Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:671;Page:17523] 
Questions to Ministers 
Tax System Changes—Effect on New Zealanders 
1. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has the tax switch which he promised would leave no one worse off fully compensated all New Zealanders for the rise in the cost of living over the last year; if not which groups are worse off? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 That was not the point of the tax switch. In most cases the tax switch more than compensated people for the increase in GST by reducing income taxes across the board and by increasing benefits Working for Families and superannuation. The truth of that can be shown by the fact that no party is campaigning on reversing the tax switch unless Mr Goff intends to adopt about his eighth position on this topic. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Are parents on average wages like Debra Bullock and Gemma Greig who each have two children in early childhood education and who respectively are paying $70 a week more and $60 a week more for their children’s early childhood education as a result of his cuts worse off? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Obviously I do not have the details of those individuals but I would say that the bulk of early childhood facilities did not need to increase their fees and the reason for that is they are not 80 percent teacher-led. Depending on where those individuals live they may choose to take their children to another early childhood facility. I might add that when the Leader of the Opposition was asked yesterday about when he would restore funding for early childhood facilities what he started talking about was in the never-never and that it was desirable not necessarily something that was going to happen. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Now that petrol prices have reached $2.18 a litre does he stand by his position that the Government should do something to help the consumer with the price of petrol taken 3 years ago when he was Leader of the Opposition? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We are doing everything we possibly can but even the member will accept that we are not responsible for what is happening in Libya or other parts of the world. What we have done is keep control of rising prices as is demonstrated by the fact that the CPI has been running at much lower levels than it did under a Labour Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If he claims that he is not responsible for petrol prices why was he demanding 3 years ago that the Government do something to bring down petrol prices when he has only added to it by putting GST on the tax that people are already paying on petrol and making them pay still more? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I have said those who are paying more for petrol because of higher GST which is correct are also those who are getting more through the tax switch. If the member wants to reverse the position then he should fire up the bus get a petrol one and really make his point. 
Chris Tremain 
: How have tax cuts compensated people for price rises in the past? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough to hand I have—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Prime Minister. A member has the right to ask a question and the House does have the right to hear an answer. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough to hand I have an example. It is that between September 1999 and September 2008 prices rose by a total of 29 percent and there were no income tax cuts whatsoever— 
Chris Tremain 
: None. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: —none. That means if Mr Goff is being consistent then he would have to admit that the Labour Government left people 29 percent worse off after its time in office. Actually the truth is that Labour left them much worse off than 29 percent but he should admit at least that bit. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he believe that middle-income families will be rationing milk for their children as he alleged 3 years ago when a litre of Home Brand milk from Foodtown was 20 percent cheaper than it is today? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: What people do in their individual homes is not something I can be responsible for. But what I can say is let us take someone on the average after-tax wage. In the last 12 months it has risen from $39518 to $42214 which is a rise of 6.8 percent in real terms. Even including the GST increase prices rose by 4 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Do I take it from the Prime Minister that he disagrees with the Salvation Army which has said that right across the country there is unprecedented demand for food parcels from people who are in work because incomes for people on low to middle incomes are rising much slower than the price of goods? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: On balance yes I do disagree with the last bit of it. I am not disagreeing that there are more people using food banks. I think that is the result of a recession that has bit pretty deeply in New Zealand. I can say that if one looks at average after-tax wage increases in the time this Government has been in office one can see it has risen 10 percent. In the entire time Labour was in office it rose 4 percent. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that of the people being referred by Work and Income for budget advice today 30 percent of them are in jobs but they are being referred because they cannot cope with the rising cost of living on everything—the highest increase in the cost of living in 20 years—under his Government? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The best measure of rising prices in the economy is Statistics New Zealand’s representation through the CPI. It rose in the last 12 months by 4 percent. That included a 2.2 percent increase for GST. So net on net it was 1.8 percent because the rest was compensated for. The last year of the Labour Government alone was 5.1 percent. So how that can be the highest in 20 years is beyond me. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is he denying Statistics New Zealand’s figures that show the cost of living has risen by the highest level in 20 years and at the same time for last year the year to June 2010 medium weekly income actually fell by 1.7 percent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member has his numbers wrong as he so often does so let us go back to the illustration of economics. Statistics New Zealand over the past 12 months has said that overall prices in the whole economy rose by an average of 4 percent. That included a 2.2 percent increase for GST which was on average a 1.8 percent increase. In the last year of Labour food prices rose 10.8 percent and prices across the economy rose 5.1 percent. If I go to Statistics New Zealand again and look at after-tax average wages they increased in the last 12 months from $39518 to $42214 which was an increase of 6.8 percent. You see the reason Labour does not want to look at the numbers is that that would tell them the truth. The truth is that yes times are tough but the Government is making quite a lot of concessions in terms of tax rates and that is helping— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table from Statistics New Zealand  
Hot Off the Press 
— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we do not table documents from Statistics New Zealand; they are available to all members. The Standing Orders— 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very very long answer with lots of assertion in it and I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition is given as much latitude— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon David Parker 
:—in his next question to make as much assertion— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. 
