Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:655;Page:4569] 
Questions to Ministers 
Economy—Performance Compared with Other Countries 
1. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he seen about New Zealand’s economic performance relative to other countries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 For most people the measure of a recession is whether they have a job as much as it is a measure of changes in GDP. The Government determined in the Budget to persist with spending on public services and infrastructure to ensure that New Zealanders who lose their jobs have the best possible opportunity to find new ones. New Zealand’s unemployment rate is currently 5 percent and is forecast to increase over the coming year. However it compares very favourably with those of other developing countries—the US at 9.4 percent the UK at 7.2 percent the eurozone at 9.2 percent and Australia at 5.7 percent. 
Chris Tremain 
: What economic challenges did the Government inherit after the 2008 election? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government inherited a number of economic challenges that it is certainly capable of dealing with. Unusually New Zealand had been in recession for almost a year and unemployment was already rising quickly. New Zealand had a record current account deficit of 9 percent the trade and export sector had been in recession for 5 years business was being choked by red tape and regulations the Government’s books showed deteriorating fiscal deficits and rising Crown debt and the public sector has been used to years of lots of extra money for no extra output and needed a great deal of change. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister explain how focusing on the unemployment levels of other countries will help the 60000 New Zealanders forecast to lose their jobs in the next year and when will he present a real jobs plan for New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: When National came into office it found an economy in recession with rising unemployment; then the global recession took hold over the following 6 months. In the Budget this Government made balanced decisions where it has continued with orthodox stimulus measures such as tax cuts increased public spending and spending on infrastructure. We will continue with that balanced approach as we move into long-term measures to increase the country’s economic performance. No person will get a new job until a business makes a decision to invest and employ. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Which of the Minister’s positions is the real one: that New Zealand’s unemployment was the second-lowest in the OECD or that it was rapidly rising or that New Zealand was in a very severe recession or that the Government really could afford those tax cuts that the bloke sitting next to him personally pledged? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has instituted a range of policies that are supporting jobs. According to one estimate by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research’s economic forecasters the Government stimulus package is supporting around 10000 jobs. The rest of New Zealand apart from the Labour Party has a pretty clear understanding that the global recession means that people will lose jobs and they are strongly supporting a Government getting on with the task of creating a business environment where new jobs will be created. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Has the Minister seen the analysis by Child Poverty Action Group economist Dr Susan St John that New Zealand has one of the highest levels of income disparity in the OECD and what work is being undertaken to address the hardship faced by many low-income families? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I was surprised to see that analysis. I thought that after 10 years of listening to Labour about how it was going to fix that it was surprising to see that in some respects it has got worse. The best thing this Government can do is to get the economy growing again so we have enough income to deal with child poverty and a strong enough economy to provide jobs. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister accept that genuine economic and social progress will be made only when poverty is eliminated and when will a target date be set to end child poverty? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I certainly do accept the first point and that it why it is absolutely vital we sort out the imbalances in this economy bring an end to the reckless fiscal spending of the previous Government and create new jobs so people can have decent incomes. 
Job Summit—Creation of Jobs 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What evidence does he have to support the statement he made in the House yesterday “… the Job Summit has and will create thousands of jobs”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I can give the member one simple example. One of the initiatives proposed at the Job Summit was to accelerate environmental initiatives for employment and productivity improvements. We have done that through the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation programme and I am advised that this will supply about 2000 jobs over the next 4 years. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why does the Prime Minister not simply admit that that programme was a Labour policy that he abolished on becoming Prime Minister and that he is now implementing a scheme that is one-third the size of it 6 months later? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: For a start what we know about Labour policies is that Labour promises a lot but does not fund its promises. That is the first thing. The other quite interesting thing is that last week I understand the Minister of Finance challenged the Opposition spokesperson on finance about the billions more going into the New Zealand Superannuation Fund the $3 billion going into the Waterview tunnel and the billions of dollars going into tax cuts and all the other initiatives that this Government is trying to get on top of in order to get our fiscal position in order and according to David Cunliffe they were not policies. No they are not policies. They are just a wish list like everything else that comes from Labour. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it evidence of the failure of “Mark I” and “Mark II” of the 9-day working fortnight programme that I have received this note from the Department of Labour which indicates that given the failure of the first two measures that the Prime Minister implemented the department is now looking at a third measure “Mark III” to try to get that scheme to deliver anything significant at all? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Call me old-fashioned but I say it is a perverse kind of Opposition that thinks it is a good thing when the country goes on to a 9-day fortnight. We are happy to do it to help companies out but why would we want to rush on to it? By the way I remember being in this House just a few months ago when the Opposition was criticising me for doing that programme for Fisher and Paykel Appliances. Well today Fisher and Paykel Appliances has got its balance sheet in order. The private sector has come to a solution. We have saved an iconic New Zealand company. We are acting on this side of the House. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Where does the Job Summit fit into the Government’s overall programme to support jobs? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: That is a very good question. The Job Summit is only a small part of the Government’s actions to support jobs during this recession. The most important thing the Government has done for jobs is to maintain its spending on entitlements and public services. This has created a very sizable fiscal stimulus to sustain economic activity in New Zealand and therefore support jobs. We have done a lot of other things as well including bringing forward nearly $500 million of capital spending on roads housing and school buildings introducing a tax assistance package for small and medium sized businesses and avoiding a credit downgrade which a Labour Government would have almost certainly delivered to New Zealand. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is the Prime Minister’s “third time lucky” approach to the 9-day working fortnight just evidence of his Government’s ad hoc approach to the soaring rate of unemployment and evidence of the fact that the Government has no plan at all to keep Kiwis in work? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If we want to see an ad hoc approach to this debate we should look across at the Leader of the Opposition who is rapidly turning into the “Phil-who-cried-wolf”. Let me tell members why. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can anticipate what my point of order might be with regard to— 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Let’s have a contest. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order. I might say to the honourable member though that it should not be a quiz time in which to question the Speaker. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: You know that members of Parliament have to be referred to by their full name. Yesterday you told us about your desire to protect the dignity of the House. I think you would have to argue that the Prime Minister not by insinuation but directly used a phrase about an honourable member that was not correct. I wanted to make this intervention because I was surprised that you had not corrected him on that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but I did not hear the comment. I would ask the Prime Minister to withdraw it though if he made an unparliamentary comment. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: To withdraw it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like the Prime Minister to withdraw it yes. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Certainly I withdraw it. I should have said the “Philip-Goff-who-cried-wolf”. The reason why I said that is that the Leader of the Opposition has been running around telling people that in fact there have been 2800— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. [ 
Interruption 
] I am just waiting for it to be quiet so I can have my point of order heard in silence. I do not mind how long it takes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am waiting for the member to make his point of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: As you know members of Parliament must withdraw and apologise if requested to do so and if they qualify the comment in any way then they must withdraw from the Chamber. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I asked the Prime Minister to withdraw his comment because I did not hear it. I asked him to withdraw the comment; I did not ask him to apologise. He withdrew his statement and I am satisfied by that. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: That is not what I was saying. My point of order referred to the fact that once members have withdrawn a comment they are not meant to relitigate or refer to what you have asked them to do. No sooner had the Prime Minister withdrawn his comment than he straight away qualified what he had said by saying “I should have said” and then he repeated the other phrase in a slightly modified form. In fact the member concerned is not known as Philip Goff in the Chamber so the Prime Minister compounded the original transgression. The second point is that previously when members have not withdrawn fully and left it at that you have asked them to leave the Chamber. That was not the case on this occasion—not that I think he should leave the Chamber. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Darren Hughes was quite right on his first point of order and you correctly asked the Prime Minister to withdraw his comment. But it is getting a bit prissy for this Parliament to suggest that members cannot say “Phil-Goff-who-cried-wolf”. If that is going to be ruled out of order my goodness what can we say and just how sensitive is the Leader of the Opposition? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable members. I accept the point from the Hon Darren Hughes and I say to the Prime Minister that the name the honourable Leader of the Opposition goes by is the Hon Phil Goff and that name should be used. Has the Prime Minister finished his answer? The Prime Minister was interrupted by a point of order. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If anyone is guilty of making ad hoc statements it is the Leader of the Opposition. He has been running around saying that in the building sector 2800 apprentices have been laid off. He is right but that was for the 14 months to March this year and for 9 of those 14 months Labour was in Government. 
Metiria Turei 
: Has the Prime Minister seen the report  
Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation 
 which shows that for every dollar he spends on new motorways he could create 40 percent more jobs if he spends it on bus infrastructure bus and train services walking and cycling infrastructure and road maintenance and is that not exactly the kind of spending that his Government likes that commuters particularly in Auckland want and that is good spending that our environment needs? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Two things seem to be lost on the member: first we are spending $1.6 billion more on public transport including the electrification of trains in Auckland; and second pretty much every day the Opposition bags me for building a cycleway. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Could the Prime Minister please explain to the Leader of the Opposition that the creation of thousands of well-paying jobs requires an increase in productivity back to the 3 percent rate of the 1984-99 period instead of the paltry 1 percent rate achieved under Labour? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member makes an excellent point. On the advice I have the 2 percent differential over 15 years would increase the average income by 35 percent. That is why the National and ACT parties have sought through their confidence and supply agreement to try to narrow that gap. We will be working very hard with the members of ACT to try to achieve that outcome. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it crying wolf to point out to the Prime Minister that since his Job Summit 16000 Kiwis have lost their jobs that since his Budget 4000 New Zealanders have lost their jobs and that all the Prime Minister’s department could do yesterday was have officials scramble around to find 32 additional jobs that have been saved by the 9-day working fortnight which is less than 10 percent of the jobs lost each day? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have three very quick points. The first is that we have always argued that in the worst recession since 1930 unemployment would rise and it is rising in every country. Second the only reason we would be going out there to get more information is to put some accuracy into the debate. It may be of interest to the Leader of the Opposition to learn that tomorrow the Tertiary Education Commission will be releasing its latest statistics on apprenticeships. The member may be interested to know that far from shrinking the number of apprenticeships grew by 4 percent in the first quarter. There are now 133000 industry training graduates receiving support from the Government. That is a record level. Third one thing we know for sure is that if we had followed the Phil Goff plan of seeing New Zealand’s credit rating downgraded which would have happened if Labour was running the country thousands and thousands of New Zealanders would have lost their jobs. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Prime Minister is not responsible for the policy of the Leader of the Opposition. 
