Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:669;Page:16441] 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Growth 
1. 
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What progress has the Government made this year in laying the foundations for a more ambitious and faster-growing economy? 
 BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 We have made very considerable progress particularly since ambitious growth for this economy is certainly going to take some time in light of the global financial crisis. Over the last 12 months we have introduced the biggest tax reform in 25 years improved public services by freeing up about $4 billion for front-line services by reducing back-office services and ineffective programmes invested billions of dollars on roads begun the roll-out of ultra-fast broadband and a large home insulation package started New Zealand’s first public-private partnerships focused on improving education and skills with the introduction of national standards and brought about the amalgamation of eight councils in Auckland into one council very successfully. 
Amy Adams 
: What impact has the Government had on New Zealand’s national savings? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Over the last 2 years private savings have lifted but Government savings have fallen. The net effect is that national savings have lifted substantially as witnessed by the improvement in the balance of payments. Looking ahead over the next 3 years the external deficit is likely to increase as the economy improves but it is expected to be at about half or less of the level that it was at in the 5 years prior to 2008. The Government will continue to look for opportunities to reduce its deficits and therefore make more of a positive contribution to national savings. 
Amy Adams 
: What are the main challenges that the Government faces in 2011 and beyond? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There are of course many challenges but the Government has picked out a few that it thinks are pretty important. More than 170000 long-term beneficiaries have been on benefits for 5 years or more large numbers of people lack adequate housing and find themselves sitting on waiting lists and thousands of young New Zealanders leave school every year without proper qualifications. And that is after 9 years of a Labour Government that said it would fix all that but instead damaged the economy and made a lot of our social outcomes worse than they had been. 
Amy Adams 
: What can the country expect from the Government in 2011 and beyond? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It can expect the same excellent leadership that it has had from the Prime Minister as well as continued sharp thinking and innovation on how to lift our economic growth rates. The Government will be sticking to its six core areas of economic policy: delivering world-class infrastructure better public services improved regulation better skills and innovation and a growth-friendly tax system. Alongside that it will be confronting the challenge of lifting our national savings rate so that we can reduce our debt to overseas lenders. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the public also expect in the next year for him to repay the half a million dollars that he got from pretending to live in Dipton? 
Hon Member 
: No responsibility. No accountability. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to both sides of the House. I was pondering the question that was asked because there are questions around the extent of responsibility. But perhaps I should not be ruling the question out. I am sure the Minister is perfectly capable of handling it. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows all those matters including certification by his colleague Margaret Wilson of my living circumstances were dealt with by the Auditor-General. 
Recession—Prime Minister’s Statements 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that by early 2010 New Zealand will be coming out of the recession “reasonably aggressively”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I stand by my full quote from March 2009 which is the same one I used yesterday. I enjoy saying it every day that I get the opportunity to: “I think by the end of 2009 early 2010 this time next year we’ll be starting to come out of that and I think actually starting to come out of it reasonably aggressively I’m more optimistic about 2011 than 2010 but nevertheless I think 2010 will be positive.” As I said yesterday those statements have proved to be absolutely entirely 100 percent correct. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What responsibility does the Prime Minister take for an economy that has stalled for revenue and employment that have not grown by the predictions that were set 6 months ago and for a deficit that has ballooned out of control because of his tax switch which as Fran O’Sullivan said was a fizzer? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If it is a fizzer the member should reverse it. 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is right. The only thing the member has decided he will not do any more is the bus. We will not see him on the bus. I will talk about the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update for a moment and pick up on the Leader of the Opposition’s assertion that growth has not been strong. The growth forecast to 2011 is 2.5 percent. What was it in 2009? It was 1.9 percent. What was it when the Government inherited it? It was minus 3.2 percent. What was it a year earlier? It was 2.1 percent. What was it a year before that? It was 1.7 percent. What was it another year earlier than that? It was 2.4 percent. In other words we have to go all the way back to 2004 to get growth like we have had this year. Is it spectacular? No but we are in the middle of a global financial crisis. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition has any comments he should make. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If everything is as rosy as the Prime Minister would have us believe how does he account for the Auckland chamber of commerce survey yesterday of 1000 firms that showed business confidence at the lowest level in a decade? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: It reflects the fact that the international situation is difficult. People find that— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Take responsibility. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I always take polls with a grain of salt. The Leader of the Opposition probably should as well. 
