Press Release – Office of the Clerk
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) : I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order under Speakers’ rulings 143, 144, and 145. The question lodged by the Hon Annette King was set down to the Prime Minister, asking him a specific …(uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing)
WEDNESDAY, 17 NOVEMBER 2010
QUESTIONS FOR ORAL ANSWER
QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Question No. 1 to Minister
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I raise a point of order under Speakers’ rulings 143, 144, and 145. The question lodged by the Hon Annette King was set down to the Prime Minister, asking him a specific question about a quote from one of his Ministers in respect of a particular portfolio, and seeking to explore with the Prime Minister whether the approach the Government was taking in one portfolio was true for the whole of the Government and whether this was a Government-wide policy. As the acting Leader of the Opposition she will want to ask the Prime Minister that question. The Government has chosen, rather than have the Prime Minister answer the question, to set it down to the Minister of Labour, whose portfolio was given as a particular example for the quote, for a whole-of-Government question. In doing so, the Government’s transfer renders the question almost to the point of being meaningless, because we already know that the Government has asserted that that is its approach in that particular portfolio. There is no point asking a Minister something about a portfolio that has already been stated. I draw your attention particularly to Speakers’ ruling 144/2, because the Opposition would assert that that is an abuse of the transfer of the question. Often there are very good reasons for Ministers to transfer a question to another Minister, but this is clearly a question about a whole-of- Government responsibility for which only the Prime Minister can have knowledge, as is set out in Speakers’ rulings 144/4 and 144/5, and which is within the purview of the Prime Minister. I ask you to consider that and, if necessary, I will seek leave for the question to be transferred back to the Prime Minister so that the question about whole of Government can be answered, which the quote and the meaning of the text of the question clearly set out to do. [Interruption]
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): Well, the Leader of the House might well—
Mr SPEAKER: No. I am hearing the member.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: There is no doubt, and two or three times in the time that we have been in the House, Speakers have taken it on themselves to insist that particular transfers not occur, and Speakers’ ruling 144/2 has been referred to. Normally, this is a matter that is dealt with earlier by your office, and I understand there has been some discussion about it. But, if one looks at the question, one can see that it is impossible to find in it any ministerial responsibility for the Minister of Labour. Her case is the exception. Does it apply only to the labour portfolio? We know it applies to the labour portfolio; the question is about every other portfolio, not about the labour portfolio. My request to you, Mr Speaker, is that you consider that, and whether this Minister is capable of answering a question on behalf of the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Broadcasting, the Minister for Economic Development—
Mr SPEAKER: The member has made his point sufficiently. I hear what members are saying. Certainly, Speakers’ ruling 144/2 enables the Speaker to refuse the transfer of a question where there is, basically, no responsibility for the subject matter of the question. This particular question quotes, as I understand it, the Hon Tony Ryall when was answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour. The question does not ask whether that statement applies to all other portfolios; it asks whether it applies only to the labour portfolio. The Hon Trevor Mallard’s last point of order is not actually correct, because the question does not ask that; it asks whether it applies only to the labour portfolio. I expect Ministers to have some idea whether a particular statement applies only to their portfolio. They certainly probably could not answer for all portfolios, but the question did not ask that. Again, it is a matter of the detail of questions, and I have to rule as I see the questions actually asked. It may be that members wish to put down a question that does address particularly the point that the member was getting to in his point of order. The matter of who is responsible or who will answer the question is primarily a matter for the Government, unless, under Speakers’ ruling 144/2, there is absolutely no responsibility whatsoever.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Are you therefore ruling that if a question were to the Minister of Labour and asked whether X applied only to the labour portfolio, or whether it applied to the broadcasting portfolio, when it was already accepted that it applied to the labour one, that would be an appropriate question to put down to the Minister of Labour?
Mr SPEAKER: The problem with the member’s question is that it does not ask that. The member’s question asks whether it applies only to the labour portfolio. I would expect Ministers under the collective responsibility of Cabinet to have some idea whether statements they are making apply only to their portfolio. Certainly they may not be able to answer across all portfolios, but the question does not ask that. If members want to pursue that type of point of order, a little more care needs to go into the wording of the question. I am aware that there was some exchange over the wording of this question, and the reason why there was some exchange over this was that there was concern that the quote was taken out of context. That is an issue that has arisen before today, and it is a serious issue. Members have the chance to get the wording consistent with the Standing Orders so that the quote was not taken out of context. This was the wording that I understand the member putting the question agreed to, but, unfortunately, it does not ask about all portfolios; it just asks whether that statement applies only to the labour portfolio.
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance, and I think it will be your considered guidance, on questions for written answer. This is an interesting point of order. These are in the name of Hilary Calvert—question Nos 35368 and 35366 to the Attorney-General, and the questions ask whether it is the Government’s intention about something, and the answer from the Attorney-General is—
Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to take up the time of the House on questions for written answer. Members know that they are perfectly at liberty to write to the Speaker when they are concerned about questions for written answer, and I give prompt attention to such communications from members, and it is well known that I often write to Ministers explaining to them their responsibilities to answer those questions in accordance with the Standing Orders. There is a proper process for dealing with those matters, and I do not believe it is appropriate to take up the time of the House on that. It would be more appropriate for the member to write to me on that.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Sorry to take your time on this. This is a very serious matter to the Opposition, because the member who put the question down was very specific about putting it down to the Prime Minister. The quote, as you rightly say, was the subject of some discussion, and it was the Minister Mr Ryall answering on behalf of the Minister of Labour, and he referred to the labour portfolio, and then the quote goes on. That quote was lifted out, a reference was made to the labour portfolio in order to ensure that it was not taken out of context, and then the Prime Minister was to be asked whether this applied just in
this particular portfolio, for which the Prime Minister has responsibility. I think the alternative example you have given us makes sense if this question had been set down to the Minister of Labour, but we never set that down to the Minister of Labour; we set it down to the Prime Minister, and one of the portfolios that the Prime Minister allocates is the labour portfolio, which is why the question is worded in that way. I suspect if we worded it in the way you suggested, Mr Speaker, that would be right if it were set down to this Minister, but I suspect if we had used the wording you suggest, and continued to set it down to the Prime Minister, the Government would have moved to transfer it in any case. So it is a very serious matter because it is a question that the deputy leader of the Labour Party wishes to put to the Prime Minister about the whole of Government in respect of the quote about the labour portfolio.
