Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers

Yes. They are all hard-working and competent Ministers who understand the large challenges faced by this country.

Hon Annette King: Did he agree with the Minister of Health’s decision to sanitise the report of the independent ministerial review group by removing controversial material from it before he was forced to release it this week and only after the Dominion Post reported some of its contents on the front page?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory. The Minister of Health has set about tidying up the mess left by the previous Government, and of course some of it will be controversial. What does the member expect?

Hon Annette King: How can he and the Minister of Health claim to have released an independent report on health when the Minister of Health fiddled with the group’s recommendations and removed some of its independent views from the report in an attempt to hide an emerging National agenda of privatisation and broken promises?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am quite sure that the Minister of Health responsibly discussed with the review group what recommendations it was making, but that member needs to understand the size of the mess she has left. It will take a big effort to turn it round.

Hon Annette King: Why did the Minister of Health remove from the independent report comments that stated that spending health dollars on improving life expectancy will be an investment in growth only if people work longer before they draw taxpayer-funded superannuation; and what does his Government have to hide when everyone knows that is its view?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would agree with the Minister that the line of questions is rubbish—making it up, probably. The fact is that to deliver better, smarter health services to New Zealanders means we must change the health system that the previous Government left behind, because the system that Government left chewed up money without much result.

Hon Annette King: Will the Prime Minister require the Minister of Health to tell doctors and nurses that he edited out of the independent report comments that wage restraint was needed from them, as well as changes to the industrial relations settings, and when will the Government announce its real agenda of wage freezes on their salaries?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is hardly a secret that the Government considers wage restraint to be quite important. In fact, I recall the Minister of Finance making that statement in this House in full view of the public over the last several months.

Economy—Growth

2. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What will be required to produce balanced growth in the economy over the next few years?

A change in policy to correct the economic mismanagement of the last 10 years will be required. Too much growth has been sourced from borrowing and Government spending, and too little from exports and productive investment. The Government is implementing a range of policies to tilt the playing field in favour of investment, saving, working, and exporting, so that we do not go round the same cycle of excessive borrowing and spending.

Amy Adams: Which parts of the economy have shown the weakest and the strongest growth in recent years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: According to GDP statistics, the economy grew by 7 percent in the 5 years to March 2009. The tradable sector—that is, exports, tourism, and anything that competes with overseas production—fell by 10 percent, while the non-tradable sector grew by 15 percent. In particular, over the last 5 years Government administration grew by 32 percent, when the economy grew by 7 percent.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister explain how cutting research and development tax credits and New Zealand Trade and Enterprise programmes will promote exports and close the external imbalance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That member and the previous Government spent hundreds of millions of dollars on programmes meant to encourage exports, yet they dropped by 10 percent through one of the strongest periods of growth that the world economy has ever seen.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister explain why it is a priority to increase GST to 15 percent in order to pay for cuts to the top tax rates, as was suggested in the media recently by the Treasury appointee to the tax review?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The tax review has been told to give us its best advice, and we expect to get that advice from it towards the end of this year, or early next year. Unlike the previous Government, we do not stand over our advisers and forbid particular thoughts.

Amy Adams: What measures will the Government take to ensure that future growth is more sustainable?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We need to make sure that the Government does not continue to grow its spending at twice the rate of its revenue. There will be no repeat of the 32 percent increase in real Government administration costs that has occurred over the last 5 years. New Zealand’s productive base will benefit from there being increased skills and innovation, better regulation, and more productive infrastructure.

Amy Adams: What alternative plans to ensure balanced growth has the Minister seen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The proposed solutions I have heard from the Opposition are somewhat confused. On the one hand we have the Leader of the Opposition, Phil Goff, promising to spend more money on everything; on the other hand David Cunliffe was honest enough to acknowledge that the current account deficit had stayed high, savings performance had been poor, and productivity growth had been low under the previous Government. We can add that exports actually shrank, despite the expenditure of hundreds of millions of dollars to grow them.

Hon Jim Anderton: As the Minister seems to be very keen on budget cuts for Government departments and administration in general, can he tell the House how much the budget for Treasury—his own department—was cut this year?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As it happens, I have looked into that. The Treasury baseline will drop from $65 million last year to $60 million in 2 years’ time.

