Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:672;Page:18689] 
Tuesday 17 May 2011 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2011—Challenges 
1. 
CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What challenges does the Government face in putting together Budget 2011? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Many challenges not least the ongoing job of undoing the damage done by the previous Labour Government. More recently the February earthquake and lower-than-expected growth in the first part of the year have made the outlook more challenging. In the absence of decisions that will be outlined in the Budget we would have been expecting to return to surplus probably around 2016-17 and net debt to peak at 35 percent of GDP. 
Craig Foss 
: What is the Government’s approach to meeting these challenges? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We are keen to lay out a credible path to surplus while meeting the very significant extra costs of rebuilding Canterbury. We want to get to surplus as soon as possible because it is only surpluses that give Governments policy choices and provide a buffer against further unexpected economic events. 
Craig Foss 
: What kinds of changes are included in the Budget? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has hinted at a number of those changes. We will take responsible steps to ensure that large-scale programmes such as KiwiSaver Working for Families and student loans are bettered targeted deliver better value for taxpayers and have growth that is controlled. The Government will also seek a greater level of savings from the public sector to help to fund improvements to critical front-line services. Some of these changes will be legislated for immediately after the Budget but none will take effect before the election. That will give voters the opportunity to make clear choices between what will be a responsible and balanced programme from the Government and some other kind of programme from the Labour Opposition. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he agree that increasing the private savings rate is a challenge for the Budget; if so does he agree with the warning from Standard and Poor’s analyst Kyran Curry that moves to strip KiwiSaver incentives without providing offsetting measures may take the country in the wrong direction? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. The Government has said for some time that the focus of this Budget is not just on private savings. It is on national savings because it is our overall and total liabilities to foreign lenders that make our country so vulnerable. As the member knows we have amongst the highest levels of debt to foreigners of any country in the whole world. So we are focusing on national savings and the member can wait for Thursday to see just where KiwiSaver fits in that picture. 
Craig Foss 
: How does the approach taken in Budget 2011 compare with the Government’s two previous Budgets? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It has been evident since 2008 that this economy needed to be rebalanced away from excessive consumption and housing speculation funded by debt and towards savings investment and exports. So Budget 2011 will be broadly similar to Budgets 2009 and 2010 because we are following the same plan. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can the Minister assure the House that all savings booked in the Budget will identify which vote and which line of that vote will be reduced? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget will meet all the standards of transparency for savings that have been required. But I have to say the Government decision-making process will be much more transparent than that of the previous Government which got into the habit— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should have been aware that I was getting to my feet. That was a pretty straight question about whether votes would show savings. It is a technical question that is capable of having an answer and it did not deserve that last bit to be added. Had the question been a political question there would have been no problem but it was not. Under the circumstances I will invite the member to repeat his question and let us hear an answer without the unnecessary bit being added at the end. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Can he assure the House that all savings booked in the Budget will identify which vote and which line of that vote will be reduced? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Budget will meet all the usual high standards of transparency in the New Zealand fiscal system. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It was a very straight albeit slightly technical question but that reply did not answer or even address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well it did in so far as the Minister said the Budget would meet all the standards of transparency that Budgets are expected to meet. It is difficult for me to insist that the Minister give a more precise answer but a further question could follow to ask whether that means— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to the Minister’s reply does his reply relating to transparency mean that all savings booked in the Budget will identify which vote and which line of that vote will be reduced? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The reason I referred in answer to the question to the general standard of transparency in the Budget is simply that I have not tracked every single saving to every single vote. Some things may be going on within votes that represent savings in the Budget so I would not want to misrepresent that by saying every dollar is tracked in exactly that way but I think that it is most likely that that is the case. 
