QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Electoral Commission—2013 Māori Electoral Option
1. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Minister of Justice: Is she satisfied with the Electoral Commission’s engagement with whanau, hapū, iwi and marae around the 2013 Māori Electoral Option; if so, what advice has she received that would explain why halfway through the process there are only 5,000 new enrolments?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Justice): I have received four reports from the Electoral Commission on progress for the Māori electoral option. It is fair to say that the uptake from Māori for enrolment on the Māori roll has not been great. The Electoral Commission has run a 4-month campaign over radio, television, and print media, as well as setting up a Facebook page, which has reached over 200,000 people and received over 13,000 likes. I am advised by the Electoral Commission that the response for this campaign is similar to the response in 2006, when there were around 6,000 new enrolments.
Te Ururoa Flavell: Can I ask what assurances can she give that the Electoral Commission has prioritised kanohi te kanohi, or face to face, communications with Māori constituents in informing them of the Māori electoral option?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I understand from the Electoral Commission that it has, in fact, undertaken that. I also understand that it has met this morning with the Māori Party to discuss the Māori Party’s stated concerns. I am sure that many people would say that there are not enough Māori on the electoral roll, and that anything we can do to assist should be done if we can.
Te Ururoa Flavell: As only 73 percent of young people are enrolled to vote, with the proportion of rangatahi Māori even less, what responsibility does she have to ensure that 100 percent of New Zealanders are enrolled, and how does she plan to reach those people who are not enrolled?
Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Short of actually prosecuting people for not being enrolled, which I am not prepared to consider as something that this Government—or any Government—should prioritise, I would say that even in Australia, where there is compulsory voting, only 95 percent of people generally turn out. In this country, the average turnout is 81 percent. In fact, that number tends to go up when there is a possibility of a change of Government. I am happy to say that one of the good things from such a low turnout at the last election was that it was because people did not want to have a change from the fabulous current Government that we have.
Government Communications Security Bureau—Investigation into Review of Compliance
Leak
2. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: On what date was he, his office or the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet first informed that David Henry
would not meet his deadline of the end of May as set out in the terms of reference for reporting back and what reason did Mr Henry provide for the delay?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): The terms of reference anticipated that Mr Henry would present his findings to Mr Kibblewhite and Mr Fletcher by 31 May. This was not strictly a deadline. The report was delivered 2 working days after that date. I am advised that Mr Henry indicated to the Chief Executive of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and the Director of the Government Communications Security Bureau earlier in the week ending 31 May that there was some risk to the anticipated timetable. He formally confirmed on 31 May that he would likely need to take an extra week to complete the report. As it happened, he took only 2 more working days. The reason given for the extra time was that Mr Henry was continuing discussions with one individual. Mr Henry said he needed to complete an interview, and then finalise his report.
David Shearer: Does he stand by his statement on 29 May that “He does not believe for a moment that his Ministers or their offices leaked the report …”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did at the time I made that statement.
David Shearer: Does he know who leaked the Kitteridge report, and who was it?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For certain? No, I do not know.
David Shearer: Why is he not taking all possible steps to firmly establish what Mr Dunne leaked?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, I think Mr Henry is to be congratulated on an extremely thorough report. Secondly, that report has led to an outcome, which is the resignation of a Minister. Thirdly, the only point I could do is I could go and reconstitute the inquiry, arguably subpoena the emails, and to do so I would subpoena the emails of Andrea Vance. [Interruption] That is what the member wants. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That is what the member wants. Just as long as the gallery understands that Labour wants to be able to forage around in their emails.
David Shearer: Does he understand that there is an important difference between Ministers’ duties to hold confidences, and the role of the media and the Opposition to highlight information that has been disclosed to them, and why does he continue to confuse the two?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Why does the member believe—[Interruption] Why does the member believe that it is OK to have one side of the story—
David Shearer: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask the questions and he is supposed to answer them, I thought.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to ask the member to repeat his question, please.
David Shearer: Does he understand that there is an important difference between Ministers’ duties to hold confidences, and the role of the media or Opposition to highlight information that has been disclosed to them, and why does he confuse the two?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I understand completely my responsibilities as Prime Minister—that was, to try to get an answer to the matter. I commissioned a full report. Secondly, I understand the need for balance. So if we are going to have a full understanding of everything in those emails that Mr Dunne is not prepared to release himself, then we need to see both sides, and while we are at it we will get Phil Goff’s emails about the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, as well.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why did you allow the Prime Minister to add that last part on when it is not part of the question, or any inquiry, or, above all, the severe embarrassment the Government is now under?
Mr SPEAKER: Because, as I interpreted the answer from the Prime Minister, I did not think it was out of order at the time.
David Shearer: Does he believe his Ministers should be held accountable for leaking information that they have a duty to hold confidential, and, given Mr Dunne’s continued denials, how can he leave the matter there?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: It is quite clear that the Minister has been held to account. He has been asked to comply with the inquiry, he has failed to do so, and he has lost his ministerial warrant. But there is a simple way of clearing this up. Apparently, Mr Peters has got the emails. Maybe he could give them to Mr Shearer.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have a point of order from the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and it will be heard in silence.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: That was totally outside the Standing Orders. The Prime Minister is meant to be terse and to the point. The last time that challenge came and he was told by me that his Minister was gone, he laughed then, but he is not laughing now. The fact is that on the question of disclosure, of the five different electronic records there are, the Prime Minister is the person responsible for that. So we all have a true and full picture, and thank you for that point of order.