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House): This is a very interesting exchange, but quite apart from the numerous Speakers’ rulings that relate to the ability of the Government to make a choice about who is best to answer a question, there is also Speaker’s ruling 144/4, which states: “A member cannot insist on a particular Minister dealing with a question.” We could spend the rest of the afternoon going over this. You have ruled on it, and, I think, appropriately.
Hon Trevor Mallard: Mr Speaker—
Mr SPEAKER: No, I will not hear further on this. I have heard quite sufficient on it. The Leader of the House makes the point that Speakers’ ruling 144/2 is not the only one on the matter. Speaker’s ruling 144/3 points out specifically—and this is a reasonably recent ruling by Speaker Hunt—that Speakers’ ruling 144/2, which the member specified in particular, recognises a longstop protection against abuse in transferring a question where only one Minister could be expected to have personal knowledge of the subject. In this case the Minister whom the Government has set down to answer the question should have knowledge of the issue. It may not be the preferred answerer on behalf of the Opposition, but it is the Government’s responsibility to determine who will answer questions and, as the Leader of the House has pointed out, even more recently Speaker Wilson has made it clear under Speaker’s ruling 144/4 that a member cannot insist on a particular Minister dealing with a question. Several recent rulings have made that clear. It is my judgment as Speaker that this is not an abuse. Because of the wording of the question it is reasonable to expect the Minister to have some knowledge of this issue.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: The member will not question my ruling. I will listen to him.
Hon TREVOR MALLARD: I am not questioning your ruling for this case but I want you to consider the facts of this matter—that is, a question to the Prime Minister was lodged and accepted by your office. The Prime Minister insisted on the word “labour” going in there, and that was accepted by your office. It was the insertion of that word “labour” in there that meant that the Prime Minister could then give it to this Minister. Your office accepted it—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. He should be careful about alleging facts that he does not have knowledge of. The Speaker was not prepared to accept the question in its original form because the Speaker considered the quote was out of context. The Speaker was not prepared to accept it and that is why it was changed. It was not because of anything to do with the Prime Minister. The member should be careful what he alleges. That is the end of the matter.
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have great respect for the work that you have done with question time but we do take this matter very seriously. The Opposition will be exercising its right under Speakers’ ruling 145/3 and the member will not be asking the question.
Mr SPEAKER: That is perfectly acceptable. Question withdrawn.
Economy—Sustainable Development
2. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government ensuring the economy recovers in a sustainable way that delivers more jobs and builds faster growth?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): We have put in place a comprehensive economic plan designed to guide the economy through a period of recession. Since 2009 we have now had five consecutive quarters of growth. We have focused on building faster and sustainable economic growth over the medium and long term—growth based on savings, investment, and exports, rather than the unsustainable growth based on borrowing, consumption, and Government spending that were the features of previous years.
Amy Adams: What are the main policy drivers of the Government’s economic plan?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yesterday I mentioned three of them in the House: strengthening the tax system, investing in productive infrastructure, and supporting business innovation and trade. There are three others that we are focusing on: lifting productivity and improving public services, removing red tape and improving regulation, and improving education and lifting skills. All of these things are helping to tilt the economy towards saving, exports, and productive investment, and better equipping New Zealand business to make investment decisions and New Zealanders to take the jobs that will be provided in a growing economy.
Amy Adams: Within this programme, what steps has the Government taken to lift the performance of the public sector?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The public sector has needed a lot of effort to lift its performance, after a number of years where it grew fast, both in terms of funding and numbers. We have reviewed the performance of all major Government departments and agencies. We have capped the bureaucracy, and we have moved nearly $4 billion of spending from back-office into front-line public services, such as health, education, and law and order. I might say that the leadership of the Public Service is now looking ahead to how it will manage through very limited new funding, and there will be significant change in the public sector over the next few years.
Amy Adams: What steps has the Government taken to remove red tape, as well as to improve education and lift skills?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have moved to simplify the Resource Management Act. We have simplified regulation in respect of water infrastructure and urban design. We are also progressing reforms in aquaculture, the construction industry, the food industry, and the financial sector. In respect of education and skills, we have introduced national standards in literacy and numeracy, the Youth Guarantee, and Trades in Schools, and we have significantly improved the quality and relevance of tertiary qualifications—an area where the previous Government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars.
Question No. 1 to Minister
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct what I said earlier, when I indicated that the Prime Minister’s office had intervened. It intervened at 10.50; according to the Clerk’s Office your intervention was at 11.30. Both of you intervened.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not see how that is a point of order, but I can assure the honourable member that, when I saw the question, if the quote had been included in the question correctly, it would have been a much fuller quote than that, and I am concerned about quotes taken out of context. Question No. 3, the Hon David Cunliffe. [Interruption] No, no. Let us just move on to question No. 3. It is time to settle down.
GST—Papers Released by Savings Working Group
3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Has he seen the papers released by the Savings Working Group relating to GST; if so, does he have any intention of increasing GST further?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): Yes, I have seen the papers; and no.
Hon David Cunliffe: How can New Zealanders trust his word when, before the Tax Working Group report, he had promised not to raise GST, only to change his mind as soon as he got the report?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is misrepresenting that, as we have discussed in this House many times. If the member really believed that the increase in GST was a bad idea, he would be campaigning in Mana to cut GST and take back the income tax cuts. Neither the member nor his party have done that. Instead, they are—
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has no responsibility for Labour Party policy. Firstly, a large chunk of his answer cannot be to accuse a member of misrepresenting something; secondly, he cannot go on to tell the member what his party’s policy should be. Ministers are responsible in question time for the policies of the executive of the day, not yesterday.
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being considered and there will not be interjection on it. I have to confess to the honourable member that I was distracted at the time and did not hear the detail of the question asked. If there is concern about it, I will let the member repeat his question and I will listen to it very carefully. If the question contains any political overtone, the member can expect the kind of answer he received.