Hon David Parker 
:—and side comments as the Prime Minister did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should reflect on what he just said. For a start it was not a point of order. He claimed that the Prime Minister had made assertions in his answer. Answers are always—well good answers should contain some facts and that is what— 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: And the Prime Minister appeared to be quoting from a Statistics New Zealand release. There is absolutely nothing out of order about that. If he is complaining that the Prime Minister went on a little long then perhaps I think I was getting a little concerned about that. Is there a supplementary question from the honourable Leader of the Opposition? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No. 
Hon Member 
: He’s finished. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That will do. [ 
Interruption 
] That was my fault.  
Budget 2011—Effect of Inflation 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree that due to inflation no new spending in the upcoming Budget is the equivalent of a cut in real terms? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It depends on which part of the Budget—and I am not trying to be clever about it. Some services will continue to get somewhere near an inflation adjustment such as health and education. Inflation adjustments will continue to be made to income support programmes such as superannuation and benefits which are very large components of the Government’s annual Budget. There will be services that will have no increase in spending and that means they will be cut in real terms. We have a strong expectation that everyone supplying public services needs to focus on providing more services for less money and that is not a new message. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Focusing on just one of the programmes that the Minister has identified how does he intend to cut $250 million from Working for Families without affecting middle-income earners when he himself pointed out in 2008 that: “Taking higher-income families out of WFF saves very little money”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the Government has signalled over the last month or so we have been looking at whether it is possible to restrict the very broad scope of Working for Families to higher-income families. The member may well be right that savings from that are not significant. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not the case that in order to save $250 million from Working for Families a number that he has floated previously he would have to cut well into the middle-income brackets possibly removing all or some of the entitlements to families on a combined income of more than $60000? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am not sure where the $250 million figure came from. The member will just have to wait for the Budget to see what progress the Government has made. As I think I said in the House yesterday there is unlikely to be radical changes to income support programmes including to Working for Families. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Will he therefore rule out cutting Working for Families for someone on the average wage of $50000 a year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member will just have to be patient. He can be reassured that the Government is taking a very considered approach and we will continue to protect the most vulnerable and help New Zealanders through recession. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that the alternative to his Government’s spending cuts and Labour’s proposal to increase debt is actually a third option which is to introduce a small temporary levy to fairly spread the cost of earthquake recovery across a large number of New Zealanders who could afford it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the alternative and I want to compliment the Greens on taking a principled position over the levy unlike Labour members who are not quite sure where they are going on it. The Government has outlined the reasons why it does not prefer to put a levy in place. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Minister of Finance confirm that John Key promised that “there will be no changes at all to Working for Families under an incoming National government …” and does he intend to honour that promise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government will continue with the same approach it has had since it came into Government and that is to protect the income support measures that were put in place. We have in past Budgets trimmed those at the edges because we believe that we need to stop the rapid rise in the cost of those measures because that would be unsustainable. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward. I asked whether he can confirm that promise was made and whether he intends to honour it. That answer did not answer either of those questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The problem is that it might sound like there is a simple answer to the question but I think the Minister did address the question the member asked. Clearly decisions have not yet been made. He has made that very clear in his answers. Decisions have not been made on the matter and I cannot force him to be more precise when decisions have not been made. That is the dilemma I have as the Speaker. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My supplementary question asked whether he can confirm that promise was made. That decision has been made and either he can confirm it or he cannot or he does not know. Any one of those answers would have done. But no effort at all was made to address any of them. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will reflect that there were two parts to the question he asked and the Minister is obliged to address only one part of a supplementary question. The second part asked whether that alleged promise is to be kept and the Minister pointed out that decisions are yet to be made. I cannot force him to be more precise than that on a question like that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In considering his options of how to pay for the earthquake what would hurt a family with an income of $60000 a year more: permanently losing all or part of their $100 a week Working for Families payment or temporarily paying $3.50 a week in an earthquake levy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: With regard to an earthquake levy for the kinds of numbers we are talking about with the Christchurch earthquake there would have to be a pretty significant levy for quite a long time. I would not want to contest the member’s numbers but my guess is that it would be a lot higher than $3.50 a week. With regard to his issues around Working for Families the Government will make decisions based on the merits of those programmes on fairness on the amount of debt the Government has and on other spending priorities. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not true that the bill for the earthquake recovery will be passed on to New Zealanders one way or another and that the most compassionate way to pass on the cost is to spread the burden across a large number of people each paying a small amount rather than concentrating the burden on a small number of working families that are already struggling to make ends meet? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can assure the member that nothing contemplated about changing Working for Families would go anywhere near paying the earthquake bill so equating the two is simply not correct. Paying the bill will be spread across all New Zealanders in a number of forms ranging from the Earthquake Commission levy higher insurance premiums for homeowners and higher debt obligations that will have to be met by taxpayers today and in the future. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a document prepared by the Parliamentary Library that seeks to identify where Working for Families would have to be cut in order to save $250 million. 