Mr SPEAKER: And it was not a point of order.
Economy—Performance and Outlook
Mr SPEAKER: Question No.3, Katrina Shanks. [Interruption] Order!
KATRINA SHANKS (National): To the Minister of Finance. What do recent indicators show about the economy’s performance this year and its outlook for the next 3 to 4 years?
Mr SPEAKER: Has the Minister adequately heard the question?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): No. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! There was so much noise in the House that I could not hear Katrina Shanks reading that question. Would she please commence again.
3. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister of Finance: What do recent indicators show about the economy’s performance this year and its outlook for the next three to four years?
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance): The New Zealand economy grew 3 percent in the calendar year 2012, among the fastest-growing in the OECD. Growth was broad-based, and by the end of 2012, 15 of the 16 measured industries were showing growth. The outlook for the next 3 to 4 years is growth of 2 to 3 percent. This is based on increased private consumption supported by higher business and consumer confidence, increased business investment, increased residential investment, and a continuing wider recovery. Elevated terms of trade and increased dairy and commodity exports are also expected to be long-term drivers of income growth. This is good for families, because it means more jobs, lower unemployment, higher incomes, and more opportunities.
Katrina Shanks: What has been the basis for the economy’s stronger performance this year?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: Recent economic data is reasonably encouraging. Tax revenue is ahead of forecasts. The indexes that measure the growth of the manufacturing sector and the very large service sector are both showing growth. Business and consumer confidence are at 3-year highs. Employment has increased and unemployment is falling, although it still remains too high, at 6.2 percent. Last week building consents were reported as being up by 43 percent in a year, reaching a 5-year high. This is not related just to the rebuild of Canterbury but also to reasonable growth outside that. Dairy prices remain well above long-term averages, and they may be supported by the recent welcome falls in the New Zealand dollar against the US dollar.
Katrina Shanks: How does New Zealand’s economic growth compare with that of other developed countries?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: At 3 percent for the 12 months to the end of 2012 it compares favourably with most other developed economies—that is, a higher growth rate than the US, Canada, Japan, the UK, and the eurozone, and comparable with Australia. On current trends it is likely that over the next year or two, New Zealand will grow at similar, if not slightly better, rates than Australia.
Katrina Shanks: What reports has he seen on New Zealand’s economic programme and the Government’s approach to turning round the economy?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I recently read a report from the Australian Financial Review that says: “What immediately stands out is Wellington’s grown-up and stable Government,”. It also says that New Zealand’s bad luck is about to take a turn for the better, and it will reap the benefits of disciplined policy making. The Australian Financial Review, which is not noted for being a cheerleader for New Zealand, notes that New Zealand did not have a mining boom to shield it from the global financial crisis. But it acknowledges that we did have a devastating earthquake in Christchurch and a drought this year. It notes: “John Key’s National Government also had to deal with the legacy of nearly a decade of a back-sliding and big-spending Labour Government.”
Grant Robertson: Is it correct that his 2013 Budget says that his Government will fall 61,000 jobs short of his election promise of a 170,000 extra jobs?
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot remember the exact numbers, but the number of new jobs has been fewer than was expected. Over the next couple of years though, we expect that will pick up. As I just pointed out to the member, we have had to deal—and I will quote the Australian Financial Review—“with the legacy of nearly a decade of a back-sliding and big-spending—
Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a specific question. Remarkably the Minister of Finance could not remember his own Budget, but he did show—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I gather the point of order. The question has certainly been adequately addressed.
Intelligence Agencies—Sharing of Information on New Zealanders
4. DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Has he received any information that shows foreign intelligence agencies are routinely collecting emails, other communication or location data on New Zealand citizens and residents while they are in New Zealand; if so, has the resulting information been passed on to the Government Communications Security Bureau?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): No.
David Shearer: Do New Zealand intelligence agencies use or have access to the PRISM system, developed by the US National Security Agency?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe that it is in the public interest to go into the operational programmes used by the Government Communications Security Bureau or the Security Intelligence Service, but what I can say is that I have sought an assurance from the Government Communications Security Bureau that it is acting in accordance with New Zealand law and that it does not ask Government agencies in other countries to circumvent that law.
David Shearer: Will he give New Zealanders an assurance that information collected on them by non – New Zealand intelligence agencies has not and is not being used by New Zealand authorities without them having the legal authority to do so?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I can assure the House that we do not use our partners to circumvent New Zealand laws. We do not ask them to do that. I cannot speak for other international agencies; I simply do not know what they do. But I know that from our perspective and from the Government Communications Security Bureau’s perspective we do not use foreign partners to circumvent the law.
