to question the Minister in a manner that comes within his ministerial responsibilities.
Hon Parekura Horomia: As Minister of Māori Affairs, does he agree with Tau Henare, who last week in an email called on his caucus to let National MPs cross the floor and vote for the Māori seats and today is reported as saying: “Why should I sacrifice my career when other people aren’t? … The call has been made by the Minister of Māori Affairs that we should cross the floor. Maybe he should resign.”?
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Congratulations on the email! I have no wish to put people in that position. In fact, a conscience vote means that people do not have to cross the floor. That is why I am going to call for it.
Hon Parekura Horomia: Is the Minister aware of the statement made by his fellow Māori Party colleague Hone Harawira that “The last word we had from the PM was that he was supportive of the seats and that he had found a proposal that would prevent Rodney from throwing his toys out of the cot.”; if so, when was he informed by the Prime Minister that he had in fact changed his position?
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: I have not heard that and I am not aware of that comment.
Hon Parekura Horomia: Does he think it is consistent for the Government with one hand to retain Māori electorate seats here in Parliament, and with the other hand to deny Māori local representation on the largest city council in New Zealand?
Mr SPEAKER: That question specifically asks the Minister about something outside his ministerial responsibility.
Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister of Māori Affairs has a portfolio that—with due respect, Mr Speaker—pervades all sorts of situations in this country. Certainly, there are not many things that Māori people, as the other people in this country, are not involved in.
Hon Darren Hughes: As I mentioned earlier, we went through this issue earlier in the year at quite some length. The Minister told the House: “I have voiced my displeasure at the taking away of those seats, and I’ve done so as the Minister of Māori Affairs because I have a responsibility to represent the views of Māori people.” The Minister himself, by his statements in this House, has opened up the ability for the Opposition to question him on his portfolio. It is clear that the Minister of Māori Affairs’ remit goes far wider than the narrow portfolio boundaries that the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Education, or the Minister for Social Development and Employment might ordinarily have.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the point the honourable member makes: obviously, the Minister of Māori Affairs has a pretty wide brief. I allowed a number of supplementary questions from the Hon Parekura Horomia because in my view they came within the Standing Orders in respect of the responsibilities of the Minister of Māori Affairs. But the last question asked specifically about the reorganisation of Auckland city. It was specifically about matters to do with the reorganisation of that city, which the Minister does not have responsibility for. The Standing Orders permit Ministers to be questioned only on matters for which they have responsibility, and, clearly, the Minister does not have responsibility for the reorganisation of Auckland city.
Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Does that then mean that the duty that the Prime Minister has set for the co-leader of the Māori Party Dr Sharples and the leader of the ACT Party, Rodney Hide on its way in relation to the composition of the city council is null and void, through your statements?
Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me, but the honourable member has lost me. I cannot assist.
Hon Parekura Horomia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The point of order will be heard in silence.
Hon Parekura Horomia: Mr Speaker, I do not want to lose you. I want to bring some concise understanding to this debacle. At the end of the day, the Prime Minister has, through edict of his seat, directed the co-leader of the Māori Party and the leader of the ACT Party to get their heads together and sort out something for the council’s composition—
Mr SPEAKER: Points of order have to relate to order in the House. What the Prime Minister may have asked Rodney Hide and Dr Pita Sharples to do is not a matter for the order of this House. I have allowed the member to ask questions that fall, in my view, within the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders these days permit opinion questions to be asked; questions that seek opinions can be asked, and some of the questions that the member has asked have fallen, I believe, within the Standing Orders. But he cannot ask the Minister specifically about the reorganisation of Auckland city, because it is not within his ministerial responsibility. I think the House has spent quite sufficient time on this matter.