Hon David Cunliffe: How can New Zealanders trust his word when, before the Tax Working Group report, he was promising not to raise GST, only to change his mind as soon as he got the report?
Mr SPEAKER: I do not think the House needs further answer. I blame myself for allowing that situation to develop, but the Opposition should not have been surprised that a question that asked how the public could trust someone’s word got an answer that whacks the questioner around the ears a bit, because it was a highly political question. I gave the member the chance to repeat his question, and having listened to it very carefully I am not surprised by the answer.
Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Minister committed to no further increases to GST, and is that commitment stronger than his promise in December 2008 not to raise GST, which was subsequently broken?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Again, the member continues to misrepresent the issue around GST; in respect of GST, the Government is committed to not increasing it, and the member—[Interruption] Well, the member has not campaigned on it in Mana; instead, his leader has been following the Prime Minister around to try to get in his photos.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will have noted, this was the second reply to a supplementary question in which the Minister began his answer by accusing the questioner of misrepresentation. I would ask the Minister to clarify whether it was—
Mr SPEAKER: No. The member will resume his seat. The member knows he cannot do that. If the member does not want the kind of answer he got, he must be mindful about taking supposed quotations out of context. Ministers are perfectly at liberty to challenge the way—if the member had stopped his question halfway through, it would have been a much more precise question, but he included in it an issue that I think he should have known, having heard plenty of answers on the issue, the Minister would challenge the context of that part of the question. And the Minister did. I cannot as Speaker stop that. The solution lies in the member’s own hands. Keep the question brief, without the political content, and the member, I can assure him, will get answers.
Aaron Gilmore: What other papers has he seen from the Savings Working Group?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Savings Working Group is following the same practice as the Tax Working Group did—that is, it is publishing its working papers as it goes. In fact, there has not been a more transparent policy-making process carried out by a Government. To date the group has received and published a range of submissions, and has published about a dozen background papers. I have to say I am impressed with the depth and breadth of its coverage of the complex issue of how to increase New Zealand’s savings, and the considerable benefits that would arise from an increase in national savings.
Hon David Cunliffe: Rephrasing the previous supplementary question, did the Minister or his Government promise in December 2008 not to raise GST? Mr Speaker, you will observe that I cannot make—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon BILL ENGLISH: As has been discussed in the House before, when the Prime Minister was asked whether he would raise GST in order to close the deficit, he answered no, and that is exactly what has happened. We have increased GST in the context of a tax package that has seen significant across-the-board income tax cuts, $25 more per week for a family after the increase in GST, and $15 more per week for individuals. The member has had the opportunity to raise this issue in the Mana by-election, and has—
Mr SPEAKER: The question asked was a fair question, and the Minister answered it very well. It did not need that last bit.
Hon David Cunliffe: Again—very straight and simple—is there currently a fiscal deficit; if so, of what magnitude in the last financial year, and has it increased or decreased as a result of Budget 2010?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The deficit in the last financial year would not have been impacted at all by Budget 2010.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although admittedly there were several sub-questions, they were absolutely factual and straight. By your ruling, the Minister, at best, has the option to choose one of the two questions and answer it, but he actually answered none of them. For the sake of completeness, the first one was—
Mr SPEAKER: No, the member will resume his seat. I will invite the member to repeat his question because it did not contain any political statements. I will invite him to repeat his question, but he will not make that kind of comment.
Hon David Cunliffe: Was there a fiscal deficit in the last financial year, and of what magnitude; and would that deficit be increased or decreased as a result of Budget 2010?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: There was a fiscal deficit in the 2009-10 year. I cannot give the member the exact figure. It has increased in this Budget because of falling revenue while the Government is maintaining and increasing expenditure on public services. We have a plan to reduce that deficit from next year through to 2016.
Hon David Cunliffe: Having established that there was a fiscal deficit in the last financial year—although the Minister does not know the magnitude of it—which he has just admitted to the House is growing, why should the public not therefore conclude that the Government broke its promise not to raise GST when there was a deficit?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a somewhat confusing question, but the answer is pretty straightforward. [Interruption] The Government has put together a tax package designed to help rebalance this economy away from excessive consumption and housing speculation funded by debt. That tax package has included an increase in GST—
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question quite clearly did not ask the Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have listened to the Minister very carefully; I believe he is actually trying to give the House an answer. The member asked a serious question; I
think his colleagues should show the courtesy of listening to the Minister’s answer. The Minister, I believe, was giving a pretty good answer.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: The GST increase is part of a package of tax reform that is pushing New Zealanders in the direction they are already going, and that is to reduce excessive consumption and housing speculation funded by excessive debt. We have put up taxes on property and on consumption, and reduced the tax on savings, investment, work, and companies so that we can encourage investment, savings, and new jobs and exports.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I listened carefully to the Minister’s reply, as I know you will have done. The question did not ask why the Government increased the deficit in the last Budget; the question asked why the public should conclude other than that the Government broke its promise, when, first, as the Minister has told the House, the Prime Minister said they would not—
Mr SPEAKER: I have heard sufficient.
Hon David Cunliffe: —raise GST to fund the deficit, and he has then told us that there was one and the Government has increased it.
Mr SPEAKER: I do not know what to say to the honourable member. I am a bit long-sighted and I have trouble reading, but I can see the honourable member pretty well and I am sure he could see that I was on my feet. He should have stopped. I would like him to reflect on his question. It was asking an opinion about something for which there is no precise answer. He should think about the question he put to the Minister, which asked why the public should believe something. There is no precise answer to that question. The Minister did his best to give a serious answer around the issue of the deficit. That is not a bad attempt to at least address a question to which there is no precise answer. Members need to think a little more about the questions they ask. For some questions there is no precise answer, and the best the Speaker can do, therefore, is make sure the Minister addresses it. I believe that the Minister did address it.
Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In fact, I am speaking to the previous point of order. Although I totally accept your guidance, Mr Speaker, that questions should be straightforward, and I think you would accept that I have done my best to do that, the question was, in fact, axiomatic—if we replay a couple of supplementary questions—and therefore a matter of logic, not a matter of opinion, as you have suggested, I say respectfully. The Minister said that the Government did not—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Hon David Cunliffe: —break its promise not to raise GST, because it was not on account of a deficit.