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. 
Tax System Changes—1 April 2011 
3. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What tax changes take effect on or around 1 April? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 A number of the tax changes that were announced in the last Budget come into effect from 1 April. The company tax rate will be cut to 28c in the dollar as will the tax rate faced by unit trusts life insurance policyholders and some other savings vehicles. A number of investment property - related tax changes will occur on 1 April including removing the ability of landlords to claim depreciation on most buildings. The definition of income for social assistance like Working for Families and the community services card will be tightened to stop people manipulating their circumstances in order to claim those forms of income support and there will also be higher tax rates on foreign owners of New Zealand assets to ensure they meet what we believe should be their full obligations in New Zealand. 
David Bennett 
: How will these changes help to rebalance the economy towards savings investment and exports and how will they make the taxation system fairer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They are important measures for rebalancing our economy—for instance the higher effective tax rate on housing will reduce the probability that the New Zealand economy will repeat the housing binge that we went on in the mid-2000s which used up a lot of capital for no particular productive output. The lower company tax rate will mean we have a lower company tax rate than Australia and along with the exchange rate against Australia it will make our companies much more competitive than they have been in the past and that will help to increase our exports. 
David Bennett 
: How much will the 1 April changes cost? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Lowering the company tax rate will cost about $1.1 billion over the next 4 financial years. The reductions in tax on savings vehicles will cost about $170 million. These are more than offset by other measures which are expected to raise about $3 billion over the next 4 years. By 2013-14 the overall package of tax changes announced in the 2010 Budget will be just fiscally positive. 
David Bennett 
: Why was the tax package necessary? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The tax package was necessary because through the last decade this economy became very unbalanced when our ability to earn income actually shrank and our ability to spend grew quite significantly. There are not many levers that a Government can pull but one that it can pull is the tax lever and it is important because it has pervasive incentive effects through the economy. So the tax package was designed to increase tax rates on consumption and housing speculation and lower tax rates on savings investments and exports. 
Budget 2011—Effect of Earthquake Costs on Operating Spending 
4. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Why did he announce on 17 March 2011 that the Government would carry all the costs of earthquake reconstruction on its balance sheet with no reduction in operating spending when the Prime Minister said just 3 days later that new operating spending would be reduced to zero? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The member is not correctly describing what was said. In the speech I gave on 17 March I made it quite clear that the Government did not have the choice of cutting spending to pay for the earthquake bills because we are incurring those right now. We made it clear that we would be borrowing money to pay those bills. At the same time and because of the extra debt we would be laying out a credible path back to surplus by 2014-15 and the Prime Minister’s statements about a zero Budget reinforced the Government’s clarity about that direction. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Was he correct when he said “debt is the appropriate response” to the need to fund the rebuild of Christchurch because “It allows the burden to be borne over time just as the benefits to rebuilding Christchurch will be permanent.”; if so why is he now considering meeting the cost of the rebuild by cutting services to low and middle income earners? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well the member needs to think through what will actually happen with the Government’s books. We are taking on more debt—we have to. The Government is in the middle of spending a couple of hundred million dollars right now over this 4 to 6 week period just on income support for 56000 people in Canterbury. So we are incurring a debt. However we do need to get back to surplus and if we get back to surplus by 2014-15 we will still have a higher amount of Government debt because of the earthquake and that will be paid off over time. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Minister’s overriding objective is to balance the Government’s books without regard to the wider economy what advice has he received on the negative impact on jobs incomes and future tax revenues of a real-terms cut in expenditure in Budget 2011 and did he advise the Prime Minister of these negative effects before he announced savage Budget cuts on  
Q+A 
 on Sunday? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I wish we had the problem that the member said we had—that is that we were bringing a Budget under control too quickly. In fact this year we are looking at running a Budget deficit of 8 to 9 percent of GDP which will be the largest Budget deficit ever run by a New Zealand Government as far as I can see. If large Budget deficits were the key to economic growth we would be booming with growth of 6 or 7 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked what advice he had received and whether he advised the Prime Minister of that advice before the Prime Minister’s announcements. He did not go near to addressing those questions Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the honourable member to repeat his question. If he wants an answer then he should make sure he asks just one question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What advice has the Minister received on the negative impact on jobs income and tax revenue of a real-terms cut in Budget 2011 and did he advise the Prime Minister of that advice before he announced savage Budget cuts on  