Jo Goodhew 
: How does New Zealand’s unemployment rate compare with that of other OECD countries? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: New Zealand has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the OECD despite all countries experiencing the same global recession. The unemployment rate in New Zealand is currently 5 percent; in comparison in Australia it is 5.7 percent in the United Kingdom it is 7.2 percent in the eurozone area as a whole it is 9.2 percent; and in the United States it is 9.4 percent. This shows that we are doing a good job in New Zealand of holding down the growth in unemployment despite this being the worst recession since 1930. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How many jobs will the Prime Minister’s cycleway proposal create in the next year over which time according to Treasury and the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research 60000 to 70000 extra New Zealanders will lose their jobs? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do not know the answer to the number of jobs at this point— 
Hon Members 
: Why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well what I can say is that in years to come New Zealanders will look back at the cycleway and realise what a great addition it was to New Zealand’s tourism. What is more if Opposition members do not believe in the cycleway I challenge them to rip it up if they ever become the Government one day. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of other periods when unemployment was rising? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough I have. I have seen reports that between April 1987 and August 1989 employment as measured by the household labour force survey— 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Leave Roger alone! 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Opposition members do not want to hear this but let me repeat that between April 1987 and August 1989 unemployment as measured by the household labour force survey rose from 70000 to 119000. Also between 1987 and 1989 the number of people receiving the unemployment benefit almost doubled rising from 64000 to 124000. That was the exact period when the Minister of Employment in New Zealand was the Hon Phil Goff. 
Metiria Turei 
: Does the Prime Minister stand by his statement yesterday that roads are a form of public transport; if so does he not accept that if commuters who want to leave their cars at home have access to adequate bus and train services their cars will not be on those roads and there will be enough room on the existing roads for those who need to use them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: In answer to the latter part of the question no I do not accept that there would be enough roads if we did not build any more. Secondly I say if the member goes and has a look at say the busway in Auckland she will see that that road is used as a very effective form of public transport. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why has the Prime Minister been doing nothing while one in five young New Zealanders has gone straight from school to the dole queue—20 percent of all teenage New Zealanders? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Far from doing nothing we have actually delivered a Budget that saw a credit rating upgrade in New Zealand as opposed to the downgrade that Labour would have delivered. Secondly one of the fastest ways for a bit more infrastructure to be built in New Zealand would be for the Resource Management Act to be reformed. I challenge the Labour Opposition to vote for the reform that is to go through this House in a few weeks. One of the fastest ways to make sure that industry in New Zealand can get a foot up and continue to operate in New Zealand would be to have a balanced emissions trading scheme. I challenge the Opposition to vote for that. One of the fastest ways to see youngsters get an opportunity was the introduction of the 90-day probationary employment period. I am very sorry that the Opposition did not vote for that. I could go on for hours because this has been a very busy Government. 
John Boscawen 
: Far from doing nothing as the Leader of the Opposition just alleged does the Prime Minister agree that crucial to achieving higher paying jobs in New Zealand is higher productivity growth and that this will be provided for by the soon-to-be-announced 2025 commission? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member is absolutely right. To quote the Opposition the reason that help is on its way is that over the last decade productivity collapsed under the previous Labour Government to one of the lowest levels that we have seen. That is why we have a new Government; that is why we are focused on raising productivity. 
Jo Goodhew 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports of other employment summits? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough I have. I saw a report on an employment conference organised by a former Minister of Employment Phil Goff in February 1989. This is really interesting reading actually. Mr Goff said at the time that the public should not expect any major new employment schemes to emerge from the conference and that no amount of further education or participation in retraining schemes could guarantee employment for New Zealand’s jobless. The conference was as described by the  
National Business Review 
 “a total flop”. The only concrete thing to come out of Mr Goff’s all-day talkfest on unemployment was the creation of another Cabinet committee. By the time Mr Goff was voted out in 1990 the unemployment rate had risen by 150 percent. [ 
Interruption 
] I know the Leader of the Opposition is negative on these things because he does not know how to run one. But ours was quite good. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Given the very limited uptake of the 9-day working fortnight why did the Prime Minister decide to sack 1400 decent hard-working public servants instead of making the 9-day working fortnight available to people in the public sector and having one standard for all citizens? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Firstly I challenge that number from the Leader of the Opposition. Secondly we know that the Leader of the Opposition shoots first and then asks for a bit more detail later on. We will go away and look at that; it is not the advice that I have had. I know this is lost on the Opposition but this is the worst recession since 1930. The Minister of Finance will have an economy that will produce $50 billion less revenue over the next 3 years. The Government has to tighten its belt and get on top of the issues. We are doing that in a responsible way and I think New Zealanders support us in that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document. It is the Department of Labour’s weekly report to its Ministers indicating that its employers are now working on “Mark III” of the 9-day working fortnight. It is still trying to get it right. 