Hon Peter Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It relates to the point you have just alluded to. Many years ago one was not allowed to seek an expression of opinion from a Minister in a question, and I seem to recall—and you will, too, Mr Speaker—that during the reign of Mr Speaker Wall the device emerged of members asking Ministers whether they had received any reports on a particular topic, as a way of getting round their not being able to seek an opinion from a Minister. One would ask: “Has the Minister seen a report on the reported comments of so-and-so?”. Now that we have a more lenient view of questions that seek opinions, it may be timely to look again at the device of members’ seeking reports or seeking advice; it is to some extent redundant in that there is the capacity in certain circumstances to seek a more direct opinion of a Minister. I just wanted to raise that point; I do not know whether it is within your jurisdiction, Mr Speaker, or whether it is something the Standing Orders Committee should look at. It has been of concern to me for some time that we have questions that exploit the device to the maximum, when—as you said yourself—there are other ways of asking questions that comply with the current Standing Orders.
Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Peter Dunne has raised a very interesting point, but, sadly, the device of asking whether the Minister has seen any reports relates to more than the old ban on seeking opinions in asking questions. It relates to asking questions about matters that are very marginal in terms of ministerial responsibility, and that are often to do with policies of the previous Government or the Opposition. The use of the device of asking whether the Minister has received any reports is a way of enabling Ministers to talk about those kinds of matters. So I doubt whether the House is likely to let go of that device, but it is something that is certainly within the bounds of the Standing Orders Committee to give consideration to.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not wish to labour the debate on this matter, but I ask you to make a considered ruling, because I think two points are germane. The first is that the last question from Parekura Horomia went to the point, as you quite rightly said, of Auckland representation, and the chief Opposition whip pointed out that the Minister has written at least one Cabinet paper on that issue. I would like to be given a view from you as to how one cannot be responsible for an issue that one has written a Cabinet paper on. Secondly, the Minister has also widened by his own quotes his definition of his ministerial responsibilities as they pertain to Māori affairs, as the chief Opposition whip has said. Given those two issues, with the first being specific—about a Cabinet paper relating directly to my colleague’s question that now the Minister is somehow not responsible for—and the second being wider questions around the Māori affairs portfolio, with regard to which the Minister, in historical quotes, has widened his own definition of responsibility, we have grave difficulty in defining what is and what is not his ministerial responsibility. I fail to see how one can pen a Cabinet paper on a specific issue, and then stand up and say one is not responsible for it. I just invite you, if it is more efficient in terms of the House’s time, to consider that matter and come back to the House.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the point the member has made.
Hon Simon Power: In respect of the first point, as members opposite will know, from time to time when Prime Ministers require groups of Ministers to go away and look at an issue, whether or not responsibility accrues to a decision-making process in that context is quite different from ministerial responsibility accruing to individual Ministers in this forum, where the Standing Orders are quite specific about what individual Ministers have responsibility for.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the contributions of both members. [Interruption] I am ruling on the matter. Both members have, I think, made very useful contributions; I thank both the Hon Clayton Cosgrove and the Hon Simon Power. With regard to the interesting point raised by the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that a Minister may be involved in the preparation and the presentation of a paper, I say the Minister can certainly be questioned on that paper and on any statements relating to that paper, but that does not alter the fundamental area of ministerial responsibility, as was pointed out by the Hon Simon Power. So both members who have made points are correct. Where a Minister has been involved in the preparation of a paper for Cabinet, he or she can be questioned on that paper, even if it is on the margins of his or her ministerial responsibility. But in general terms, the area of ministerial responsibility remains as such.
I say to the House that clearly this area is difficult, and the issue of a Minister saying he or she has no responsibility for a matter, in my view, is not good enough when questions are lodged earlier in the morning. If a Minister does not have ministerial responsibility, then the question should be transferred to the Minister who has ministerial responsibility, because some Minister has ministerial responsibility for every issue that is an issue relating to the administration of the Government and to Government policy. I make the point that I am not entirely happy with what has transpired today, and that is certainly not the Opposition’s fault.
