Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 11 August 2011. Volume:674;Page:20549. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Questions to Ministers 
Financial Markets International—Effect on New Zealand 
1. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What advice has he received about factors that lie behind the current turmoil we are witnessing on world financial markets and what are the implications for New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Two related factors appear to be at work: a downgrade in world growth expectations and increasing worry about the creditworthiness of some countries and companies. So we have seen sharemarkets fall sharply while some sovereign debt markets have improved. Credit risk premiums for lower-quality debt have increased and economically sensitive commodities such as oil have seen declines in prices while gold which is seen as a safe haven has risen in price. Our markets are increasingly differentiating between the strong and the weak. New Zealand is among those countries that are seen as having strong creditworthiness. Therefore the market view of our debt has been improving. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the main actions the Government has taken that are helping New Zealand to ride out this crisis and keep interest rates low? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government started taking appropriate action back in 2008 because it believed that New Zealand was vulnerable to just these kinds of events. So we have worked to keep net debt below 30 percent of GDP and to focus on returning to surplus so that our debt will stop increasing. We have continued to protect the most vulnerable and we have worked on channelling Government spending to where it can be most effectively used as well as taking a range of measures on the broader economy that will improve our growth prospects. 
Jonathan Young 
: In what way is New Zealand better placed to withstand the current turmoil than it was 3 years ago? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In any number of ways the New Zealand economy is fundamentally more sound than it was 3 or 4 years ago—in particular because New Zealanders have changed their view of debt. Through the first decade of this century there was excessive borrowing by households but New Zealanders have taken the message from the world. They have stopped increasing their borrowing and are increasing their savings. That alongside Government action is reducing the vulnerability of New Zealand to these kinds of events. 
Jonathan Young 
: What are the policies that put New Zealand’s financial stability most at risk? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Given that markets are increasingly distinguishing between countries with strong creditworthiness and those that are weaker anything that weakens our creditworthiness would be focused on quite intensely in today’s market. The kinds of policies that would take us there would be bigger Government spending higher taxes and more debt. We are not going to go down that path. 
Mine Safety—Safety Standards Compared with Australia 
2. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: Does she still agree as she did on 13 July 2011 with the comment made by Rt Hon John Key on 22 November 2010 that “I have no reason to believe that New Zealand safety standards are any less than Australia’s and in fact our safety record for the most part has been very good”? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 Yes I agree with the Prime Minister. Further to that we have established a royal commission of inquiry to investigate all matters relating to Pike River. We have specifically asked the commission to compare New Zealand’s regulatory provisions with those used in other countries. 
Kevin Hague 
: Did she agree with the 15 out of 17 submitters on the Department of Labour’s 2008 discussion paper  
Improving health and safety hazard management in the underground mining industry 
 who considered that there were real problems requiring change; submitters that included Pike River Coal which drew attention to the inadequacy of New Zealand mine safety regulations and the woeful state of the mines inspectorate? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I took advice from that report from my department and I accepted the recommendations where appropriate. Can I say in relation to Pike River that it was a serious serious tragedy that affects our nation but there is no determination yet as to whether the tragedy was a consequence of operational and/or regulatory failure. The commission has been given the job of determining that and I expect it to do so. 
Kevin Hague 
: Does the Minister recall that her Workplace Health and Safety Council heard evidence prior to the Pike River disaster from Peter Whittall representing the Business Leaders’ Health and Safety Forum that raised significant concerns about the regulatory framework for mining health and safety specifically in comparison with Australia’s? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I recall that the issue of the qualification of mining experts and mining employees was raised and that is why we introduced a regulation to address it. 
Kevin Hague 
: Why does she maintain that she has no reason to believe that our standards are any less than Australia’s given the repeated warnings from the Workplace Health and Safety Council the submissions from virtually the entire industry to the Department of Labour and the warnings from mine safety experts about the inadequacy of New Zealand mine safety standards? Are they all wrong? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We do take advice. We have set up the royal commission of inquiry. That commission of inquiry will be looking at and has been looking at the regulatory framework around our mining industry and we will be taking those determinations and recommendations when they are out very very seriously. Like all New Zealanders we want to make sure that a tragedy such as Pike River does not happen again. 
Kevin Hague 
: What engagement was so important that she failed to attend the Workplace Health and Safety Council meeting on 16 December 2010 the first such meeting since the Pike River disaster? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I do try to attend all of those council meetings but I believe that on that occasion I was in Kaiapoi attending to some earthquake-related issues. That also was a national tragedy. 
Kevin Hague 
: Were any concerns raised with her or her department about the safety of the Pike River coal mine prior to the disaster there in November last year? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I have explained some concerns were raised about the qualifications of mine managers and we did address that by regulation subsequently. 