Tax System Changes—Impact on Operating Balance 
2. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his pre-Budget statement: “The key sector which is not saving right now is the Government”; if so what steps has he taken to increase Government revenue? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. To the second part of the question I say that our two tax packages have been broadly fiscally neutral so they do not count as increasing or decreasing Government revenue. However we have done two important things to increase Government revenue without raising taxes per se. The first was to cancel tax cuts in 2010 and 2011 planned by both Labour and National. This cancellation reduces our deficit by $1 billion a year and will result in $4.6 billion less borrowing over the forecast period. The second thing we did was give the Inland Revenue Department $120 million to chase down tax evaders which will result in more compliance and therefore more tax paid. The Minister of Revenue will have more to say about this in the Budget. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given that the net effect of his tax shift has been to add about $3 billion to the deficit over 2 years what responsibility does he take for the record deficit? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is wrong in the assertion he makes. The tax package not only was fiscally neutral but actually added to revenue over time. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Given the Prime Minister’s statement what is his estimation of the fiscal impact over 2 years of the tax shift in the last two Budgets? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not have the exact number to hand but I can tell members that over the 4-year forecast period there will be an increase in net revenue of $1 billion. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is it not more fiscally responsible to consider some revenue-raising options in this Budget such as a temporary earthquake levy to pay for the rebuilding of Christchurch—a levy that would raise about $5 billion over 5 years—to avoid all the risks associated with increased borrowing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. The reason for that is it is the view of the Government that a levy would slow down economic growth. As we know from basic economics adding more pressure on to the private sector reduces people’s incentives to work. I also note that I have taken a quick look at the levy being proposed by the Greens. Interestingly enough only one-quarter of New Zealanders would pay it. I strongly suggest that that is not equitable when it comes to paying for the earthquake. All New Zealanders should share in that cost. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: If it is the Prime Minister’s view that it is not equitable that a smaller number of people pay for the earthquake levy why is it equitable that most of the tax cuts were given to those with the highest incomes? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If that was the case it might not have been equitable but two-thirds of the tax cuts went to the bottom two threshold bands. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister share the concerns of many economic commentators that if there are big spending cuts in the Budget it could induce a double-dip recession as we saw following the 1991 Budget? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Far from it. In fact Treasury which has obviously played an integral part in putting together the Budget has indicated that the Budget is likely to see very strong growth in real wages for New Zealanders which never happened under a Labour Government; very strong job growth; and a much stronger economic outlook for New Zealand. In other words Treasury’s analysis of the Budget is that it is a winner. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he accept that the real problem with the Government not saving is that Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is now higher under his prime ministership than in any year under Helen Clark’s and does he have any plan to bring down Government expenditure to at least the level it was at under Helen Clark bad though that was? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: As a starting point the reason Government spending as a percentage of GDP has risen is that GDP has shrunk because of the impacts of the earthquake—or has at least stayed constant; it was very very modest growth—yet the cost of the packages we inherited and the spending programme we inherited from Labour rose. That is exactly what happened when Roger Douglas was the Minister of Finance in New Zealand and he knows it. Government spending as a percentage of GDP went up year after year because that is what happens when an economy is going through a rebalancing phase. 
John Boscawen 
: Does he know that GDP per capita in New Zealand is now lower than in 2004 7 years before the earthquake—that is New Zealanders are now poorer than they were in 2004 under Helen Clark—and what is the Government doing to reverse this? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is a snapshot in time. It is dependent on a number of factors. GDP per capita looks at the number of people in the country. There has been a substantial increase in the number of people living in New Zealand. Everyone acknowledges that in certain areas there have not been as big amounts of overtime and the like. I add that the member was not asking these questions when he was a Minister a month ago. 
John Boscawen 
: Can he confirm that the Government is borrowing more than $70 per week for every man woman and child in the country; if so does he consider this fiscally responsible? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I can confirm that it is fiscally responsible because as we will see on Thursday the Government has a very clear plan to get New Zealand back into surplus. 
Hon Members 
: Ha ha! 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well the joke is on Labour members who last year started saying that they would reduce debt faster than National. This year they said it would be at about the same rate and now they do not have a clue what they are actually doing. But we will come back to that later. The reality is that we have had a global financial crisis and the Government is actually proud of the fact that it used its balance sheet and low levels of debt to get New Zealand through that recession. That is what the entire world was doing in 2009-10 and if we had not done that then more New Zealanders would have lost their jobs would have had an uncomfortable lifestyle and would have lost a lot of the support that they wanted. I am quite happy with what we have done but the time has come to get the books back in order. They will be back in order faster than people think. 