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 Government quietly cut $150 million from Vote Health and left district health boards delivering $160 million of unfunded health services, yes.

Hon Ruth Dyson: On what date did the Minister first receive a draft copy of the Horn report, and what changes did he require the “independent” ministerial group to make to that draft?

Hon TONY RYALL: I did not receive a draft copy of the independent report, nor did I instruct that any recommendations be changed.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Will the Minister now release all material associated with the “independent” review of the health sector, and allow a transparent and “sooner rather than later” submissions process?

Hon TONY RYALL: This is an independent report that is being carefully considered, and I can assure the member that the Government will not agree to anything that increases bureaucracy or does not improve front-line services.

Dr Paul Hutchison: With regard to better health care for young women, what is the Minister’s response to reports from an American Government study released today, which apparently raises questions about the safety of the cervical cancer vaccine Gardasil?

Hon TONY RYALL: The safety of the Gardasil vaccine is being continuously monitored in New Zealand by Medsafe and the independent centre for adverse reactions monitoring. Up to 14 August, 162,000 doses of Gardasil were given in New Zealand, and there were 166 reported adverse events. That is 0.1 percent. Of these adverse events, only one is classified as serious. I am advised that it is considered unlikely this event was caused by the vaccine. Authorities are clear: based on our experience in New Zealand, they consider that the benefits of Gardasil in the prevention of cervical cancer clearly outweigh the possible risks of side effects, and they consider it safe for New Zealand girls and women. New Zealand authorities continue to monitor international evidence and our experience here at home.

Kevin Hague: Does the Minister now agree that his Government made a tragic mistake in slashing funding for programmes for healthy eating, designed to reduce long-term health needs, without any evidence that they were not working?

Hon TONY RYALL: The Government has not slashed the budget for healthy eating projects. What the Government has done is sought more balance in the approach between physical activity and nutrition.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What responses has he seen in relation to the public release of the ministerial group report?

Hon TONY RYALL: There have been a number of informed responses. New Zealand Doctor says that primary care gives the “thumbs up” to the report. The New Zealand Herald has said the Government “must move fast on health reform”, and the Timaru Herald says “the report looks like a good start.” The Health and Disability Commissioner, Ron Paterson, says that all the recommendations in this report need to be considered. He is backing the key recommendation on quality. He says “We need to do this. There is a strong case for it, but we need to do it in a more effective way than we are doing currently under the quality improvement committee, with different DHBs taking a lead.”

Kevin Hague: Given that diet is the biggest single influence on lifetime health status, what are the Minister’s programmes to reduce diet-related illness in the long run, given the ministerial review group’s projections for future unaffordable health needs?

Hon TONY RYALL: The programmes that were in place under the previous Government continue in that area. This Government has also announced a number of initiatives, with a particular initiative around sport for young New Zealanders, which will contribute to physical activity.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What discussions did the Minister or any of his staff have with the chair of the Health Committee, who today voted against the select committee hearing submissions from the public about the Horn report?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have very regular discussions with the chair of the Health Committee, and I must say that in our last discussion we talked about the rather poor state of the questions asked by the member opposite in the House.

Mr SPEAKER: I thought the Minister asked a fairly clear question and did not deserve the last part of that answer. Had the Minister sat down a little earlier, I might have been less concerned, but I invite the member to repeat her question so all the House can hear it and the Minister can answer it again.

Hon Ruth Dyson: What discussions did the Minister or any of his staff have with the chair of the Health Committee, who today voted against the select committee hearing submissions from the public about the Horn report?

Hon TONY RYALL: I have regular conversations with the chair of the Health Committee. Today’s decision, I am sure, was a decision of the committee.

Schools Sports Funding—Kiwisport

4. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcements has the Government made about sport in schools?

Last week the Prime Minister, John Key, announced Kiwisport, a new initiative that sees $82 million invested in young Kiwis over the next 4 years. Kiwisport will provide $45 million in direct funding to schools over the next 4 years—

Hon David Cunliffe: It’s only for private schools.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The member does not like it, does he! A further $37 million is going to a regional partnership fund—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. I say to members opposite that the Minister is right beside me yet I cannot hear her answer. I am sure that the House, the question having been asked, is interested in hearing the answer. I invite the Minister to go back to the start of her answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Last week the Prime Minister, John Key, announced Kiwisport, a new initiative that sees $82 million invested in young Kiwis over the next 4 years. Kiwisport will provide $45 million in direct funding to schools over the next 4 years, with a further $37 million to go to a regional partnership fund for initiatives involving clubs, schools, and community groups, to support sport for school-age children.