Kevin Hague 
: Given the wealth of evidence that has emerged since the disaster about the lack of safety in the Pike River mine such as inadequate gas drainage drilling next to cavities filled with pressurised flammable gases the answerphone issue I told the House about previously and the inadequate provision for escape from the mine does she now agree that the system of regulations and inspections must have been fundamentally broken for the situation to have arisen for her not to have heard about it and for absolutely no corrective action to be taken? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The royal commission of inquiry has not yet made any determination on any of those evidential issues and I will wait until it does before we address the situation. As I said we are very serious about making sure that mining is safe in New Zealand. We do not want another tragedy like Pike River but we do want to know what happened why it happened and what we can do to prevent it from happening in the future. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave to table the minutes from the Workplace Health and Safety Council meeting no. 14 from Wednesday 16 December 2010—the meeting immediately after the Pike River disaster. 
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. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: What is the role of the mines inspectorate given her statement in a response to me that it is “not to conduct a top-down audit of safety”; and given the other advice that the Department of Labour gives to its inspectors—that is not to advise mine owners on how they should mine for fear of legal liability—what indeed did she expect the mines inspectorate to do? 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: The same you did when you were in Government. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Exactly; the same as what the member’s Labour Government expected of the mines inspectorate when it was in Government. Can I say that we must not forget that the primary responsibility for workplace safety in a workplace lies with the employer. That is how it was set out in the Health and Safety in Employment Act several years ago. The Act was amended twice by the Labour Government and it never at that stage addressed the test nor suggested that the test was inappropriate. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Given advice to the Minister 18 months prior that “a plan needs to be developed for how inspectors will be trained and supported in professional expertise in the next 8 months” has a plan been developed; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: As I have advised we are taking a close look at the resources and expertise in the department to ensure it can carry out its role of overseeing the mining sector. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Does the Minister consider that one solitary mines inspector is sufficient to uphold proper safety for miners in the hundreds of mines throughout New Zealand; if not why is she not doing something about it? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: No I do not think that one inspector is sufficient but actually at the time of Pike River we had two mine inspectors. Subsequent to that one of our mines inspectors was poached by the Queensland mining industry because it wanted his expertise. Can I also say that the number of mining inspectors was not increased under Labour and we are actively looking at the resources of our department. 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: I seek leave to table a page from the transcript from Michael Firmin the Chief Inspector of Mines who states quite clearly— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The transcript of what? 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: The royal commission. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The current royal commission? 
Hon Damien O’Connor 
: Where he states quite clearly that no plan has been developed to train and support the professional expertise of mines inspectors. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection? I want to be clear: there is objection is there? There is objection. 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Will the Minister accept that practical professional miners who work underground and face the consequences of actions must have the right to be directly involved in all safety issues or will the Government continue with its current law of making all safety decisions the sole preserve of managers who work safely at the surface? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I accept that employee participation is very important in ensuring a good workplace safety culture in any workplace and that is why we have work progressing on that matter. 
Youth Skills Training—Job Creation 
3. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his answers to Oral Question No 1 yesterday when he said that the Leader of the Opposition is “just plain wrong” in relation to skills training? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the Prime Minister: The member is being selective in her version of events. What the Prime Minister said was that it is “just plain wrong” that the Government is simply relying on bringing in people from overseas while New Zealanders stay out of work. In fact in the last year 43000 new jobs were created in New Zealand. 
Hon Annette King 
: How was the Leader of the Opposition “just plain wrong” when the Government’s Youth Guarantee programme which is supposed to provide a pathway to work for young people has enrolled just 2475 people equivalent to 6 percent of those 15 to 19-year-olds who are currently unemployed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because that is roughly the number of places the Government has allocated to the Youth Guarantee programme which I might say is an innovative policy that is dealing with a significant group of teenagers—and it will deal with more of them—whom the previous Government just left out of the system. Once they left school nothing happened for them. We are trying to keep these kids on track to get more training when school does not suit them. 
Hon Annette King 
: How can it be “just plain wrong” when the number of Modern Apprenticeships a scheme that is focused on upskilling 16 to 21-year-olds has declined by 10 percent since early 2009 without any intervention or support from the Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: One of the reasons there has been some decline in apprenticeships is that industries such as the construction industry which were built on the false hope of endless debt under the previous Government have gone through major reductions in the volume of work that they are doing. We are doing our best to rebuild this economy so that those young people can get training opportunities. The member also needs to understand that her Government’s focus purely on driving up numbers in trade training and industry training led to a massive waste of money. My colleague the Hon Steven Joyce is fixing it. 
