Press Release – Office of the Clerk
Welfare Reforms—Policy; Economy—Reports; Document Security—Ministerial Offices; Electricity—Progress on National Grid Upgrade; Drink-driving—Blood-alcohol Limit
(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
THURSDAY, 19 AUGUST 2010
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Welfare Reforms—Policy
1. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social
Development and Employment: Does she stand by her statement that the Government has an “unrelenting focus on jobs and work”?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Minister for Social
Development and Employment: The competent and hard-working Minister stands by her statement that the Government has an unrelenting focus on jobs and work.
Hon Annette King: If her unrelenting focus on jobs is working, why did 1,600 people apply for 110 jobs at Bunnings in Dunedin, 2,550 apply for 150 jobs at a Mount Roskill supermarket, and 100 people in Tauranga apply for one receptionist job; and could the answer be that the focus has been “too little, too late” considering that unemployment went up by another 19,000 in the last quarter?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: This Government feels sorry, in many respects, for all those job applicants. They used to have jobs but those jobs were based on excessive Government spending, and an unsustainable housing boom caused by the mismanagement of the previous Government. Those people will get jobs only when this Government’s programme of building the confidence of businesses to invest and employ makes more progress.
Hon Annette King: Are the long queues for jobs we are seeing around New Zealand, and the latest unemployment figures, which the Minister described as a “shock” to her, the reason she admitted, last week, that “aggressive” is not the word she would use to described the so-called recovery, which put her at odds with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The recovery has been quite considerable. As was pointed out to the House yesterday, the economy turned round from a 1.5 to 2 percent shrinkage; it is now on a path to 2 to 2.5 percent growth, which is generating a consistent rise in hours worked and a drop in unemployment. That is not as fast as we would like, but the lesson we have learnt from that—
Hon Annette King: A drop?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, unemployment has dropped, from its peak. The lesson we have learnt is that jobs based on the kind of growth that the previous Government promoted, which was funded by excessive borrowing, and not growth in the tradable and export sector, were jobs that were unsustainable.
Katrina Shanks: Has she received any feedback about how the 90-day trial is creating jobs?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: In fact, yes, the Minister has received feedback from employers who have made it clear that the staff they have recently taken on under the trial period would not have got jobs if it were not for the opportunity for those young people to get their feet in the door, show that they can prove their worth, and, for instance, thereby earn the opportunity for an apprenticeship.
Hon Annette King: When she said there had been a 40 percent rise in online job adverts and that she could see the employment situation improving, had she seen the report by the TV3 reporter Patrick Gower that stated some of those jobs were duplicates; if so, what is the real number of jobs available?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are any number of ways to measure changes in employment, ranging from job ads in a newspaper to the online job ads, to the various surveys carried out by the Department of Statistics. One thing is quite clear: unemployment has peaked, and employment is growing. We wish the employment rate would grow faster, but we do not have the choice of just cranking up the recovery. The Government is already putting about $9 billion of cash into the economy, supporting thousands of jobs through job schemes, through its extensive infrastructure investment. In the long run, more jobs are about building the confidence of businesses to invest and employ. We are working relentlessly on that.
Hon Annette King: Having said that she backs unemployed people all the way and constantly promotes her job schemes, is she aware that these programmes are hardly making a dent in the youth unemployment rate, which is up 65 percent since June 2008 to a disgraceful total of 68,200; I do not think the Minister could say that unemployment has obviously peaked?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister does promote the job schemes vigorously because they are providing the opportunity for about 9,000 young people to keep contact with the workforce. The fact is that the new jobs that are created are created not because the Government is spending up large or because households are borrowing a whole lot of money; it is because it needs to rebalance the economy, grow the tradables and exporting part of this economy, and create sustainable jobs through business investment and employment.
Economy—Reports
2. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): As I mentioned yesterday, I have been looking at an analysis of real after-tax wages. Between September 1999 and September 2008, real after-tax wages grew by only 3 percent in that 9-year period. I have just seen a report of a comparison with the previous 9 years, 1990-99. When we use the same statistics that are used for calculating New Zealand superannuation, we see that in those 9 years real after-tax wages grew by 15.5 percent, compared with the 3 percent increase over 9 years under the previous Labour Government—and Labour was meant to be the workers’ party.
David Bennett: What has happened to real after-tax wages since 2008?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again using the statistics employed by Governments for the last 20 years to calculate New Zealand superannuation payments, I find that real after-tax wages have grown by 8.7 percent in less than 2 years since September 2008. Across-the-board personal income tax cuts on 1 October this year will further increase after-tax incomes. We do not pretend that it will be easy to maintain that kind of progress, because further increases in after-tax income in this country will need to come from enhanced productivity, better export performance, enhancements in public sector productivity, and a rebalancing of resources into the private sector.
David Bennett: What factors explain these trends in real after-tax wages over time?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: There are a couple of factors. One is that a combination of low inflation and tax cuts has tended to help faster increases to occur in after-tax wages. There is no doubt, though, that the mix of higher inflation, no tax cuts, and economic mismanagement in the 9 years under the previous Labour Government had the obvious effect of suppressing increases in real aftertax wages.
David Bennett: What do these trends in real after-tax wages tell us about the economy’s performance in these periods?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again using the statistics that are used to calculate New Zealand superannuation, the increase in real after-tax wages in Labour’s 9 years in power was just 3 percent—quite a staggering achievement in a time of global prosperity. The reason for that extremely poor performance, particularly since 2004, was simply mismanagement of the economy: excessive Government spending, too much regulation, crunching the export sector, and excessive debt. This Government has the job of cleaning up that mess, and then improving New Zealand’s economic performance.
Hon David Parker: In his reports on the economy, has the Minister received reports that the National Government cut contributions to the Superannuation Fund, cut KiwiSaver, and refuses to run an operating surplus; if so, do those reports indicate that the National Government is responsible for worsening New Zealand’s saving deficit?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a bit rich, coming from Labour, to say National—
Mr SPEAKER: The member should not start an answer by attacking the questioner with “It is a bit rich”. The Minister should make an attempt to answer the question first.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have seen reports that every time that National does something to try to achieve a surplus, the Labour members go into a kind of hysteria and call it cuts. They cannot have it both ways. Here we have one spokesperson for Labour saying we are simply refusing to run surpluses, while the rest of the Labour members go hysterical when we try to do that.