What I would like to see happen in the future, where there are questions about where ministerial responsibility lies, is that the Clerk’s Office is advised very early that a Minister feels that he or she does not have ministerial responsibility, so that either the question can be renegotiated with the questioner to bring it within the bounds of the responsibilities of that Minister, or, if the Opposition wishes to stick with the wording of the question, it is transferred to the Minister who does have responsibility. I am not prepared to have this House trifled with by way of simply using the device of a Minister saying he or she does not have ministerial responsibility and that is the end of the matter, because some Minister does have responsibility. I hope that is helpful to honourable members.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Kia ora tātou. What will the Minister do to encourage the Government to invest in a true partnership with mana whenua in respect of the Auckland seats, having received communication from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua chair, Naida Glavish, that states that “continuing to treat Maori as ‘mere stakeholders’ will maintain the status quo of poorly managed natural resources, ineffective consultation and ongoing inefficiency in decision making and planning for the city.”?
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That is a question that we want to hear the answer to. The Opposition would like to hear the Minister’s view on that issue, but the irony goes to the exact problem we have been raising with you this afternoon. In addition to the approaches you have outlined, if we could have consideration by you of how Ministers who have responsibility for populations within this country across all portfolios could be handled, then I think that would make for a much easier system of questioning. We want to hear Te Ururoa Flavell’s question be answered, but this situation goes to the heart of the problem we have been having this afternoon.
Mr SPEAKER: The interesting thing about the question was that I believe that the first part of the question was in order, because it asked whether the Minister was prepared to do something to encourage some outcome in respect of his responsibility as Minister of Māori Affairs. The second part of the question was irrelevant. The Minister has no responsibility for what some person outside this place may think. I invite the Minister of Māori Affairs to answer the first part of the question.
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. My response to the question is as follows: Māori people will be here forever; we are not going to go away. As long as I have breath to breathe I will fight for opportunities for Māori people in a fair, democratic, and meaningful way. Kia ora.
Youth Employment—Job Ops Scheme
6. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What reports has she received on the Government’s Job Ops scheme?
Since I stood up in the Chamber last week an additional 176 new Job Ops positions have been placed on Work and Income’s books. We now have a total of—members should listen up—590 Job Ops on our books.
Katrina Shanks: Supplementary question, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Before I call Katrina Shanks I ask both sides of the House to be a little reasonable with their enthusiasm in interjecting, applauding, or whatever. It was extraordinarily difficult to hear the Minister.
Katrina Shanks: Has Work and Income tightened criteria around Job Ops?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: No. From day one, careful guidelines have been in place to avoid displacement. The Job Ops scheme has always been about helping young people get work experience by creating new, entry-level roles.
Hon Annette King: Are existing vacancies not eligible to be used in the Job Ops programme, as she claimed in the press statement on Friday; if so, why are some employers publicly saying that they are not new vacancies but existing ones?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: These jobs are new. A job that exists in an employer’s head is not actually a job until it is on Work and Income’s books that the employer is actively looking for someone. These jobs are for new, entry-level positions. The scheme is a positive thing. I know that that is hard for the Opposition to take into consideration. The scheme is giving young people new opportunities to get into work, which is a good thing.
Katrina Shanks: What reports has the Minister received about the Government’s Community Max scheme?
Hon PAULA BENNETT: We have had 251 community groups registering their interest in the Community Max programme. These projects are a bit slower to come in because they take a bit more work to get up in the communities and get them under way, but the interest is there. The interest is perhaps higher than we expected to start with. We are very pleased with how the programme is going.
Accident Compensation—Sensitive Claims and Sexual Abuse Victims
7. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: How will the proposed changes to the treatment of sensitive claims meet the legal requirements of the ACC scheme to provide “for a fair and sustainable scheme for managing personal injury that has, as its overriding goals, minimising both the overall incidence of injury in the community, and the impact of injury on the community”?
The proposed changes of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) to the treatment guidelines for mental injury resulting from sexual abuse are based on a comprehensive 5-year programme of clinical research commissioned by the corporation. The Massey University school of psychology undertook this research with a team comprising 23 researchers and an advisory committee of 13 people. A multi-method approach was taken, utilising quantitative and qualitative analysis, literature reviews, questionnaires, and focus groups. The research team included specialists in survivor advocacy, psychology, counselling, education, migrant resettlement, indigenous issues, and the mental health of children and older people.