Hon Annette King 
: If the skills training cuts that he has made are due to wanting to get better value for money how does he explain the disestablishment of the Skill Enhancement programme this year which has run since 1993 and had an 82 percent rate of positive outcome for young New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That member should explain why under her Government’s system they were funding dead people to get qualifications. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question asked about a specific programme. It may be that the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister may not have that specific information but I think to attack the Opposition is not on if the Minister does not have the information. I invite him to indicate whether he can answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot answer specifically about that programme but I can say that it is part of a massive clean-up job this Government is having to do on the system. The previous Government said that the only thing that mattered was driving up the numbers. Thousands of young people were being misled because the taxpayer was spending money on their training and they were getting no qualifications whatsoever. So why should we pay tens of millions of dollars for programmes that do not deliver any qualifications? 
Hon Annette King 
: Is he satisfied that after almost 3 years his Government is doing everything possible to provide skills training opportunities for young people given that the recent report from the New Zealand Institute shows that youth account for 45 percent of our unemployment the highest rate in the OECD and at a cost of $900 million to taxpayers each year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes the Government is doing as much as it can particularly given the fiscal constraints we have. Next year we will have 13000 more post-school training places than in 2008 despite the fact that the budget is very tight. The Government has taken steps in primary and secondary schools to make sure that young people who leave our education system will be literate and numerate because of national standards and that they will have choices because of policies like the Youth Guarantee. The Government is doing a much better job than that member’s Government did. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen the statement made by the Human Rights Commission 3 weeks ago in its report  
Tracking Equality at Work 
 which said that “unless action is taken urgently the youth situation will become unsustainable representing a threat to social cohesion” in New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I have not seen that statement but I can tell the member that the Government has spent a couple of years going through the mess of wasteful spending conflicting programmes and lack of accountability that were the characteristics of the previous Labour Government’s spending in this area. We are making considerable progress despite the fact that there is a recession and that the Government has no new money. I must compliment my colleagues who have worked in this area on how much progress they have made. 
Hon Annette King 
: What advice has he sought about the likelihood of social disharmony occurring in New Zealand as a result of high youth unemployment and disconnection given the unrest that has occurred in Britain in recent days which British commentators are saying arose from young unemployed people? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: What erodes the confidence of young people in a community is false hope—the false hope that badly managed Government programmes and an economy fuelled by borrowing will give them sustainable jobs. That is why so many young people are pleased with this Government which in a realistic and effective way is rebuilding their confidence in the economy. 
Resource Management Act Reforms—Effect on Grocery Business Competition 
4. 
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: How have Government reforms to the Resource Management Act helped increase competition in the grocery business? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 The supermarket circus has long been a problem with the Resource Management Act. Both chains in New Zealand have abused the Act to block others establishing competing supermarkets with pseudo-environmental arguments. The Wairau Pak ’N Save debacle on the North Shore involved objections from Progressive Enterprises and went all the way through the system from commissioners’ hearings to the Environment Court and the High Court taking 12 years to resolve. The latest case involves Foodstuffs trying to block Progressive Enterprises from building a new Countdown store in Tawa. The losers in these legal charades are consumers who are denied competition and choice and getting the best value for money for their groceries. National’s 2009 amendment Act sought to stop such anti-competitive behaviour by disallowing trade competitor objections and appeals under the Resource Management Act. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What reports has the Minister received on whether the new provisions are working? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am pleased at reports that the objection from National Distributions Ltd a subsidiary of Foodstuffs to the new Tawa Countdown has been struck out using National’s new Part 11A provision of the Resource Management Act. The company had argued that even though it was a 100 percent subsidiary of Foodstuffs it was a land development and property business and not a supermarket so it believed it was entitled to object and appeal against the new Countdown store. I am pleased that this argument was not upheld and that the intent of National’s reforms was carried through in this important test case. This is good news for the 14000 people of Tawa who currently have only one supermarket. It is a well-documented fact that food prices are most affordable in those areas where there is strong competition. 
Earthquakes Royal Commission—Legal Representation for Victims’ Families 
5. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Will he meet with earthquake victims’ families to hear directly why they need independent legal representation; if not why not? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Is the cost to the Crown the reason he will not provide independent legal representation to quake victims’ families? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Specifically then given that answer what is the harm in providing independent legal representation to quake victims’ families? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is not a question of harm; it is a question of what is appropriate in the circumstances. I have been very happy with the excellent work the royal commission has done. Justice Cooper who is the chair of the commission the counsel assisting and the families’ liaison person have kept in very close touch with these families to help them through this time. It is very like the royal commission on the Victorian bushfire which I know the member is interested in. The commissioner said: “The significance of the losses of 7 February led counsel assisting to adopt a role in the hearings that represented as far as possible the public interest and particularly the interest of families friends and communities affected by the fires.” 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree that refusing to provide independent legal representation to the families is likely to result in those families losing confidence in the effectiveness of the royal commission inquiry the evidence of which is provided in an open letter from Quake Families to him and the Prime Minister which is partly published today? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: No. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Quake Families—a group representing 50 quake families. It is an open letter to the Prime Minister and Attorney-General dated 10 August 2011 which details the lack of confidence I spoke about. 