Economy—Transformation 
3. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement “… we can use this time to transform the economy to make us stronger …”; if so does this transformation involve an economy that uses fewer natural resources and produces less pollution? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statement which was “We don’t tell New Zealanders we can stop the global recession because we can’t. What we do tell them is we can use this time to transform the economy to make us stronger so that when the world starts growing again we can be running faster than other countries we compete with.” To the second part of the member’s question I say that this Government thinks the country should be making the most of its natural resources but obviously that needs to be balanced against environmental considerations. I note that the  
Green Budget Paper 2011 
 actually takes a similar line arguing for more efficient use of natural resources to help grow the manufacturing and agricultural sectors of the economy. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is he adding around $800 million to the deficit to subsidise free allocation of units under the emissions trading scheme when a fair price on carbon would both help balance the Government’s books and create the right incentives for the economy to transform to a more sustainable footing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first point I make is that this Government does have a fair price on carbon. The second point I make is that New Zealand as a country signed up to an international agreement to maintain emissions at a 1990 level. What the Government did in putting together the emissions trading scheme was to reflect the fact that those property rights of those credits that are earned by foresters should stay with foresters. The reality is that where a company exceeds its 1990 levels then it pays itself for those emissions and those credits. It can either choose to reduce its bottom line or pass that on to the consumers of New Zealand. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the OECD which says that we should strengthen the price signals in the emissions trading scheme in order to protect our environment and the integrity of our “clean green” brand? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think this Government has always taken a balanced view in terms of economic growth and caring for and maintaining the environment. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I agree I was asking an opinion question but it was about a specific report by the OECD and I do not know that the Prime Minister addressed that particular issue. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thought the member asked whether he agreed with something and I thought the Prime Minister gave the impression that he agreed pretty much with what the member was highlighting in his question. I might be wrong on that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Has the Prime Minister read the latest OECD country report on New Zealand that highlights our inefficient use of natural resources like water and why will he not consider a resource charge on commercial water use to raise some revenue for the Government while giving a price signal regarding the efficient use of water? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: From memory I have read the OECD country report. The Government is taking steps towards a more efficient use of water. That was the aim of the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management and also the work of the Land and Water Forum. The Government has signalled that there is more work to be done there and the member makes a fair point. Water is a very critical resource for New Zealand we can grow our economy if we use it wisely and we will need to think about ways to ensure there is efficient use of water while maintaining both its quality and the river flows in general. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the Government ignoring the advice of the OECD the IMF and the Savings Working Group all of which have found that New Zealand is an outlier in not having a comprehensive tax on capital gains the absence of which undermines Government revenue as well as the competitiveness of the productive sector because all the capital flows into the housing market? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The first thing I will say is that this is probably not the week to be quoting the IMF. The second thing I will say is that if one looks at the Tax Working Group and its analysis of a capital gains tax one will see that the Tax Working Group went on to say that on balance the majority of the experts did not agree with the capital gains tax because of its inefficiency and its difficulty to apply. Once one takes the domestic family home out of a capital gains tax it becomes a more inefficient tax. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister may have misheard me. I said the Savings Working Group not the Tax Working Group. I acknowledge that the Tax Working Group did not come down on the side of a capital gains tax but the Savings Working Group did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member is absolutely certain that that is what he said—I thought I heard what the Prime Minister answered. If the member wants to repeat his question— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is he ignoring the advice of the OECD the IMF and the Savings Working Group which have found that New Zealand is now an outlier in not having a comprehensive tax on capital gains the absence of which seriously undermines Government revenue and also directs capital into the non-productive sector the housing sector? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not think this is the week to be looking closely at the IMF and I prefer the advice of the Tax Working Group to that of the Savings Working Group. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the Government risking a double-dip recession due to spending cuts and a credit downgrade due to record borrowing when raising some targeted revenue avoids both of these dire consequences and shifts the economy on to a more sustainable footing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The analysis from Treasury is that far from risking a double-dip recession the Government is putting the economy in a very strong position to grow both real after-tax wages and the employment levels in New Zealand to get the country back into surplus and to deliver an economic base from which New Zealanders can enjoy a brighter future. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table the  
Green Budget Paper 2011 
 which lays out five costed initiatives that the Government can take to reduce Government debt and shift the economy to a more sustainable footing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Can I just check whether this is a press release that the Green Party has made. No this is a— 
Dr Russel Norman 
: No it is a budget paper. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A budget paper. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection I am sorry. 
KiwiSaver—Prime Minister’s Statements 
4. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements on KiwiSaver? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Did he promise New Zealanders in a television broadcast: “We’re backing a KiwiSaver scheme by putting in 2 percent and being matched by 2 percent from the Government and 2 percent from your employer. For every $1 you put in under our scheme $3 ends up in your account.” and will he honour that promise? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes and if there are any changes to them New Zealanders will be able to vote on that—it is called election day. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: And they will. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What does the Prime Minister say to Eric Hayward who states that National has changed the rules on us and has gone back on its word that it would not cut KiwiSaver entitlements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: We will be making changes to KiwiSaver and announcing those changes on Thursday. New Zealanders will have a chance to vote on all of those changes and decide whether they want to endorse a National Government. If the member is seriously telling us that by the way a Government cannot have a new manifesto and take it to the people of New Zealand then Labour will be selling assets; Labour did that in the 1990s with Phil Goff. Labour would actually have a proper tax system as opposed to the one that Phil Goff is proposing. It would have rational economic policy like Phil Goff had between 1984 and 1990. Governments change their position; good Governments in transparent times take it to the people. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I thought it was a Budget on Thursday Mr Speaker not a manifesto. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was not very satisfactory all round with the applause and then the Leader of the Opposition feeling that he needed to say something. Let us have just the supplementary question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Having now reversed the first reversal that he made to the level of contribution into KiwiSaver just 2 years ago does he understand that changing the rules every time the Government wants to cut spending simply erodes trust and confidence in KiwiSaver? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: The No. 1 way to gain trust is to have a series of policies go out to the public and campaign on them. One cannot start claiming that this Government does not do that because we have kept our word. Where we want to have a new prescription for the economy we will campaign on it. The trouble for Labour is that it has nothing to campaign on. We do not know what its policies are— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why was it his Government’s priority—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable Leader of the Opposition. That was unnecessary from the National back benches. I will not tolerate more of that today. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is it the Prime Minister’s priority to cut $500 a year from low and middle income earners who are saving through KiwiSaver ahead of taking back some of the enormous tax cuts that he gave to the highest income earners including people like himself who got more than $1000 a week in tax cuts? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If one looks at the tax package that National delivered in 2010 one sees that two-thirds of all of those tax cuts went to the bottom two bands. I think the member should stop making personal statements about me that are not correct. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Now it is the Labour front bench. When I have called their leader they will show some courtesy. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is the Prime Minister ignoring the warning from the credit rating agency Standard and Poor’s that says that KiwiSaver cuts have the potential to push New Zealand further into debt not take it out of debt? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is not what Standard and Poor’s said. What Standard and Poor’s recognise is what the Government recognises—that is when the Government is borrowing to put money in people’s KiwiSaver accounts that is not real borrowing. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why is it “borrowing” to put money into KiwiSaver but not “borrowing” to give $2.5 billion a year in tax cuts to the top 10 percent? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is an outstanding question. For a start off National’s tax plan 2010—it does not matter how many times Labour members want to disagree with it; they are just making it up as they do with so much other stuff—was fiscally neutral. By the way the entire personal tax cuts right across the board for every New Zealander totalled $2.5 billion. As we see so often when Labour members cannot win the argument with facts they just make it up and they say it only inside the House not outside the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by his reply to the supplementary question last week that asked whether he was aware of Merrill Lynch’s collapse and takeover 3 weeks before he made his KiwiSaver commitment—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear the question despite the questioner being right next to me. The honourable member may start his question again. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does he stand by his reply to the supplementary question last week that asked whether he was aware of Merrill Lynch’s collapse and subsequent takeover 3 weeks before he made his KiwiSaver commitment when he said: “I was not aware of the takeover by the Bank of America by Merrill Lynch. That happened long after I left the company.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have no responsibility for that and I left the company at the end of 2001. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister indicated that he had no responsibility. He does have responsibility— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is litigating the answer given. The Prime Minister has given an answer and the House has to accept that answer. I cannot second guess Ministers’ answers. Whether or not the member likes the answer it was an answer. It can be tested further either now or in the future but it was an answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I know that it is your view that there is some liberalness with answers when it comes to questions that are political. Can I ask you Mr Speaker since when has it not been the Prime Minister’s responsibility to answer questions about a question that he answered last week? It is absolutely— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member wants to get too technical on it today’s primary question asked the Prime Minister whether he stood by all his statements on KiwiSaver. The primary question had nothing to do with Merrill Lynch or whomever. As I heard the supplementary question I thought it was getting pretty wide of the mark. For me to try to insist that the Prime Minister answer any more than he has is I think unreasonable because the supplementary question asked was pretty wide of the mark. If the member wants to put down a primary question about that area then that is no problem at all as long as it is in an area that the Prime Minister does have responsibility for. That is my dilemma this time because that was well wide of the mark. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I will make it clear again that when I asked the supplementary question I indicated that the Prime Minister had spoken of KiwiSaver in his answer. It was an answer to question No. 2 on Wednesday 11 May. It was entirely about KiwiSaver. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just mentioning a word in a question does not automatically bring it into line with the primary question. It was a big stretch but I did not rule the question out. There is a limit to how much I can ask a Minister to answer. In respect of that kind of supplementary question I believe the Prime Minister gave a pretty clear answer when he pointed out that he was not responsible—and he is not responsible—for Merrill Lynch. Whether there are any other avenues through which members can pursue these matters well certainly primary questions can pursue matters in greater detail but today I feel it would be totally unreasonable of me to pursue that one further. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise for pursuing this but I would ask you to go back and listen to the tapes. Each time I attempted to ask that supplementary question it started: “Does he stand by his reply”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the member is making: if in the supplementary questions the Prime Minister had mentioned Merrill Lynch in his reply today then indeed that would have been a perfectly fair supplementary question. But given though the questions today I felt that the supplementary question was on the margins. I did not rule it out because I thought that would be unreasonable of me. But then I think it would be equally unreasonable of me to insist under those circumstances on any further answer from the Prime Minister today. I am sure that if the member wants to pursue the issue in the future he will think of a primary question that brings it within the Prime Minister’s responsibility. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep this going but the primary question was about statements relating to KiwiSaver. This was a supplementary question to a question about KiwiSaver. It was something that the Prime Minister said in this House when being questioned about KiwiSaver. I do not think you can— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think I have been pretty reasonable. Had the Prime Minister mentioned Merrill Lynch today I would have had no problem whatsoever because the supplementary questions to today’s primary questions must relate to today’s primary questions. Merrill Lynch has nothing to do with statements the Prime Minister has made on KiwiSaver. That is the difficulty I have. Had he mentioned Merrill Lunch today there would have been no problem at all because Ministers can certainly be questioned on supplementary questions on anything they include in their answers during question time. But to try to make the link back today I think is asking me to be unreasonable and I do not believe that I can do that. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table the summary table from the Executive Summary of Budget 2010 which shows that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All members have those Budget documents. 