Hon David Parker: In his reports on the economy, has he received reports that the National Government axed the research and development tax credit, axed the $700 million Fast Forward innovation fund; if so, do those reports show that the National Government is responsible for dramatically worsening the research and innovation deficit identified in today’s report by the New Zealand Institute?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports that those two initiatives of the previous Government were cut by this Government, and for good reason: we had a better policy. We have put that in place, and we have a more positive attitude towards science and innovation in that sector of the economy than there has been for many years.
Hon David Parker: Are the savings deficit, the innovation deficit, and the lack of a credible plan or any milestones for the National Government why the New Zealand Institute called its report that was released today A goal is not a strategy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen reports that the previous Labour Government had—I ask members to listen to this—250 strategies. The Parliamentary Library could not find all of them; those were only the ones that it found. The result of those 250 strategies was an economy that was on its knees, the worst public sector administration we have seen for years, and New Zealand being in recession before the rest of the world even thought about it.
Hon David Parker: I seek leave to table the New Zealand Institute report released today A goal is not a strategy.
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 BILL ENGLISH: I seek leave to table a report listing 250 strategies of the previous Labour Government.
Mr SPEAKER: Who has prepared the report? What is the source?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Parliamentary Library.
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.
Document Security—Ministerial Offices
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North): Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Annette King, who today is being too noisy, that I have called her colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson.
3. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Defence: Is he satisfied that the removal of a document entitled Defence Review 2009 from the office of his then Associate Minister does not represent a security breach?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Defence: Yes.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Will he confirm to the House the written remarks of the honourable Heather Roy that ACT board member Nick Kearney has a copy of another paper, a Cabinet paper dated 23 June 2010, which she describes as “extremely sensitive in nature”, and that he, the Minister of Defence, “believes Rodney Hide has passed this paper on, and he is upset that he could not trust a ministerial colleague to keep a paper he gave him to himself”?
Mr SPEAKER: I call the Minister in so far as the Minister is responsible for some of those things; part of the question quoted a person for whom the Minister is not responsible.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: A very good point. I am unable to confirm that.
Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave of the House to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: Covering what matter?
Hon Rodney Hide: Covering the allegation contained in the statement made by the Hon Pete Hodgson.
Hon Darren Hughes: Point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the member briefly. Leave is being sought, but if it is helpful, I will hear the Hon Darren Hughes.
Hon Darren Hughes: It is convention to allow a member to make a personal explanation, but if this is a matter concerning ministerial business, the ownership of ministerial papers, and where those ministerial papers have gone in a ministerial capacity, surely it should be a ministerial statement that Mr Hide makes to the House.
Mr SPEAKER: It depends. I cannot predict what the Hon Rodney Hide is wishing to do, but he understands the Standing Orders. If he wishes to make a personal statement, then it must be a personal statement. If he were to be granted leave to make a personal statement, it should not be on a matter to do with ministerial business; it should relate to him personally. So leave has been sought by the Hon Rodney Hide to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Hon Rodney Hide: The reason I am making a personal statement—and I am happy to correct that—is that it does not relate to my responsibility as Minister of Local Government or as Minister for Regulatory Reform. It concerns a defence document. I am happy to change my leave and seek leave to make a ministerial statement, if people would feel better about that.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am not stopping the member, but the point should be made that Ministers can, of course, talk about things they do in their ministerial capacity, as members of Cabinet committees or working with other Ministers. That is a ministerial rather than a personal explanation. He would not have had the paper that is being talked about, if he was not a Minister. We will not object to his making a ministerial statement as he offered to do.
Mr SPEAKER: A ministerial statement is a very different matter. It can be debated, and it is a very different matter. Leave has been granted for the member to make a personal statement. He is an experienced member and he understands what a personal statement is. I am sure that if the member departs from making a personal statement, we will discover that. Leave has been granted, and I call the Hon Rodney Hide.
Hon Rodney Hide: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the House. The allegation was that I in some capacity had passed a Cabinet document on to Mr Nick Kearney, or, indeed, to anyone who was not authorised to have that document. In this House—and I know the full consequences of what
I am saying—I emphatically deny that allegation. I have never ever given a Cabinet document to a person who should not have it. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: That is quite enough. We are on question No. 3. The Hon Pete Hodgson may wish to ask further supplementary questions. [Interruption] I have called the member’s colleague. I ask him to show some courtesy to him.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Will he confirm to the House the written remarks of the honourable Heather Roy that “he had never initiated contact” with the Hon Rodney Hide but that “he said that Rodney Hide had approached him on more than one occasion to tell him things, including a rumour about drug use”?
Mr SPEAKER: In so far as the Minister perceives any ministerial responsibility, the Minister is welcome to try to answer.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Thank you for that. The document from which I believe the member is quoting is not an official document, and there is no ministerial responsibility for any of its contents.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not based on the document. The question was whether the Minister of Defence had been approached by Mr Hide in relation to rumours of drug use by the Associate Minister of Defence. That goes exactly to his responsibility.
Mr SPEAKER: I am on my feet. We will not debate the question by way of point of order. A question was asked and the Minister answered it, and that is where the matter lies. The member may ask further supplementary questions if he wishes.
Hon Rodney Hide: Again, I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought by the Hon Rodney Hide to make a personal explanation about—I ask him to clarify for the House.
Hon Rodney Hide: It is about the allegation made by Mr Trevor Mallard by way of point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for the member to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.
Hon Rodney Hide: I thank the House again. I can emphatically say that I have never approached any Minister with concerns about drug use by Heather Roy, as alleged by the member opposite. I think it is appalling that he would say such—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat immediately. I say to the Hon Rodney Hide that the House extended him the courtesy of allowing him to make a personal explanation. He will not use it again to criticise another member, and neither will this matter be pursued further by way of point of order.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I alert the Hon Trevor Mallard that he will not use the point of order process to debate an issue, and he will not in any way use the point of order process to criticise another member in this House. With that warning, I will hear the honourable member.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I seek leave to table the document of Heather Roy’s that makes allegations about Rodney Hide.
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 Pete Hodgson: Did he advise his Prime Minister—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: This time it is the Hon David Parker. I ask him to show some courtesy to his colleague the Hon Pete Hodgson. He has the floor to ask a supplementary question, and unnecessary interjection like that is not assisting the order of the House.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take offence at the comment made by Sandra Goudie accusing the Opposition of being sewer rats, to which I responded with my interjection.