Chris Tremain 
: How much is the Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update deficit track an improvement on previous forecasts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is a good question. The Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update deficit track shows the Government’s Budget coming back into surplus in 2015-16. That compares with the 2008 Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Update forecast in which Treasury was expecting a decade of deficits. Members will recall headlines such as this one: “Treasury books ‘sea of red …”. Two months later the updated forecasts were even worse showing never-ending deficits and debt. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: 2 long years. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am amazed that the member has made it past question No. 1; it is a miracle for Trevor. The long and short of it is that the deficit is coming under control. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did the Prime Minister say 6 months ago that the deficit then was as high as it should be allowed to go as reported in the paper this morning and what excuses does he have for the fact that that deficit is now billions of dollars higher than he said it should be 6 months ago? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Six months ago I did not predict that there would be an earthquake in Canterbury. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the Hon Rodney Hide—[ 
Interruption 
] Members are having a reasonably boisterous day because it is the last day of term as one might say. But there is a limit to how boisterous it should be. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Does it concern him— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Let Roger ask the question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Sorry? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Would the member please take no notice of other members and ask his question. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Is that an order? Does it concern the Prime Minister that the Labour leader Phil Goff is so bereft of ideas that he is reduced to asking the same question day after day? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. First of all the question is overall out of order. Secondly the Prime Minister has no responsibility for that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can ask for opinions but the dilemma with this particular question is that it made an assertion that was unreasonable and unfair I think. I have no problem with members asking questions to seek opinions but I think the question was somewhat unfair. I invite the member to reword the question to try to bring it more within the Standing Orders. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Has any consideration been given by the Government to providing the Opposition with more resources given that the Labour Party is so bereft of ideas that day after day it asks the Prime Minister the same question? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes there has been consideration but one thing I have found with the Leader of the Opposition is that repetition helps him. If he just goes to bed at night saying: “Cunliffe Cunliffe Cunliffe” he will eventually get it right. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the National backbenchers on this occasion that a bit of fun is OK but please—I have called the honourable Leader of the Opposition. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House yesterday that his tax cuts for the wealthy had no effect on borrowing or on the deficit when Treasury reported yesterday that they had in fact trebled the deficit to over $3 billion? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The Leader of the Opposition is completely off-beam there. If one has a look at the April 2009 tax cuts and the 1 October tax cuts and adds them up over the 4-year forecast period one will see that there is a net surplus of $132 million. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has he seen any reports of alternative fiscal strategies? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. In particular I have seen a fiscal strategy that runs a little bit like this. The first part of it is to bring in less revenue by taking GST off fruit and vegetables and by not taking dividends from electricity or State-owned enterprises. However I have to say anecdotally that I asked the fruit and vegetable shopkeeper where I lived what he thought of that. He said he would rather pay three times more GST than have Labour back. That was the first thing he said. The second part of the fiscal strategy was to spend more than the Government is spending on a whole range of things which includes the Superannuation Fund and research and development. The third part is to boast that one is going to pay off debt much faster than the Government is. That makes no sense—that is Phil Goff’s plan. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister take responsibility for the fact that although Australia created 54000 new jobs last month alone his gimmicks like the cycleway and the Job Summit have created no jobs at all? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No because that is not correct. 
Sue Moroney 
: How will it help New Zealand to come out of the recession when more than 96000 New Zealand families face increased costs for early childhood education of up to $80 per week per child because of his funding cuts to early childhood education? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I refute the assertion that it is 93000 families. Secondly it is an important point for the House to note that there is not less money going into early childhood education; there is more money going into early childhood education—[ 
Interruption 
] Yes there is. Thirdly they cannot have it all ways can they? This Government has maintained entitlements and benefits to New Zealanders. It has had an impact on the deficit that Phil Goff was just moaning about but the new alternative leader of the Labour Party wants to spend more money. 
Sue Moroney 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to members that I acknowledge it is the last day of term and it is bound to be a bit noisy but I must be able to hear members. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is he aware then of recently released survey results showing that 90 percent of centres will have to increase their fees to families; and why is his Minister of Education writing to early childhood education facilities advising them that they may wish to consider a new optional charge for 20 hours’ early childhood education? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am aware that the Government is putting more money in early childhood education than any other Government ever has. The only survey I have seen recently is the one that showed Helen Clark going up in the polls and Phil Goff going down. 