Earthquakes Canterbury—Home Heating for Affected Residents 
5. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: What reports has he received on progress made to provide winter heating for residents affected by the Canterbury earthquakes? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
: 
 I have been informed this morning that 3935 priority claims for winter heating appliances were completed by close of play yesterday. Installation is now progressing at about 120 appliances per day. Well over 4000 priority claims should be completed by the end of this week. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How does the winter heating programme assist the most vulnerable residents? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The winter heating programme works with homes where the primary heat source has been taken out by actions of the earthquake or as a consequence of earthquake damage. Heating is restored through the provision of a heat pump or a solid-fuel burner. The programme is prioritised to meet the needs of the most vulnerable people first so there has been a concerted effort to identify cases involving illness old age pregnancy disability and other relevant factors. It takes about 2 weeks to get a heat pump once an assessment is made and about 8 weeks before a solid-fuel burner can be fitted. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What assurances can he give stressed and cold Canterbury families who are in the priority case list that they will have their promised heater installed—all of them—by the end of winter given that he made a commitment that all those on the priority list would have their heating installed and operational by the middle of May and reiterated that commitment to cross-party members as late as last Tuesday? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: None of those assertions is true. 
Brendon Burns 
: Is the Minister aware of priority cases such as the Hawker family in my electorate which includes a terminally ill woman and has been asking without success for a new woodburner or even a flue and can he confirm that the family is among more than 22000 households who have lodged a claim for heating assistance since September and that to date only 3935 have been assisted? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The total number was 19000-plus. Of those many have cash-settled. A number of others have been found not to have the same urgency of need. Approximately 9600 were then on that list less the number that I gave to the House before—3935. So progress is being made. As for the Hawker family if the member can give me more details I will make some inquiries. I note that the member managed to put those people on television and talk about them in his daily news brief but appears not to have talked to the Earthquake Commission to Fletcher’s or to my office. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a document that shows that less than half of the heating appliances— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before we go into the detail of the document what is the source of the document? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: The document is not available to all members. It is the Canterbury earthquake recovery cross-party forum weekly update dated 10 May 2011 supplied in person by the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery last Tuesday. Is that enough detail? It states that less than half of the heat pumps that were promised to be installed—if I summarise—by the middle of May have not been installed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought— 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is being sought. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think it is necessary to clarify. The member stated “if I summarise”. I think that means he is interpreting the document. I can assure the House— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We can’t have this. If the member does not think the document should be tabled he has the right to deny leave. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No we will put leave to table the document. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am putting leave to the House to ask whether members wish to have this document tabled. Is there any objection? Some members are telling me there is no objection and some are calling out that there is objection. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with the leave that is being sought. I will take the call from the senior portion of the party. There is no objection. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Much as my colleagues want to have the document tabled I think there is a really important parliamentary principle here. There are two parts to it: one Mr Henare has rights as a backbench member; two you are not allowed to put the same question twice in that way. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is absolutely correct. Any member has the right to object. Therefore to avoid confusion I will put the leave again. Leave is sought—[ 
Interruption 
] I will overturn my ruling that the document could be tabled. I will put it again. Leave is sought to table this document. Is there any objection? There is objection. It will not be tabled. I apologise to members and the Hon Trevor Mallard. He is absolutely correct. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for advice given that leave has been denied by a member contrary to his Minister. I am happy to hand this document across the Table to the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is definitely not a point of order. The member is stretching his good fortune now. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course if the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery wanted to he could table— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order either and this nonsense will now cease. I have accepted—[ 
Interruption 
] We do not need further points of order right now from anyone. I accept that it was my—[ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet and there will be no further comment. I accept that I was in error in not accepting the objection earlier. I accept in good grace that I was wrong. I have apologised for that and we will now move on. 