David Shearer: Why is he passing legislation extending the powers of the Government Communications Security Bureau without the opportunity for a thorough examination of the technological changes in cyber-security that would be covered by an independent, wide-ranging inquiry?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, it is quite clear that the law needs to be clarified. That is as a result of the Kitteridge report and the work done by Justice Neazor—that is the first thing. The second thing is, without clarifying the law, the assistance work provided by the Government
Communications Security Bureau to other agencies actually cannot continue. Thirdly, in my view there was an extremely thorough piece of work done by Rebecca Kitteridge, so we have a good understanding of what has taken place there. But I do find myself in a bizarre situation now, answering a question from a man who wants to protect privacy—
Mr SPEAKER: Order!
David Shearer: Why is he refusing to conduct an independent inquiry into New Zealand’s intelligence and security agencies, when the public has lost confidence in our intelligence agencies at a time when serious concerns are being raised about whether the privacy of New Zealanders has been breached?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I do not believe for a moment that the public has actually lost confidence in New Zealand’s intelligence agencies. I think it is quite clear that there was a mistake made by the Government Communications Security Bureau when it came to using its foreign intelligence powers with regard to Mr Kim Dotcom. But, actually, beyond that, what the Kitteridge report highlighted was a significant amount of work that needs to be undertaken. It was an extremely thorough review.
Grant Robertson: A very narrow review—a very narrow review.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: The director of the Government Communications Security Bureau is actually undertaking that inquiry. Well, actually, I know for a fact that Mr Shearer does not think that it was narrow. He is looking for a different reason to not vote for it.
Steffan Browning: Has the Government Communications Security Bureau ever made requests to the United States that have resulted in intelligence being gathered and provided using the PRISM system, and did the Government Communications Security Bureau seek approval from you or other Ministers before doing so?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Do not bring the Speaker into the debate.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I am not going to go into the operational matters or techniques used by the Government Communications Security Bureau, but what I can give people an absolute assurance on is that we do not ask foreign intelligence agencies to act in any way that circumvents the law. Any assistance that may have been provided by other agencies will be because it is both lawful—that means signed off both by me as the Minister in charge of the NZ Security Intelligence Service and by the Commissioner of Security Warrants—and, importantly, in the national interest for us to do so.
Steffan Browning: On the basis of that, was PRISM data used in the cases identified in the Kitteridge report, where metadata or other intelligence was collected illegally on 88 New Zealanders?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: As I said, firstly, I am not in a position to go into the techniques that are deployed by the Government Communications Security Bureau. I do not think any Prime Minister has done that. Secondly, I would challenge the member to go away and read the report from Justice Neazor. Actually, it did not find that the 88 cases were illegal.
Steffan Browning: Under the Government’s proposed law changes, when the Government Communications Security Bureau spies on New Zealanders, can that include it requesting surveillance by the US National Security Agency and, thus, potentially the PRISM system?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I think I have actually answered that question, but, for clarity reasons, let me give it to the member again. I have sought assurances from the Government Communications Security Bureau that it acts in accordance with New Zealand law and does not ask Government agencies in another country to circumvent the law. There would be no reason to do that if the person was in New Zealand and there was a legal warranted—
Steffan Browning: Point of order—
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Let me finish the answer. —a legal warranted activity to be conducted.
Steffan Browning: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was not really answered, because I said “… can that include it requesting surveillance by the US National Security Agency and, thus, potentially the PRISM system?”. That was not answered.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I think on this occasion the Prime Minister has very adequately addressed the question.
Education, National Standards—Measurement of Student Achievement
5. ALFRED NGARO (National) to the Minister of Education: What recent announcement has she made about achievement against National Standards?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Today I released the second year of national standards aggregate data and, for the first time, data on the achievement of students in Māori medium schools. The 2012 national standards data shows small positive gains in reported achievement overall. Overall, achievement is strongest against the national standards for reading, followed by mathematics and then writing. The information released today also includes, for the first time, data on achievement by year level. We have an education system that is amongst the best in the world, but we can do better. Good-quality data on student achievement at all levels is essential if we are going to achieve a system-wide lift. Under this Government we have started to collect such data.
Alfred Ngaro: What is the value of the achievement data that has been reported?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Tēnā koe. In the words of Andreas Schleicher, education director at the OECD: “Without data, you are just another person with an opinion.” Achievement data is extremely powerful. [Interruption] Achievement data is extremely powerful. At a school level it helps principals and teachers to target resources where they are most needed. At a system level we will be using it to continue to get resources to those schools that need it most. Public Achievement Information allows parents to see how their child and their child’s school are performing and will allow the Government to see how well the system as a whole is doing in order to raise achievement for all students. Public Achievement Information includes national standards, Ngā Whanaketanga Rumaki Māori data, Education Review Office reports, schools’ annual reports, National Certificate of Educational Achievement data, and relevant national and international reports.
Hon Trevor Mallard: I know it is really unusual for an Opposition member to do this for a Government question, but my view is it was a very good question that actually was not addressed, and I wonder whether the question could be repeated so the Minister could address it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. On this occasion the question was clear, and the answer addressed the question.
Chris Hipkins: Supplementary question.
Mr SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Metiria Turei. Oh, sorry.
Chris Hipkins: That’s new!
Mr SPEAKER: Again, I humbly withdraw and apologise and hope that I will be forgiven. Supplementary question, Chris Hipkins.
Chris Hipkins: Thank you. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I have done all I can do, and that is humbly apologise. Now, supplementary question, Chris Hipkins.
Chris Hipkins: Can she—[Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member has a right to have his question heard.