Sue Moroney 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear what the member is calling. Is it a supplementary question? 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being called and it will be heard in silence. 
Sue Moroney 
: The question was very straightforward. The Prime Minister failed to address the question of survey results showing that 90 percent of early childhood education centres will have to increase their fees and neither did he comment on the views of his Minister of Education. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member looks back at the primary question she will see that it asked whether he stands by his statement of a certain date that New Zealand will be coming out of the recession reasonably aggressively. The member cannot expect the Prime Minister to have detailed information on early childhood education funding issues given the primary question. The member asked him about a survey and I think the Prime Minister answered about a survey. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an email to the Prime Minister from the Matua Plunket Kindergarten in Tauranga asking the Prime Minister’s advice on how it should deal with the funding cuts that he— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. [ 
Interruption 
] I take it a further point of order is being sought—[ 
Interruption 
] Look this is the last day but the member will not—will not—under any circumstance say that sort of interjection. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to make a point of order she should please do it or she will sit. 
Sue Moroney 
: Can I do it in silence as point of orders are supposed to be heard in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the member that she has one more chance. If she does not come to a point of order immediately she will sit down. I ask members to respect the House and have the point of order heard in silence. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the office of the Hon Anne Tolley to the Matua Plunket Kindergarten where she advises the kindergarten to increase an optional charge for early childhood education— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Schools—Reports to Parents 
3. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What feedback has she received about the quality of school reports to parents this year? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I have received a lot of positive comments about the changes to school reports this year due to this Government’s national standards. Parents are welcoming the plain language information about the progress of their children and about what they can do to help at home. They tell me that it is a huge improvement on previous years and that they have a much better understanding of how their child is doing in reading writing and maths. 
Allan Peachey 
: What feedback has the Minister received about other information schools are providing to parents with school reports? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have been informed that many schools are including information sheets like the one I am holding from the ministry with their school reports this term. This information contains helpful tips for parents to help their child’s learning over the summer break. Parents wanted better and clearer information. I am proud to say that this Government is delivering for parents and for students. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: How many communications to her has she read that have described the reports based on the template her ministry has published on her behalf as narrow and shallow? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: A couple of people have talked to me about their unwillingness to use those templates. The advice I have given them is the advice I have given in this House before—actually that is just an indication of what schools might deliver. The really important discussions those schools should be having is with the parents so that they are delivering the information parents want from those schools. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Business Recovery Package 
4. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Is he satisfied that the Canterbury earthquake business support measures undertaken by the Government have worked as intended? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 To the extent that any Government support measures could ever make up for the impact of a global recession and New Zealand’s largest natural disaster yes. But if there are some unintended consequences the member wishes to put in front of me I will certainly consider them. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is he satisfied that his package of $600000 made up of 2½ full-time employees and $100000 in cash for business promotion will have any practical effect to help businesses across the Canterbury region when local retailers have predicted as late as today that 20 percent of businesses in Kaiapoi for instance are likely to close as a direct result of the earthquake? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are two points I will make about that. First: yes I am. The money is being administered by authorities that are outside of Government—non-governmental organisations effectively—and I know that they are leveraging that sum against very kind offers from APN and from Fairfax media and that the local authorities are also contributing to it. The important thing for those businesses is to get customers so advertising the fact that they are available to provide services is a very important factor. In the case of Kaiapoi it is estimated that about 80 percent of the space north of the river is likely to be demolished. There is not much a Government can do about that. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree with his colleague Nicky Wagner who said in an email to Canterbury business person Roger Thomas on 8 December 2010: “Businesses that are struggling need to have a good look at themselves to identify whether it is just the earthquake or whether they are at a stage that they need to do more work on their business model and the earthquake has just brought it to a head earlier than it would normally.” or does he think that those comments are out of touch and rather insulting to business owners struggling in the aftermath of the biggest earthquake in New Zealand’s history? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister is not responsible for what Nicky Wagner might say but the Minister is capable of handling his responsibility. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I can sympathise with the member’s concern about businesses that are struggling. He is asking me to comment about that particular exchange without knowing the full exchange. I know the gentleman concerned Roger Thomas. He is a former travel agent—he may still be in that business. There are a number of businesses that are thriving at the present time and there are many that are in some difficulty. I say to the member that no business can ever afford to be static at any time so reconsideration of a business model is something all businesses regularly do. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the email—also to assist the Minister who has not seen it—of Wednesday 8 December 2010 from Nicky Wagner to one Roger Thomas noting that businesses have to have a look at themselves. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Brendon Burns 
: Given that an estimated 30 percent of San Francisco businesses folded after that city’s 1979 quake has the Minister any estimate of Canterbury business closures following the 4 September quake and would 30 percent or more be acceptable to him? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I do not think that anyone could compare the two earthquakes for the simple reason that New Zealand is one of the most highly insured countries in the world. Our uptake of business interruption insurance is very high. That is not the case in San Francisco—I have made checks on that. As to what an acceptable level of business closure is there is no level that would be acceptable in its entirety. But inevitably when there is a disaster there are disastrous consequences for some people. We are trying to mitigate as much as possible against that. 