Allan Peachey: What reports has the Minister seen about Kiwisport?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen the reported comments of the College Sport chief executive, who welcomed the announcement, and said that Kiwisport would give secondary schools much more flexibility in how they use their money. I have also seen a rather misguided report from Labour MP Chris Hipkins, who said: “They’ve slashed funding for things like … Stage Challenge …”. If he had done a little bit of homework, he would have found that the funding for Stage Challenge does continue.

Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Members should listen. A bit of noise in the House is perfectly acceptable, but I ask members to show some courtesy to a member who has done nothing other than seek to ask a supplementary question, and does not deserve that kind of reaction. I ask the backbenchers to show a little courtesy. Chris Hipkins.

Hon Members: Ha, ha!

Mr SPEAKER: I meant what I said, I say to some of the members at the back of the Chamber. I do not expect to be laughed at like that.

Chris Hipkins: Why does the Minister believe that the health and well-being of Kiwi kids will be better served by her allocating the limited amount of funding available on a population basis, rather than targeting funding based on need, particularly given that these changes are likely to take funding away from some of the poorest schools, including those in South Auckland, where the Prime Minister went to launch the initiative; or is this another example of John Key’s “Sheriff of Nottingham” approach of robbing from the poor to give to the rich?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I suggest that the member does a little bit of maths. Under the previous Labour Government, $5.3 million was allocated to schools to fund sports coordinators—all of it to secondary schools, and not even all secondary schools. Under KiwiSport, a total of $20 million per year will be available to encourage Kiwi kids to play sport, and $20 million is a lot more than $5.3 million.

Chris Hipkins: Is the Minister concerned that focusing funding exclusively on sport while cancelling funding for other forms of physical activity, such as Stage Challenge, kapahaka, ASB Polyfest, and the Pasifika Festival, which the Minister for Sport and Recreation has indicated will have fund cuts, and cancelling funding for nutritional programmes that get kids eating healthier food, could actually mean more health problems for Kiwi kids; if not, why not?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I suggest that the member does his homework. The Stage Challenge funding has not been cut, so the entire premise of that question is false.

Immigration Investigation—Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi

5. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Immigration: On what day was Immigration New Zealand’s investigation file concerning Kanwaljit Bakshi made over to the New Zealand Police?

I am advised that the case was first referred to the police on 20 July 2009. The file was subsequently handed over on 28 July.

Hon Pete Hodgson: When a copy of the first investigation report was made public, why did the Minister then ask his officials at the Department of Labour to investigate why the Official Information Act request had not gone through his office?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: In my office, as in yours when you were a Minister—

Mr SPEAKER: The Speaker may well have been a Minister, but right now he is not.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It is a common approach in Ministers’ offices under this Government, as it was under the previous Government, that Ministers operate under a no-surprises policy with regard to their departments.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Minister accept that the second investigation into Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi arose only because officials released information concerning the first investigation to the New Zealand Herald, and that had that information not been released no second investigation would be under way?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The consistent approach right throughout this matter is that if information comes to light that warrants further investigation, Immigration New Zealand should proceed in that manner. I have made that very clear to the department.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Will any future Official Information Act requests concerning Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi be handled by departmental officials alone, or will the Minister continue to require his officials to pass any such requests to his ministerial office for his personal perusal?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: All Official Information Act requests that go to the department, apart from those of a very minor statistical nature, come to the attention of the Minister’s office under the no-surprises policy.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why was a planned interview of Department of Labour officials, arranged in June by the New Zealand Herald, called off by the Minister’s political adviser Mr James Watson?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: It was not called off. The department can interview whom it likes, when it likes, with regard to any investigation.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does the Minister understand that the more he seeks to vet Official Information Act requests regarding his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, and the more he interferes with the free access of the media to his officials regarding his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi, the more likely it is that he will be viewed as protecting his colleague Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: The member over there is making an allegation, and I invite him to make it outside the House.