Brendon Burns 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. In the Minister’s response to my question earlier he asserted that neither I nor my office had made approaches in respect of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order and we will not waste more time of the House on matters that are not points of order—that is if members want to stay in the House. That applies to both sides of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise Mr Speaker. You might anticipate what the member— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should resume his seat. He is now starting to argue with the rulings I have made and I will not tolerate that any further. I could hear exactly what the member was saying; he was starting to question what a Minister had said. He should not do that by way of point of order. That is not done by way of point of order. If someone has misled the House there are other ways of approaching that but not by way of point of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The point of order will be heard in silence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It has long been the right of members to seek to table in this House representations that indicate that Ministers have not answered questions accurately. I think that is what the member was doing. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. What might have been practice in the past is certainly not practice today. Question time is not about a member making a statement and a Minister making a statement in reply then members seeking to table documents especially documents from newspapers to try to prove whose point was the more correct. That is not what question time is about and we will not revert back to that kind of nonsense. I warn members that I am not to be trifled with any further on this matter or some members will be leaving the House. We are moving on to question No. 6 unless a totally different issue is emerging. 
Brendon Burns 
: I seek leave to make a personal explanation to the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to make a personal explanation. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is none. 
Brendon Burns 
: In the course of the Minister’s response to my question today he asserted that I had not made inquiries on behalf of my constituents. I have rung my office and confirmed that inquiries on behalf of my constituents the Hawker family in respect of their not having had appropriate heating were made yesterday immediately after the TV3 story appeared on Sunday evening. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Not wishing to get into other matters I simply ask for a degree of consistency. You questioned my colleague about questioning a Minister and using question time as a form of debate. I simply ask for consistency. When I rose to take a point of order that member then took a further point of order to reinterpret what I had said. I simply point that out and ask for some consistency. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are not going to waste further time. If the member thinks I am being inconsistent that is his view but he may have noted that I sat the Hon Gerry Brownlee down once I heard what he was doing by way of his point of order while I was putting the leave. I sat him down. 
Cost of Living—Advice Received 
6. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What advice did he receive from the most recent food bank he visited about the current cost of living? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I receive advice about the current cost of living from a range of sources but primarily from Statistics New Zealand whose food price index last week showed that over the last 6 months food prices on average have gone up only 0.9 percent. In terms of advice about those presenting at food banks I receive information from the Minister of Social Development who visits food banks regularly and even worked in one very recently. She advises that people use food banks for a range of reasons with a major reason being a loss of employment. 
Hon Annette King 
: Which food bank did he visit recently if he did visit one; and what date was that visit? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not been to one recently. 
Hon Annette King 
: Have any organisers of food banks told him that the reason for the 30 percent increase in people in work receiving food parcels is that they are making poor life choices; or is it that the cost of living has risen faster than their wages? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I cannot recall a direct conversation with a food bank organiser and therefore I cannot characterise either. I have met people who run social services and who run food banks but I am not sure I would say they are absolutely food bank organisers. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he now watched the  
Campbell Live 
 story that I raised in a question to him last week; or has he read the comments made about the rising cost of living and how it is affecting people like Anya who says they are getting more and more worried about how they can manage with the rising cost of living—she works part-time and her husband works full-time for $48000 a year; her wages cover childcare with about $30 a week to spare and she says it would take only a car repair bill or a dentist bill to cause real problems; and why has the tax switch not cushioned her family from the harsh financial pressures they face? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No I have not seen the TV programme. I go back to the point I made earlier: Statistics New Zealand advises that the food price index has gone up 0.9 percent for the last 6 months. If one were to contrast that with Labour’s last 6 months in office one would see that it went up between 6 and 7 percent—I think they call that about eight or nine times more. Interestingly enough—and this is quite a fascinating fact for the House—over the last 6 months the price of vegetables has actually gone down 15 percent. One could argue there is no need to take GST off vegetables; it has already happened. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call the Hon Annette King. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Annette King 
: It’s a laughing matter for the Prime Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise. The House will come to order. No members want an early shower. The House will come to order. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the tax switch has worked as he keeps asserting why are there a growing number of commentators including Fran O’Sullivan and Jon Johansson saying that it has not worked there was a billion dollar gamble and the Government’s economic management is failing? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I take the advice of Treasury over Jon Johansson. 
Rugby World Cup—Protection of “Clean Green” Brand 
7. 