Mr SPEAKER: This childish matter will not be taken any further. I have called the Hon Pete Hodgson.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With respect, Mr Speaker, a member has taken offence at what I suspect that you, and every other member of this House, would deem to be an extremely unparliamentary comment. He has taken offence. A number of us have taken offence at it. You—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: The member will deal with his point of order or he will sit down.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Well, I will deal with that comment, as well. He has compounded it by saying it was true.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. This childish behaviour will stop immediately—immediately. We are adults in this place, and I ask members not to behave like children. If Sandra Goudie offended the Opposition, I invite her to withdraw and apologise for whatever she said. I apologise that I did not hear it. If she did offend the Opposition she will know—I do not want her to repeat what she said. If she did not, I am prepared to take her statement that she did not make any such statement.
Sandra Goudie: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I absolutely and categorically said nothing of the sort.
Mr SPEAKER: This is where that matter will lie. The member will resume his seat immediately. This is such childish behaviour that it is an insult to this House and demeaning of the dignity of this House. The Hon Pete Hodgson has the floor to ask a supplementary question, and that is where it will remain. [Interruption] And that is enough of that nonsense from the back of the House.
Hon Pete Hodgson: Did the Minister of Defence advise his Prime Minister that the Hon Rodney Hide had, reportedly, told him that the honourable Heather Roy was rumoured to be using drugs; if so, when; if not, why not?
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have already given a personal explanation that I did no such thing. Therefore, that question is out of order.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept that point, because the House must take the word of a member when a member has made a personal explanation. The consequences of misleading the House on a personal explanation are high. Therefore, the House must take the word of a member. I therefore rule that question out.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether I could bring to your attention an obvious problem, which is that I am accurately quoting nothing more or less than the written word of another member of this House. That is all I am doing.
Mr SPEAKER: But the facts remain that a member has made a personal explanation in relation to that matter, and the House must take the word of that member. If that member has wilfully misled the House in making a personal explanation, the consequences of that are very severe. That is why members making personal explanations have to be very careful what they say to this House. But I cannot allow a question that contravenes a personal explanation given by a member.
Hon Pete Hodgson: What were the “other defamatory statements” that Heather Roy said the Minister of Defence had been told by the Hon Rodney Hide?
Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave to make a personal explanation.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation; I take it that it is on the point just made. It is up to the House whether it grants it. Leave is sought. I put it to the House. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is just to assist the House to find a way forward. There is a series of questions that the member wishes to ask, based on information that has become available from a member of the party of the member making the personal explanations. If, at the conclusion of the questions having been asked, the member wishes to make a personal and full explanation about the matters he is concerned about, then I do not think there would be objection from the Opposition. What we do object to is his jumping up every single time and ruling himself out of certain matters, as a way of shutting down questions, when the base document that the Hon Pete Hodgson is using is actually from the parliamentary ACT Party.
Mr SPEAKER: The member is entitled to seek leave to make a personal explanation, if he finds an allegation contained in a question to be highly offensive to him. He is entitled to seek leave; the House is equally entitled not to grant it. But there is no way that I can ask the member, because if he does not seek leave to make a personal explanation, it allows to go on the record of the House things that the member may consider are untrue, offensive to him, and in any other circumstances may be defamatory of him—but that is not a remedy in this House, of course. So I have a dilemma there. I realise that the member Darren Hughes is trying to be helpful, but the House declined that leave, so I am obliged to accept that. I probably have to ask the member to repeat his supplementary question, because such time has gone by now that members have probably forgotten what it was.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that the Opposition has exercised its privilege to deny me the right to make a personal explanation, but I would just make this point. We will find ourselves in quite a difficult position in question time, because the member is getting up and asking questions that make an allegation against me—a highly offensive allegation. I have the opportunity, as any member of Parliament does, to stand up, make a personal explanation, and say it is not true. What the Opposition has done has denied me that opportunity. What that means is that it will become a currency in this Parliament that, under the cover of asking a question, or, indeed, in giving a speech asking questions of the Government, any defamatory or offensive statement can be made about a member. One seeks leave to give a personal explanation to say it is not true—which is the strongest statement one can say in this Parliament—leave is denied, so it will just continue.
Hon Trevor Mallard: If it was a fresh allegation, or something that was new or not known to the House, then the member might have a point. I think the problem he has is that this is not an allegation made by Mr Hodgson; it is one made by Heather Roy, and he is merely quoting it.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has raised a relevant issue. Under the Standing Orders, members must not insert into a question an allegation that is contrary to the Standing Orders. That is why the member, in asking a supplementary question, could not make a statement about another member, because that is strictly outside the Standing Orders. I do not stop members, I do not intervene, when members do insert allegations into questions, because I would be intervening far too often, but when it comes to a matter relating to a member, then I would intervene. As the Hon Trevor Mallard points out, on this occasion the member asking the question is not himself making an allegation against anyone. As I understand it, he is quoting from something. Again, if it was an outrageous quotation, then that would not be acceptable in this House, either. I realise that this is a sensitive matter, and it is not an easy matter for me to rule on, but I think we need to hear the supplementary question to be satisfied that the member asking it is not himself making any allegations against the Hon Rodney Hide in the question. The question must be relevant to the Minister’s responsibilities; otherwise, it is unreasonable. I should not allow a question, even though it might be quoting someone, on a matter for which the Minister has no responsibility, just because a member wants to try to get something on the record of the House. That would not be reasonable, either. So I ask the experienced member the Hon Pete Hodgson to respect the Standing Orders of the House in wording
his supplementary question. We will listen to it very carefully, but it must not contain any allegation that he might be making, it must not quote any outrageous allegation, and it must be within the responsibility of the Minister of Defence.
Hon Pete Hodgson: What were “the other defamatory statements” that he reportedly told the honourable Heather Roy that the Hon Rodney Hide had told him?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question today stated: “Is he satisfied that the removal of a document entitled Defence Review 2009 from the office of his then Associate Minister does not represent a security breach?”. Since then we have had a series of questions that relate to an internal party document that has various allegations in it. It is not an official document. It is a matter of record in this House only because it was tabled, and it was tabled only because it is freely available on the New Zealand Herald website. I would ask you to rule why Ministers in any circumstance, given the Speakers’ rulings that I think you will find relating to incidents that took place in 2002, should be required to answer any questions about another party’s internal document.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I think all it could go to is the possibility that the other defamatory statements that are alleged to have been made by Mr Hide about Mrs Roy went to any question of security risk or her ability to do her job as Associate Minister of Defence. If those were the sorts of allegations that were made—and I can think of no other reason why a leader of a party would make such allegations to the Prime Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: I think we have heard sufficient. We risk getting into debating the merits of the issue. I realise that it is a very sensitive issue, and I hear what the Hon Gerry Brownlee said—that the primary question related to security. The supplementary questions have moved more towards matters relating to an internal party document for which the Minister is certainly not responsible. In answering the question—because at this stage I have not ruled the question out—I think the Minister should guided by the fact that he is responsible for the conduct of the Associate Minister of Defence only in so far as any of it relates to the defence portfolio. He is not responsible for the private conduct of such a member; neither is he responsible for any relationship between another member and that member. So, in answering the question, I invite the honourable Minister to reflect on the limitations of his responsibility there. Rather than simply say it is unreasonable for me to have allowed the question to be asked, because it is distanced from the primary question, I ask him to simply think about his ministerial responsibilities in answering it. It would be, in my view, perhaps going a little too far for me to rule out the line of questioning totally.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am unable to confirm anything that is in the particular document referred to by the member.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: Point of order, the Hon Pete Hodgson.