Chris Hipkins: Can she guarantee that the national standards are being applied consistently across all schools and that the same student being assessed in one school would not get a different result if assessed in a different school; if not, why not?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: The New Zealand education system runs on a high-trust model, which is based on the overall teacher judgments made by teachers. Teachers use a whole range of tools to make those assessments. They do that in every school across New Zealand. As we get better at this
process—the moderation that will be involved—the judgments will become more consistent. This is the second year of national standards data, and so there will be some variation.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question that I asked was whether she could—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member just repeat the question.
Chris Hipkins: Can she guarantee that the national standards are being applied consistently across all schools and that the same student being assessed in one school would not get a different result if assessed in a different school; if not, why not?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: No, I cannot guarantee that. In the same way, the National Certificate of Educational Achievement has taken 10 years to develop the robustness that it has, and it has been applauded by the international systems with whom we compare ourselves. That is why we are in the process of investing in skills for teachers for consistency and progress in national standards.
Chris Hipkins: What is the moderation process for national standards?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Public Achievement Information framework over the next 5 years was published on the education website last year. It sets out the approach over the next 5 years of investing in exactly that—how we can ensure that the quality of judgments made by individual teachers across the school system will become more consistent over time. In the same way that the national curriculum has taken 12 years and the National Certificate of Educational Achievement has taken 10 years, this is only the second year of national standards data reporting.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very short and simple question: what is the moderation process for national standards?
Mr SPEAKER: And I understood that the Minister has referred you to the website, and the information will be available.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is question time, when we ask questions and Ministers answer them.
Mr SPEAKER: I am aware that this is question time, Mr Hipkins.
Chris Hipkins: So can I have the answer to the question?
Mr SPEAKER: You cannot expect an answer to the satisfaction of the member. The Minister responded and adequately addressed the question by saying that the detailed information the member needs is available for the member on the website.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it acceptable for any Minister to answer any question that the Opposition puts to them by saying that the information is available on a website somewhere?
Mr SPEAKER: No, it is clearly not acceptable on all occasions, but on this occasion to expect the Minister to have the detail at her fingertips, I think, is not reasonable, and I took it from the Minister’s answer that she did not have the information to satisfy the member and therefore she referred the member to the website. So on this occasion I think it is acceptable, but I certainly accept the point that the member is making—that if on all occasions a Minister simply got up and said to refer to a website, we would not have a very functional question time.
Chris Hipkins: Does the Ministry of Education website outline a moderation process to ensure consistency in this year’s national standards results?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Overall teacher judgment is the approach to use for assessment of the national standards. “Overall” means that it takes into account the deployment of a number of tools, which are at the choice of the teachers and the schools in particular. The Public Achievement Information framework sets out the 5-year plan on how we will increasingly improve the consistency of judgment—that is, moderation within schools and between schools is set out in that plan. This is the second year. The data this year is better than last year’s. Next year’s data will be better than this year’s. This is a standard process of development of our education system, which is world-class for that reason among many others, because of the high-trust model we operate by
trusting the over 30,000 teachers across the 2,100 schools, working with the 475,000 primary school students to reach these data decisions.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In the supplementary question that I first contested with you the Minister referred me to the Ministry of Education website.
Mr SPEAKER: Correct.
Chris Hipkins: I then asked her quite a specific question about what that website information would contain, and the Minister has not addressed that. She has not answered it; she certainly has not even addressed it.
Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion Chris Hipkins raises a reasonable point. The Minister did not have a categoric answer to the first question, and told the member to refer to the website. The member then asked a simple question about whether that information would be available on the website, and I am actually none the wiser as to whether it is available. Would it help the Minister if the question was repeated?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: No. There are a range of tools used by schools, and they are described on the website. In order to achieve consistency in the judgments used by teachers in respect of students it is a process of investment over time. The specific tool that has been designed to work in this specific area is the progression and consistency tool. It has been piloted in a number of schools this year, with the intention that it will be refined and applied—
Hon Annette King: Is it on the website?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes, a description of it is on the website. It will be applied in schools, and as it is tested and found to be successful it will be used next year and the year after.
Chris Hipkins: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister has given quite a lot of information about what is going to happen in the future, but my question actually asked whether the website contained the process that was used to ensure consistency in the data this year. The Minister has talked about what is going to happen in the future, but I actually asked her about what had happened this year to ensure consistency in the data she has released today.
Mr SPEAKER: If the Minister could answer just that final point around this year, it would help the House move on. The Minister, I think, gave a very genuine attempt to answer that question quite fully for the member. But that bit of information, if it can be given, would assist, as to whether the information will be utilised this year. Am I correct?
Grant Robertson: For this year’s standards.
Hon Trevor Mallard: The moderation for this year’s standards.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am going to get the question repeated. The only aspect that still remains to be clarified is the timetable for this year.
Chris Hipkins: Does the Ministry of Education website outline the moderation process to ensure consistency in the national standards data that has been released this year?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: Yes.
Mr SPEAKER: I appreciate it.