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. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that there is no harm in providing independent legal representation why is he still refusing those requests for assistance when providing such representation will afford grieving families some degree of comfort during what can be described only as an incredibly traumatic time? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Because I am very satisfied with the excellent work being done by Justice Cooper counsel assisting the royal commission and the families’ liaison person. They are doing wonderful work and are keeping in touch with the families. I believe they will enable the families to be helped through this very difficult period. 
Health Care—Long-term Costs 
6. 
Hon JOHN BOSCAWEN (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “I think the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research is referring to some longer-term issues around demographic change and healthcare costs and we share the chief executive’s concern”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes I do although I would say having gone back and looked at the chief executive’s comments that I think he has exaggerated some of the challenges a bit by using language like saying that costs will grow exponentially over time. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does he believe that it is fair on pensioners to have to worry about the costs of the increasing number of elderly while he pretends that the age of entitlement can stay at 65 especially when Australia has announced several years in advance its intention to shift the age of entitlement to 67; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the message for pensioners is that they do not need to worry because they have attained the age of 65. I do not think that anyone is proposing that a change in the age of entitlement would affect them. They are a group who tend to worry more about these things but in this case they do not need to. On the issue of raising the age of entitlement the Government’s position is quite clear and well understood. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: How is it that Australia a far richer country than New Zealand recognises that the age of entitlement must be shifted out but here in New Zealand we have a Government promising to take on billions of dollars of extra debt over the next 4 years and potentially bankrupt New Zealand rather than facing up to reality? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We do not believe that those are the choices. 
Hon John Boscawen 
: Does he accept that his Government’s decision to hang its reputation on holding the age of entitlement to 65 is a political one to the long-term detriment of young people in New Zealand who must shoulder the debt; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No. I think the Government’s reputation will hang on considered and consistent economic management in difficult times. With regard to the age of eligibility yes because it is a decision made by Parliament it is a political decision. Our Government has made a decision not to raise the age of eligibility and that is our position. 
Question No. 1 to Minister 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
: 
 In question No. 1 Bill English said that household debt had dropped. I seek leave to table a diagram that shows total household— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of this document? 
STUART NASH 
: It is from the Reserve Bank of New Zealand July 2011. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this its standard publication? The Reserve Bank makes a number of publications. 
STUART NASH 
: “C5 Sector credit: resident New Zealand claims of”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Which document is it from? 
STUART NASH 
: It is just off the Reserve Bank website. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh it is off the Reserve Bank website. 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. 
Foreign Charter Fishing Vessels—Ministerial Inquiry 
7. 
DARIEN FENTON (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Labour 
: What is the timeline of the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews in New Zealand waters? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) 
: 
 No time line has been set as we are still working through the terms of reference and panel membership. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she consider that the testimony of the  
Oyang 75 
 crew who have suffered serious human rights abuses and breaches of New Zealand labour laws is an important part of the inquiry; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I accept that some very serious allegations have been made and that is one of the reasons why we are having a ministerial inquiry. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was very clear as to whether their testimony was important. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to repeat her question. 
Darien Fenton 
: Does she consider that the testimony of the  
Oyang 75 
 crew who have suffered serious human rights abuses and breaches of New Zealand labour laws is an important part of the inquiry; if not why not? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: It is not my responsibility to judge whether the testimony is appropriate. That is an operational matter and is subject to the current investigation which is under way. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why then— 
Hon Annette King 
: Isn’t it a ministerial inquiry? 
Darien Fenton 
: —yes—is she determined to deport the  
Oyang 75 
 crew this Saturday and send them home to fines of up to $5000 each for breach of contract while those responsible for the abuses have not been held to account even though her department’s advice to foreign crew on its website is that New Zealand does not tolerate violence against workers or unsafe working conditions? 
Hon Christopher Finlayson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I make this point of order as the acting Acting Leader of the House. Question No. 7 is a very precise question and it concerns a ministerial inquiry but now we are ranging forth into deportation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the question asked about the time line for the ministerial inquiry into the treatment of foreign fishing crews. The supplementary questions relate to matters to do with a particular foreign fishing crew. It may be that the Minister does not have particular information although it is a ministerial inquiry. I do not think it is unreasonable to link these questions to this primary question. Whether the Minister can be expected to have detailed information on any particular element is another matter. I ask the member to repeat her question because the House has now probably lost track of exactly what it was. 