Brendon Burns 
: Does the Minister have the Prime Minister’s full support for his portfolio given that Mr Key told the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce shortly after the 4 September quake that the Government would do “whatever it took to assist the region”—a pledge that last week saw the Cabinet reject a modest $4.1 million package sought by the chamber and the Enterprise North Canterbury board to stop Canterbury businesses from bleeding jobs and closing their doors? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The final part of that question is pure supposition on the part of the member; it is unnecessary scaremongering. The Government has put up the money for the reinforcing of those suburbs to ensure that New Zealanders who own those houses—Canterbury residents—do not lose their equity. We have also ensured that there has been no delay to the Earthquake Commission making payments. I ask anyone to tell me whether the $450 million paid into Canterbury substantially for chattel damage is having a positive economic effect. I can quote the Canterbury Employers Chamber of Commerce which is saying that yes it is having a big effect. 
Climate Change Cancun Conference—Agreements 
5. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Will the Cancun agreements achieve the agreed goal of confining global warming to 2 degrees Celsius; if so how? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
on behalf of the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: The Cancun agreements set a goal for long-term temperature stabilisation confining global warming below 2 degrees Celsius. As a result of the Cancun agreements for the first time we now have actions to reduce emissions by all major emitters brought under the UN system. Without that breakthrough any climate deal would be ineffective. So the Cancun agreements have the UN’s climate negotiations back on track. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Accepting that the Cancun agreements are obviously long term in nature does he none the less agree with the independent analysis done by scientists at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research that the emission reductions agreed to at Cancun will probably result in global warming of 3.2 degrees Celsius? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not actually seen that analysis which the member may be surprised to know. But there are all sorts of estimates by scientists of large increases in sea levels large increases in temperatures and small drops in temperature. We know that the agreements made at Cancun do involve all major emitters and that is a necessary pre-condition for any progress at all. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: In the knowledge that there is a range of scientific opinion but that none the less there is a balance of opinion that warming will go beyond 2 degrees and maybe to 3.2 degrees is he aware and is he concerned that warming of 3.2 degrees will result in a high probability of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melting and therefore at least a 7-metre rise in sea levels as the centuries go by? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree there are all sorts of doomsday scenarios around climate change. Some of them are credible; some are not so credible. The Cancun process represents a credible attempt by countries that are by and large badly affected by the global financial crisis and therefore pretty aware of the costs of any policy to their populations to do their best to get some common agreement that may allow for reduction in pollution with some effect on global warming. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given that the majority of people around the world do not regard the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research as a group of doomsday-sayers and given that the Cancun agreement as it stands will not avert such warming will the Government push for a binding commitment to greater emission reductions than is currently the case? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the Government has its own targets that it has set. It has taken part in a very complex multilateral process and I know that the member is well aware of that. I think that everyone has learnt from the excessive optimism of the Copenhagen conference that progress by this means is bound to be slow and I would have to say much less spectacular than the member’s party would wish for. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Indeed I thank the Minister for reminding us about the national targets but is it responsible for his Government in terms of his national targets to offer only a 10 to 20 percent reduction in national emissions by 2020 when the evidence shows that the developed nations need to make 25 to 40 percent cuts in emissions to achieve the agreed 2-degree warming target that he acknowledges? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is possible depending on how we measure the target of one country against that of another that on equivalence of effort the New Zealand target is a bigger ask than the targets of a number of other developed countries. As the member knows unless everyone heads in the same direction together the policies that will fulfil those targets will simply shift carbon emissions to countries that are making less of an effort. If going forward together means going more slowly it still will probably make more progress than New Zealand striking out boldly on its own only to see carbon emissions increase in other countries and with no effect on improving global climate. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Does he think it is going ahead boldly together for New Zealand to propose at Cancun a reference level of emissions from forestry that would result possibly in an increase in our total national emissions by 45 percent during the second commitment period; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: New Zealand has taken a responsible negotiating position including on forestry. It reflects what we believe is the right balance of our own economic interests and the global interest in managing climate change. This process has a long way to go but we make no apology for taking a balanced position reflecting our economic interests. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Given that the UN General Assembly agreed 22 years ago in Resolution 43/53 that “climate change affects humanity as a whole and should be confronted within a global framework so as to take into account the vital interests of all mankind.” is it not time that we actually did something? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I think it might reflect the limits of United Nations - driven idealism which I know is at the heart of the Green Party’s view of the world. But we have often found that United Nations statements do not translate into reality very well. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is United Nations General Assembly Resolution 43/53 of 1988. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: The second document is a briefing paper dated 11 December and published jointly by Climate Analytics the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and Ecofys which points out the likely probability of the degrees of global warming and which the Minister said he had not seen. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? Yes there is objection. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Given the slow progress internationally shown at Cancun and given the global financial crisis will the Government agree to the ACT Party’s request to put on hold the doubling of fuel and electricity price increases and the inclusion of agriculture in the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Question No. 4 to Minister 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
: 
 I neglected to seek leave to table another email. This one is from Roger Thomas in response to Nicky Wagner’s email. It is dated 8 December 2010 and says: “You must be pleased you are a list member of Parliament as I struggle to see how you could ever be elected”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is interesting here is that the member has used the point of order process to seek leave to table a document to read out an email. I guess it is possible to do that but it is hardly in the spirit of the process of seeking leave to table a document. However leave is sought to table a document that would not otherwise be available. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Medicines—Access 
6. 
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on improved access to medicines? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 Pharmac has released its annual review for 2009-10— 
Hon Member 
: Get your pyjamas off. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: It is quite smart actually. Pharmac has released its annual review for 2009-10 which shows that spending on subsidised medicines has risen from $653 million to $694 million. That is an increase of over $40 million on the previous year. This increase has allowed 20 new medicines to be funded and access has been widened for 25 others. It is the largest number of investments in medicines since 1999. This means that not only are more people being treated but also we have prevented many illnesses from getting worse. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: How many people have benefited from more access to existing and new medicines? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The total $60 million boost to medicines since the change of Government has meant that a quarter of a million more Kiwis are now receiving subsidised medicines that they could not have got 2 years ago. In total 3.2 million New Zealanders received subsidised medicines in the 2009-10 year—the highest number ever. This is yet another example of increased spending in health by the National-led Government delivering more front-line services for New Zealand patients. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he consider that access to one’s husband wife family or friends is also important to overall health outcomes; if so why did he do nothing to stop the closure of the Taihape hospital which caused all the residents to have to move some up to 2 hours away from their family? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to answer the question in so far as it relates to the primary question if he has the information. The primary question asked about what reports he had received on improved access to medicines. The supplementary question did not ask anything about that at all. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether he considered that access to family members was also important to health outcomes—that is in addition to the improved access to medicines that the Minister referred to in answering the primary question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In so far as that part of the question has a linkage I invite the Hon Tony Ryall to answer it. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I can say that the people of Taihape are receiving a significant number of community services and it was a very unfortunate situation when the company that was running the services put itself into liquidation. But we moved swiftly to ensure that we could maintain and improve the other services that could be provided there. The good news for the people of Taihape is that many of them are benefiting from the extra $60 million that this Government has put into medicines to improve front-line services for New Zealand patients. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What help will access to medicines be to the Campbell family who have moved their 96-year-old father and 93-year-old mother into their own home—they are getting no financial support from the Government—solely so that their father and mother could stay in the district they love? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am sure that if they were in touch with the Whanganui District Health Board we would be making sure that they got the entitlements they were allowed which I have to say would probably do more for that family than that member’s repeated questions. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does he stand by his statement of 19 March last year that access to cancer treatment must be delivered quickly or district health board chairs will be sacked; if so has he reviewed the position of Dr Virginia Hope given that adults in the Capital and Coast District Health Board region are now facing waiting times for chemotherapy treatment of over 8 weeks? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Dr Virginia Hope has been there for about a week. Her appointee Sir John Anderson was chairman in the previous period. 