Skycity, Convention Centre—Signing of Contract
6. METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister for Economic Development: Will the Government sign the legal contract between it and SkyCity for the SkyCity Convention Centre this week; if not, when will it sign this agreement?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Economic Development): I am advised that negotiations for the final agreement are progressing with Skycity. While they are progressing, it would not be helpful or appropriate for me to discuss the nature and progress of negotiations until such a final agreement has been finalised. The heads of agreement anticipate that a final agreement will be signed on or before 14 June 2013. However, both sides may agree to extend this to a later date and, depending on how things progress this week, we may or may not do so.
Metiria Turei: Does the Minister agree with leading constitutional lawyer Stephen Franks that signing this agreement is “arguably unlawful” and if not, why not?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I do not necessarily agree with everything in Mr Franks’ publicised opinion, although there are some things I do agree with. For example, he states that this sort of law is not unprecedented in New Zealand practice. Recent examples include the Rugby World Cup 2011 (Empowering) Act 2010 and qualified exemptions from certain provisions of the Commerce Act 1986 for Fonterra, under the Dairy Industry Restructuring Act 2001. So I think he suggested it is arguable, but then goes on to state some examples.
Metiria Turei: Did the Minister seek any specific advice on the implications of the decision of Fitzgerald v Muldoon before signing the heads of agreement; if so, what was that advice?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I did not.
Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of signing a deal to amend the Gambling Act 2003 before there is legislation before the House to do so; if so, what was that advice?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Sorry, I did not quite get that.
Mr SPEAKER: Hon Steven Joyce, do you want the question repeated?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Yes, that is right.
Mr SPEAKER: Could the member, please, repeat the question.
Metiria Turei: Has the Minister sought advice on the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act implications of signing a deal to amend the Gambling Act 2003 before there is legislation before the House to do so; if so, what was that advice?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: No, I have not, but I would point out to the member that in many examples of legislation the agreements go on to be then put before the House—for example, in an agreement. So you can take, just for example, Treaty settlements with the Treaty of Waitangi, and also international trade agreements, where agreements are signed and then put before the House for the House to consider and decide whether to endorse those agreements.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I take personal offence at the comparison of a Treaty settlement that provides for the rightful compensation to iwi and hapū with this dirty deal about gambling.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! No. It is not reasonable to take offence at that answer given by the Minister.
Metiria Turei: Could a select committee amend the concessions in the intended legislation concerning this deal, without affecting the contract and triggering a compensation requirement?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I am sorry; I did not get that.
Mr SPEAKER: Again, we are having trouble hearing. Can the member actually speak directly into her mike so that—
Metiria Turei: I will turn it round.
Mr SPEAKER: That would help, I am sure.
Metiria Turei: Could a select committee amend the concessions in the intended bill concerning this deal, without affecting the contract and triggering compensation?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The intention—and I stress again that this matter has not been brought before the House in any way yet—is that the bill that comes before the House would seek the House’s endorsement in terms of the agreement. So, obviously, no compensation would apply if a select committee and then the House subsequently rejected the terms of that agreement. That is what the House will have the opportunity to assess—whether it decides to proceed with the legislation that would give effect to the agreement.
Metiria Turei: Will Skycity be entitled to any compensation if the legislation enacting the Gambling Act concession does not pass, and is he concerned that the future of this whole deal relies on two MPs who are teetering on the edge of political oblivion?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I think that the point that the member sort of seeks to raise is: “Are we dependent on Parliament?”, and the answer is “Yes.” Governments are always dependent on Parliament in terms of passing legislation. So I do not think this is anything new. But if the Greens decided to move in favour of supporting jobs and growth in the New Zealand economy—which I know would be rare—I would welcome their support as well.
Metiria Turei: Will Skycity get compensation if his Government fails to get the numbers to pass this dirty deal?
Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I have no idea what dirty deal the member is referring to. As far as I am concerned, the member is trying to offer a characterisation that probably applies much more to Green Party policy than to National Party policy.
Metiria Turei: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have in fact asked this question twice now. At neither of those times did the Minister answer it. I was very specific in my final question: will Skycity get compensation if the legislation does not pass—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! If the member wanted that answer, she should have asked it without the political implications.
Question No. 3 to Minister
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I seek to table an OECD document that totally refutes the claim by Mr English in answer to question No. 3 that New Zealand’s growth rate is the highest in the OECD. It is just plain false.
Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table the OECD document, which I take it is not readily available to members. On that basis, I will put the leave. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is none. It will be tabled. Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.
Housing Affordability—Reports and Government Work Programme
7. JAMI-LEE ROSS (National—Botany) to the Minister of Housing: What policy conclusions, if any, does the Government draw from Priced Out – How New Zealand Lost its Housing Affordability and how consistent are its findings with those of the 2012 Productivity Commission Report on housing affordability?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister of Housing): The most important conclusion is that we must address restrictive land policies if we are to improve housing affordability. It notes that section prices have soared way ahead of building costs over the past decade, and now make up more than 60 percent of the cost of a house in Auckland. The report also notes that Auckland’s metropolitan urban limit “… favours the old and the rich, and punishes the young and the poor.” The Government is taking action on the full range of issues identified in the Productivity Commission’s report, covering the costs of building materials infrastructure, and sector productivity, as well as consenting, because there is a high level of consistency in these reports.