Darien Fenton 
: Why is she determined to deport the  
Oyang 75 
 crew this Saturday and send them home to fines of up to $5000 each for breach of contract while those responsible for these abuses have not been held to account even though her department’s advice to foreign crew on its website is that New Zealand does not tolerate violence against workers or unsafe working conditions? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Minister to answer I say that I now understand the concern of the acting Acting Leader of the House. That question is focused I believe on the Minister’s role as Associate Minister of Immigration. The Minister is being questioned in her role as Minister of Labour. She is welcome to answer what part she can as Minister of Labour but I accept that she is not responsible under this question as Associate Minister of Immigration. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Mr Speaker thank you for answering the question for me. As Minister of Labour I have no responsibility for decisions on deportation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did she as Minister of Labour ask the Minister of Immigration to ensure that the individuals who have been abused—physically and sexually—are still in the country in order to give their testimony to the inquiry that the Minister of Labour is setting up? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I understand that no such decisions regarding deportation have been made. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Because I had not written my question down I cannot read it out again but I certainly started with the question of whether there had been communication in order to ensure that the people are still here to give their testimony. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Indeed that was the question. The member asked whether the Minister of Labour had asked the Minister of Immigration to ensure these people were still in the country to give their testimony. I think the Minister actually answered it as she might as Associate Minister of Immigration. The question was to her as Minister of Labour and it was a fair question to a Minister of Labour. It asked whether she had advised the Minister of Immigration and I think that is worthy of answer. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Speaking as Minister of Labour there is frequent communication with the Associate Minister of Immigration. 
Hon Members 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a serious issue. This is an issue that has attracted some public attention. There is some public interest in this matter. The Minister has been asked whether as Minister of Labour she has asked the Minister of Immigration something to do with this crew—which could be involved in this ministerial inquiry—possibly being deported. I do not think that saying the Minister frequently advises the Associate Minister of Immigration is quite good enough. I realise it is the same person but the question deserves to be treated with some seriousness. A ministerial inquiry is being established by the Government. People who it would appear from the questioning could possibly be deported from New Zealand may be reasonably expected to be involved in such an inquiry. I think it deserves a reasonable answer because the question I think was a reasonable question. I accept that it is the same person which makes it a little unusual but I still think it is worthy of a serious answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is not the same person; the Minister of Immigration is Jonathan Coleman. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I beg your pardon; I accept that totally. I accept my error there. I ask the Minister whether she could answer a little more fully. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am advised that the department is working closely with the crews to try to resolve the current situation but I understand that no final decisions have been made. Of course there have been discussions between me as Minister of Labour and the Minister of Immigration and me as Associate Minister of Immigration but no decisions have been made by the Department of Labour or the Immigration Service. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the email from the Minister of Immigration in response to my request that the crew outlined in this question be allowed to stay in New Zealand while their abuse allegations and the non-payment of due wages are investigated and the Minister of Immigration’s response refusing to— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is just seeking to table the document. 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. 
Darien Fenton 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the office of the Hon Kate Wilkinson to me in reply to a request from me that she intervene in the issue of the  
Oyang 75 
 crew and waive the $550 fee to allow them to appeal their deportation order. 
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. 
Darien Fenton 
: Has she as Minister of Labour asked the Minister of Immigration whether the  
Oyang 75 
 crew and the  
Shin Ji 
 crew can stay past deportation dates to assist with further investigations should it become apparent that there is evidence of human trafficking? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: That specific question has not been asked but I understand and am advised that the department is working very closely with the crews to try to resolve the current issues in the situation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Further to her earlier answer that she had no operational responsibility for the details of the ministerial inquiry if she does not who does? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I refute that question because that is not what I said. 
Rahui Katene 
: What was the key issue that caused the Government to change its mind about a ministerial inquiry into the fishing industry between when I called for such an inquiry on 5 April 2011 and 3 months later on 14 July when the Government made its announcement? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The member was quite right to be concerned about the issue back in April. Subsequent and further allegations have since emerged and the Government considered that a ministerial inquiry was required and appropriate. 
Broadband Rural Initiative—Progress 
8. 
CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) 
 to the  
Minister for Communications and Information Technology 
: What progress is being made on the Government’s goal of delivering fast broadband to rural areas? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) 
: 
 Yesterday the Government released two further tender documents for the final parts of the Rural Broadband Initiative contracts. Together these contracts will cover a further around 260 schools integrated family health care centres and up to 82 libraries. Following this roll-out 98 percent of New Zealand schools will be connected to ultra-fast broadband at the same speeds as their urban counterparts and the remaining 60 remote schools will have access to improved terrestrial or satellite wireless broadband services. We have been able to extend the roll-out to more health centres and some libraries as a result of the value delivered by the Government’s tendering process. 