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. 
Metiria Turei 
: I seek leave of the House to table a document entitled  
Smart Transportation Economic Stimulation 
. It shows how expanding urban highways exacerbates future transport problems and threatens future economic productivity— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Could the member please indicate what the document is? 
Metiria Turei 
: I am just about to get to that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I ask the member to please come to it very quickly. 
Metiria Turei 
: It is a report from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute dated 21 April 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? [ 
Interruption 
] Did I hear objection? I will put it to members again. Is there objection to that document being tabled? [ 
Interruption 
] Did I hear yes again? There is objection. 
New Zealand—Clean Green Image 
3.  
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement in the House that “I certainly agree that part of New Zealand’s important brand is the clean green image”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes I do. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that the innovative Enviroschools concept—now 10 years old and a roaring success in New Zealand—is being promoted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade in the trade talks for the Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership Agreement with Singapore Brunei and Chile and that it is likely to result in a small but profitable export opportunity as well as a great clean green branding opportunity. 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am aware that a decision was made by Cabinet to cease the $19.4 million worth of funding over 4 years to the Enviroschools project. The reason for that is that a higher priority for this Government was the $36 million put into literacy and numeracy. We think that is more important. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is the Prime Minister aware that 212870 New Zealand kids attend Enviroschools—one-quarter of all our schools—and that 210 schools and early childhood centres are on the waiting list wanting to join this highly successful and innovative programme? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I am. There is nothing stopping teachers continuing to teach in this area. In fact environmental education is still very much a part of the curriculum. The website is still up and running. I expect that the good talented New Zealand teachers will continue to teach New Zealand’s young people about the importance of maintaining the environment. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Prime Minister recall a video statement he made to the Enviroschools YOUth Jam on 11 September 2007 where he said that we can no longer afford to take the environment for granted that the environment is very important for the future of our country that technology and innovation is essential to sustainability and that sharing innovative ideas for sustainability with the rest of the world is crucial to solving global problems and concluded that Enviroschools youth leaders can “play a leadership role in getting that message out there to the community.”? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I do but there is every chance that the member delivered the words more eloquently than I did. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Is the Prime Minister concerned that many parents and teachers around the country who support and voted for National have expressed disbelief at the recent cuts to environmental education and is he prepared to meet with the Green Party to find a solution that is best for the environment best for the economy and best for our children? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We regularly meet with the leadership of the Green Party and we will continue to do so. I make the point again that nothing is stopping schools continuing to teach about the environment—in fact we actively encourage it. In fact it is part of the curriculum and it will continue to happen. But if the member wants to put the issue with her co-leader sitting next to her Metiria Turei we are happy to have a discussion about it next time we meet. 
Economy—Reports 
4.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the state of the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have this week seen consensus forecasts issued by the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research that are broadly in line with Treasury forecasts in last month’s Budget. They show that the recession which began under the Labour Government in January 2008 will continue over the rest of this year with unemployment peaking at about 7.5 percent in March 2010. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In relation to that does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister’s reported quote: “the success of the 9-day fortnight is not judged by the number of people going on it;” if so can he explain why a job-saving scheme should not be judged by the number of jobs it saves? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I agree with the Prime Minister. The best news is that because businesses have confidence that the Government will back them to create jobs there is now evidence that they are holding on to people if they possibly can. That is a huge step forward. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What reports has the Minister received about the impact on jobs of the Government’s fiscal stimulus? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research produced an estimate earlier this year that the Government’s fiscal stimulus would support 10000 jobs in the short run. Of course in the longer run sustainable jobs depend on businesses that are willing to invest and save not on the putting out of press releases as Opposition members advocate. That is why we focus on building business confidence and they focus on putting out press releases. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister continue to believe that gimmicks like a 9-day working fortnight scheme that has protected less than 2 days’ worth of job losses a cycleway that has yet to save any and forcing Auckland ratepayers to paint a couple of ugly sheds on Queen’s Wharf amount to a real jobs strategy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well I invite the member to go and talk to any of those individuals who are on the 9-day scheme and tell them that that Government scheme which has kept them in work is a gimmick. That member should go and tell the families of those individuals who rely on their income that the scheme that saved the jobs of those individuals is a gimmick. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister remind the House how cancelling the research and development tax cuts and failing to implement the New Zealand Skills Strategy created jobs when both moves were opposed by Treasury the Council of Trade Unions and Business New Zealand? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Opposition seems to be working on the idea that there is some magic scheme out there that will suddenly create tens of thousands of jobs. In fact the Opposition needs to know that rebuilding jobs in this country will be a long hard job—involving building business confidence and investing for the long term—because the economic cycle is a bit longer than the news cycle. 
Accident Compensation—Additional Funding 
5.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Has the Government had to provide further funding to ACC this month to assist in meeting the corporation’s liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes; this week the Government has approved additional funding for accident compensation of $97 million to address underfunding of the non-earners account. We provided $200 million in December to the scheme to address the blowout in that account that was not disclosed in the pre-election fiscal update. The additional $97 million that has been provided this week was flagged then but was subject to a further actuary assessment. This has shown that the shortfall was actually $384 million which means that the solvency in this account will continue to deteriorate despite the injection of over $290 million. 