Hon Trevor Mallard: That cannot be correct.
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order has been called. This was provoked by the Hon Trevor Mallard, who interjected when a point of order had been called. He is an experienced member, and actually often a very good member, and should know better.
Hon Rodney Hide: Point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: I have called the Hon Pete Hodgson on a point of order, and he will be heard first. And he will be heard in silence.
Hon Pete Hodgson: My point of order relates to the personal explanations given by the Hon Rodney Hide, and speaks on behalf of another member. What has happened is, as I have explained in my questioning, I have done no more than accurately quote the written word of a member. That has been denied by another member in this House. My question to you is should the first member, on her return, want to offer a personal explanation in rebuttal of another personal explanation, will that be in order?
Mr SPEAKER: I am not about to rule on such a matter; as an experienced member, the Hon Pete Hodgson should know that very well. This is an important matter. I realise that members are taking it very seriously, and I appreciate that, but we should be aware that under Standing Order 371(1)(c) “discreditable references to the House or any member of Parliament or any offensive or unparliamentary expression” cannot be included in a question, including in a supplementary question. Even if a quotation is being used, if it makes discreditable reference to another member of the House, strictly it is outside of the Standing Orders. I do not like preventing members from questioning too far, but I just mention this—and members are welcome to look at Standing Order 371(1)(c)—because we do need to be careful here. I have allowed the questioning to go ahead, but, as the Minister has pointed out, he has no responsibility for a certain document, and that is a perfectly fair answer.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to take this matter, I think, one step further, but in respect of Standing Order 371 I would like your judgment as to which discreditable reference you refer to. Is it that the Hon Heather Roy—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat immediately. In pursuing this point of order, the member is about to do exactly that—perhaps make some discreditable references. We will not have that by way of point of order, either. If the member has no further supplementary questions, we should move on.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Let me have another go, and I apologise. I will try to do it generically. Under Standing Order 371, was the Speaker referring to a discreditable reference made by one of the members of the House or about one of the members of the House?
Mr SPEAKER: It does not matter. If it is about a member of the House, it is strictly out of order. Even if the member asking the question is quoting from material, and even if the member is quoting from material that derives from another member of the House, strictly, under the Standing Orders, one cannot make discreditable reference to another member of the House. In terms of the formation of questions, I do not apply the Standing Orders strictly day in, day out, because I would be intruding far too much into question time. At least half the supplementary questions asked today have not complied strictly with Standing Order 371, but I leave it to Ministers to exercise their judgment as they listen to questions, and they know that when a question is fairly wide in respect of the Standing Orders they have a lot more liberty and licence in answering it. I would rather let the game, if you like, flow like that, rather than my intervening all the time. But when it comes to an important issue like this, where members’ integrity is at issue, I need to apply the Standing Orders, I believe, correctly, and I believe I am doing that.
Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I thank you for that ruling. It is a difficult issue, because I recall a very considered and important line of questioning by Dr the Hon Lockwood Smith in respect of Taito Phillip Field where allegations of corruption were made. Those allegations of corruption were quite properly questions for the floor of this House, and were not ruled out of order under that particular Standing Order.
Hon Rodney Hide: The difference was that those allegations were true.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Hon Rodney Hide not to abuse the point of order process like that. I will not tolerate that further. The difference was, in fact, that I made no allegations whatsoever. If members check back in the Hansard, they will find that I was very, very careful, for that reason. The Speaker should not be brought into the debate on this matter, anyhow, but I invite the member to check back. If, in fact, I had made all sorts of allegations of corrupt behaviour, the line of questioning would never have lasted as long as it did.
Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for raising one more point of order. Sooner or later your interpretation of Standing Order 371 may get us into trouble, because it seems to me that if, for example, this document I am holding up were an affidavit—it is not—and it had some degree of legal supremacy to it, you might be of a mind to allow any allegations or
disreputable remarks contained in that affidavit to stand in the House. I wonder whether you could contemplate that, perhaps not now but in time to come.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate the member’s point of order.
Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave to make a personal explanation about the contents of the questions that Mr Hodgson made against me.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are minded to agree to that request for leave, but we need to have slightly more specific reference as to the personal nature of what Mr Hide is seeking to correct on the record of the House, rather than a generic reference to issues raised by Mr Hodgson.
Mr SPEAKER: I think it is not an unreasonable point the member is making. The House has already given leave for two personal explanations. For this one, it would be helpful to know what specific reference he is referring to.
Hon Rodney Hide: I seek leave to make a personal explanation that I never made any defamatory statements to Dr Wayne Mapp about Heather Roy.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to make such a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection.
Hon Rodney Hide: I have never made defamatory statements to Dr Wayne Mapp about the honourable Heather Roy.
Electricity—Progress on National Grid Upgrade
4. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Energy and
Resources: What progress has been made in upgrading New Zealand’s national grid?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources): Today the Prime Minister opened a second substation at Ōtāhuhu. This marks the completion of Transpower’s Ōtāhuhu substation diversity project. A third of New Zealand’s power supply, and nearly all of Auckland’s and Northland’s power, is currently supplied through the Ōtāhuhu site. This $100 million project will provide greater diversity of power supply to the Auckland and Northland regions. It is a significant piece of infrastructure.
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What other projects are under way that will reinforce supply into Auckland?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Reliable electricity infrastructure is very important to New Zealand’s largest city. There are a number of other projects under way, such as the underground cable circuit between Pakuranga and Albany, and the new line into Pakuranga from the south. Transpower will spend around $1.7 billion in total on transmission projects to reinforce its network into and across Auckland. It is a significant infrastructure spend.
Charles Chauvel: Given that Transpower spent over $1 million last year on overseas travel for its staff and contractors, and given its decision to spend over a quarter of a million dollars this year on its own—
Mr SPEAKER: I have just pointed out that members are not meant to insert statements, claims, or assertions into questions. I do not insist on members starting a question with a question word necessarily, the way previous Speakers have, but to keep a list of “givens” going is simply a bit beyond the pale. I invite Charles Chauvel to reword his question.