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What practical initiatives is the Government taking in preparation for Rugby World Cup 2011 to protect the environment and New Zealand’s important “clean green” brand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 Firstly we are putting in place new measures to manage freedom camping in partnership with councils. The package includes standardised signage a website for informing visitors where they can and cannot camp nationally as well as practical enforcement measures with a $200 instant fine. The second initiative is a Love NZ public-place recycling programme whereby more than 2000 new bins are to be installed around Rugby World Cup venues and popular visitor spots. This is aimed at recycling 10000 tonnes of glass plastic and aluminium containers that would otherwise go to landfills. Although both these initiatives have been spurred by the Rugby World Cup they are good sensible and practical long-term environmental programmes that will pay benefits for New Zealand. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What response has there been from councils particularly those in high-tourism areas and from the tourism industry to the proposed new freedom camping policy? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There has been almost unanimous endorsement of the Government’s approach. Councils in Queenstown Coromandel Kaikoura Nelson and Marlborough have been particularly strong in their support but Local Government New Zealand has also endorsed the approach. There have also been very positive comments from the Tourism Industry Association of New Zealand and the New Zealand Freedom Camping Forum. There is wide acknowledgment that there is a problem and that the Government’s response will let responsible freedom campers get out and enjoy New Zealand’s great outdoors while giving our councils the tools to be able to properly protect our environment. 
GDP Growth—Rate for Year Ended December 2010 
8. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What was the annual rate of GDP growth for the year ended December 2010 projected in Budget 2010 and what was the actual rate of growth for that period according to Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Three percent and 1.5 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it correct that his Budget 2010 projected that growth in the first three quarters of 2010 nearly all of which was before the first earthquake would be 0.8 percent 0.8 percent and 1.6 percent respectively whereas actual growth was 0.7 percent 0.2 percent and minus 0.2 percent which means that by the end of September 2010 economic output was $1.6 billion below the forecast he produced in May 2010? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes growth was slower than expected and the reason for that was mainly that New Zealanders were saving more than was expected. That is now showing up in a fast-rising household savings rate. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Is it correct that in his 2010 Half Year Economic and Fiscal Update he projected real wages would fall by 0.9 percent in the year to March 2011 which is bad enough whereas the actual result was a fall in real wages of minus 1.2 percent according to Statistics New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that as a result of the tax cuts real after-tax wages have been rising consistently over the last couple of years. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can he offer any guarantee that the economic and fiscal projections he will present in the Budget on Thursday will be more accurate than those presented in the Budget last year; and is this why according to a new HorizonPoll 48.4 percent of people say the country is on the wrong track and most people disapprove of his Government’s handling of the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is a bit rich for the member to criticise the accuracy of forecasts and then quote the HorizonPoll as the reason why they are inaccurate. No I cannot give the member a guarantee. Around the world economists are having trouble in forecasting economic growth. The basic principles though of the Government’s plan remain unchanged. They are to rebalance this economy towards savings exports and investment and away from excessive housing speculation and excessive consumption fuelled by debt which is what happened under his Government. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I seek leave to table Statistics New Zealand and Treasury figures to show the differences between Budget 2010 projections and actual— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document the member is seeking to table—I mean I am not aware of Statistics New Zealand and Treasury documents. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: This is a document that has been compiled in my office from those sources. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the member should have made clear at the outset the source of the document. Leave is sought to table a document compiled in the member’s office. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Earthquake Christchurch—Christchurch Schools and Students 
9. 
AARON GILMORE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What recent decisions have been made regarding schooling in Christchurch? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Good news! I am pleased to inform the House that full pre-earthquake operational funding for Christchurch schools is to be extended until the end of the year. This decision means that schools in Christchurch will continue to receive funding for the number of pupils they had before the February earthquake. In addition Christchurch’s schools will have access to their full staffing entitlement and teacher numbers will not be reduced during 2011. Double funding will also continue with schools around the country still being resourced for enrolling Christchurch students. The schools in the city are doing a fantastic job many of them in very difficult circumstances. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What other decisions have been made to support schooling in Christchurch? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: We have put in a great deal of support for schooling in Christchurch. I recently announced that study centres have been established across the city. These will be staffed by trained and registered teachers and will focus on students in years 11 12 and 13 to give young people a place to go and do their homework study for tests or seek extra help from trained teachers. The New Zealand Qualifications Authority has announced that for the National Certificate of Educational Achievement’s external assessment a separate derived grade process will be established. There will be a simplified process of collecting evidence for internal assessment and there will be a special credit inclusion appeal process. I am also pleased to inform the House that urgent repairs have allowed Heaton Normal Intermediate to return to its original site after double bunking for much of term 1. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will she consider extending the pre-earthquake operational funding and staffing levels until the end of 2012 given that the ministry will otherwise notify the affected schools of next year’s reduced staffing entitlements in October at a time when schools will need to be focused very much on the needs of their students living in very damaged homes and very damaged suburbs? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. We are putting in a great deal of support and there will be support available for schools as they work through that difficult process. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Will the Minister ensure that Project Early a very successful programme modelled on the Incredible Years programme operating in the eastern suburbs since the 1990s is fully funded by the ministry in light of the Ministry of Social Development’s untimely advice just prior to the earthquake that its funding would be cut at the end of this year? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am not aware of that programme. But I can say to the member that the education sector itself decided to focus on Incredible Years as part of the Positive Behaviour for Learning plan. If there is a need I am quite happy to receive some information from that member about it. 