Benefits and Allowances—Access

6. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: Can she guarantee that access to benefits and allowances will not be reduced in this term of Government?

Yes, our commitment is to preserve core benefits. However, access to allowances does change, as the member knows. We made changes to the training incentive allowance in the last Budget.

Sue Bradford: Which allowances, then, is the Minister planning to cut, and when?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: There are no plans at this stage to cut any of the allowances, but, as I say, they change all the time. We added the ReStart package in December last year and we made changes to training incentive allowances in the Budget. It is all quite open and upfront.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister in his remarks of a couple of weeks ago that restricting the independent youth benefit is an option, despite the fact that this already is a benefit of last resort to help a very small number of 16 and 17-year-olds who need to survive without family support, and the only alternatives for them are things like begging, crime, and prostitution?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: With the independent youth benefit we are looking at making sure there are the restrictions that recipients are in education, in work, or are upskilling, so those changes to the independent youth benefit are around those restrictions. A percentage of recipients are already in employment and education, so we are not cutting the benefit from them. We know that it is a benefit they need. The changes are more about insisting that they be in some sort of education, employment, or upskilling.

Katrina Shanks: What reports has the Minister seen that suggest changes to welfare?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have seen reports that suggest that the Government ought to provide welfare for pretty much everyone, including those who are wealthy and millionaires. The big idea from Labour in the report I saw is to put thousands of middle-class people on benefits, which is, quite frankly, impractical, unaffordable, and unfair. In yet another case of “Visa-nomics”, we saw Opposition member Annette King contemplate extending the in-work tax credit to beneficiaries at a cost of around $450 million. Quite frankly, the Opposition wants people on welfare; we want them in jobs.

Hon Annette King: Why should New Zealanders trust the Minister to uphold promises to leave benefit entitlements alone, when she has already broken a number of election promises, putting them in the too-hard basket, including increasing the abatement level from $80 to $100, which would encourage more beneficiaries into part-time work, and not passing a law to adjust benefits by the CPI each year, as promised in National’s policy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: We absolutely stand by our promises. We have said we will do it before the next election, and that it what we will do. It is called being honest.

Sue Bradford: What is the goal of the Minister’s audit of emergency special-needs grants, and is she planning to limit or restrict access to special-needs grants?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: In all fairness, there is no audit of special-needs grants going on. That is what the paper said but that is not what we have said. We have never said that there was an audit of special-needs grants going on. We are constantly reviewing them, as the member is aware. We have more people on the special-needs grants than ever before because of the doubling last year of the access to them. There are no plans to cut that access—particularly for food, which we know is vitally important to those people who need it.

Sue Bradford: Will the Minister be ensuring that the Limited Service Volunteers programme for young people remains voluntary, or will Work and Income attempt to force young people on to it, as has happened in the past?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It will not be compulsory, but we will be suggesting that young people who are on the unemployment benefit look at options that are available to them. Currently there are work testing requirements for them. The Limited Service Volunteers has grown to be just one other element of the options for young people on the benefit.

Hon Annette King: Can the Minister tell the House whether there is an audit of 50 beneficiaries taking place, as the Prime Minister said on television this week, or whether she is correct in saying there is not an audit; which one is it?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The member might have liked to listen to my previous answer. It was an audit around special-needs grants that the member Sue Bradford and I were just talking about. We were talking about special-needs grants. The member is now asking whether an audit is going to be happening on the 50 top beneficiaries. I tell the member that we are looking at the top beneficiaries who get the most amount of money, and we have been for some months.

Methamphetamine—Police Reports

7. Dr CAM CALDER (National) to the Minister of Police: Has she received any reports from the police regarding methamphetamine?

Yes. I have received a report from the police that shows an arrested methamphetamine user earns, on average, $5,623 each month from crime.

Dr Cam Calder: What are the police doing to address the link between drugs and criminal activity?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The police are actively seeking to reduce the supply of methamphetamine by targeting dealers and dismantling clan-labs. Police national clandestine laboratory response teams are based in Auckland and Wellington, and they support all police districts to tackle the problem of clandestine methamphetamine laboratories.