Charles Chauvel: Can taxpayers be satisfied that the decision to offer Transpower dividend relief has been accompanied by an appropriately strict oversight by him of Transpower’s planning and spending processes, in light of Transpower spending $1 million last year on travel for staff and contractors, its spending over a quarter of a million dollars this year on its own fibre-based internal phone network, and its lack of any plan to incorporate smart grid technology into its $3 billion upgrade?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes.
Drink-driving—Blood-alcohol Limit
5. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What differences, if any, is he expecting New Zealand research to show on the effect of a blood-alcohol level of between 0.05 percent and 0.08 percent on a New Zealand driver compared to an Australian driver?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): This may come as a surprise to the member, but I do not expect to see any difference in the effect of alcohol on a single New Zealand driver compared with, say, an Australian driver. What I do expect the research to show is particularly the actual level of harm caused on New Zealand roads by drivers with a blood-alcohol level between 0.05 percent and 0.08 percent. This gap in the research was identified by the previous Government, but as in a number of other areas the work was never done.
Hon Darren Hughes: Why did he say in the foreword to the Safer Journeys strategy, in respect of actions to lower the drink-driving limit, that “change is needed if we are to catch up with Australia … and others that are best in the world”, if he was not convinced by existing New Zealand and Australian evidence that immediate change was needed?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I certainly stand by those comments in my foreword. We have made a number of changes that will impact on the road safety record of this country, relative to Australia— for example, the cellphone rule change, the illegal street racing legislation, the raising of the driving age to 16, the nil alcohol limit for recidivist drink-drivers, the nil alcohol limit for young drivers, the introduction of alcohol interlocks, and tougher penalties for drink-driving and dangerous driving causing death.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does he believe that a lower blood-alcohol limit for drivers is one of the factors that has resulted in 16 Australians in Victoria, for every million people, dying from alcoholrelated road crashes, compared with a much higher 28 people for every million people in New Zealand?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is difficult to draw that conclusion, because the number of people apprehended in New Zealand at the 0.08 percent limit, on a population basis, is higher than the number in Australia, so that suggests a different attitude to alcohol amongst those who drink to excess. I note that it is amazing that Opposition members are taking this approach on the issue, when they were obviously lambs in Government on this issue and are lions in Opposition.
Hon Darren Hughes: Is it correct that the data in his Safer Journeys document on the relative risk of a fatal crash, set out by various blood levels, uses New Zealand data and research, and clearly shows that a 0.05 level is far safer than existing levels, based on that existing New Zealand’s research?
Hon Annette King: There’s none.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There is absolutely research, and, as I said—
Hon Annette King: The Minister has said there is no research.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, that is not correct. What I said was that there is no research on the issue of the level of actual harm—no actual research between 0.5 and 0.8, and there cannot be, because legislatively—
Hon Trevor Mallard: Just ridiculous!
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Trevor Mallard should not call me “ridiculous” on this issue, because he sat in Government for 9 years and never changed it—[Interruption]—never changed it, and now he is a lion in Opposition.
Mr SPEAKER: There is quite enough noise all around the Chamber.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does he recognise that these constant references—
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the member. Now, on this occasion it is the Hon Ruth Dyson. That was a totally unnecessary interjection. Interjection is good in this place if it is relevant to what is going on but her own colleague is asking a supplementary question. That interjection is totally unnecessary.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does he recognise that the constant references to previous Governments of both colours leave him as the only person who is playing the party politics card on this issue; that he should accept that a majority of MPs in this House want to vote for a lower alcohol limit—which my bill would allow—and when will the Minister move beyond politics and do something for road safety that we can all support, when there are no party politics to be played here?
Mr SPEAKER: Before I invite the Minister to answer, I am going to invite the member to reask his question, and National members—because I will not include United Future and ACT in this—will not interject like that. I could not hear the question and that is why I am inviting the Hon Darren Hughes to repeat it, but I ask him not to add into it stuff that is really outside the Standing Orders.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does he recognise that these constant references to actions or his perceived inactions of previous Governments of both political colours, leave him as the only person still playing the party political card on this issue, when a majority of MPs in the House do want to see a lower blood-alcohol limit for driving, something that my member’s bill would achieve?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I cannot accept that. The reality is that this Government has, in less than 2 years, a far better record on road safety than the previous Government had for 9 years. If the member opposite is embarrassed about his record in that regard, that is for him to sort out. But we have introduced the cellphone rule, drug-driving legislation, illegal street-racing legislation, committed to raising the driving age to 16, introduced a nil-alcohol limit for recidivist drink-drivers, a nil-alcohol limit for young drivers, alcohol interlocks, and tougher penalties for drink-driving and dangerous driving causing death. When I asked the previous Minister of Transport what Labour had achieved in new road safety rules when in Government she said: “rumble strips”.
Hon Darren Hughes: Point of order, Mr Speaker—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I say to both the Minister and the Hon Annette King that a point of order has been called. They should have heard that. They will cease interjection when a point of order has been called.
Hon Darren Hughes: I seek leave for the Land Transport (Safer Alcohol Limits for Driving) Amendment Bill to be set down as a members’ order of the day.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection.
Employment—Workplace Access for Union Representatives
6. KEITH LOCKE (Green) to the Minister of Labour: Why is the Government introducing legislation to restrict union access to workplaces when the Department of Labour advises that there is no “widespread evidence” of union representatives misusing the current system?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): As I have said previously, I agree that union representatives do not widely abuse the current system. However, where abuse does occur it can cause significant disruption and badly impact workplace productivity. I do not agree that this change will restrict union access at all. Employers cannot unreasonably withhold access, so the rights of unions and union members remain protected.
Keith Locke: How can the Minister say the problems she refers to are big enough to require legislation, when her own Department of Labour, in the policy options paper, said “There does not appear to be widespread evidence of union representatives exercising their current rights to enter workplaces in an inappropriate way, resulting in disruption for business operations or adversely impacting on the employment relationship between employer and union members.”?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: Very, very easily. But the same policy paper also said “Providing discretion could enable employers to undertake better business planning. For example, avoiding any unforeseen stoppages and potentially rescheduling activities around employee availability.” The reality is that this is not a widespread problem, but that where abuse occurs it can cause significant disruption.
Keith Locke: Why is she departing from the existing legislation, which does cover over the problems she has just referred to, when the wording in the Employment Relations Act specifies that union access is restricted to reasonable times and reasonable ways, having regard to normal business operations and complying with existing health and safety requirements and security procedures; surely that it is enough?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: This is a small change, which merely clarifies an area where there has been some uncertainty.