Jami-Lee Ross: Can the Minister cite any examples of how restrictive land supply policies are allowing very large profits to be made at the expense of homeowners?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Yes. There was a very good example reported in the New Zealand Herald, where a 29-hectare rural property at Flat Bush in Auckland was bought for $890,000 in 1995, but is still undeveloped and is now on the market for $112 million. This profit is coming at the expense of ordinary families trying to afford a home. We must tackle the restrictive and unresponsive land supply policies if we are to address the root causes of housing affordability.
Jami-Lee Ross: Have any of these substantive reports on housing affordability from the OECD, the IMF, the New Zealand Initiative, or the Productivity Commission concluded that the answer is for the State to embark on a massive housebuilding programme?
Hon Dr NICK SMITH: In fact none of these substantive reports recommend a massive State housebuilding programme. It is simply not credible to claim that you can build a three-bedroom house in Auckland for $300,000, when the section price in Auckland is now over $325,000— particularly when the advocates for this approach oppose any steps to free up the supply of land. If the answer to less expensive houses is to have the Government build them all, I suspect we will next want to lower food prices by having the Government running all the supermarkets.
Health, Minister—Statements
8. Hon ANNETTE KING (Labour—Rongotai) to the Minister of Health: Does he stand by all his statements on health; if not, why not?
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health): Yes, within the context that they were given. This Government has increased funding of health by an average of $500 million a year, but has always said that district health boards will sometimes have to slow, scale, or stop programmes to meet the changing needs of New Zealanders.
Hon Annette King: Does he stand by his statement: “Many hospitals struggle to even see patients with immediate or imminent threat to life or limb.”; if not, why is it now acceptable for 3,900 patients in one district health board alone, who were assessed as being needed to be seen within 10 minutes in an emergency department, not being seen in that time although their conditions could include serious head injuries, massive bleeding, or suspected heart attacks?
Hon TONY RYALL: The member, of course, is referring to some triage times that are measured in hospital emergency departments. What we know is that performance across district health boards within emergency departments has improved dramatically from the time when that member opposite was the Minister and people waited in the North Shore Hospital under bright fluorescent lights on trolleys for 3 days on end.
Hon Annette King: Why is it now acceptable for 25,000 patients in one district health board alone in the last year not to be seen within the best-practice benchmark of 30 minutes at the emergency department, even though they had what he called in Opposition “quite serious conditions”?
Hon TONY RYALL: I am sure that number was a lot worse under the previous Government. What I can tell the member is that the time she is quoting measures the time that people wait until they see a doctor or a senior nurse. What this Government measures in its hospital emergency department waiting-time, which was recommended by clinicians, was how long it takes until patients are treated, discharged, or returned home. We do not think it is acceptable that patients wait days on end on hospital emergency department trolleys under bright fluorescent lights, as happened when Annette King was Minister of Health.
Hon Annette King: Why did he dump the public reporting of triage times in emergency departments—something that he called in Opposition “best-practice benchmarks”, and which are still used by Australian emergency medicine—before a suitable replacement had been developed?
Hon TONY RYALL: A suitable replacement is out there. It is called the publication of the hospital emergency department waiting-time performance against the 6-hour target to be treated. I think my response to any question from Annette King on hospital emergency department waiting times involving patients is summed up in three words: North Shore Hospital, where people waited 3 days on end under bright fluorescent lights. This Government is providing more patients with faster treatment sooner.
Hon Annette King: Why do patients have to wait until 2015 before district health boards meet his new so-called gold standard of 6 weeks’ wait for an ultrasound or a magnetic resonance imaging scan, when doctors are saying that some of the current waiting-times pose a danger to patients right now?
Hon TONY RYALL: I did read some of those comments in the media last week. What I would say is that the Government is making that information available to the public; it was not previously.
It contrasts with, for example, when that member was a Minister of Health, when 1,000 patients in Christchurch were waiting more than 9 months for a magnetic imaging scan. When that member was Minister of Health, she had 500 patients in Christchurch waiting more than 1 year. When she was Minister of Health, they had patients waiting for CT scans—1,300 patients waiting more than 8 weeks. And when she was Minister of Health—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That is quite a sufficiently long answer.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a 2007 press release by Tony Ryall, claiming many hospitals—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! That press release will be freely available to members. It will still be available.
Hon Annette King: That was 2007.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, the easiest way to put it is I will put the leave. There is a 2007 press release by the Hon Tony Ryall. Is there any objection to it being tabled?
Hon Gerry Brownlee: Absolutely. I’ve got it framed on my wall!
Mr SPEAKER: There we go.
Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a report in the New Zealand Herald of 2007—
Mr SPEAKER: No, that is—[Interruption] Order! That is definitely something that members can get back if they want.
Hon Annette King: In 2007?
Mr SPEAKER: Yes, they can.
Christchurch, Recovery—Central Business District
9. NICKY WAGNER (National—Christchurch Central) to the Minister for Canterbury
Earthquake Recovery: How will the Government support the redevelopment and repopulation of the Christchurch Central Business District following the Canterbury earthquakes?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery): Yesterday with the Minister of State Services, the Hon Dr Jonathan Coleman, I confirmed that the public sector will be locating facilities in the heart of the city as an integral part of developing the Christchurch Central Recovery Plan. The Government is committed to bringing Crown agencies back into the central business district as part of the revitalisation of Christchurch. These core tenancies will provide confidence for developers and investors to undertake new building projects. The Public Service workforce will also be attractive to retailers and service providers to encourage them back into the central business district. The project builds on the ongoing work of the Christchurch Central Development Unit’s blueprint for a smart, green, productive city.