Dr Cam Calder: Has the Minister seen any reports about the number of clan-labs dismantled recently?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. I have received a report that shows that 13 clan-labs were dismantled in June 2009 alone. That was more than double the number dismantled during the same period in 2008.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does the Minister expect the cuts of $21 million and more than 300 cars from the police fleet to assist police in continuing to battle the methamphetamine problem?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I am sure that the 600 extra police will do a fantastic job, which is what we always expect from our New Zealand police.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: How does the Minister expect the raiding of other police districts to put police into the Counties-Manukau Police District will help the police in other districts to continue to battle the P problem?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Frankly, I do not know why the member insists on making such silly statements. There will be 600 extra police for the whole of New Zealand, and 300 of those police will go to Counties-Manukau. Nobody is being taken out of any other district to police Counties-Manukau. I think it is quite irresponsible of the member to make such silly statements in the House.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister been advised by the police of the drug abuse that causes the most criminal behaviour in New Zealand; if so, can she confirm that that drug is alcohol, not methamphetamine?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Certainly, the police advise me that the vast majority of the criminal cases they have to deal with involve the misuse of alcohol. However, many people will be aware that, unfortunately, methamphetamine has taken hold in certain parts of New Zealand, and that gangs in particular have been able to become extremely rich off the proceeds.

Schools Sports Funding—Kiwisport

8. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister for Sport and Recreation: Will he guarantee that no schools will be financially worse off as a result of the Government’s Kiwisport initiative; if not, why not?

Yes.

Chris Hipkins: Will he now guarantee that programmes such as Stage Challenge, kapahaka, the ASB Polyfest, and the Pasifika Festival will receive no less funding next year than they did this year, as the Minister of Education has just indicated; if not, why not?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I advise the member to direct questions related to the education budget to the Minister of Education.

Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Emissions Trading Scheme

9. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: How much lower would New Zealand’s net carbon dioxide equivalent emissions be in 2020 as a result of the emissions trading scheme as currently legislated, compared with the business-as-usual case represented by the green line in figure 5 in his ministry’s document New Zealand’s 2020 Emissions Target?

on behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Perhaps I should say that this answer is also on behalf of the previous Labour Government, as it is its scheme to which the member is referring. Clearly, a number of factors need to be taken into account. There is the issue of the price. Of course, the previous Labour Government’s scheme has no cap on the price, so it is an extreme market solution—let the price clear at whatever the economic and social cost may be. There are uncertainties about the extent to which the scheme would stimulate planting, and uncertainties over the harvesting. But if the price were, as the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics study indicates, $100 a tonne, it has been estimated that it could reduce emissions by 15 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents. It could also possibly put forward a further 50,000 hectares of planting, which might add a further 10 million tonnes, and, arguably, it might decrease the very rapid deforestation that occurred in the last few years of the previous Labour Government.

Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet, in case members had not noticed. Before I call the Hon Rodney Hide, I want to say that the question that was asked was a perfectly serious question, and the House deserved to hear the answer. It was a straightforward question. Obviously, the answer was quite complicated. I want the House to be able to hear the answer. I am serious about that. The House deserves to hear the answer.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Opposition certainly agrees with you that we need to be able to hear the answer, but I think the two issues were, first, the extraordinary length of the answer, and, second, the political content from the beginning, when the Minister said he was answering on behalf of the previous Labour Government. We will ignore all the other theatrics that went on, but those two points alone meant it was very difficult to maintain order. If the Minister gives a shorter answer, without all the political stuff, I am sure he will find that he will be heard in silence.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need further assistance on the matter. I think the Hon Darren Hughes makes a perfectly good point, and I would ask the Minister, in responding further, to avoid unnecessary political content.

Hon Rodney Hide: Does the Minister agree with the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and Infometrics report that setting the price of carbon at $100 a tonne will still leave emissions 20 percent above 1990 levels, but will also cost the average New Zealander 9.7 percent of his or her wages?

Hon TIM GROSER: On behalf of the Minister for Climate Change Issues—and I will stop at that point to avoid introducing ironic humour yet again into Parliament—let me say that the answer to that is very straightforward: yes, that is exactly correct, but it is, of course, the result of modelling. Whether you think it is realistic depends on, first, what you generally think of modelling; second, what you think of this particular general equilibrium modelling; and, third, how realistic you think the assumptions are.