Chris Auchinvole 
: What difference will the Rural Broadband Initiative make to rural communities? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: When fully implemented the Rural Broadband Initiative will mean our rural communities have improved access to the best health care and education services. The tyranny of distance will be almost completely removed. Fibre connections to places like Te Puia Springs hospital will mean that specialist services can be delivered to remote residents in the Gisborne region or in fact anywhere else in the country. This will save people having to travel for hours by road to access some health services and specialists will be able to spend more time treating patients rather than driving to clinics. The New Zealand economy depends on the rural sector and the extension of super-fast broadband to rural community hubs like libraries will also help keep our rural communities connected to the rest of the world. 
Earthquakes Canterbury—Red Zone Development 
9. 
Dr KENNEDY GRAHAM (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery 
: Does he agree that an appropriate part of the “red zone” area along the Avon River through Christchurch should be transformed into a “green space” for memorial and recreational public purposes? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON (Associate Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery) 
on behalf of the Minister for Canterbury Earthquake Recovery: At this stage we are concentrating on getting the offers of purchase out to people in the worst affected suburbs in the residential red zone. It is too early at this point to determine how that land might be remediated although I congratulate the member and his team on at least putting together one proposal about what might happen. That is a lot more than some people have done. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I thank the Minister for his comments. Does he agree with the recommendation in the Green Party’s  
The Future of Christchurch 
 report that the land might remain in public ownership in perpetuity? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: No. I will not be drawn on whether I agree with any of the Greens’ proposals or anybody else’s proposals at this point. I think there is a long way to go before a distilled view of where Christchurch will go emerges and I certainly do not want to get caught on something too soon. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: Might he none the less agree in principle that such a zone could formally be called the Avon River Memorial Park and that a suitable memorial of some kind could be erected to honour those who died in February? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: Whether or not suggestions like that have merit it would be foolish for me to make a judgment call at this time. I am prepared to wait until all of the information is in and a proper process to make those decisions is undergone. 
Dr Kennedy Graham 
: I seek leave to table the Green Party’s report  
The Future of Christchurch: Report for a 21st century eco-city 
 which reflects the ideas generated from the public forums I have held in Christchurch over the past few months. 
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. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What is the reason he is saying that red zoned land may be used for residential development in the future when this is holding people back from their recovery from the trauma of the earthquake and their displacement from their family home? 
Hon MAURICE WILLIAMSON 
: I am not sure that it is holding people back. I am advised that to date we have had just under 4000 consent forms returned to the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority from those people living in the red zone with regard to the offer to buy their property. Can I say that there are still huge questions to be answered about the future of some of the land. Question time in Parliament before the proper work is done is not the appropriate place to answer those questions. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the letter that came with the consent form that makes it clear that the form has to be returned by 31 July or the offer will not be coming in mid-August. 
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—Fairness 
10. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he believe the tax system is fair for all New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The tax system is certainly fairer than the one we inherited from the previous Government although there is always room for improvement. For instance we have brought in changes that increase the effective tax rate on investment property which was not being taxed under the previous Labour Government netting just short of $1 billion of extra tax per year; closed loopholes that allowed well-off families to claim social assistance— 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a primary question; I asked whether it is fair for all New Zealanders not fairer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a reasonable point. The question asks whether it was fair and it did not ask why so I think we have had sufficient answer. 
Stuart Nash 
: Was the Government’s own Tax Working Group wrong when it said “a large component of economic income is not taxed—capital gains.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It was stating a fact. Members will note that the Tax Working Group came to the conclusion that it would not recommend implementing a capital gains tax and it certainly would not have backed the messy complex high-spending high tax high borrowing— 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All I asked was whether the Government’s Tax Working Group was wrong and he said it was not wrong. I do not need a further explanation. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member—[ 
Interruption 
] A point of order is being considered and there is merit in the point being made. Questions are to be answered without further embellishment according to the Standing Orders. The more brief the question and the less political the question the less room there is for embellishment in the answer. 
Stuart Nash 
: Was the Government’s own Tax Working Group wrong when it said “There are equity and fairness arguments that can be mounted in favour of a capital gains tax.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have not actually seen that quote but it may well have said that. Making tax policy is always a trade-off between fairness efficiency and complexity. Unfortunately the Labour Party’s package loses on all three. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think you know what my point of order is going to be. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has sat down already. 
Stuart Nash 
: Was the Government’s own Tax Working Group wrong when it said “A capital gains tax is generally said to support the integrity of the tax system by reducing opportunities for tax planning and tax avoidance.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It may have said that but it clearly lacked the certainty of its convictions because its members could not come to agreement about a capital gains tax and did not recommend implementing one despite the arguments it raised for it. 