Nicky Wagner: What has been the response to the call for proposals for public sector office accommodation in the central business district?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government Property Management Centre of Expertise and the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority put out a request for proposal for the Christchurch accommodation project. In response, 24 different parties indicated they could provide office space in new or refurbished buildings in the central business district. Across 20 Government agencies, the process remains on track to select preferred suppliers in the third quarter of this year. Space is being sought for nearly 2,000 public servants. This excludes the almost 1,000 employees who will also be based in the justice centre, meaning that the city can look forward to the tenancies accommodating 3,000 civil servants.
Nicky Wagner: What are the benefits of this project for public servants?
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Public Service performed superbly throughout the Canterbury earthquakes. As Canterbury continues to recover, we will move Government agencies from temporary or patched-up facilities into modern, high-quality buildings. The project aims to provide long-term, quality office accommodation solutions for Government agencies in Christchurch. It will have a commensurate effect on private sector development as well.
Education, National Standards—Measurement of Student Achievement
10. CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) to the Minister of Education: Is she confident that the National Standards data being released today gives an accurate picture of student progress; if not, why not?
Hon HEKIA PARATA (Minister of Education): Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Yes, I am confident that the data released today provides an accurate overall representation of student achievement. This is because I trust the collective professional judgment of around 30,000 teachers working in more than 2,100 schools and teaching more than 475,000 students. In the words of Philip Harding, president of the New Zealand Principals Federation: “Value your teachers, trust your teachers, and let them do the work.”
Chris Hipkins: Did the Ministry of Education alter the results of this year’s individual term 1 student writing assessments without telling the schools and teachers of the change; if so, what was the effect of that change?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.
Chris Hipkins: Was the assessment data in the e-asTTle tool for this year’s term 1 writing assessment adjusted by the Ministry of Education?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: No.
Chris Hipkins: Has the Ministry of Education informed schools that it has adjusted or scaled the results of term 1 student writing assessments this year?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: The Ministry of Education has advised that the e-asTTle tool has been refreshed—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: What does “refreshed” mean?
Hon HEKIA PARATA: —in line with the concerns raised by teachers themselves. It is a normreferenced tool, the norm changes over time, and in response to the concerns that was it was not completely referenced to the curriculum levels, the ministry took action together with the sector.
Question No. 11 to Minister
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First): I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek to table section 7 of the Intelligence and Security Committee Act 1996, which totally rebuts the Prime Minister’s statement that—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! We do not table bits of legislation in this Parliament.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, he has not read it.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The member will ask his question.
Government Communications Security Bureau—Investigation into Review of Compliance
Leak
11. Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) to the Prime Minister: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister): There I was thinking he was going to table the emails. No, I did not speak with Mr Henry during the proceedings of the inquiry.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I know he wants to see them.
Mr SPEAKER: Is the member asking a supplementary question?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My point of order is very clear. Could he possibly just answer the question rather than act like a giggly schoolboy?
Mr SPEAKER: That is a very acceptable point of order. Would the Prime Minister please address the question.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Why didn’t you do something about it without being called to account?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not speak—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry to interrupt. Would the member the Hon Clayton Cosgrove stand, withdraw, and apologise.
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I withdraw and apologise.
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Sorry. For the third time, I did not speak with—
Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Could you advise me, under the Standing Orders, when a Minister begins a question that is outside the Standing Orders is it incumbent upon the questioner or another member to raise that breach, or is it incumbent upon you to act in your own right to call the Minister to order.
Mr SPEAKER: That depends on the circumstances. In this case, because we now have such a disjunction between the question being asked and the answer, I am going to ask the Rt Hon Prime Minister to start the question again. [Interruption] I apologise again.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Many a true word said in jest.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! We will return to some normality. The Rt Hon Prime Minister— [Interruption] The Rt Hon Winston Peters has been called to ask question No. 11.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Did he discuss with David Henry the requirement for Mr Henry to see the full, unedited electronic record connected with the Kitteridge report leak; if not, why not?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: I did not speak with Mr Henry during the proceedings of the inquiry.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If that is the case, why was Mr Henry able to say that in respect of this inquiry he was acting with “the support of the Prime Minister”?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because we set the terms of inquiry.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: When the Prime Minister set up this inquiry, did he intend for it to get to the whole truth?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: That was certainly my aim, and I think what the inquiry has demonstrated is that a Minister has paid a very high price by resigning from his portfolio.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question was very clear. It asked the Prime Minister whether, when he set the inquiry up, he intended to get to the whole truth, not the ramifications of what—
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The Prime Minister very adequately addressed the question. Does the member have further supplementary questions?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I most certainly do, yes.