Mr SPEAKER: I am not going to listen to more argument on this matter. Where a member asks how the public is going to believe something, there is no precise answer to that question. The member should just think about that. I have dealt with the issue.
Aaron Gilmore: Why did the Government establish the Savings Working Group?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think it has been understood for some time that New Zealand saves insufficiently to fund our national investment needs. We have had balance of payment deficits each year since 1973, and that has resulted in high external liabilities—that is, debt to the rest of the world—rising to almost 90 percent of GDP. A number of the solutions tried so far have had some impact over the years, but not sufficient impact to resolve the issue.
Television New Zealand Amendment Bill—Māori Representation in Broadcasting
4. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Broadcasting: How will the Television New Zealand Amendment Bill provide appropriate assurance to ensure the participation of Māori and the presence of a significant Māori voice in its programmes and programme planning?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Broadcasting): The Television New Zealand Amendment Bill replaces the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) charter with a new set of statutory functions, which state, amongst other things, that TVNZ must provide high-quality content that reflects Māori perspectives. I also note that out of the total public broadcasting budget of $231 million, $81 million is reserved specifically for Māori broadcasting, ensuring the participation of Māori and the presence of a significant Māori voice in programmes and programme planning in State-funded broadcasting.
Rahui Katene: How does the Government plan to give effect to binding decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council in relation to the broadcasting of Māori language and content on mainstream television in prime time; and what feedback has he received from Māori about the risk of diluting the Māori content in TVNZ transmissions by his proposal to remove the charter and replace it with a very broad statement of function?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Answering the second part of the question first, I have had one letter, which was sent to the Minister of Māori Affairs and subsequently forwarded to my office. In regard to the first part, the Government gives effect to those decisions through New Zealand on Air and Te Māngai Pāho. Te Māngai Pāho directly funds the Māori Television Service and also makes available contestable funding to other broadcasters, including TVNZ. TVNZ will continue to be eligible to apply for this funding. One of New Zealand On Air’s statutory requirements is to promote Māori language and culture.
Rahui Katene: In what ways will the Government measure the success of TVNZ as a public broadcaster in terms other than ratings and revenue, and how will it measure non-commercial success?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: TVNZ is required to produce a statement of intent each year, which outlines its plans for the forthcoming year. It then reports against these aims in its annual report. Shareholding Ministers also write to TVNZ at the start of each financial year, outlining specific expectations of the company. Those expectations are discussed periodically throughout the year with TVNZ.
Brendon Burns: Why did the Minister tell last Friday’s Screen Production and Development Association conference that his Television New Zealand Amendment Bill “leaves TVNZ free to determine its own priorities.”, when in fact the bill tells TVNZ that its only task is to maximise revenues, with no specific requirement for any New Zealand content, be it for Māori audiences or anyone else?
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is not correct. The charter has been replaced with a set of statutory functions, which are laid out in the bill.
Education, National Standards—Report from Education Review Office
5. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister responsible for the Education
Review Office: What recent reports has she received from the Education Review Office regarding the implementation of national standards in schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister responsible for the Education Review Office): I am very pleased to say that the Education Review Office has just released a report that shows that 93 percent of schools are well prepared or have preparation under way to work with national standards. That number is up from 80 percent at the end of term 2. Schools that are considered to be well prepared make up 34 percent, and 59 percent of schools have preparation under way.
Jo Goodhew: How has this changed from the last Education Review Office report, in August 2010?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This is the first year of a 3-year implementation programme. Schools have done a fantastic job this year. The number of schools that are well prepared has risen from 19 percent to 34 percent. The number of schools that are considered to be not yet prepared for national standards has dropped from 20 percent to 7 percent. That is really encouraging progress.
Jo Goodhew: What common themes were noted by the Education Review Office in the wellprepared schools?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Education Review Office noted that there were some common themes amongst those schools that are well prepared, and these include strong professional leadership, robust and purposeful self-review plans, a school culture encouraging teachers to discuss student achievement data, and good systems and processes. Children and their parents are already seeing the benefits of national standards and plain-language reporting. I acknowledge the professionalism and the dedication of principals and teachers.
Hon Trevor Mallard: How can she be proud of a report that shows that 66 percent of schools are still not well prepared to implement the standards?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This is the first year of a 3-year implementation. As I have said, schools have done a fantastic job. The fact that we are now looking at the majority of schools heading into the second year well prepared to work with national standards is something to be very pleased about.
Hon Trevor Mallard: In the report that she now has, what proportion of schools have not yet considered how to moderate teacher judgments?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not have the report in front of me so I cannot give the exact number. As part of the 3-year implementation programme, the moderation is actually a focus for the second year. The Education Review Office will be probing to ensure that the evidence that the schools are using to base that moderation on is valid. From memory, about one-third of schools are well prepared with their moderation processes.
Hon Trevor Mallard: How can she tell parents that the reports they are getting at the end of the year are national standards, when two-thirds of schools are not well prepared to implement them and two-thirds of schools are not moderating?
Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Actually, I am not giving those reports to parents; schools are. I know that many schools are saying to parents that this year is their first year as part of a 3-year implementation. I know they are talking this through in some detail with parents. I have to say that parents are absolutely loving it.
Women’s Affairs, Acting Minister—Priorities
6. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Acting Minister of Women’s Affairs: What are her priorities in the women’s affairs portfolio?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Acting Minister of Women’s Affairs): The priorities of the Government are set out in the Ministry of Women’s Affairs statement of intent 2010-13. Obviously they are my priorities as well. The three key priorities are, first, women participating in leadership; second, reducing the impact of violence against women; and, third, all women being fully engaged in the economy.
Sue Moroney: Does she stand by her statement of 14 August 2003 that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a “historic, sexist relic and should have been scrapped”?
Mr SPEAKER: Ministers are not accountable as Minister for anything they might have said previously. That is a longstanding tradition. What I will do in fairness, because I do not want to deprive the member of her supplementary question, is to invite the member to reword the question.