Q+A 
? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is—[ 
Interruption 
] Does the member think I should answer it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister will answer please. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The advice I have received is that in this current financial year ending 30 June 2011 we will run the largest Budget deficit ever. The Opposition has been saying that the economy is flat because we are cutting Government spending. In fact we will have one of the largest Budget deficits ever and if the Opposition’s theory was correct the economy would be growing at 6 or 7 percent. I have advised the Prime Minister of the advice I have received. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it now the Government’s policy to let the earthquake permanently reduce New Zealand’s potential output so that a real-terms cut in Budget 2011 is needed to reduce aggregate demand to match that reduced output? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Reopening of Schools and Early Childhood Education Centres 
5. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What progress has been made reopening schools and early childhood education centres in Christchurch following the 22 February earthquake? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce that as of today other than two special schools and two private schools whose students have been accommodated elsewhere all schools in Christchurch are now open. This means that every student in Christchurch has a school to go to. In addition to that 74 percent of early childhood centres are now open. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What is the latest information on the number of schoolchildren who have returned to Christchurch? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: It is pleasing that as of lunchtime today more than 1600 students—actually 1643 students—have returned to Christchurch. It was interesting to talk to students yesterday who were returning to Christchurch from Auckland. They were telling me how awesome it was that their school was now open and they could get back to some sort of normality. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What support is being provided for early childhood education centres to help them open again? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: We have extended the emergency funding to help provide some financial stability for early childhood education centres whose children have temporarily moved away or who are being kept at home by their parents. In addition we have relocated 25 services into temporary accommodation. We are also providing traumatic support and counselling. We are supplying Portaloos where necessary and other logistical support and resources that centres might require. 
Sue Moroney 
: How many of the children returning to the early childhood education centres that have opened still face increased fees as a result of her budget cuts? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: If that member cares to talk to the providers of early childhood services she will find that they are very grateful that this Government has extended the full emergency funding to them. In addition we are funding places for children who have enrolled in other centres throughout New Zealand. Many providers are trying just to keep their businesses together. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a straightforward question. The Minister did not address the question at all. I asked about the number of children returning to early childhood education facilities in Christchurch where fees had been increased and she made no reference to that in her answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will invite the member to repeat her question so that everyone can— 
Hon Member 
: There’s supposition in there. You can’t— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Questions can be hypothetical. In fact the member just asked a simple question—as the member pointed out—as to how many of these children are facing higher fees. The question is capable of an answer and there was not much of an attempt to answer it. I ask the member to repeat the question. 
Sue Moroney 
: How many of the parents of the children returning to early childhood education facilities in Christchurch face higher fees? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that the parents of those children who are returning to newly opened early childhood services are so pleased to have those services open and available to them I can honestly say none of them have tried to play politics. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of asking questions to Ministers in the House is to hold them accountable. If the Minister will not address the question asked we have no accountability and this question time becomes a farce. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have some sympathy with the point of order the member has made. What compounded the Minister’s error in my view was adding the implication that the member asking the question was playing politics. Members are entitled to ask questions. My concern about the question is that it is a wee way away from the primary question and it may be that the Minister does not have that information with her today. But the Minister in answering questions—and there have been three of them; four counting the primary question—did mention children returning to their early childhood education centres. The question is a fair one. Answers have included information about children returning to early childhood education centres and to allege that the member is playing politics in asking a fair question is not on. I invite the Minister to answer the question. The member does not need to repeat it because we all heard it. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I have no responsibility for any fees that any business may charge parents. 
Grant Robertson 
: Yes you do. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No I do not. What I have said as Minister of Education is that I have made sure the emergency funding that the Government pays to those services has continued now for 5 weeks. Whatever those businesses might care to charge or not charge parents has been nothing to do with this Government. However no parent has tried in any way to play politics about this Government’s policies. 