Early Childhood Education Facilities—Weymouth Primary School Centre 
10. 
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: When was construction completed on the new early childhood education centre at Weymouth Primary School and why is the centre empty? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the building was completed on 21 January 2011 but that it has not yet been granted a code of compliance certificate by the council and cannot be opened until this occurs. The tendering and selection processes are proceeding as planned and I am advised that it is planned to open the centre for children in August. 
Sue Moroney 
: When was construction completed on the early childhood education facility at Homai Primary School and why is that centre also empty? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I understand that I provided information to the member in response to a written question that construction had been completed on Homai Primary School. I do not have the details in front of me of whether the code of compliance has also been granted for that building. I suspect we are still awaiting it. 
Louisa Wall 
: What impact does the Minister think these delays will have on 3-year-old Genesis Tupai and 4-year-old Daisy Broughton who featured on  
Campbell Live 
 last night and who are currently not enrolled in any early childhood education because their families are waiting for the centre within their local community and within walking distance from their homes to open on the Weymouth Primary School site? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I think we are all very frustrated but the reality is that we cannot open that building until it has a code of compliance from the Auckland Council—until that comes through and until we have a provider. I understand it will be open for children in August of this year. 
Sue Moroney 
: What will the Minister do to stop these delays from continuing and how are these delays meeting her Government’s stated priority of increasing participation in South Auckland? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The council is responsible for the code of compliance. I share the frustrations of the community. We want those centres open as soon as possible. We have built them to meet their need and we will open them in August of this year. 
Primary Growth Partnership Funding—Manuka Honey Industry 
11. 
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What steps has the Government recently taken to support innovation in the manuka honey industry? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Last week I was pleased to confirm a successful bid by a manuka honey industry consortium for Primary Growth Partnership funding. The bid will see $1.7 million being invested in a research programme to increase the reliability of the supply and volume of medical-grade manuka honey. This is a major step forward in the sector’s goal of becoming a $1 billion industry and is yet another example of this Government’s commitment to boosting innovation. 
Colin King 
: What amount does this bid bring total Primary Growth Partnership funding for primary sector innovation to? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: The success of this latest bid means that since its inception 20 months ago the Primary Growth Partnership has delivered $477 million to primary sector innovation. Collectively this represents the largest investment by the Government in primary sector innovation in decades and it shows just how serious this Government is about boosting economic growth through increased research and innovation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you have been quite strict about the relevance of supplementary questions to primary questions. The primary question was about manuka honey. The fact that an innovation fund was mentioned in the primary reply does not widen the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does. If today a Minister included something in an answer Opposition members are perfectly entitled to question the Minister on what was included in the answer. What Ministers include in answers can be questioned. Earlier on today my problem was that the member was seeking to link back to an answer given last week to a rather different question. 
Justice Minister—Statement 
12. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Does he stand by his statement: “This Government is committed to ensuring that everyone … has access to justice”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes. 
Phil Twyford 
: Will shifting work from the efficient and highly regarded Waitakere Family Court to the already overloaded and inefficient Auckland Family Court improve access to justice; if so how? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Yes because matters requiring 1 day’s hearing or more in the Family Court in Waitakere currently have an average waiting time of 30 weeks. Centralising that work to the Auckland court has seen that waiting time reduced to 9 weeks. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Does he agree with senior west Auckland lawyers acting for children who believe that his policy to improve access to justice will do the exact opposite of what is intended: services in Waitakere will be slashed urgent orders for at-risk children will be delayed and the safety of these children will be put in jeopardy? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: No. There will be no impact on children and vulnerable families. The process for dealing with urgent applications is robust at the Waitakere District Court and that will not change. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Why does he continue to stand by his justice policy in the face of criticism from the Deputy Mayor of Auckland Penny Hulse who when referring to the planned centralisation of Auckland’s courts has said that these “cut at any price” senseless initiatives will make our kids face further risk? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Because the deputy mayor could not be further from getting the matter right. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with Kim Workman from Rethinking Crime and Punishment that “We have reached a tipping point where the incarceration of Maori is causing social damage within their own communities.” and what initiatives is the Minister putting in place to ensure that Maori have access to justice? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: We have been dealing with this issue at tipping point as Kim Workman described it for quite some time. That is why it is so important that quality legal aid services are provided in a timely way to ensure access to justice for all people using the justice system including Maori.