Sue Moroney: Thank you. Does she agree with National Party MP Georgina te Heuheu when she said, on 14 August 2003, that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a “historic, sexist relic and should have been scrapped”?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: In all fairness, Mr Speaker, I do not remember saying that. [Interruption] I do not.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member was not being asked whether she, Georgina te Heuheu, could remember. She was being asked whether she as Minister agrees with what was being quoted.
Mr SPEAKER: The Minister, I think, is at liberty to question the alleged quote, because with supplementary questions there is no validation process. Members are at liberty to ask about a supposed quotation, but it is not unreasonable that a Minister might dispute it. This is not the last day of Parliament’s sitting; there are various opportunities to pursue things further.
Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Would it assist the House if I tabled the document showing the quote that I just used?
Mr SPEAKER: Is the member seeking leave to table a document?
Sue Moroney: Yes. I seek leave.
Mr SPEAKER: What is the document?
Sue Moroney: The document is entitled “Sexist relic should be scrapped—”
Mr SPEAKER: That is not the document. I am asking what the document is.
Sue Moroney: The document is an article from the New Zealand Herald, dated 14 August—
Mr SPEAKER: No, we are not going to table articles from the New Zealand Herald.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Your ruling on the tabling of newspapers has been observed because your motivation for it was that they are freely available to members. In this case there are two points that might make you consider that differently. One is that the newspaper is from 2003, and even a disorganised member will have thrown out his or her newspapers from that year. The second is that the newspaper validates the quote my colleague is using in respect of the member who, quite genuinely by the look of the Minister, is perplexed about whether she said that. Tabling the article will be of assistance to this House in this particular case.
Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly reasonable point of order. I accept that it is a reasonably old newspaper article, but it does not assist this particular line of questioning, because the Minister has had no opportunity to check whether what is alleged in that newspaper article is what the member might have said or anything like that. I believe the more reasonable approach is not to try to score points of order through tabling press statements. But there is another question time tomorrow, and questions on the Order Paper can be validated. There are ways to pursue things that are much more reasonable and appropriate than trying to score points of order by way of tabling press articles.
Sue Moroney: Does she think that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs is a historic, sexist relic and should be scrapped?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Mr Speaker—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I want to be able to hear the Minister.
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Wherever that quote comes from, I say the ministry may have been a relic back then in 2003, when Labour was in Government, but it is certainly not a relic now. It is an action-packed ministry. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Who will be the first Government member to leave the Chamber? Who will volunteer? It was obvious that I was on my feet while all that interjection was going on. Opinion questions are allowed. The question asked whether the Minister agreed with a statement. Under the circumstances I think I have been pretty fair in how I have handled this question, but to answer the question like that is not reasonable. The question asked whether the Minister agreed with the statement. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to answer a little closer than that to the question that was asked. Under the circumstances, because I think there was a lot of transgression there and the Government benches ignored the fact that I was on my feet, I invite Sue Moroney to repeat her question.
Sue Moroney: Does she—
Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With all due respect, when the Minister answered that question she said that notwithstanding the statement and where it might have come from, that could have been the case back then but is not now. That is not an unreasonable answer. It is actually an answer. There might have been some extraneous matter there that she will be pulled up on, but essentially that question was answered.
Mr SPEAKER: If I misheard, I accept that I could be wrong. I accept that if that was the answer, it was a fair answer. If the Minister is indicating to me that she gave that answer, I accept that it is indeed an answer.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The extraneous matter that the Leader of the House referred to in his recounting to you of the Acting Minister’s answer was the insult to Labour, which you ruled—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being heard and it is reasonable.
Hon Darren Hughes: The quote has been contested, and my colleague has modified the quote to make it more acceptable to the Minister. Rather than get up and giving us her opinion, or saying yes, she agreed, or no, she did not agree, she used it as a launching pad to attack the Opposition. She did not make a defence or rejection of her comments—whatever it might be. I think that was the critical point that was not relayed to you by Mr Brownlee when he attempted to present the answer that Mrs te Heuheu had given.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept the member’s point of order, and let me say that as Speaker I have not handled this well. Let me take the blame for that and let things lie there. I suspect the member has further supplementary questions should she wish to ask them, and I will listen very carefully to questions and answers. I apologise to the House. I do not believe that I handled that situation as well as I should have, and I apologise for that.
Sue Moroney: Has she been told by the Prime Minister that she will retain the portfolio only until she succeeds in disbanding the ministry, so that it will become the latest casualty in the Government’s Public Service cuts?
Mr SPEAKER: We have a very unusual situation here. If I heard the question correctly, the member asked whether the Minister agreed with the Prime Minister.
Hon Members: “Has she been told …”.
Mr SPEAKER: “Has she been told by the Prime Minister …?”. There should not be outrageous allegations in a question; the Standing Orders are very clear on that. This is not very tidy. I ask the member to please rephrase the question, without making an allegation in the question that has no substance to it. This is not just a matter of the Speakers’ rulings; this is a matter of the Standing Orders. If members are not clear on the Standing Orders, they should refer to Standing Order 371 on page 113.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Obviously, I would accept your ruling if this was an outrageous allegation. But this allegation—and I know that we have not tabled it, but we have now had time to look at it—emanates from a point of view expressed by—
Mr SPEAKER: No, no. The member is now debating the issue. I just ask the member to repeat the question in a less provocative way.
Sue Moroney: Has she been advised that she will retain the portfolio only until she succeeds in disbanding the ministry, so that it will become the latest casualty in the Government’s Public Service cuts?
Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No.
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Taipā Point Land Occupation
7. Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Attorney-General: Does he stand by his statements that Ngāti Kahu protesters at Taipā Bay can “go to hell” and “I think they’re stupid”, and can he assure New Zealanders that such protests are not a foretaste of things to come under his Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General): I did not make those comments as Attorney-General. They do not relate to my Attorney-General portfolio. They were made by me as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations in the context of an issue related to Treaty settlements. As to the second part of the question, I cannot see the connection between the bill and the protest. Just because a piece of land is in sight of the water, that does not make it a part of the foreshore.