Sue Moroney 
: Is the Minister prepared to consider restoring the funding cuts to the Christchurch early childhood education centres which led to the higher fee increases in order to assist those families who are struggling? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There is no evidence of any higher fee increases in Christchurch and the answer is no. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. How has the formalised education relationship between the Ministry of Education and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu assisted in the post-earthquake responses to early childhood centres schools and kura? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Because of those relationships with Ngai Tahu it has been very easy to make contact with them to offer support. At this stage none has been requested but they are aware that the ministry is there and able to provide any of the services that I listed before should they require them and indeed if they require temporary premises. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Demolition of Buildings 
6. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Civil Defence 
: To date how many buildings have been demolished in Canterbury without notifications to the building or business owners? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 Since the state of national emergency was declared on 23 February I am advised by the national controller he has authorised 139 buildings in Christchurch for deconstruction or demolition to ensure immediate safety. Of those 139 buildings 17 were authorised without contact being made with the building owner although thorough efforts were made to make such contact. Of the 17 it is worthwhile noting that 12 of them were authorised before 8 March when the search for survivors and body recovery were the primary focus. It is important to note that building owners only are notified of pending demolitions because the information that the national controller has from the city council comes off ratepayer data. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What steps if any were taken to ensure that building or business owners were able to retrieve valuables personal effects records or other items before the buildings were demolished? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: We on this side of the House are mindful of people’s safety. Indeed in the initial instance our focus was on rescue and then of course on recovery. At that stage those were our primary objectives and goods etc. were not in consideration at that time. Now we are conscious of the fact that where possible business owners should be able to retrieve their goods and we are ensuring that that can happen as speedily as possible without any risk to anybody. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What legislative authority has been relied upon to undertake the demolitions referred to in the primary question? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: The Civil Defence Emergency Management Act. 
John Hayes 
: What reports has he seen regarding the unauthorised demolition of commercial buildings in Christchurch? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: I have seen a number of reports where building and business owners have publicly discussed building demolitions. It is important to note that the national controller advises me that since the state of national emergency was declared on 23 February there have been no unauthorised demolitions of buildings within the cordon. I was particularly concerned to see articles quoting Christchurch property owner Anthony Gough in the  
Press 
 on 17 March and in the  
New Zealand Herald  
on 20 March saying that one of his Hereford Street buildings was demolished without his permission. It is clear that Mr Gough was notified early on that the building was severely damaged in partial collapse and threatening neighbouring buildings. It was inspected by two separate engineers who recommended demolition. Mr Gough was contacted and accepted the recommendation that the building be demolished. At the end of these questions I intend to seek leave to table those papers. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister seen reports that businesses are likely to be given access to the cordoned zone from late this week and are those reports correct? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Yes that is correct. We are endeavouring to do our very best to ensure that business owners can have access to their business. We think it is important that that takes place as rapidly as we can allow it. I should say to the House that the 22 February earthquake was hopefully a once-in-a-lifetime event and that it is true that we need to ensure that we have a systematic and safe system for people to retrieve their goods. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has he seen reports that one building owner found out about the demolition of her building while she was watching a video playing at the earthquake memorial service; if so is that good enough; if it is not what further action will be taken to prevent or minimise demolitions without notice? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: As I said earlier the devastating earthquake on 22 February is hopefully a once-in-a-lifetime event. There are issues that we need to deal with and this is one of them. In the case of that particular person I have seen those reports. I am prepared to concede and this may come as a surprise to some of my colleagues—indeed all of them possibly—that I am not actually totally perfect and that there are things we are learning as we make progress on this issue. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Passage 
7. 
HONE HARAWIRA (Independent—Te Tai Tokerau) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Is he satisfied that he has the support required for the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill to pass into law? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 The bill has passed through all stages up to and including the Committee of the whole House last night. Ultimately whether the bill passes its third reading is up to the will of Parliament. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does he accept that the withdrawal of support from 95 percent of the Iwi Leaders Group the fact that only 1 percent of the submissions from Maori organisations actually supported the bill and the unmistakable message from the hikoi opposing the bill confirm the fact that Maori support for it is minimal and that by pushing ahead with it he may actually be jeopardising the future of National’s coalition partner the Maori Party? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: With the greatest of respect to the member I think he may be misrepresenting the level of support within Maoridom. Just today I have received a couple of messages from the iwi leaders telling me they support the legislation and they also support the Maori Party’s very principled position on the legislation. 