Mr SPEAKER: Well, the member can ask them.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: What was the Prime Minister’s response to Mr Henry when Mr Henry informed him—as he surely did, either in person or by that report—that Mr Dunne would not cooperate in releasing all of his electronic records?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: For the purposes of clarification, at no stage have I had a discussion with Mr Henry. I have seen his report, as the member noted. Clearly, I wanted to ensure that all people who were subject to the inquiry engaged fully, and that was why my chief of staff sent out an email to senior private secretaries, ensuring that they and other people around them complied with the inquiry. That is why Mr Kibblewhite sent a report to everybody who was subject to the inquiry instructing them to comply.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Mr Henry felt confident that he would have had the appropriate powers from the State Services Commissioner, why did he not give Mr Henry the appropriate powers, as the Prime Minister?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Could the member repeat the question?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: If Mr Henry, an investigator appointed by the Prime Minister, refers specifically on page 2, at point 7, to the confidence that he had the appropriate powers, if he had wanted them, from the State Services Commissioner, why did the Prime Minister—because he was dealing with Ministers—not give this investigator the appropriate powers to get to the full truth?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Because the Minister, firstly, was a support party Minister, but it would be the same, actually, probably, for any Minister. It is not my practice to go through their emails any
more than it would be my practice to go through the emails of a journalist like Andrea Vance. What I do expect them to do, though, is comply with the inquiry, and that was why the instruction to comply was made quite clear. If a Minister did not comply, then that speaks for itself. But, in reality, Mr Peters does not need this. Mr Peters has the emails—so he tells us. He can just read them out.
Hon Dr Nick Smith: He’s bluffing.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister—oh, it is going so good now, is it not?
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Can the member just ask the supplementary question.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Well, you know, “Nancy” over there said I was bluffing.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! Would the member please ask his question. I would be grateful if there were not the interjections coming from the right-hand side of the House.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Supplementary question—
Hon Member: The emails are in the wine box.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Yes. Why did the Prime Minister not give Mr Henry—[Interruption] Mr Speaker, I cannot actually ask this question with all this hysterical laughing down the back, nervous as it is.
Mr SPEAKER: I think that Mr Peters and I would both appreciate it if there were less interjection coming from the right-hand side of the House so that we can have this supplementary question asked.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why did the Prime Minister not give Mr Henry the power to access all of Mr Dunne’s electronic records when it became necessary for Mr Henry to access those records to get to the truth, knowing, as he did, that it was the records that the inquirer needed, not publication after he had got the information?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Quite simply, because Mr Henry did not ask for more powers. So at the end of the day I think everyone can see for themselves that if a Minister fails to comply with an inquiry, then that has serious ramifications. It has had serious ramifications—
Grant Robertson: Well, we still don’t know who leaked, do we, John?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, Mr Peters knows, because he has got all the emails, remember? And he can read them.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Why are you allowing the Prime Minister to behave like that? [Interruption]
Mr SPEAKER: Order! It is meant to be a point of order and, therefore, it will be heard in silence, but I do not yet know what the point of order is.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: To constantly demand of a member of Parliament that he fulfil the duties that the Prime Minister is responsible for. It is not within the Standing Orders.
Mr SPEAKER: Order! The question for me to ascertain is whether the question asked by the member, the Rt Hon Winston Peters, was adequately addressed, and I believe it was. The member may have further supplementary questions. Has he?
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Why is the Prime Minister standing in this House and saying that he is falling short of finding out the truth, the whole truth, which he said at the start he wanted when he set the inquiry up, or is it that he is just embarrassed by what is in all five sets of electronic records and it points out his incompetence?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Firstly, the inquiry was set up in such a way for expediency, to make sure that it was quick and that we could get a result. We actually know that where an inquiry has gone to positions of oath, for instance, and the likes, it has taken a long time. It is before the courts and, actually, the Opposition has criticised it, remember? So, basically, this was a document that was not distributed to that many people—about 30-odd, in total. My view was that Mr Henry had wideranging powers. In fact, a Minister has resigned because he has failed to comply with those, so—
Grant Robertson: So did he leak the report, did he? Did he leak the report?
Rt Hon JOHN KEY: Well, he has failed to comply, and that, as I have said publicly on many times, says something about Mr Dunne. But in the end it is for him to comply.
Customs Service—Passenger Processing and Border Agency Efficiency
12. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Customs: What information has he received regarding the success of automated passenger processing systems at the border?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Minister of Customs): SmartGate has gone from strength to strength since it was—
Hon Member: More good news.
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: —yes, more good news for the House—first introduced about 4 years ago, when we were processing only about 40 percent of all eligible passengers. Last week we had a milestone and SmartGate is now processing 70 percent of all eligible arrivals into the country. By the end of this month we are expected to process 6 million passengers through the automated processing. It is delivering on the Government’s commitment to making it easier and faster for travellers at the border to use modern technology.
John Hayes: What is being done to further enhance border processing?
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON: Yesterday we began trialling at Auckland Airport a new technology called SmartGate Plus. I know the Opposition does not like this because it never had a technology project that worked, but let me tell the Opposition about it. SmartGate Plus cuts out the middle man, which is the kiosk, and now you can walk up to the gate, put your passport on the glass screen, and the door lets you through. The average processing time is now 9 seconds—9 seconds. The hundreds of people who used the trial machine yesterday at Auckland Airport had nothing but good things to say about it.
ENDS
Content Sourced from scoop.co.nz
Original url