Mr SPEAKER: I remind the Minister that the Speaker should not be involved in his answer, either. Every time he says “what you think about this” or “what you think about that”, he is actually referring to the Speaker. It is not helpful to the order of the House, either.

Hon Rodney Hide: What is the projected cost to the Government if the price of carbon under the emissions trading scheme is $100 a tonne?

Hon TIM GROSER: Logically, of course, we should defer answering this question until 2022; I am confident that the then Minister of Finance, the Hon Bill English, will be in a position to answer the question. We do not have an estimate from the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research study. It will be driven by a number of issues, including, most obviously, allocation issues. I can assure the member that this Government will take an economy-wide view of that key battle.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister stand by his answers in question time yesterday, including the one in which he said he would be “flabbergasted” if New Zealand faced trade barriers as a result of being seen not to take climate change seriously?

Hon TIM GROSER: I can assure the member that the Minister sticks by that comment. It is perfectly obvious that we will not face formal trade barriers, because no country currently applies any form of carbon price to agriculture, which is the normal issue of concern. However, we need to take account of our customers. That is a more subtle and important question.

Charles Chauvel: So does the Minister say that the Prime Minister was wrong to have said in a speech in Gisborne last Wednesday, in respect of climate change: “If we do nothing there will be trade barriers.”, and “To do nothing could mean the next generation will not have the family farm.”?

Hon TIM GROSER: The Prime Minister is always right, and the Prime Minister knows full well that doing nothing is not an option.

Charles Chauvel: I seek leave to table a report of the speech given by the Prime Minister at the Gisborne-Tatapouri Sports Fishing Club in Gisborne on 12 August 2009.

Mr SPEAKER: Did the member say it is a report of the speech?

Charles Chauvel: It is a report from the Gisborne Herald of the remarks made by the Prime Minister to which I referred in my question.

Mr SPEAKER: It seems to be a press statement. Leave is being sought—

Charles Chauvel: No, it is not a press statement. It is a page from a very well-respected newspaper.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the page—

Hon TIM GROSER: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat while the point of order is being dealt with. Leave is sought to table a page from a newspaper. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is objection.

Auckland, Local Government Reform—Consultation

10. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he support the right of Aucklanders to decide on the future ownership of publicly owned assets under the super-city?

Yes, I believe in local decisions being made at the local level, not only in Auckland but also right across New Zealand. The Local Government Act 2002 already requires councils to consult the public on any plans to buy or sell strategic assets.

Phil Twyford: Does the Minister stand by his proposal that councils undertake referenda on decisions that are significant or irreversible; if so, does he believe that the sale of publicly owned assets by the Auckland super-city would be significant or irreversible?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I certainly stand by my statements. That is one of the issues that we have under review and are discussing with Local Government New Zealand, councils, and other stakeholders now.

Phil Twyford: Does the Minister stand by his statement on Campbell Live last night that the Prime Minister has ruled out the sale of Auckland’s publicly owned assets?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: Yes.

Taxation—GST Rate

11. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Finance: What policy solutions are being considered to respond to the comments of the Tax Working Group regarding GST, that “Increasing the rate could impact on lower-income or vulnerable households, especially in the short run”?

The Tax Working Group is deliberating, and will be until later in the year. The Government will not consider any options it proposes until after it reports back in December. I note, however, that Budget 2009 ensured that the most vulnerable in our society were protected despite the change in the economic outlook, and that should be a good guide to the attitude of the Government.

Rahui Katene: Does the Minister consider it socially responsible for the group of experts in the Tax Working Group to deliberately design a scheme that discriminates against low-income and vulnerable households; if so, what areas of Government would he expect will need to pick up the discriminatory effects of this scheme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would refer the member’s concerns to comments made, I think, by Susan St John, who is well-known for her economic work in this area to do with poverty and income equality. She said publicly that she was impressed with the transparent way in which the working group was dealing with issues of equality and income equity, and I can assure the member that when the Government considers proposals from this group, it will certainly be taking account of equity issues.

Rahui Katene: What are the implications of removing GST from food and of offsetting the tax take by increasing GST on tobacco and alcohol?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member clearly has a proposition here, and I would welcome the working group looking at it. We can signal that generally the Government prefers having a uniform GST with no exemptions. If issues to do with lack of income are to be dealt with, then those can be dealt with by other means, and I know that the member’s party is advocating an increase in GST on tobacco and alcohol as a health-related measure.