Stuart Nash 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise the point the member is going to make on this occasion but I believe that it would be unreasonable to say that the Minister can say only yes or no because to give some context that is helpful in ensuring the answer is meaningful is not outside the Standing Orders. On this occasion I believe that is what the Minister was doing. That was not unreasonable. It was not superfluous embellishment and it was not attacking the Opposition; it was just pointing out that although the Tax Working Group may have expressed that view it did not carry it through into its recommendations and that is a perfectly valid context to put around an answer. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table the Tax Working Group report given that it may be of assistance— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: All members have the Tax Working Group report. 
Stuart Nash 
: Is it really fair that a working person earning $50000 a year pays around $8000 in income tax while a person who sells an investment property for $50000 profit does not pay any tax on that income? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That may well not be correct because there are quite a number of people who trade in investment property. But if the member is trying to make a general point about fairness there was nothing fair about Labour’s tax system— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister has no responsibility for Labour’s tax system. 
Hon Craig Foss 
: I seek leave to table a statement on the fairness of Labour’s GST proposal from Heinz-Wattie which states: “It would discriminate against local producers”— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What is the source of this statement? 
Hon Craig Foss 
: The source of this statement is an article in  
Hawke’s Bay Today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not seek leave to table current newspaper articles. 
Benefit System—Management 
11. 
KANWALJIT SINGH BAKSHI (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps has the Government taken to manage gateways between benefits? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We have ensured that the gateways between benefits have been tightened through better management of the benefit system. This is all despite a global recession. In 2004 the net flow of people going from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit was 5963 people. In 2011— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister but the member asking the question has a right to hear the answer. The Opposition has been commendably brief in its interjections today but on this occasion the interjections are unreasonable. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I will start again Mr Speaker. We have ensured that the gateways between benefits have been tightened through better management of the benefit system. This is all despite a global recession. In 2004 the net flow of people going from the unemployment benefit to the sickness benefit was 5963 people. In 2011 for the first time in over a decade it was negative 712. Not only has National halted the flow but also we are now seeing more people transfer from the sickness benefit to the work-tested unemployment benefit and that is a good thing. 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: How has the Government’s better management of the benefit system— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi but it is not fair to a colleague who has been called to ask a supplementary question if front-bench members continue to interject. It is rude. It is certainly not good enough. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: We weren’t sure who he was Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Kanwaljit Singh Bakshi 
: How has the Government’s better management of the benefit system impacted on the overall number of those on the sickness benefit and invalids benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: In the 2000s we did see the number of people on the unemployment benefit decrease but the number of people on both the sickness benefit and the invalids benefit increased by about 50 percent. Yes we have seen an increase in the number of those on the unemployment benefit over the last 3 years but we have not hidden the numbers or simply transferred people to another benefit to make ourselves look better like Labour did when it was in Government. 
Education National Standards—School Charters 
12. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Does she stand by all of her answers to Oral Question No 8 yesterday? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 Yes. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What does the Minister make of the fact that 533 or over a quarter of 1922 analysed school charters are non-compliant? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Well the ministry is assessing those charters on a variety of criteria and it is working with schools to develop their charters so that they are compliant. 
Sue Moroney 
: Are there schools that have refused to submit their charters by the 1 July deadline as well as the 533 schools whose charters are non-compliant; if so how many? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I would not have any way of knowing whether a school has refused to do that. That is asking for an opinion and I do not have access to information about it. But I can say to that member that of the so-called rebel schools that submitted their charters—about 437—338 of their charters have been analysed and almost half of those did contain national standards targets. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she still intend to take control of schools away from parents by putting in a statutory manager if they do not comply with her national standards policy? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No we are working with schools that may be breaking the law in a variety of ways helping them to understand that they are in fact breaking the law and making sure that they have every assistance to comply with that law. 
Sue Moroney 
: Does she think the stand-off she has created between her and 533 school communities is beneficial to the education of New Zealand children? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The member’s assertion is incorrect because as I have said the criteria that the ministry is using to assess those charters as being compliant are much wider than just whether they have targets that go against national standards. What I can say is that there are over 2000 primary schools and the majority of those are implementing the standards. In fact I was at a school this morning where it was said to me that already the school could see that using national standards targets had lifted the achievement of its students. That is what this Government is all about: we are about getting results for kids not about creating stand-offs with unions. 