Hone Harawira 
: Does the Minister agree that if he were to change the name of the bill to the “Taku Tahae Moana Bill” or “My Stolen Seabed Bill” he might find that instead of 90 percent of Maoridom opposing this bill he might get 100 percent agreeing with the title at least? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No I do not think that changing the name of the bill would do anything. This is a good bill. Most parties in this Parliament are agreed on the key aspects of it. Where the parties disagree is on the issue of codification of tests and whether one can negotiate agreements and that is where it stays. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: What concrete evidence can he show the House that the bill has “wide support” from the public—the key requirement set down by the Prime Minister? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Concrete boots! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The concrete support I say to Mr Jones and Mr Boscawen of those who believe that the right of access to justice for Maori which was taken away in 2004 and which all parties now say should be restored is something that is extremely important. If they want me to provide actual numbers of that well that is an impossibility. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Given that he has just acknowledged that he cannot provide concrete evidence of wide public support can he advise when the Prime Minister told him that he need no longer worry about securing wide public support? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I disagree with the premise of the member’s question; it is mischievous and wrong. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister of Civil Defence) 
: 
 I seek leave to table the heritage building demolition report to the controller relating to the building owned by Anthony Gough. I am sorry I had meant to seek leave to do so. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is not objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Impact on Employment Law Changes 
8. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What impact if any will the Christchurch earthquake have on the Government’s employment law changes due to be implemented on 1 April? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 I do not envisage further changes to employment law as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. The legislation should be flexible enough to cope with a range of circumstances. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will the Government as part of its response to the 22 February earthquake include an exemption to the 90-day fire-at-will law to give workers in Christchurch job security at a time of great uncertainty? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The trial period has already proved to be successful. One report said it was responsible for approximately 13000 new jobs. I cannot understand why a Government would want to repeal such good positive legislation. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will she consider exempting from the 90-day trial period workers who relocate to Christchurch as part of the rebuilding effort in order to attract the skilled workers that will be needed? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have already said I do not envisage changes to employment law as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. That should be sufficient to answer the member’s query. 
Darien Fenton 
: Will an employer’s consent to access need to be sought by union representatives in Christchurch seeking to establish whether union members are safe in their workplaces or will she amend or suspend that requirement under her amended Act? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I have said I do not envisage further changes to employment law as a result of the Christchurch earthquake. Can I extend an invitation to the member to visit Christchurch. I am sure she will be pleased to see that on the ground there has been wonderful cooperation between Cantabrians including between employers employees and unions. Disaster has struck Canterbury and Cantabrians have pulled together. 
Darien Fenton 
: What steps have been taken to ensure the Employment Relations Authority can resume its operations given that a number of hearings have been postponed due to the effects of the earthquake and a backlog is building up? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member is correct that some hearings have indeed been postponed but the reasons for that can be varied. Some are because of disruption to employees and some because of disruption to employers. The Department of Labour is working very hard to minimise that disruption but I am sure the member will appreciate the enormous task ahead in Canterbury and in Christchurch. 
Prisons—Smoking Ban 
9. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What progress has been made towards the implementation of the smoking ban in New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that 3 months out from the smoking ban being implemented in prisons more than 1800 prisoners have started using patches and lozenges to help them to stop smoking. Five voluntary non-smoking units have been established at sites across the country allowing prisoners to quit their habit away from the proximity of smokers. Not only are prisoners giving up but the staff are joining them. Some staff are receiving nicotine replacement therapy directly through Quitline and 166 officers have received treatment through assessment clinics set up in prisons. The department is working very closely with the Quit Group and the Ministry of Health to prepare for the ban which takes effect on 1 July. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the benefits to prisoners and staff of banning smoking in our prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Many. Smoking in prisons represents a very real risk to both staff and prisoners particularly from passive smoking. The level of second-hand smoke and toxins is up to 12 times higher in prisons than in the homes of smokers. In the past prisoners have used lighters to melt items such as toothbrushes to make dangerous weapons. Prisoners also roll up balls of toilet paper light them and throw them at staff. The risk posed by lighters and matches was clearly illustrated last month when two corrections officers at Christchurch Women’s Prison received burns when rescuing a prisoner after she deliberately set fire to her mattress with a cigarette lighter. Over the past year there have been around 50 incidents of fire or arson in New Zealand prisons. Banning smoking will reduce all of these risks and improve the health and safety of our hard-working and excellent corrections staff. 
Broadband Urban Initiative—Progress 
10. 
CLARE CURRAN (Labour—Dunedin South) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: By what date will the 75 percent of urban New Zealanders receive ultra-fast broadband under his current proposal? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 It remains the Government’s intention that 75 percent of New Zealanders—mostly urban residents—will have access to ultra-fast broadband to the home by 2019 as stated during the 2008 election campaign. That timetable is the one we are continuing to work to. 