Hon David Parker: Will the Minister release the medical and scientific evidence that the Minister has relied upon to conclude that the current clinical pathway for the treatment of victims of childhood sexual abuse is not satisfactory, and why were the professional bodies of the current treatment providers excluded from meaningful consultation?
Hon PANSY WONG: I am very pleased to table the report by Massey University commissioned by the corporation, Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand. It was somehow totally forgotten and neglected by the previous Labour Government.
Sue Bradford: How does the Minister reconcile the proposal to impose an arbitrary cap on accident compensation funding for counselling for victims of sexual abuse with the statement by the Prime Minister in a recent speech to the Sensible Sentencing Trust that “where New Zealanders do become victims of crime, National will give them the support and respect they deserve.”?
Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, this is a new guideline. It has been proposed because it is not fair or right for victims to have one-size-fits-all treatment, so this proposed treatment takes into account tailored treatment for survivors whether they are women, men, children, adolescents, Māori, Pasifika, or ethnic.
Lynne Pillay: Can the Minister reassure childhood sexual abuse victims that the proposed accident compensation cuts will not detrimentally impact their quality of life; if so, how?
Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, all those have been taken into account because this Government is committed to improving the life of survivors and—
Hon Members: Rubbish!
Hon PANSY WONG: This is a very serious issue. The Opposition might feel agitated and not want to know the real reasons, but others might. According to this study, victims’ traumatic ordeals should be seen as a complex life experience and not as a disorder or life sentence. That is why the best-practice treatment is being implemented.
Sue Bradford: Why is the Government requiring victims of sexual abuse to see at least three different health professionals, and does the Minister think it is easy for victims to go over their traumatic experiences, over and over again, with strangers?
Hon PANSY WONG: Indeed, the clinical research conducted by Massey University is not asking victims to relive their traumatic ordeals. This is tailor-made clinical treatment that takes into account each survivor’s personal circumstances.
Lynne Pillay: Given that the Prime Minister promised substantial increases in funds for victims of crime to the Sensible Sentencing Trust at its conference and that there have been cuts to prevention education from $170,000 to $27,000, does the Minister believe that childhood sexual abuse survivors are no longer considered victims of crime?
Hon PANSY WONG: I hope that the member listened to my previous answer, because I am forced to repeat it. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse will receive appropriate treatment based on their personal circumstances. This best-practice guideline will make sure that not all survivors are treated exactly the same.
Lynne Pillay: I seek leave to table a letter to Nick Smith from the New Zealand Association of Psychotherapists explaining the shock wave of disbelief at the proposed changes to accident compensation funding.
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.
International Trade—Developments
8. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Trade: What recent developments have there been in furthering New Zealand’s international trade agenda?
The trade Ministers of Australia, New Zealand, South-east Asia, and the giant economies of east Asia—Japan, Korea, and China—agreed some 10 days ago in Bangkok to recommend to their leaders a study, from an essentially academic level up to a formal inter-Government level, of a free-trade agreement amongst those countries. If that recommendation is endorsed by East Asia Summit leaders in October, it will be a considerable strategic advancement for Australia and New Zealand.
John Hayes: How will those developments improve New Zealand’s standing in the Asia-Pacific region?
Hon TIM GROSER: If endorsed by leaders, these recommendations, or the formal study of the concept of a free-trade agreement, will ensure that Australia and New Zealand are now definitively part of the Asian economic regional integration process. Asia accounts for over half of New Zealand’s exports, at some $21 billion, and offers some very exciting long-term opportunities.
Question No. 7 to Minister
I have indicated that I would table a document, so I am now seeking the leave of the House to table a document entitled Sexual Abuse and Mental Injury: Practice Guidelines for Aotearoa New Zealand by Massey University, which was commissioned, completed, and buried by the previous Labour 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.
Adult and Community Education—Cuts
9. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Will she reconsider her decision to cut $13 million from adult and community education delivered through high schools and the community organisations they support; if not, why not?