Keith Locke: Does she agree with the Department of Labour, in its policy options paper, that current arrangements provide an appropriate balance of fairness to employers, employees, and unions; if not, why not?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The change that we are making to the Employment Relations Act in relation to union access is fair and reasonable, and is pragmatic. It is a small change, which will remove some uncertainty. Uncertain law is good for neither employers nor employees.
Keith Locke: How is it pragmatic, and why will giving employers up to 2 days to respond to a union request to go on site not seriously frustrate the work of union officials and the workers whom they are representing?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I suggest to the member that if he has an issue with 2 days, and if he thinks that the period is either too long or too short, he can make submissions during the select committee’s scrutiny of the legislation.
Keith Locke: I thank the Minister for that small concession, but what advice would she give in that respect to a worker who needs support from a union representative to resolve an urgent workplace problem like bullying or sexual harassment, only to see the union locked in a longdrawn- out battle with the employer for union access?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The employment regime is based on being fair and reasonable. We have put in a protection so that employers cannot unreasonably withhold access to unions. That is an objective test, not a subjective test.
Keith Locke: What guarantees can she provide that her legislation will not be used by employers with a strong anti-union bias to deny union access to the workplace, such as happened in 2004 when the Exclusive Brethren denied the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union access to represent migrant workers under a loophole then in the Employment Relations Act, which was later closed?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: If the member reads the legislation, he will see that we are very mindful of any abuses of the employment system. That is why we have doubled the penalties for employers.
Tertiary Education—Management of Enrolments and Access to Student Loans
7. GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) to the Minister for Tertiary
Education: How will his policy of restricting access to student loans for thousands of people and allowing tertiary institutions to shut out thousands of students from enrolling support New Zealanders of all educational and social backgrounds to achieve their potential?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education): The Government is restricting access to student loans in two main ways. It will require students who have a place to pass 50 percent or more of their courses over 2 years—which seems entirely reasonable to me—and it will require permanent residents and Australians to show a commitment to New Zealand before being able to access student loans, which brings student loan access into line with similar criteria for student allowances and other welfare payments. These changes will ensure that students are focused on achieving results in their tertiary study and ensure the maximum number of places available to New Zealand students.
Grant Robertson: Why did he disagree with the Department of Labour’s advice to him on his student support cuts that “limiting access to student loans in a recession is a regressive measure which will only increase pressure on the labour market and unemployment”?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: If the member opposite is suggesting that we should just hide people in tertiary education even if they are not achieving in tertiary education, then it is fine for him to make that suggestion. But my view is that it is important that we do not have a double-jeopardy scheme in student loans where people stay in education, do not pass their courses, build up a student loan, and then do not obtain the jobs they would need to do to pay off their student loan once they leave university or tertiary education.
Kelvin Davis: Does he agree with Te Puni Kōkiri that the axing of student loans to 3,500 Māori students is at odds with the tertiary education strategy’s aim of “increasing the number of Māori students enjoying success at higher levels”; if so, why is he continuing to push the policy, especially at a time when the unemployment rate among young Māori is running at 40 percent?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We are seeking to encourage students to progress their tertiary education by passing at least half of their courses over 2 years, and that applies to every student. We are also doing performance-linked funding to encourage institutions to provide pastoral care to their students. I am confident that those two measures together will improve education outcomes for all students, including young Māori and Pasifika.
Kelvin Davis: Did the Minister consult the Minister of Māori Affairs on the impact his student loan restrictions would have on Māori; if so, what response did the Minister give?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I had discussions with the Minister of Māori Affairs, and he quite rightly said at the time, I believe, from memory, that obviously he is concerned about the performance of Māori students over time. I gave him my undertaking that I will be continually working to improve that performance.
Grant Robertson: Will he now step in to provide more places in tertiary education so that the thousands of students who have been shut out as a result of his policies will not languish on the unemployment benefit?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: We have, in fact, I say for the member’s benefit, stepped in and provided more student places at universities and polytechnics. In fact, there are 5,600 more core places at universities in 2011 than in 2008, and there are 6,500 more full-time places in polytechnics in 2011 than in 2008. That increase, along with the changes we are making in terms of the entry requirements for permanent residents and Australians, gives me confidence that the demand pressures will ease over the next 2 years.
Grant Robertson: I seek leave of the House to table a paper provided to the Cabinet social policy committee by the Minister for Tertiary Education, which includes comment from the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs, the Department of Labour, the Ministry of Social Development, and Te Puni Kōkiri opposing his changes.
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.
Holidays Act Reform—Christmas and New Year Public Holidays
8. MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) to the Minister of Labour: What changes has she announced regarding public holidays?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): The Holidays Amendment Bill, which has just been introduced, includes a late amendment in order to clarify the law around the Christmas and New Year public holidays. The Employment Court recently ruled that if a firm shuts its doors over the Christmas and New Year period employees are not legally entitled to Christmas and New Year public holidays, so employees may have needed to use up 4 days of annual leave to cover
those days instead. Christmas and New Year holidays are an established feature of the New Zealand summer. Where firms decide to close their doors it is important that staff are not unfairly disadvantaged by losing four public holidays.
Michael Woodhouse: Were any recommendations to the holidays advisory group not accepted?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: Yes, there was a suggestion that the day after St Patrick’s Day be made a public holiday. Although I had some sympathy for that suggestion, in the interests of productivity and growing the economy, we rejected it.
Employment, 90-day Trial Period—Conditions of Employment
9. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: When she said that the 90-day scheme “is voluntary” and “is not compulsory”, did she mean that an employer could not make a 90-day trial a compulsory condition of employment?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): A 90-day trial can be entered into only if an employee agrees to it in writing. By definition, an agreement is not compulsory. If employers wish to take someone on using a trial period, then they must advise the prospective employee of that. Just like other aspects of an employment agreement, such as salary and hours of work, this aspect is open to negotiation. At the end of the day, the employers decide who they wish to hire and on what basis. I encourage all employers and employees to avail themselves of this fantastic and successful policy.
Darien Fenton: Is she saying that the only part of the 90-day trial period that is truly voluntary for employees is whether they accept the job?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: No.
Darien Fenton: Is this scheme voluntary only for employers, considering that they can choose whether to make it a condition of employment, and considering that the prospective employee in reality has no choice other than to decline the job?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: No, I do not accept that member’s assertion. It is really no different to the situation of an employer’s advertisement requiring or insisting that a job is done on a Saturday. If employees do not want to work on a Saturday they should not apply for that job. If employees do not want to take the opportunity to use the trial period to have a go, then they do not have to take a job with a trial period.