Clare Curran 
: Does he agree with submissions by InternetNZ and the Commerce Commission to the Finance and Expenditure Committee last week that the price of copper-based broadband services will increase in urban areas by an estimated 20 percent as a result of the Government’s telecommunications legislation; if not why not? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think it is highly unlikely because of the competitive effects of the Fibre to the Home package. Although the unbundled copper local loop is the issue that I think the submitters are referring to competition with the fibre access network will ensure that the price increase does not occur. 
Clare Curran 
: Can he guarantee that his new telecommunications laws will not result in the cost of those existing copper services going up and a freeze in investments in service improvement given that the bulk of New Zealanders will not receive ultra-fast broadband in their homes until at least the end of 2019 and will therefore be reliant on the existing copper-based services? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member is missing the point in terms of the investment in copper services. The point of the initiative is to encourage further investment in the Fibre to the Home services. New investment in copper services has been declining as a result of sub-loop unbundling and the ADSL work being done by Telecom so Fibre to the Home is where I think most of the investment will occur in the future. 
Clare Curran 
: Does the migration of New Zealand consumers from copper to fibre services require the provision in his new law that prices for current copper-based broadband services be re-averaged resulting in an up to 20 percent hike in urban prices in order to achieve the Government’s policy objective of 75 percent of New Zealanders receiving ultra-fast broadband? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The averaging of unbundled copper local loop is something that would be required because otherwise the rural subscribers would potentially be stranded on the copper network. [ 
Interruption 
] Actually the cross-subsidy is currently between urban and rural services. Averaging the unbundled copper local loop is the only practical way of dealing with this situation. Again I point out that the very moderate cost as reported in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today of between $47 and $80 per month with fibre access will ensure very competitive pricing. 
Clare Curran 
: How can the public be reassured that they are not paying prices that are too high for copper-based broadband services now and for ultra-fast fibre broadband in the future given that his legislation removes the ability for independent scrutiny from the Commerce Commission on pricing; is it just because he says so? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: No and in fact the wholesale prices that have been advised to the market—firstly by me prior to Christmas last year and then subsequently in the  
New Zealand Herald 
 today—point out that those prices will be very very competitive with existing copper services and the Government has made a very strong effort through Crown Fibre Holdings to attain those prices. The point is that the only bit over which the Commerce Commission will not have oversight is those prices. They will be agreed by contract between Crown Fibre Holdings and the bidders and will not be able to be put up. 
Public Transport Auckland—Prime Minister’s Statements 
11. 
METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statements that “The Government will build the effectiveness of New Zealand’s public transport networks.” and “We will be working closely with the Auckland Council as they develop their strategic vision for the City through the Auckland Spatial Plan.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes and yes. I have just come from the Auckland Unleashed summit where we were discussing the Auckland Spatial Plan and where I specifically outlined the Government’s commitment to public transport in Auckland. 
Metiria Turei 
: If the Minister is now confirming that his Government supports the Auckland Council’s vision of a compact eco-city supported by strong public transport why then is virtually all new Government transport spending for the next decade dedicated to motorways? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not quite sure that the member is right in the assertions that she makes. The purpose of the spatial planning meeting today in Auckland was to get all the stakeholders round the table to look at what the future of Auckland might be like. As I said in my remarks made in Auckland there will be a wide range of aspirations from Aucklanders about where they live and what form of transport they use. 
Metiria Turei 
: Given that in the last decade the central business district of Auckland has attracted more residents and new office jobs than any other part of Auckland City is that not a very clear sign that the aspiration of many Aucklanders is that they do not want to live on lifestyle blocks far out from the central city and have long expensive commuter drives that include being stuck in traffic? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I just said there will be a range of aspirations from a range of Aucklanders. I am not entirely sure that the member is right about where in Auckland the bulk of jobs are created. My information may be out of date but when I looked at it prior to the election back in 2008 from memory only about 11 percent of jobs were in downtown Auckland. One of the issues with Auckland is that it is extremely spread out and jobs are spread out right across the Auckland region. People do a lot of commuting as they live in one place play in another and work in another. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: To the Prime Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just check. I take it that this is using an Independent member’s supplementary question? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Yes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: OK. I apologise for that. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: How reliable are his commitments to Auckland public transport given the forecasted decrease in the New Zealand Transport Agency fund due to petrol excise tax revenue being down? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We intend to honour the commitments we have made and that was one of the things I said to Aucklanders today. It is also one of the reasons why we always have to be careful with promises we make and make sure that whatever promises we make can be backed up in terms of funding and also with an appropriate benefit-cost ratio. I know that it is quite a foreign concept to the Opposition to have to find the money before one spends it but on this side of the House that is what we do. 