No; the Government has had to fill a $520 million hole that was left in the tertiary budget by the previous Government, in which the questioner was an Associate Minister for tertiary education herself. We have made the necessary decision to target our limited tertiary education dollars on younger students who are likely to be disproportionably affected by the economic downturn.
Hon Maryan Street: Is the Minister aware that it is likely that only one out of a group of seven high schools in the Eastern Bay of Plenty will apply for the remaining $3 million, and, if she is aware of that, what has she to say to the thousands of people in that area who will not be improving their skills next year because self-funding is not an option in that area?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: It is my understanding that high schools have until the end of this month to have their discussions with the Tertiary Education Commission and make their views available. I will await the outcome of those decisions.
Hon Maryan Street: Has she received any representations from her National colleagues about the closure of adult and community education courses; if so, what have they said?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There has been a great deal of discussion from a number of people on all sides of the House. Some are concerned about the loss of adult and community education, and some are looking for the opportunities that may well be taken up in communities by clubs and other organisations.
Hon Maryan Street: Which sign language training courses can the Minister guarantee will survive these cuts to adult and community education, as she has suggested previously, in areas where such training is provided only through high school night classes and organisations dependent upon the support of high school adult and community education funding?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I remind that member that no decisions have yet been made about the provision of services next year. I also remind that member there is still $124 million invested by this Government in adult and community education.
Television—Switch-over to Digital
10. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Broadcasting: What practical steps is the Government taking towards the switch-over to digital television?
The Government has established the Digital Switchover Steering Group, which is comprised of representatives from Television New Zealand (TVNZ), Kordia, and Sky television, as well as from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage, the Ministry of Economic Development, and the Ministry of Consumer Affairs. The group has been established to manage the transition from analog to digital television and to advise the Government on issues relating to the switch-over. The group will be responsible for a comprehensive information programme to ensure that the public is fully informed throughout the transition process and that all New Zealanders know exactly what they need to do to switch to digital television.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What else has been happening to drive the uptake of digital television?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Last week it was announced that Prime Television would be joining the suite of channels offered on the FreeView platform. The National-led Government has always been keen for Prime Television to be available on FreeView, and earlier this year it held a meeting of the relevant parties to identify the barriers to this happening. I am happy to report that FreeView, Sky television, and Kordia were able to reach a commercial agreement that means Prime Television can now be viewed on both the FreeView satellite and terrestrial platforms. This is a practical measure that will make the uptake of digital TV via the FreeView platform even more attractive to the public.
Brendon Burns: Can the Minister assure the House that he will change his current hands-off approach to his portfolio and plan to use some of the digital dividend to ensure FreeView terrestrial reception extends beyond major centres allowing regional New Zealanders to see their local and other channels without having pay television as their only option?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: At the moment, we have a discussion document out. It discusses all the options around the future of that digital spectrum and the digital dividend. I am sure we will take all the submissions into account before making any future decisions.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: When will digital switch-over occur?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: A firm date for digital switch-over will be set once the uptake of digital television has reached 75 percent of households or 2012, whichever occurs first. To realise the full economic benefits of digital switch-over, it needs to occur by 2015 at the latest.
Local Government, Minister—Matters of Principle
11. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Are there any issues other than Māori representation in local government that he believes are matters of principle and therefore worth resigning over?
No.
Phil Twyford: Will the Minister extend the Wanganui District Council (Prohibition of Gang Insignia) Act to all of New Zealand on account of the Prime Minister’s new rule that local government legislation must apply to all councils across the country?
Hon RODNEY HIDE: I fail to see what possible ministerial responsibility I would have for that.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my friend, but we all know that the Wanganui bill was a local bill affecting only one local authority in the country. How can it be other than within the Minister’s responsibility to answer that question?
Mr SPEAKER: I think the honourable member has answered his own question that he posed with that point of order, in that it is a local bill and not a bill for which any Minister has responsibility.