David Bennett 
: What other reports has he received on impacts on the accident compensation scheme’s liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The latest Department of Labour commentary on the quarterly report of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) shows an ongoing deterioration in the scheme’s rehabilitation rates. The 3-month rate which is the common measure has declined from 69 percent in 2005 to 67 percent in 2006 to 66 percent in 2007 to 65 percent in 2008 and it is now down to just 63 percent in the year to March 2009. I am advised that that will increase the scheme’s liabilities by a further $700 million. 
David Bennett 
: What steps is ACC taking under the direction of the new board to improve rehabilitation rates and thus reduce the scheme’s liabilities? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: ACC’s new board has endorsed a number of new initiatives to rehabilitate injured New Zealanders and get them back to work. In the first instance ACC’s front-line services have been revamped to provide a stay-at-work philosophy where clients are provided with extra services up front. In Taupo a service has been trialled under the Better at Work banner using general practitioners and other health professionals. It is providing very positive results and we intend to roll out the service throughout New Zealand. Rehabilitating workers to enable them to get back into the workforce more quickly is a key priority of the new board. 
Hon David Parker 
: When will the Minister come clean and say that the reason he is delaying legislation to extend the date for full funding of the earners account which would of itself reduce levies is that he wants to include cuts to accident compensation entitlements in the same legislation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I make is that Labour had 9 years to address the time frame. It had 9 long years to address the issue of the timetable for full funding and it did nothing. I remind members opposite that simply extending the full funding date only adds to the Crown’s liabilities and debt. That is something I know that Labour is not particularly focused on but this Government is focused on it. If we are to secure the sustainability of accident compensation it is absolutely plain that other changes will also be required. 
Families Commission—Appointment of Christine Rankin 
6.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What was the process she followed when appointing Christine Rankin as a Families Commissioner? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 The process included but was not limited to calling for expressions of interest pre-appointment document checks and submitting papers to the appointments and honours committee. It went to Cabinet it went to caucus pre-appointment checks were completed and the appointment document was sent—just as it was for Bruce Pilbrow. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Did Christine Rankin discuss her  
Investigate 
 interview with the Chief Families Commissioner Jan Pryor as she was clearly instructed to in the Minister’s letter to her outlining a no-surprises clause; if she did was it done at the earliest opportunity or was Jan Pryor unpleasantly surprised? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It is my understanding that she discussed the interview with the Chief Families Commissioner prior to giving it. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: What would actively campaigning on section 59 look like to the Minister: would it look like a 4-page spread in a magazine campaigning against the law or would it look more like being a trustee of an organisation that advocates views on section 59 that directly contradict the views of the Government? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I looked up the definition of “campaigning” and it says “a vigorous concerted effort to accomplish a purpose”. I suppose my own interpretation would be that I do not expect her to be holding a megaphone. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. What are the important issues facing New Zealand families that the Government would like the Families Commission to focus on? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Let us start with what they are not: reports that parents working long hours report feeling tired and stressed or research I have seen that shows that children value their relationship with their grandparents or—a particular favourite that some colleagues might listen to—research that shows that men are less likely than women to talk about their relationship problems. These were commissioned by the previous Chief Families Commissioner who now sits on the Opposition benches and I do not think they add much value to New Zealand families. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the Minister believe the comments reported in the  
New Zealand Herald  
yesterday by the Family and Children Trust spokeswoman Bev Adair that one Ms Rankin was the trust’s chief executive and two she would definitely take part in the section 59 referendum campaign; if the comments are accurate would that constitute a conflict of interest and has the Minister determined whether they are accurate? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The Opposition’s obsession with Ms Rankin’s appointment is curious to say the least. Let us be quite clear: her involvement with the Family and Children Trust was included in the press release we put out announcing her appointment to the job. So there are no secrets and no surprises about her attachment to that particular trust. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question had a specific point which was whether the comments alluded to in the  
New Zealand Herald  
would constitute a conflict of interest if they were accurate and whether the Minister had determined that they were accurate. That question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question did specifically relate to comments made in the  
New Zealand Herald 
. I invite the Hon Paula Bennett to respond to that. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think the Prime Minister and I have been very clear on what we expect of Ms Rankin as far as her appointment is concerned. We have made that clear. I am not going to make comments about someone else’s comments in the newspaper or be responsible for them. 
Migration—Net Position 
7.  