The occupation of the land in question was an occupation of dry land. The bill relates to the area below mean high-water springs—that is, the wet part of the beach, not dry, privately owned land.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We have seen the Government shift questions around to the appropriate Minister. We submitted that question to the House. It was accepted for the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General has refused to answer it, saying that he never made those statements as Attorney-General, and therefore he has not answered the question. The question was accepted as legitimate, so it must have been authenticated. Indeed, if the Attorney-General did not want to answer the question as Attorney-General, he could have sent it to himself as Minister.
Mr SPEAKER: I think I have heard the member at reasonable length on the issue. The Minister was purely pointing out that he made those statements as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He did not deny making the statements. But the substance of his answer was that the issue of the occupation this question seems to relate to is not a matter to do with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—they are not occupying the foreshore or seabed. I think the Minister’s answer was perfectly reasonable. The member asked whether he can assure New Zealanders that such protests are not a foretaste; the Attorney-General argued that this protest does not relate to that legislation, in his view, because it is not foreshore and seabed that they are occupying. That is what I heard him say. I cannot judge the quality of the Minister’s answer; I believe that he made a perfectly reasonable attempt to answer that question. I think it is unreasonable to expect me, as Speaker, to adjudicate on the quality of the answer.
Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question asked whether he stood by his statements. The Attorney-General never addressed that. He said that he made those statements as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, so he has not addressed that question. I accept your point that you cannot force him to answer it, but we lodged that question, it was authenticated—
Mr SPEAKER: I think the member is, forgive me, being a bit pernickety over it. The Minister has not denied making those statements; he was just helpful to the House in pointing out that he made them in his capacity as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. I did not see any resiling from them whatsoever. I presume he still stands by them as Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations. He was merely pointing out that he did not make them as the Attorney-General. It is perfectly reasonable to explain to the House the basis of the statements. He went on to answer the second part of the question in what I believe was a perfectly reasonable answer. I am afraid that I have judged that and there is nothing further I can do about that. The member has a further supplementary question.
Hon Rodney Hide: Will he assure all Kiwi mums and dads and their children that for as long as he is Attorney-General they will continue to enjoy their traditional access to New Zealand’s beaches and coast to swim, surf, picnic, and fish as they have done in years past?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, and also to make sandcastles.
Hon Rodney Hide: Will he, then, immediately resign if Māori groups, on gaining customary title, block Kiwis from their traditional use of the foreshore or seabed; if not, why not?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No; because it will not be necessary, because that sort of thing will not happen. In all the discussions I have had with iwi and hapū groups, that has not been an issue, notwithstanding the scaremongering of groups such as the Coastal Coalition.
Treaty of Waitangi Settlement, Muriwhenua—Taipā Point Land Occupation
8. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations: Have recent events at Taipā had an impact on the progress of the Muriwhenua Treaty of Waitangi land claims settlements?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations): No, and I certainly hope that they will not have any impact. As the member knows, the iwi of the
Muriwhenua have been seeking settlements for some time. Huge issues need to be dealt with. An agreement in principle was signed at Āhipara on 15 January, and great progress has been made towards a deed of settlement with those iwi. I certainly hope that the unfortunate events of recent days will not get in the way of just and durable settlements for those people up there.
Hon Shane Jones: Is there a precedent for local government and the Crown collaborating to effect the return of reserve lands to tangata whenua, and is he willing to explore such an option as it pertains to the Taipā reserve lands?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: There are precedents for that kind of innovation. There is no reason why people cannot approach the Crown on those issues, but there are ways of doing things and ways of not doing things. Illegal occupation of that land is not an appropriate way of dealing with matters.
Hon Shane Jones: What does the Minister say to the far north community that has watched the abandonment of the local sailing club regatta and the cancellation of annual fishing competitions because of fear associated with this land occupation, connected with obviously troubled Treaty negotiations?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: In answer to the last point I say that the negotiations are not troubled; very good progress has been made. I say to those people that they have every right to be upset and disappointed. The selfish actions of a few have harmed the legitimate activities of the entire community, and those groups have every right to feel frustrated and disappointed.
Hon Shane Jones: When he told the Taipā protesters, who are nephews to Hone Harawira, to go to hell, what directions did he have in mind and whom did he think they might meet there?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Well, Trevor Mallard is not dead yet.
Hon Shane Jones: Based on that answer, are we now to consider this Minister to be the “Black Prince” amongst Māori Treaty negotiations?
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I certainly hope not. The phrase is a figurative phrase. It expressed my frustration that after all the good work that had been done by the negotiators of Ngāi Takoto, Ngāti Kurī, Te Rarawa, and Te Aupōuri, we have had what Harold Macmillan would have called a little local difficulty, which is getting in the way of deeds of settlement being signed so that just and durable settlements can finally be entered into—a hope of the late Mat Rata of over 20 years ago.
Roading, Auckland—Pūhoi to Wellsford Route
9. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport): Today the New Zealand Transport Agency announced the next stage of route development for the road of national significance between Pūhoi and Wellsford. The first stage will take traffic from the top of the new Northern Gateway Toll Road—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the Minister. The Speaker is terribly concerned that he cannot hear the answer, and the Speaker is very interested in hearing the answer.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I appreciate that this matter may be of interest to the Speaker. The first stage will take traffic from the top of the new Northern Gateway Toll Road to Warkworth, and will eventually stretch all the way to Wellsford. Very little design work had been done on this project prior to the start of last year, so the progress so far has been commendable.
David Bennett: What economic benefits will the road bring to Northland and Auckland?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Once finished, the new road will improve economic growth in Northland, Rodney, and Auckland. By improving the movement of freight and people between our largest city and the districts to the north of it—the key growth areas in Rodney, for example— economic linkages become more efficient, reliable, and secure. I know that not all members in the
House agree with me, but the residents of Northland have just as much right to benefit economically from improved transport linkages as central Aucklanders.
Hon Darren Hughes: Has the Minister given serious consideration to the Operation Lifesaver proposal of the Campaign for Better Transport, which offers two safety options for Dome Valley and Schedewys Hill that could be delivered in a faster time frame and at a much cheaper cost; if so, what is his view on those proposals?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have two views. Firstly, I have seen some of the numbers, and the numbers I have seen so far seem incorrect and out of date. The second issue is that the volumes specification of the existing road is nowhere near the capacity required for that highway, which carries something like 24,000 people per day, plus very, very significant freight.