Hon David Parker: It was brought to this House by way of a local bill, but it is a matter of public policy for which that member has responsibility in this Government. As you have already said, there is no matter of public policy for which the Government does not have responsibility. Who else within Government would have responsibility for that issue?
Mr SPEAKER: As Speaker, it was my assessment that the Minister responded reasonably in that he said he had no responsibility for it. At the end of the day, that is the end of the matter as far as the Speaker is concerned. The Speaker cannot second-guess a Minister, as to a Minister’s ministerial responsibility. Had it been put down as a primary question, I would have wanted to see the matter of ministerial responsibility sorted out. But, as it has been asked as a supplementary question, and the Minister has indicated he has no responsibility for that matter, that is the end of the matter as far as the Speaker is concerned.
Phil Twyford: Is it a matter of principle for the Minister to keep secret from the public his threat to resign, when at the same time advocating openness and transparency in local government?
Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes, it is. Let me explain. The Prime Minister approached me about what my position would be if such a compromise was possible between the National Party and the Māori Party, and I said that the numbers would work for that in the House, obviously, but I could not have my name on such legislation, and I would have to stand aside if Cabinet and then the Parliament decided that that would be the result in that legislation. I did not allow that to affect the decision to Cabinet because it was only a conversation between the Prime Minister and me. I did advise my caucus and my board of the discussion, and received their full support.
Phil Twyford: How does he reconcile his comment “we want people to get involved in determining the future of our region. We do understand that politicians aren’t the font of all wisdom” with his decision to substitute his own opinion on Māori representation for that of the recommendations of the royal commission, which received over 3,500 submissions, and the majority of submissions on this issue to the select committee?
Hon RODNEY HIDE: Very easily, because at the end of the day I am only one vote in this House, and what I was—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon RODNEY HIDE: It is a bit difficult, Mr Speaker; the member asked a question and I am answering it. At the end of the day I am only one vote in this House, and the ACT Party is five votes. Ultimately, it is going to be a decision of the Parliament and Cabinet, and I was happy to accept that. What I did say was that because the legislation was in my name, I would have to take responsibility for that legislation—
Hon Darren Hughes: And it’s all about you.
Hon RODNEY HIDE: No, it is not all about me. What it is about is the ACT Party having a philosophy and a principle that says there should be one vote for all and every position of political power open to a free contest. If it was the will of Parliament or Cabinet to say otherwise, I would have no option but to stand down. I assured the Prime Minister that the support of the five MPs would be for this Government because that was our agreement before the election, and we have stuck to our word. In fact, the only cost in the decision of standing aside would be to myself and to the ACT Party.
Options and Advice Service—Establishment
12. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister of Housing: What progress has the Government made with fulfilling the establishment of an Options and Advice Service?
I am pleased to announce the launch of phase 1 of the Options and Advice Service, which has eight pilot neighbourhoods. The aim of the service is to provide applicants with information and advice that helps them to identify housing options that may be available to them, not just State housing but rental opportunities in the private sector or possibly even homeownership. I thank my colleague the Hon Paula Bennett and her ministry team for their support in working with us on developing the scheme.
Hekia Parata: How will this service be rolled out?
Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Phase 1 of the roll-out will see the service operating in Whangarei, Onehunga, Panmure, Manurewa, Hamilton, Manawatū, Linwood, and Timaru. These sites were chosen for geographical spread as well as to see how the service works in different types of neighbourhood units. Phase 2 will consist of a national roll-out of the service in 2010. Initially, customers to Housing New Zealand Corporation’s front door will be the focus of the service. However, we are looking to provide the service to existing tenants—for example, offering them the opportunity to buy the home they live in, in some cases.
Questions to Members
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Consideration
1. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee: Can he confirm that the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill is currently being considered by the committee?
Yes.
Phil Twyford: What communications, if any, has he received from the Prime Minister or the Minister of Local Government about yesterday’s announcement about what can and what cannot be included in the bill?