Urgent Question to Minister 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am just considering a matter here that is quite important. I beg the House’s indulgence. [ 
Interruption 
] I apologise to the House for that distraction. What happened was an urgent question was lodged with me and I have to decide whether the facts of the matter as before us justify the urgent question. It is my ruling that on this occasion they do not because the Minister has indicated to the House that nothing will happen before there is a chance to ask further questions and therefore an urgent question is not appropriate today. Had that not happened I think the matter would have justified an urgent question. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Does that mean that we have an assurance in the House that the deportation order to take effect on Saturday will not happen? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The reason why that point is relevant is that were that not to be the case then I would have allowed the urgent question. My understanding was that the Minister had indicated that would not necessarily be happening. If that is not that case then I believe the question should be allowed. Perhaps to clarify the matter I should allow the urgent question. I have perhaps made a wrong assumption so I will hand the question over for the urgent question to be asked. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There were ample opportunities for the member to ask supplementary questions. If his supplementary questions were inept well that is it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The acting Acting Leader of the House should not use that kind of language; it is not becoming. [ 
Interruption 
] It is my decision whether an urgent question is appropriate. If in fact there was no chance to ask further questions if things were going to happen before there was the opportunity to do so and there is no opportunity to ask further questions today without an urgent question being accepted—in my view there would be grounds for the Speaker to accept an urgent question. In respect of my initial ruling until the matter was drawn to my attention by the person who had lodged the question my initial understanding was that nothing would happen before further questions could be asked in this House. That would appear not to be the case. I believe that in respect of a matter of public interest if an action is to be taken before there is the opportunity for a question to be asked then those are grounds for an urgent question and that is why I am allowing the question. 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just refer you to Standing Order 379(1) which says the member must also give a copy of the question to the Minister involved. I want to clarify whether that has occurred. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will hear the Hon David Carter. 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: An urgent question is something that occurs on a very infrequent basis in this House for urgent matters. To allow this to proceed is frankly making a shambles of the process. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not hear any more on this. The House will come to order straight away. Serious matters of public interest are never a shambles in this place—never. Serious matters of public interest that Ministers are responsible for should be treated seriously and this is the place where Ministers are held to account. I ask the member for the Standing Order again as I did not hear clearly which one he was referring to. [ 
Interruption 
] It is 379(1). 
Hon Rick Barker 
: Point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am dealing with the matter and I will not hear a further point of order while I am dealing with the matter. There is no question that the member is right. I think on that basis I cannot allow the question because it is not in order—[ 
Interruption 
] No no no. I think the dilemma we have is that the question was lodged with the Clerk so late that it is impossible to deal with it properly. I want the House to come to order because this is a serious issue. The Standings Orders do have to be complied with and at the time I had to make a ruling on it the Minister did not have a copy of the urgent question. So the Standing Orders had not been complied with. I cannot overturn the Standing Orders. But I want the House to treat this matter seriously. I cannot depart from the Standing Orders. I have tried to make every opportunity for a matter of public interest to be dealt with but the Standing Orders are the Standing Orders. That is the end of the matter. 
Hon RICK BARKER (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have made it very clear it is the end of the matter. There can be no further points of order on this matter so it has to be on a different matter. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: Well it is on this matter but it is a different aspect of it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Because the Hon Rick Barker normally has something worth hearing I will hear the member. 
Hon RICK BARKER 
: The situation is not too dissimilar from when Ministers walk from the Beehive across to this House. Members of the press gallery do not give prior written notice to Ministers of issues they wish to doorstop them on. Let us be frank about that. They turn up as they come by and Ministers are expected to answer the questions when they are there. I accept they do not give them notice that they will turn up. All Ministers understand that. When they walk across they are prepared to answer any questions. I accept your point Mr Speaker that the Standing Orders prohibit it in that regard but I seek leave for the Hon Trevor Mallard to be able to ask one further question to the Associate Minister of Immigration. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection to that— 
Hon Annette King 
: Gutless! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: —course of action. The Hon Annette King will get to her feet and withdraw and apologise. 
Hon Annette King 
: I withdraw and apologise. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the member. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Associate Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Just speaking to that point of order and because it is a matter of public interest and very serious— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not understand what point of order can be raised here because that matter has been dealt with. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Can I seek leave? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister can seek leave indeed. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I seek leave to clarify the situation and attempt to answer the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the Minister wishes to make a ministerial statement that is debatable. There is no personal explanation that I am aware of that the Minister can use here. The matter has been dealt with. I sought to enable an urgent question to be asked. It was pointed out to me that that was inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I totally accept that—it was inconsistent with the Standing Orders. I have to rule in favour of that. I sought leave on the recommendation of the chief Opposition whip. Leave was not granted and that is the end of that matter. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have said that that is the end of the matter. Well I will hear it; I want to understand what the point of order is. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The point of order is to make it clear to the House that the Labour Opposition will not object if the Minister asks for leave— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. Members have pointed out to me that the Standing Orders did not provide for this urgent question to be asked and I have ruled consistent with the Standing Orders. That is the end of the matter. The House must now move on. Question time is a time for questions to be asked. The member was quite at liberty to lodge an urgent question. I felt there was some merit in the question he lodged but the Standing Orders precluded my dealing with it today.