Pike River Mine Tragedy—Prime Minister’s Statements 
7. 
Hon DAMIEN O’CONNOR (Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “It’s clearly been a large sum of money. But at the end of the day I gave a commitment to the families at Pike River I’d do everything I could to get their men out I stand by that. I think the Government has done everything it can do so far”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. We are doing everything we can and we will continue to within the constraints of safety. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Is the Government doing everything it can to support the families affected by the Pike River disaster economically? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I believe so. The families who have lost a loved one will of course be eligible for accident compensation. That is a substantial payment to those families. It will not do anything to bring back their loved ones but at least it will give them the comfort and support of knowing that money will be coming into their families. Work is going on to try to help that community. In respect of the other families who are left behind obviously the company has gone into receivership. I understand that the Mayor of Grey District met with the Minister for Economic Development this morning. The last comment I would make is that New Zealanders will be aware that they have given very generously on both a corporate level and a personal level to a fund for the families of the Pike River miners. Obviously I would encourage disbursements to be made from that fund as soon as possible. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What level of support can the Pike River families and the Grey District expect from his Government’s economic recovery package given the precedent set by his $1.5 billion bail-out of family investors in South Canterbury Finance and the $33 million support for Warner Bros films? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I think it is important to understand that the $1.5 billion was to honour a commitment made by the previous Labour Government which he was a Minister of—that is an important point. Secondly in terms of the $33 million for Warner Bros that was to secure 3000 jobs that the Council of Trade Unions and the Labour Party wanted to see leave New Zealand. [ 
Interruption 
] I am surprised that the Labour members are a bunch of  
Hobbit  
haters but obviously they are. Thirdly we will be working with those families. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I want to hear the Hon Damien O’Connor. [ 
Interruption 
] I want to hear the Hon Damien O’Connor. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Why is the economic recovery package for the Grey District not being announced until January next year when people who have lost their jobs or been affected by the Pike River disaster need certainty before Christmas? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: My understanding is that all of the employees of Pike River Coal will be paid right through to Christmas and that is because they are getting redundancy payments. I do not think that the challenging issue is necessarily that point; it is about future employment from there. The good news as the member will be aware is that the unemployment rate on the West Coast is lower than in other parts of New Zealand; it is about 4.5 percent. The second thing is that I have had advice that the economic implication of the Pike River mine is about $12 million out of about a $600-million economy there so although it obviously has a significant impact on Greymouth there is a lot of activity going on on the West Coast that will help to provide employment opportunities. 
Prisoners Employment Training—Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy 
8. 
Dr CAM CALDER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Has she received any progress reports on the Government’s Prisoner Skills and Employment Strategy? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 Over the past year there has been a significant increase in the number of New Zealand Qualifications Authority qualifications achieved by prisoners. In the last financial year 495 New Zealand Qualifications Authority national certificates were achieved by prisoners. This compares with 275 in the previous year and represents an increase of 80 percent. There was also a big increase in the number of level 3 and level 4 qualifications achieved during the year. The qualifications cover building construction horticulture mechanical engineering and crane operation. These are real qualifications that will help prisoners to find jobs when they are released which means they are less likely to reoffend and end up back in prison. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What progress has been made towards increasing numeracy and literacy education for prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: The number of prisoners undertaking literacy and numeracy education has increased by 15 percent over the last financial year. The number has grown from 1300 in the 2008-09 year to 1496 in the past year. The department has been able to do this by providing literacy and numeracy tuition as part of prisoner employment training. Last month a further 14 employment instructors gained adult education qualifications which will enable them to provide that tuition. This Government is determined to increase the number of prisoners who can read write and do maths as this will help offenders to get their lives back on track when they leave jail. 
Economic Development Minister—Cabinet Papers Submitted Since July 2010 
9. 
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Economic Development 
: How many additional Cabinet papers has he submitted to Cabinet since he told the House in July “In my capacity as Minster for Economic Development I have submitted 14 papers to Cabinet in the last 6 months”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
: 
 I have submitted 11 papers as Minister for Economic Development 18 papers as Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery and 20 papers as Minister for Energy and Resources since that time—49 in all. 