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Immigration 
: What recent reports has he seen on net migration to New Zealand? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Minister of Immigration) 
: 
 The latest information from Statistics New Zealand—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I would like to hear the Minister’s answer as I am sure the House would. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: The latest information from Statistics New Zealand shows that in May 2009 net annual inflows of permanent and long-term migrants have reached their highest levels in 2 years driven by strong growth in the last 6 months. In the year to May 2009 there were 11200 more permanent and long-term arrivals than departures—a significant increase on the figure of 4900 a year ago. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What is driving the increase in net migration? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Overall arrivals continue to increase up 5 percent while departures are declining down 3 percent. Arrivals of New Zealand citizens from Australia are up 29 percent compared with last year and arrivals of New Zealand citizens from the UK are up 13 percent. We said in our manifesto that we would retain Kiwis and attract overseas Kiwis home and we are doing it. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Are we reversing the trend of Kiwis leaving these shores for Australia? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Absolutely! Under the previous Labour Government people were leaving New Zealand in droves. The picture is reversing now with departures of New Zealand citizens to Australia down 34 percent compared with a year ago and departures to the UK down 26 percent. Helen Clark and Phil Goff were waving them off. John Key is welcoming them back. 
Police—Resourcing 
8.  
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour—Waimakariri) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Does she stand by her statement “it is essential that police have the resources and support they need to keep the public and themselves safe”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. The Government’s top priority for policing has been to increase the number of officers on the front line to keep the public safe. That is why Budget 2009 provided $182.5 million of funding over 4 years to fund extra police. This funding included $20 million of capital funding for accommodation and vehicles for extra police. The police also received $10 million in Budget 2009 for Tasers which will assist them to keep themselves and the public safe. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Why then is she cutting $21 million out of police resources including cutting the police vehicle fleet by 10 percent when the Commissioner of Police himself admitted today at the police estimates hearing that those cuts will heighten the risk of a decline in police services and a delay in police response times? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I heard the Commissioner of Police say that there would not be any cut in services. In fact the money is being used to make more effective use of the vehicle fleet and for leave management legal expenses administration of travel—which I would have thought was quite good—Police National Headquarters operating expenses and district administration savings to name just a few. The police have come up with their own savings and good on them because we are facing the worst recession that this country has seen since the 1930s. 
Sandra Goudie 
: What is the Government doing to ensure that the police have the resources and the support they need to keep the public and themselves safe? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Apart from the $182.5 million in this year’s Budget as at 30 November 2008 there were 8307 front-line police. By 31 December 2011 there will be 8907 front-line police which is an increase of 600 police officers 300 of whom this Government has allocated to the Counties-Manukau Police District. The Government’s top priorities for policing have been to increase the number of police officers to improve the safety of the public and the provision of Tasers to assist the safety of the police as well. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: What is the sense in giving the police funding in the Budget for 43 extra vehicles with one hand while taking away 300-plus vehicles with the other hand or is this another attempt to fudge the numbers as that Minister did with her claim of 600 extra police being funded by this Government when it was confirmed at the select committee today that National is funding only 224 of the new police officers? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not know why the member gets his numbers so wrong. There are 389 extra police and 43 extra cars provided under Budget 2009. I will say it again: there are 389 extra police under just this Budget. I cannot understand why the member cannot count. There will be 600 more police by the end of 2011 than there were at the beginning of December 2008. That is 600 extra police. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister take ministerial responsibility for the $21 million that is being cut from police resources if those cuts result in a decline in service from the police or will she continue to wash her hands of her responsibilities as she did in the select committee today when she claimed that that responsibility will be an operational matter? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Actually I am very happy to take some responsibility for the $182.5 million that this Government has been able to put towards the police—plus by the way the $10.5 million for Tasers which is something that those members over there when they were in Government never ever funded. All they ever did was to have another review. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a report in which the police note part of the drive to cut $21 million from their $1.5 billion annual budget. It is a 19 June 2009 report from the  
Southland Times 
. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a report from the  
Southland Times 
. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I seek leave to table a report in which the Minister of Police implies that the police provided by the previous Government were underfunded. I do this noting your rulings Mr Speaker; it is an answer to an oral question of 2 June 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Just let me clarify: the member is seeking to table the answer to an oral question of 2 June 2009 which is only a few days back. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: That is correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Why would the House not have that information? 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I am quite happy to provide that answer. I seek leave to table the answer reluctantly but I do it firstly because under Standing Order 368 I am able to and secondly because the answer highlights an inherent contradiction in what the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down. I have made the point on many occasions that the important provision in the Standing Orders for members to table documents is to provide the House with information that it otherwise would not have. It is not to enable members to score political points using information that was provided in the House only a few days before. I am bound to put the leave the member is seeking but I note that it is disorderly to abuse the provisions like that. Leave has been sought and I will put that leave. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you are editorialising what the Standing Order states. The Standing Order does not state what its intention is; it states just what we are allowed and not allowed to do. My colleague was perfectly within order to seek leave to table that document. There used to be abuse of the leave provisions in this House when the Hon Phil Heatley would stand up and list 10 different documents separately— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat and he will not use the point of order procedure to attack another member in the House. I have made my position as Speaker very clear. The member is certainly entitled to his view; I will respect his view. But he will not take further time of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This is a matter that came up last week and it has come up again now and you have indicated that you will refer it to the Standing Orders Committee. Can I suggest that until the Standing Orders are changed it would be appropriate either for the House to use the current Standing Orders or for you to issue a clear Speaker’s ruling that indicates that you will not accept points of order of this sort. If you issued a clear Speaker’s ruling of that type then the House would be obliged to obey it in the interim. While we have editorialising and case by case management of this issue I think it will lead to disorder but it is something that is in your hands. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the honourable member’s point. I remind members of the House that the Standing Orders Committee reviewed this matter and reported on it at the end of the last Parliament giving guidance to the Speaker. The Speaker attempts to follow the guidance of the Standing Orders Committee which was very clear that the provision should be used to provide information to the House that it would not otherwise have in its possession. As Speaker I have been trying to follow the guidance of the Standing Orders Committee and I apologise to the House if members feel that I am taking that too far. I am trying to treat both sides of the House evenly. I try to make it clear that it is not a great course of action to try to use the tabling procedure to score political points. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I accept everything you have said. In addition to the request that my colleague has made I also ask whether you would reflect on this—and I am not scoring political points. If a statement is made in the House on a particular area and the  
Hansard 
 record either latterly or historically shows that a member has taken a different position then members have often sought to table the  
Hansard 
. The only course of action available to highlight that the particular position may be contradictory is to offer up the  
Hansard 
. I think that in practical terms it would be rare for us all to remember things that were said in this place years ago perhaps or even months ago. So that is one reason. It is done reluctantly and not to challenge you Mr Speaker; it is done to highlight—as the only course of action that we on this side of the House have—where a contradiction may have occurred. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any further advice on this matter. I respect the point the honourable member has raised but this is precisely why supplementary questions are provided for. If one goes back a few years to my early days in this House there was only one supplementary question to a substantive question. The reason why there are many more supplementary questions today is to enable members to pursue exactly that kind of thing. Where they find that an answer seems inconsistent with information that they have in their possession they can question the Minister further about that discrepancy. The more pointed they make their questioning the more I will be able to support them in obtaining answers to it. 
Hon David Parker 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is a relevant issue here that needs to be teased out. I agree with my friend’s comment. You are quite right to say that one of the ways that inconsistencies can be pointed out is through supplementary questions but the Standing Orders also allow us to do it by tabling an inconsistent document. That was what my friend Mr Cosgrove was trying to do and he is entitled to do that under the Standing Orders. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I appreciate the points the honourable members have made but the important thing is that members do not actually need to table information especially when it is readily available to the House; they need only to refer to it in their questions. They do not need to actually table it because it is readily available. The issue is use of the point of order procedure and the provision to seek leave to table documents. That is the provision that the Standing Orders Committee advised the Speaker on. I am trying to follow the advice of the Standing Orders Committee. If I have caused members concern I apologise but I will try to apply that recommendation as evenly as possible. 
State Houses—Sales to Tenants Scheme 
9.  
KATRINA SHANKS (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What decisions have been made recently regarding opportunities available to tenants of State houses? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 I am delighted to say that from September tenants will be able to purchase their State house and we will be reinvesting the proceeds into a replacement State house for someone on the waiting list. Most of the State houses will be new builds. This will be a win-win-win situation. Someone goes into home ownership someone comes off the waiting list and into a new State house and a building company gets to build it stimulating the economy. That is great news. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Government given any thought to what assistance tenants could receive throughout this process? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have given a great deal of thought to it and we believe that the Welcome Home Loan package could give loans to those people who want to buy their State house. However the caps on those loans are limited to $280000; we are looking at the possibility of raising those caps. We are also looking at some assistance towards the valuation and the conveyancing fees for the purchaser. We want people to go into home ownership if that is what they want to do. 
Katrina Shanks 
: What effect will that have on the State housing stock? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Quite simply I have made it clear to Housing New Zealand Corporation that every house sold will be replaced with a new home for another family on the waiting list and the emphasis will be on new builds. But the really good news was in the Budget where we announced that 550 new homes would be built to the end of the current financial year and another 1000 over the next 3 years. That means an increase in the number of State houses State house tenants moving into home ownership more people coming off the waiting list and the building sector stimulated. 
Moana Mackey 
: If the Minister is so concerned about Housing New Zealand Corporation waiting lists why does he not give the OK this afternoon to build 500 State houses in Hobsonville? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: We have made it clear—and we did before the election—that the Hobsonville land was strategically more useful for other types of development. What we are doing is increasing State houses in areas of need. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How is this different to what has been undertaken previously? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Interestingly properties have always been bought built leased and sold under previous Governments. In fact even though the previous Labour Government increased the numbers of State houses it sold 811 of them in the process and it never offered one to a State house tenant. What a measly disgraceful— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is not the Minister’s position to comment. He can report on the policies of a previous Government; it is not his position to comment on them. 
Moana Mackey 
: Will the Minister guarantee that a State house sold in an area of high housing need will be replaced by a new State house in an area of high housing need and not a house on the outskirts of town or indeed in a completely different city? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: The policy of Housing New Zealand Corporation providing houses in areas of high need will continue. That has always been the case. It will continue under this policy as we increase State house numbers move people into homeownership get people off the waiting list and stimulate the economy through the building and construction sector—and good on the National Government for that. We are doing more for State house tenants than that lot opposite ever did. 
Franchise Sector— 
Review of Franchising Regulation in New Zealand 
10.  