David Garrett: How many people have come forward as part of the Council of Trade Union’s roll of shame campaign, and how many of these are members of the Labour Party? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I could not hear David Garrett’s question, at all. This time it was the Labour front-benchers making all the noise. It is not good enough, though I must admit it was not the Hon Annette King on this occasion. It was not fair, reasonable, or courteous to the House.
David Garrett: How many people have come forward as part of the Council of Trade Union’s roll of shame campaign, and how many of these are members of the Labour Party? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I do not know what ministerial responsibility the Minister has for that matter, at all. I invite the member to rephrase his question to try to ask a question about a matter for which the Minister is responsible. [Interruption] There will be no more interjection. I paid the Hon Trevor Mallard a compliment earlier in question time today. It may be that I was mistaken.
David Garrett: Has the Minister seen any reports regarding the contents of the roll of shame and the political affiliation of the persons on it?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have looked at some blog sites but I am advised, to the best of my knowledge, that in the last 18 months a total of two people have come forward as part of that campaign, and that at least one of those two people is a member of the Labour Party.
Darien Fenton: If a prospective employee does not want to sign up to a 90-day trial period but the employer has said it is a condition of employment, what options and rights does that prospective employee have?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: They have the same rights as anybody else. If they want the job they can apply for it, or they can discuss it with the prospective employer and negotiate what terms suit both parties.
David Garrett: What reports has she seen about union support for grievance-free trial periods?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I have seen a report by the Australian Council of Trade Unions that supports a 3-month—that is, 90-day—grievance-free period in its submission to the Senate on the recent fair work legislation. I look forward to New Zealand unions taking a similarly reasonable approach.
Darien Fenton: Supplementary question—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to Darien Fenton on this occasion. I say to the National Party benches that I could not hear Darien Fenton, at all. The level of interjection is unreasonable.
Darien Fenton: If she is now confirming that an employer is entitled to advertise a job with a 90-day trial as a condition of employment, and that the only way an employee can avoid the trial is to not accept the job, was it not somewhat misleading for her and the Prime Minister to continually tell Kiwis when this scheme was introduced that it would be totally voluntary for employees?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The member is making some rather odd assumptions. The scheme is voluntary for employees and it is actually working very well. Employees are taking advantage of it, and they are getting the opportunity to get their foot in the door. It is win-win.
Hon Darren Hughes: I seek leave to table a document from the Parliamentary Library outlining examples of workers who have been exploited under this scheme. I note that the first example is a woman by the name of Heather.
Mr SPEAKER: The member should not have done that last bit; he had already identified the document. 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.
Leaky Homes—Progress on Financial Assistance Package
10. PAUL QUINN (National) to the Minister for Building and Construction: What progress has been made on the Government’s financial assistance package for owners of leaky homes?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister for Building and Construction): Good progress has been made on the Government’s leaky homes financial assistance package, which we announced on 17 May. Twenty-eight councils are now on board, which collectively represent more than 90 percent of the current leaky home claims. Other councils will be able to opt in to the scheme at a later stage. Several meetings and workshops have now been held with the local authorities and banks on developing the operational details of the package. We are certainly on track to have the package up and running by early 2011.
Paul Quinn: What reports has he received on reaction to the Government’s proposed leaky homes package?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: I have been advised by the Department of Building and Housing that up to 145 new weathertightness claims involving 289 homeowners have been lodged since the Government announced its financial assistance package for owners of leaky homes. This means that people recognise that it is a good scheme and it is worthwhile to sign up. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many more potential claimants are waiting for more information before they make a claim. We encourage those people to apply now if they are approaching the 10-year cut-off period in order to determine their legibility to stop the clock.
Consumer Affairs, Minister—Priorities
11. Hon STEVE CHADWICK (Labour) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: What are his priorities for the Consumer Affairs portfolio?
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Minister of Consumer Affairs): My priority will be to continue the work of my predecessor, particularly the significant work already under way to rationalise consumer legislation as part of the One Law—One Door programme. Last night I received a briefing from my officials in the Ministry of Consumer Affairs, and over the next few days I will be considering the matters raised.
Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister stand by his statement that “The ETS is already set to impose a significant cost burden on New Zealand households—a burden that may become crippling if opportunistic companies take advantage of the situation to inflate their profit margins,”; if so, will one of his priorities as Minister of Consumer Affairs be to protect consumers from opportunistic emissions trading scheme pricing; and if not, why not?
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: The Minister of Consumer Affairs has never made that statement.
Charles Chauvel: Supplementary question—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I say to the Hon Nick Smith and the Hon David Parker that I have been on my feet for some time, and I am not as little as that. Members should be able to see that I am on my feet. Charles Chauvel has the floor for a supplementary question. That noise was just totally out of order.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a requirement under Standing Orders that questions be true; members cannot ask a false question. The member asked whether he stood by that statement. In fact, the Minister of Consumer Affairs never made that statement.
Mr SPEAKER: That point of order is totally unnecessary. The Minister said that, and it was a perfectly good answer.
Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the particular wording of the question. I asked the Minister whether he stood by his statement. There is no doubt that he made the statement.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. Ministers are not responsible for statements made previously by anyone other than the Minister. The member has been in this House long enough to know that. The Minister answered perfectly properly that the Minister of Consumer Affairs had not made that statement. Someone else of the same name as that Minister may have, but that is irrelevant.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You raise an interesting point with the House. Is it in order for a member to ask whether a Minister agrees with the statement of a member of Parliament, and whether those comments will be influencing a ministerial policy agenda that the Minister’s officials were briefing him on last night, even if the member of Parliament being referred to is the same person as the Minister? Presumably it would be in order for a Minister to be asked whether he or she agrees with the comments of Gerry Brownlee, or whoever it happens to be.
Hon Rodney Hide: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: We do not need to debate this matter further by way of point of order. It is a very simple matter. Ministers can indeed be asked whether they agree with other statements, but in terms of the precision of any answer that might be achieved, Ministers are not responsible for statements made by other people. I cannot insist on any particular answer. The question can certainly be asked—the Standing Orders have been relaxed to allow that—but in terms of the precision of any answer gained, often those questions do not really elicit much by way of answers.
Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with the view expressed by John Boscawen MP in May 2010 that “The ETS should be scrapped or delayed but if the Government is dead set on imposing this ridiculous”—
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The House has longstanding conventions about ministerial responsibility. It is very plain that if Mr Chauvel has concerns about the emissions trading scheme, or issues in respect of it, they are within my responsibility and not the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer Affairs.