Hon David Parker 
: Do any of those papers update Cabinet on the ever-growing wage and salary gap between New Zealand and Australia given that even when using John Key’s massaged purchasing parity figures the wage gap with Australia has risen yet again to total $175 per week for each worker with the gap having widened by $37 per week since the election? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: No but I refute those numbers of course. 
Hon David Parker 
: If he refutes those figures on the basis that the Prime Minister previously used is he aware that the alternative and official measure of using the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the official New Zealand figures show that the gap has increased yet again; and will he at least promise the House that by the election next year the gap will be no higher than it was when he took office? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Answering the first part of the question—actually I cannot recall the first part of the question so the answer is no. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to restate my question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I guess that is not an unreasonable request since the Minister did not recollect. I ask the Hon David Parker to restate his question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is he aware that the official measure from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the official New Zealand figures from the quarterly employment survey show that the gap has increased yet again; and will he at least promise that by the next election the gap will be no higher than it was when he took office? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: This is a Government that does not sit around twiddling its thumbs and reading reports from other countries. We are about the business of helping this economy grow. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did any of those Cabinet papers include consideration of milestones for closing the wage gap with Australia; if not is the reason for his continued refusal to give us milestones by which his Government can be judged the same reason that his Government has stopped promising a step change in the New Zealand economy—that is that the Government is so obviously failing on both counts? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: All papers submitted to Cabinet by all Cabinet Ministers are submitted with the intention of making life better in New Zealand for New Zealanders. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library showing on the basis that the Prime Minister used earlier in the year—purchase price parity—that the wage gap has grown yet again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a second document comparing the Australian official statistics and the New Zealand quarterly employment survey which shows that the gap has grown 37.7 percent since the election. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Whose document is this one? 
Hon David Parker 
: It is prepared by the Parliamentary Library comparing Australian and New Zealand statistics. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is there any objection to that? There is objection. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to reflect on the nature of that question. I did not want to interrupt because I knew the Minister was more than capable of answering it but the nature of the question—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: The nature of the question was: “How many papers had the Minister submitted to Cabinet?”. Then the next question asked: “Did any of these papers cover the wage gap?” and then we had a whole series of supplementary questions that were actually about the wage gap which to my mind amounted to a question without notice. It seems to me Mr Speaker that you might care to reflect on whether it is appropriate that someone asks a question about the number of Cabinet papers and then proceeds to ask a whole series of supplementary questions about what was not in them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the point of order the member has raised is a perfectly fair point of order. The member will note though that the Minister’s answers to some of the questions that did not relate directly to the primary question were not very precise. The member asking the question knew better than to seek my help to get a more precise answer when the supplementary questions did not relate closely to the primary question. The Speaker has to assess all of these things on balance and there was no way I would expect the Minister necessarily to give a more comprehensive answer under those circumstances. But the point the member makes is a perfectly reasonable point. 
Rapa Nui / Easter Island Land Protests—Government Position 
10. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Maori Party—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Minister of Foreign Affairs 
: What steps has the New Zealand Government taken to denounce the shooting by Chilean forces of indigenous Rapa Nui during an operation to evict them from stolen ancestral lands that they were seeking to reclaim? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister of Foreign Affairs) 
: 
 The New Zealand Government views with concern reports of clashes between Chilean police and indigenous Polynesian residents of Rapa Nui also known as Easter Island. It is understood that the clashes occurred as the police attempted to remove indigenous protestors from buildings they occupied approximately 3 months ago. The New Zealand Government urges the parties to find a peaceful resolution to this matter and will convey that view to the parties as appropriate. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister support the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as endorsed by the Governments of both New Zealand and Chile which states that indigenous peoples have the right to not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories and what steps will he recommend the New Zealand Government take to ensure that the rights of the Maori people of Rapa Nui are properly recognised? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: With regard to the first part of the question the Government’s support for the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is well known and is a matter of public record. With regard to the second part of the member’s question the land as I understand it was occupied by protestors because they regard it as ancestral land that was unlawfully taken many years ago. The Government of Chile takes the view that it has acted to try to maintain law and order. I was delighted to see the statement of President Piñera in recent days that he hoped the land claim could be settled in a peaceful and harmonious manner through dialogue. I understand that that sentiment has been reciprocated by some of the protestors and that some progress accordingly is being made. 