Hon Darren Hughes: On holidays.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, that is every day. I think you are being a bit condescending to the people of Northland and northern Auckland.
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think it is outrageous, on a porkbarrel project like this, that you be accused of being condescending, as the Minister of Transport has just done. He is an expert on that matter.
Mr SPEAKER: I will take all this in the humour in which I think it is intended.
David Bennett: What other progress has been made on roads of national significance in Auckland?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yesterday the New Zealand Transport Agency announced a short list of two consortia for the construction of the Waterview Connection, which is a key part of the western ring route road of national significance. Both short-listed parties have plans to deliver a fully operational road on time, which means that after decades of debate and congestion Aucklanders and the economy will finally feel the benefits of a motorway network that should have been completed decades ago.
Hon Darren Hughes: Does this project still have a benefit-cost ratio of less than one?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am not sure which project the member refers to, but I can—
Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am referring to the project in the primary question, which is the Pūhoi to Wellsford road of national significance.
Mr SPEAKER: I accept that. The question refers to the primary question.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, the Pūhoi to Wellsford national road—or road of national significance—
Hon Annette King: Yes, the “National road”—that’s it.
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That road of national significance has a benefit-cost ratio of greater than one, with wider economic benefits accordingly.
Income Gap, Parity with Australia—Proposed Changes to Holidays Act 2003
10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Are the proposed changes to the Holidays Act 2003 being progressed under urgency this week part of the Government’s plans to close the wage gap with Australia and reduce the number of Kiwi workers moving to Australia?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour): Part of the Government’s plan to grow the economy is to reduce red tape and increase choices and opportunities. The Holidays Amendment Bill is part of that plan.
Darien Fenton: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question asked was on notice. It was a pretty straightforward question.
Mr SPEAKER: The question was on notice. Although it was a question that sought an opinion, it asked: “Are the proposed changes to the Holidays Act 2003 being progressed under urgency this week part of the Government’s plans to close the wage gap with Australia and reduce the number of Kiwi workers moving to Australia?”. I think I heard the Minister answer that they were part of the Government’s plans for economic growth, but the question did not actually ask that. Maybe the
Minister could give an answer with a greater relation to the primary question. I accept, though, that there is no precise answer to it, but I would ask the Minister to relate her answer a little more to the primary question.
Hon KATE WILKINSON: Obviously, part of our plan is to grow the economy so that we do not lose so many workers to Australia. We do have some workers coming back from Australia, and we want to have economic conditions here that are conducive to that, and a Government that actually likes workers.
Darien Fenton: How is allowing the fourth week of annual leave to be traded for cash part of the Government’s plan, given that it will see Australian workers enjoying more holidays than us, and it still will not bring the earnings of Kiwi workers, whose average wage is just 60 percent of the Australian average wage, anywhere near the earnings of their Australian counterparts?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I think the member misunderstands the popular policy of workers having the ability to ask to transfer that fourth week for cash, which even her own leader thinks is quite a good idea. But it is voluntary; the employee does not have to ask for it. It is part of the increased choices and opportunities for workers in New Zealand.
Darien Fenton: Was the Prime Minister correct when he said: “We also have more public holidays than Australia.”, or is it the truth that with a maximum of 11 public holidays legislated for, and as few as nine public holidays in 2010 and 2011, New Zealand actually has fewer public holidays than every state in Australia, and that her proposal to give employers the ability to decide when alternative days for public holidays must be taken by employees will only put Kiwi workers’ holiday entitlements even further behind Australia’s?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I always agree with the Prime Minister.
Darien Fenton: Not good enough, not good enough. All right. Well, he is wrong.
Mr SPEAKER: The member should just ask her question. She asked whether the Minister agreed with the Prime Minister, and the Minister said she did, so the member will now ask the next supplementary question.
Darien Fenton: If the Government is serious about wanting to stop Kiwi workers from moving to Australia for better wages and conditions, will she consider compensating workers for the public holidays they will miss out on next year, when Easter Monday and Anzac Day coincide, as all Australian states have agreed to do; if not, why not?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I understand that next year is particularly challenging in the sense that Easter Monday is also Anzac Day, so two public holidays fall on 1 day. It is not part of our consideration to Mondayise Anzac Day, because Anzac Day is a really special day in New Zealand’s history, not just a public holiday, and I think it should be revered.
Darien Fenton: To the Minister—
Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear Darien Fenton, please.
Darien Fenton: Does she agree with John Key’s statement: “Long hours at work, both parents in employment, childcare shortages, growing interest rates and rising bills can create a far from ideal environment for good parenting and healthy family relationships.”; if so, why is her Government advocating for longer hours at work by allowing the cashing in of annual leave, by forcing both parents into work through its Future Focus reforms, and by causing rising bills through its increase in GST?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The member is under a misapprehension. We are not advocating longer hours of work; in fact, what we are doing is giving more choice to workers.
Darien Fenton: Will requiring a medical certificate for 1 day’s illness, under her Holidays Amendment Bill, make any difference to the cost to New Zealand of ill health, which is estimated by Treasury to be at least $5 billion a year, with the biggest cost coming from those who drag themselves off to work in spite of sickness; and how will her changes improve productivity and help close the gap with Australia?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I understand that the Treasury report that the member is referring to does not actually investigate whether people take sickies, so it does not have any implications for the proposed changes to the holidays legislation. The changes regarding proof of sickness are very minor and very sensible. Most employees will experience no change from the current regime. But unjustified sickies clearly reduce productivity and put pressure on the other members of staff who do turn up to work.
Youth Opportunities Programme—Progress
11. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What progress has been made on the Government’s Youth Opportunities programme?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment): The Government’s Youth Opportunities programme has been a huge success. Over 12,500 young people have been on a Job Ops or Community Max placement, thanks to the many businesses and community groups that have given those young people employment opportunities.
Hekia Parata: How many young people who have been on Job Ops or Community Max have not gone on to a benefit?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: We are continuing to see positive results as those young people finish their placements. Of those who have completed their Job Ops placement, 91 percent have not gone on to a benefit. For Community Max, over 70 percent have not gone on to a benefit.