Mr SPEAKER: I fail to see how that question has anything to do with the procedure of the committee. The member must make his supplementary question bear some relationship to the procedures or processes going on in the committee. Questions to members are somewhat different from questions to Ministers.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. One of the processes of a select committee is the chair’s communications with Ministers about the progress of bills before the committee. My colleague is asking whether, following yesterday’s announcement, there has been any communication about things that can or cannot be included in the bill,.
Mr SPEAKER: It is a nice try by the honourable member, but I am not sure the Speaker stands persuaded on that matter.
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Submissions
2. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee: How many submissions were heard on the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill?
The committee heard a total of 619 submissions, of which 343 were oral submissions from individuals, and 276 were submissions from groups, organisations, and experts.
Phil Twyford: How many of those submissions supported Māori seats on the Auckland Council?
Hon JOHN CARTER: I do not have that analysis with me.
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Progress
3. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee: What progress has been made on the committee’s consideration of the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill?
The committee has made good progress and is on schedule to meet the report-back date of 4 September 2009.
Phil Twyford: Has the chairperson had any communications with the Associate Minister of Local Government, the Hon John Carter, about Cabinet processes relating to the bill?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not think the chair of the committee has any responsibility for Cabinet processes.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My memory of this particular matter is that you did allow supplementary questions like that from the Hon Trevor Mallard to the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee about communication with members of the executive, the processes within the executive, and how they impacted on the process of the select committee. That was what my colleague was trying to get to with this question—the process as it affects this special committee, the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee. There is a precedent for this under Speaker Smith.
Mr SPEAKER: I think the difference on that particular occasion was that the Hon Trevor Mallard was specifically asking the chair of the select committee what he had done in response to certain things. On this occasion, although the supplementary question might be asking about the same person, it must relate to something that the chair of the committee is doing, not what Cabinet might be doing. If the member has a further supplementary question—
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The issue is that the chair of the parliamentary select committee is also the Associate Minister of Local Government about whom my colleague is asking the question—the very same person. Of any member here he should be in the best position to answer that question.
Mr SPEAKER: Again—[Interruption] There must be no interjections when the Speaker is considering matters. The fact that it might be the same member is quite irrelevant to the Speaker’s ruling on the matter. The chair of the committee is responsible only for matters to do with the chair. The fact the chair is also the Associate Minister is irrelevant.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Just quickly, perhaps it would be helpful to Mr Darren Hughes and Mr Phil Twyford if you organised a seminar on asking questions.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat.
Phil Twyford: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If I could rephrase that earlier question—
Mr SPEAKER: I have called question No. 4.
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Report Back
4. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee: When will the Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill be reported back to the House?
As I said previously, the report-back date for the bill is 4 September 2009.
Phil Twyford: Has the Associate Minister of Local Government, the Hon John Carter, advised him that decisions have already been made about the bill—
Mr SPEAKER: No—I think the member needs to have a look at the Standing Orders relating to questions to chairs of committees, because that kind of question does not fall within the ambit of questions to chairs.
Local Government (Auckland Council) Bill—Submissions on Māori Representation
5. Hon PAREKURA HOROMIA (Labour—Ikaroa-Rāwhiti) to the Chairperson of the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee: What process did the committee follow for hearing submissions relating to Māori representation?
The committee received 2,538 submissions from interested groups and individuals. A subcommittee heard evidence in all seven Auckland districts, including Great Barrier Island and Waiheke Island, and on three marae in the Auckland region.
Hon Parekura Horomia: What integrity does the process have, given that the submissions have been overridden by his Government?
Mr SPEAKER: The first part of the question was fine in asking about the integrity of the process, but asking what the Government might have done is irrelevant to the responsibilities of the chair of the committee. That is outside the Standing Orders, and that brings to a conclusion questions for oral answer.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You ruled that the first part of the question was in order, so maybe the chairperson could answer the first part.
Mr SPEAKER: I have already concluded question time. I think that members asking questions of chairs need to be a bit more careful about their supplementary questions. I think I have been fairly tolerant of that today.