Hone Harawira 
: What steps can the Minister take to support the recommendation that the Maori Affairs Committee of the New Zealand House of Representatives travel to Rapa Nui to monitor the events there as New Zealand’s way of supporting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and in particular the rights of indigenous peoples to prompt resolution of disputes with States and to effective remedies for all infringements of their rights? 
Hon MURRAY McCULLY 
: I have to confess to the member that I was not previously aware of that recommendation from the Maori Affairs Committee but the Government of course always gives the most serious consideration to representations made by the committee as it will on this occasion. 
Accident Compensation Pre-existing and/or Degenerative Conditions—Coverage 
11. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Leader—Progressive) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he have any concerns about the way ACC in general and claims general manager Denise Cosgrove in particular is interpreting ACC legislation regarding personal injury claims which are being declined on the basis of degeneration or pre-existing conditions? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Acting Minister for ACC) 
: 
 No I have no concerns about any individual Accident Compensation Corporation employees. However I have stated my concern as to the number of complaints I am receiving from members of Parliament and the public and I have given ACC very clear instructions that where elective surgery is required as a consequence of accidents it needs to fairly meet those legislative obligations. ACC has commenced an internal review of the decision-making process. This review will include consultation with key external stakeholders and is expected to conclude in March next year. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Will claims by specialist orthopaedic surgeons that ACC uses a group of retired or general surgeons to decline claims on the basis of pre-existing conditions or degeneration based on X-ray or scan results only and without ever seeing the patient be part of the ACC review process? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am not able to give that detail to the member other than to say of course that often clinical judgment is involved. We have gone from a situation where the amount of elective surgery paid for by ACC rose between 2005 and 2009 from $130 million to $240 million and clearly the accident rate did not double in that period. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Will the fact that the ACC injury claims of young New Zealanders are being eliminated on the grounds of pre-existing conditions and the claims of older New Zealanders on the grounds of degeneration and the threat this fact poses to the credibility of the accident compensation scheme itself be part of the ACC review process? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I know that part of the ACC review process will be reviewing the various trends. I am able to advise the member that 80 percent of such claims are accepted and ACC expects to fund over 37000 elective procedures this year. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Will the findings of District Court Judge Beattie that ACC is in a significant number of appeal cases quick to seize on degeneration as a reason to refuse claims his action in quashing ACC’s decision to decline and his awarding of $2500 costs against ACC be part of the internal ACC review process? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am sure a number of factors will be taken into account in the ACC review. The fact that between 2005 and 2009 the cost of elective surgery on ACC increased from $130 million to $240 million should also be taken into account; I think the member would accept that there was not a proportionate increase in accidents during that period. 
Lynne Pillay 
: Given that Denise Cosgrove was one of the people who insisted that ACC was correct when for nearly a year it turned down 90 percent of sexual abuse claims and that the Minister admitted months later that ACC had handled the issue badly will he say in several months’ time that ACC has handled surgery claims badly as well? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: That is a hypothetical question. We need to make sure a review tries to understand why in 2005 we paid about $130 million for elective surgery and 5 years later levy payers were paying $240 million for elective surgery yet the accident rate certainly had not grown by that amount. 
Fisheries Officers—Honorary Fisheries Officers 
12. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture 
: How will fisheries officers be helping to better protect New Zealand’s fisheries this summer? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture) 
: 
 This summer while most people are enjoying the Christmas break fisheries officers will be working hard to protect New Zealand fisheries. In particular I would like to acknowledge the now 200 honorary fisheries officers who complement the work of the 150 warranted fisheries officers around the country. These volunteers willingly give up many hours of their spare time to provide a valuable service in protecting our fisheries. New Zealand’s coastline is very long and one can appreciate that it is very remote so the assistance of volunteers is essential for the protection of our fisheries resources. 
Colin King 
: What steps has this Government taken to better protect our fisheries for all New Zealanders? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: This Government is committed to increasing front-line capacity. By June 2011 a record number of 225 honorary fisheries officers will be deployed across the country. Also this month the Ministry of Fisheries opened a new office in Kaikoura with seven staff. For the last two decades the Kaikoura coast has mainly been patrolled by staff travelling all the way from Christchurch Blenheim and Nelson. This new office is a significant boost to the ministry’s presence and capacity in an area where fishing activity is increasing.