Stuart Nash: Can the Minister guarantee that he will not introduce any further changes to the tax system that will benefit mainly those on high incomes, given that the tax changes he has introduced so far disproportionately benefit those on high incomes, as he has repealed the tax cuts Labour legislated for that would have benefited those on lower incomes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do not agree with the member’s analysis, at all, and that analysis has been disputed in this House before. What I can confirm for the member is that the Government, in considering making change, or in fact making no change, would consider issues of fairness.

Homeownership—Government Assistance

12. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Housing: What is the Government doing to assist people into homeownership?

A range of initiatives are under way, but I will focus on just one. Cabinet has recently agreed to the extension of the loan cap on the Welcome Home Loan product from $280,000 to $350,000. This means that first-home buyers who want or have to live in higher-value areas, such as Auckland and Wellington, have a great opportunity. This product will also be available to State house tenants, who are very enthusiastic to move out of renting and into homeownership. Those tenants will be eligible to buy their homes, and they can use this product to do that.

Todd McClay: How will the extension of this product assist Māori?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: We have also extended the loan scheme to Māori who want to build on multiple-owned land. This fulfils an election promise in which we committed ourselves to give the banks the confidence to support Māori housing. The banks are reluctant at the moment to give loans because the land cannot be used as security, and this change delivers a solution to that. Members of the previous Government wrung their hands over this problem for 9 years, and we have delivered a solution to it in 9 months.

Todd McClay: How can this product assist with housing supply?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: We gave that a great deal of thought, too, and changes will allow first-home buyers to borrow in order to build a home if they already own land. On the one hand we want to increase the housing supply, and this change will also stimulate the construction sector. If a first-home buyer owns or buys a vacant section, he or she can then borrow in order to build a home, getting the construction industry going and getting a roof over their young heads.

Moana Mackey: Given that the latest ASB quarterly survey of housing confidence showed the first positive result in 18 months—

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If questions addressed to this side of the House could start with a question word, that would be good.

Mr SPEAKER: I have taken an approach that I believe is a little more intelligent than that, as long as the question does come along very quickly. This is not W3, as I think I said once before.

Moana Mackey: Given that the latest ASB quarterly survey of housing confidence showed the first positive result in 18 months and described it as “similar to that seen when the last housing boom was just getting started”, when will we finally see any new ideas on affordable housing from this Minister, who, in the 10 months since becoming the Minister of Housing, has done nothing other than claim Labour initiatives as his own?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: The previous Government ignored the problems under the Resource Management Act for builders; we have worked on that. The previous Government ignored the problems under the Building Act; we have worked on that. The previous Government refused to lower taxes; we have worked on that. Interest rates have stabilised—we have done that—and what is more, we have solved the problem in Māori housing that the previous Government wrung its hands over for 9 years. And we have solved it in 9 months.

Questions to Members

Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill—Status

1. CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) to the Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill: What is the current status of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill?

The bill has been introduced in the House and is awaiting its first reading.

Carol Beaumont: Has the member delayed the first reading of the bill?

DARIEN FENTON: Yes, I have delayed the first reading to give all political parties, including National, time to consider whether they will support this important bill’s referral to the select committee, where the issues of redundancy protection to tide workers over during hard times can be properly debated.

Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill—Status

2. DAVID SHEARER (Labour—Mt Albert) to the Member in charge of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill: What is the current status of the Local Government (Protection of Auckland Assets) Amendment Bill?

My member’s bill is due for its first reading. The bill would require the approval of a majority of Aucklanders in a referendum before the new super-city could sell off publicly owned assets. I look forward to the Minister of Local Government and his ACT colleagues voting for it—

Mr SPEAKER: The member was asked what the status of the bill is. He does not need to go on to that material.

David Shearer: What further processes is the member expecting the bill to go through?

PHIL TWYFORD: I sincerely hope that the bill will be referred to a select committee this afternoon, and it will be if ACT or National vote for it. ACT members are very keen on referenda, and it would seem that this bill is an obvious candidate—

Mr SPEAKER: The member has answered the question. That is sufficient.