Jacinda Ardern: How many young people have remained in employment for longer than the Government-subsidised 6 months through its Youth Opportunities package, and is that sufficient for this policy to be labelled a key part of the Government’s package to tackle unemployment in the recession?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The figures I have relate to those who have already gone on to benefits, and I have already given them: 91 percent of Job Ops placements have not gone on to a benefit, and 70 percent of Community Max participants have not gone on to a benefit.
Mr SPEAKER: I ask members to be a little more reasonable with the level of interjection; I am struggling to hear.
Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very specific. It related to the number of young people who, as part of the Job Ops package, have remained in employment longer than the Government-subsidised 6 months. It was a very specific question and did not relate to benefit numbers.
Mr SPEAKER: I presume from the Minister’s answer that she did not have that particular information on her and gave the best proxy she could to indicate the level of success. Presumably, people who have stayed in employment have not gone on to the unemployment benefit. Given the circumstances of the primary question, I think one could not necessarily expect the Minister to have that particular information. I think she gave the best proxy she could for it.
Jacinda Ardern: Does the Minister accept the New Zealand Institute’s findings that the impact of the Youth Opportunities package has affected, at most, 12 percent of the young unemployed; if not, what approximate percentage has it assisted?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, actually, it has assisted 12,500 young people, and I would have thought that was a very, very good result.
Jacinda Ardern: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question related specifically to the percentage of young people who have been assisted by this package in relation to the total number of 64,000 young unemployed.
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: The member actually asked did I agree with the institute—no.
Mr SPEAKER: I think what the member has experienced with that exchange is that if there are two parts to a question, the Minister is at liberty to answer one of them. If members want absolutely precise answers, the question needs to be, first, very closely related to the primary question, and, then, a very short question.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That would have been fine if the Hon Judith Collins had given the answer to one of the parts of the question that she gave in replying to the point of order. She did not do that when she was answering the question.
Mr SPEAKER: Is the member doing anything other than disputing my ruling? I do not think that is particularly helpful. I think the Minister’s answer to the question was reasonable.
Jacinda Ardern: What percentage of the total young unemployed has the Government’s Youth Opportunities package assisted?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Well, it is about 12,500 people. As to those who are unemployed, the member should consider that the figure according to the household labour force survey is significantly different from the number of people on the unemployment benefit, because, as that member should know, the household labour force survey asks anybody, and counts as unemployed anyone who says they are available for 1 hour’s work a week. That is hardly, in most people’s calculations, considered to be wanting a job.
Marine Reserve, Akaroa Harbour—Rejection of Proposal
12. GARETH HUGHES (Green) to the Minister of Conservation: Why did she decline the proposed Dan Rogers Marine Reserve in Akaroa Harbour on the grounds that it would adversely affect recreational fishing?
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Conservation): I am required by law to uphold an objection if I consider that establishing a marine reserve would unduly interfere or adversely affect existing recreational purposes or is contrary to the public interest. I considered that it did, and the decision was made public in August. Further to that, I feel I should alert the member that I have been informed through the media that Brian and Kathleen Reid, who disagree with this decision, intend to challenge it through a judicial review. I therefore do not consider it prudent to comment any further on the matter.
Gareth Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 112(1)(b), whereby a judicial order prohibition on the Minister answering the question comes into effect “from the time when proceedings have been initiated by the filing of the appropriate document in the registry or office of the court.”, not by virtue of seeing it in the media.
Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a valid point in terms of the prohibition of reference to matters awaiting judicial decision. The member is at liberty to ask his questions, but the Minister may well invoke the issue of public interest in the way she answers them. I have not ruled out the member asking any further supplementary questions, but I think we have to accept that the Minister may invoke the public interest issue in the way she answers them.
Gareth Hughes: Why does she think a marine reserve would be bad for recreational fishing when according to Department of Conservation fish size in the area are so depleted it is hard to catch a legally sized blue cod, which is the fishers’ main target in the Akaroa area?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: I am aware of all of the advice, and I refer the member to my previous answer. It would be irresponsible for me to comment publicly about an issue when I have been informed that it is intended—and, indeed, the proceedings may have been filed—to be heard in court.
Gareth Hughes: In general, what would the benefits be to recreational fishers in the remaining 88 percent of the Akaroa Harbour if the Dan Rogers Marine Reserve had proceeded?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: That is a bit of hypothetical question, and, again, it would be irresponsible of me to comment when it may prejudice or jeopardise judicial review proceedings.
Gareth Hughes: What proportion of New Zealand’s waters are protected today, given our commitment to have 10 percent of our waters in a marine protected area by 2010?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: It is 7.1 percent.
Gareth Hughes: It was a specific question. The question was not in regard to the territorial sea, which is what the Minister has answered, it was in regard to New Zealand waters, which are the exclusive economic zone and the territorial sea.
Mr SPEAKER: The member has a further supplementary question if he feels the answer was not adequate. The Minister gave an answer—there is no question about that. If it is not the answer the member was seeking, he does have further supplementary questions.
Gareth Hughes: Given that only 0.77 percent of our marine area is currently protected, what are New Zealand’s chances of reaching the 10 percent target in the next 3 months, given that her Government has a moratorium on marine reserves in the exclusive economic zone, has instructed the Department of Conservation to not apply for the marine reserves, and has declined the Akaroa marine reserve application?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: The member is making some accusations and allegations that are just plainly incorrect. The Government is committed to progressing the amount of our marine environment that is protected. Currently there are two proposals to be considered by me and the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture. They feature significant areas on the West Coast and in the Subantarctic Islands.
Gareth Hughes: Will her decision to uphold the absolute right of recreational fishers potentially create a precedent and a disincentive to any future marine reserve applications?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: Marine reserve applications are and will be considered on a case by case basis.
Gareth Hughes: If the local rūnanga in Akaroa had supported the marine reserve, would she have approved it?
Hon KATE WILKINSON: That is a hypothetical question. The rūnanga, as the member well knows, did not support the proposal; the Reids did. I heard both parties, and I came to a decision using the legislative process under the Act.
ENDS
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