Mr SPEAKER: I listened very carefully to the previous supplementary question. Although the answer given to it was perfectly in order, I was listening carefully because initially I had the same impression as the honourable Minister that this matter could not be the responsibility of the Minister of Consumer Affairs. But then the questioner linked it to the responsibilities of the Minister of Consumer Affairs in terms of the impact on retail pricing and consumers’ interest in it. I believe that that is a legitimate area of interest of the Minister of Consumer Affairs. The Minister’s answer was perfectly in order. The member is now asking the Minister whether he agrees with a statement made by a person, and that question is perfectly in order. I invite Charles Chauvel to start his question again.
Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister agree with the statement made in May 2010 by John Boscawen MP that: “The ETS should be scrapped or delayed but if the Government is dead set on imposing this ridiculous tax on the country, then New Zealanders should be told exactly how it will affect their lives,”; if so, will one of his priorities as Minister of Consumer Affairs be telling New Zealanders exactly how the emissions trading scheme will affect their lives; and if not, why not?
Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If that question is to be included within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister of Consumer Affairs, then frankly there is not a single question in respect of transport, finance, justice, or anything that would not fall within his responsibilities. The reality is that if there are issues in respect of pricing and the emissions trading scheme, Mr Chauvel is perfectly free to put down a question to me as the responsible Government Minister.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Speaking to the point of order—
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need further assistance on this matter. It is not up to other Ministers to claim that it is their area; it is up to the Minister being questioned to determine that it is not his or her responsibility. When it comes to consumer prices, it is not for me to judge; the Minister of Consumer Affairs is the one to judge whether he has responsibility in that area.
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: As the Minister of Consumer Affairs I can tell the member that I am considering advice on this issue. As I said, I had a briefing with my officials last night and I look forward to working with them on my priorities. But as a member of the ACT Party I absolutely agree with the statements made by John Boscawen last May—
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for anything that a member of the ACT Party may have said.
Hon Shane Jones: More, more, more!
Mr SPEAKER: I fear that a fellow Northlander made that interjection. I feel somewhat embarrassed that a fellow Northlander could make such noises. I invite the House to come back to order.
Charles Chauvel: Of the two following statements about the effect on consumers of the emissions trading scheme, which should consumers believe: John Boscawen’s statement that “The ETS will have a profound impact on our economy, raising prices across the board …”, or the Prime Minister’s response to one of John Boscawen’s recent questions that “there will be no impact on prices as a result of the emissions trading scheme … and the member should stop making it up.”?
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN: Clearly there are different views on the emissions trading scheme. I look forward to taking advice from my officials and making future statements on this issue as they and I deem appropriate.
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I accept that you have properly ruled that if the Minister considers matters to be his responsibility then he should answer, but I think there is also a responsibility to ensure that questions are appropriately addressed to Ministers. In that case, the Minister of Consumer Affairs was asked to arbitrate between two opinions taken by two different people. Firstly, I do not know how that particularly assists consumers, and, secondly, I do not know how it goes to his responsibility. He has no responsibility for any statements other than those statements made as Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear anything further on the matter. The question was framed in relation to the impact on consumers. That is why I did not intervene in the question. It seemed reasonable to address the Minister of Consumer Affairs on a matter that related to consumers. However, because it asked him to comment on two statements made by people for whom he is not responsible as Minister, I would not insist on any particular answer. So the Minister’s answer was perfectly adequate in dealing with the question. As the Hon Gerry Brownlee points out, he is not responsible for what either John Boscawen might have said or what the Prime Minister might have said. He is the Minister of Consumer Affairs.
Civil Defence—Disaster Planning DVD for Deaf and Hearing-impaired
12. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Civil Defence: What actions has he taken recently to increase civil defence awareness?
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence): On Monday, 16 August I had the honour of launching a DVD designed to give potentially life-saving advice on emergency planning to the Deaf and hearing-impaired. Information is provided in New Zealand Sign Language, and is also captioned. This DVD encourages those who are deaf or who have significant hearing impairment to plan ahead for their specific requirements in an emergency. It focuses on developing an emergency plan with friends, family, and neighbours.
Jo Goodhew: Given the Minister’s answer to the previous question, why is it important to have such resources available?
Hon JOHN CARTER: Public education is essential to ensure that New Zealanders are aware and prepared for the number of natural hazards that this country is vulnerable to. Making New Zealanders more aware includes of course, the Deaf, the hearing, and the hearing-impaired. [Interruption] Obviously, the Opposition do not take this matter seriously, but for New Zealanders who are interested, it is a matter of seriousness. Making New Zealanders more aware—
Hon Darren Hughes: It’s the tie we can’t take seriously.
Hon JOHN CARTER: Well, it is very interesting to see that the Opposition considers civil defence a matter of a joke. But actually—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: We have had a bit of fun in the House this afternoon, and some serious times, and there is no need for this level of interjection. I think the House was too noisy. Has the Minister completed his answer?
Hon JOHN CARTER: Of course, it is no wonder they consider it a joke; New Zealanders think they are a disaster, Mr New Zealand—Mr Speaker. Making New Zealanders more aware includes—
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: It had better be a point of order
Hon Trevor Mallard: Given the news—and we were not aware of it—I seek leave to move a motion without notice congratulating you on your success in the Mr New Zealand contest.
Mr SPEAKER: What?
Hon Trevor Mallard: He just called you Mr New Zealand.
Mr SPEAKER: I have to say that the House has totally destroyed my reputation for getting through question time efficiently. I think that today’s has been the longest question time in my time as Speaker. There have been some tense questions, and there has been a bit of fun, as well, but members are now just wasting time.
Hon JOHN CARTER: Let me help you, Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: No—just answer the question, please.
Hon JOHN CARTER: I will, Mr Speaker—absolutely. Making New Zealanders more aware includes of course the Deaf and hearing-impaired. It is estimated that about 10 percent of the New Zealand population have hearing difficulties of some degree. It is essential that all communities release the Get Ready Get Thru scheme.
Jo Goodhew: How is the Get Ready Get Thru campaign progressing?
Hon JOHN CARTER: I am pleased to see that the latest research shows that the Colmar Brunton survey carried out in April and May of this year shows an increasing awareness of overall civil defence issues by the public. For example, 65 percent of respondents have undertaken some action as a result of the Get Ready Get Thru advertisements. But, of course, there is always more to do to ensure that New Zealanders are prepared for disasters.
ENDS
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