Metiria Turei 
: Supplementary— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me just check. According to my records Labour has had 27 supplementary questions today which means it had one of the Independents’ supplementary questions. The Greens have had seven supplementary questions today which means they have had one of the Independent members’ supplementary questions. I am not sure whether a—[ 
Interruption 
] Two extra supplementary questions have been used today. There are no more. Both questions available from the Hon Chris Carter have been used today. Labour used one of them and the Greens have already used one of them. Therefore there is no other—[ 
Interruption 
] Let me just check because something is not tallying here. The Hon Shane Jones was using one of the Progressive’s supplementary questions. I beg your pardon. If I am to accept these additional supplementary questions I should be advised beforehand but that is for the future. 
Metiria Turei 
: Thank you Mr Speaker and yes we understand and we do advise the office. Will his Government listen to the people of Auckland and prioritise public transport over the new motorway spending his Government plans so that Auckland has a chance to become the world-class city that it can be that does not have to rely on increasingly and predictably expensive oil imports? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Once again the member makes assertions for the people with whom she hangs around in Auckland and not necessarily for all Aucklanders. Building roads allows public transport to take place because the last time I looked buses travelled on roads. Let us take the Puhoi to Wellsford road which the Government has committed to. It is a highway of national significance. On that road on any one given day are 27000 people using it. When it comes to commuter rail in Auckland on any one given day 24500 people use it. So it looks to me like the Government has its commitments and its priorities in the right place. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: Given his stated commitment to public transport in Auckland why does he allow his Minister of Transport to be so antagonistic against the super-city mayor Len Brown? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: He is not antagonistic. As I said earlier I know that it is a foreign concept to Labour. I know it promised $1.3 billion worth of tax cuts with no idea where the money would come from. I know it promised $5 billion worth of spending with no idea where the money would come from. I know that when Labour members get the acid put on them they say it is desirable. I can assure the member that the last time I saw the Minister of Transport and the Mayor of Auckland they were in some sort of group hug. That is not antagonistic. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Once again you have allowed the Prime Minister to rant at the Opposition and it turned into a speech. After about half an hour— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and that will be enough interjecting from the ministerial benches. The member should reflect on the question that was asked. The question that was asked alleged that the Minister was being antagonistic to the Mayor of Auckland. That is to invite a response that is perhaps not quite what the member might have wanted but with that kind of political question there is no way I can stop an answer that is pretty political. The remedy for that lies in the hands of the questioner. Members will notice that today when a member on my left asked a very straight question I put some acid on the Minister to answer it. But where a question alleges that a Minister is being antagonistic to a mayor do not blame the Speaker if the Minister—in this case the Prime Minister—gets a little bit political when answering it. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order was not that the Prime Minister was being political; he was quite entitled to be political in response to a question. My point was that once again it was not a concise reply. Standing Order 377 states that answers ought to be concise. For the second time this sitting you have allowed the Prime Minister a great degree of latitude to make a speech rather than— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet for good reason so there will not be this kind of interjection. I am sure that the member does not really want me to implement that Standing Order too tightly because I would be ruling out so many supplementary questions— 
Hon David Parker 
: Just evenly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member knows not to interject when I am on my feet. I believe that the member is implying that I have not been even-handed. Twice today I have invited members to repeat questions where I believed that Ministers had not answered the question adequately. On another occasion I actually asked the Minister specifically to answer the question. That member who has been in this House a while should think back to the reign of previous Speakers; I have never known that done by previous Speakers and I did that in just one question time. So I think the House is doing rather better in terms of opportunity for the Opposition to get straight questions answered. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Counselling Services 
12. 
TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What counselling support is available for Cantabrians impacted by the earthquake? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 A key focus has been on providing counselling support. We have had up to 400 counsellors available on the ground by phone and many others around the country. Since February we have given over half a million dollars. I make the point that that counselling service is free so just shout out to Cantabrians that if they need it it is there it is available and there are resources there for them. 
Todd McClay 
: What impact has the earthquake had on the ability of non-governmental organisations to operate? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: This is a moving number but I understand that at the moment about 39 percent of non-governmental organisations have red-stickered premises. This is obviously of some concern in terms of their capacity to look after members of the public who need help. For those impacted though we have set up temporary rooms at the netball clubs and are looking at other measures for them.