Hon LIANNE DALZIEL (Labour—Christchurch East) 
 to the  
Minister of Commerce 
: What action is the Government taking in light of the reported statement from Auckland University Business School law lecturer Gehan Gunasekara that the franchise sector is a “wild west” and “… franchisees represent around 30 percent of all claims brought under the Fair Trading Act …”? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Commerce) 
: 
 Mr Speaker— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh Bill English! Bill Birch! 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: At least they have worked out who the shadow Leader of the House is. Earlier this month Cabinet received and considered the  
Review of Franchising Regulation in New Zealand 
 which was initiated by Lianne Dalziel last year as the previous Minister of Commerce. The review found that there was insufficient evidence of a widespread problem within the franchising sector and that where there were issues they were common to small and medium enterprises generally. Many submitters to the review found the status quo adequate including the Franchise Association of New Zealand. Cabinet agreed with the findings of the review that it was not clear that proposals for regulation would be effective or result in sufficient benefit to outweigh the additional compliance costs that would be imposed on industry. 
The reports that surfaced last year of people being sold non-existent franchises appear to be cases of fraud which are already being dealt with under current laws by the Serious Fraud Office and the courts. I also note that the 30 percent statistic referred to by the member does not relate to all claims brought under the Fair Trading Act but rather to the specific complaint of misleading conduct in relation to the sale of a business. I also note that the same research found that 68 percent of all claims for misleading and deceptive conduct brought to the courts were successful and the overwhelming number were brought by franchisees indicating that the Fair Trading Act is working for those people. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: How will the Minister respond to the victims of the next franchise scam when people lose their jobs homes and life-savings and when he is asked why he failed to act when he had the chance to provide protections that other countries take for granted? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I believe and the Government believes that sufficient protections are available at common law including the generic business laws of contract law intellectual property law consumer law and competition law. I can only repeat the member’s own words from her press release where she said: “I agree that the case has not been made out for a specific statutory framework for all franchise operations” and that she personally favours enhanced self-regulation. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What specific representation did the Minister receive from the Minister for Ethnic Affairs about offering protection to franchisees in light of her statement that “The franchise business is also attractive to immigrants who can’t find jobs and are desperate to make a living. They will cling on to what little hope [they have] that claims made by the franchiser are true even those they find hard to believe.”? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: None specifically but the review found there was no specific reason to single out franchising when it came to potentially unscrupulous behaviour. If we imposed specific regulations on franchises it is likely that those compliance costs would have a disproportionate effect on smaller franchises and pose a potential barrier to entry for migrants or those who have lost their jobs. However the Government has moved to assist all small businesses to resolve disputes the member will be pleased to know by proposing an extension to the threshold for claims to the disputes tribunal in a bill that is currently before the House. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: Did the Minister see the statement from the commentator I referred to before Gehan Gunasekara who stated that the many problems which arise with franchises come down to a lack of understanding of what a franchise really is “and sadly that is reflected in the government review which blandly states a franchise is no different from any other commercial arrangement which is not true”; if so why will he not act to protect those who we know will be disadvantaged in the future—particularly new migrants to New Zealand. 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: I did read the article the member refers to in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 I think on the weekend. I am confident that the current laws in place in general statutes are sufficient to deal with these particular issues. The difficulty is that if a separate set or new regulatory environment was introduced the compliance costs could work against those very people who wish to enter into these arrangements by way of jobs or other arrangements. I am surprised by the member’s passion on this issue when her own press release said that she favoured self-regulation something which does not seem to be quite consistent with the questions I am getting asked today. 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: I seek leave to table the submission to the Ministry of Economic Development on the  
Review of Franchising Regulation in New Zealand 
 discussion paper from Gehan Gunasekara where he states that a compelling case has been made to increase certainty for all parties involved in franchising and stating that transaction— 
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. 
Resource Consents—Compliance with Timeliness 
11.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: What feedback has he received from key interest groups on the ministry’s report highlighting low levels of compliance with timelines under the Resource Management Act? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 There has been a reaction of relief from many of the key sectors that finally after a decade of results getting worse and worse there is a Government that takes seriously the issue of efficient processing of resource consents. I note particularly the reaction from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development which said it had been highlighting the issue for years and is pleased that the cost to businesses and jobs is finally being recognised. I have seen the reactions from Federated Farmers which said the matter had been a concern for it for a very very long time and from Business New Zealand which said that hundreds if not thousands of jobs have been lost by inefficient and slow processing of resource consents. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister acknowledged the good work done by the 25 councils that have achieved an over 90 percent compliance rate? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have. I have written specifically to those 25 councils which I commend for the work of their staff in efficiently processing consents. It shows that if those 25 councils can do it then so too can the other 60. That is why we should commend those councils that are doing well in this area. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Has the Minister had any response from the non-compliant councils; if so what has been their response? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have been encouraged by the response from many of the councils with a poor performance record. Many of them have acknowledged that it is not good enough and that they are taking steps to correct it. A few councils have been in denial. Some have wanted to argue the figures that they themselves provided. But the overwhelming response is one of wanting to work with the Government so that the problem can be fixed. 
Dr Richard Worth—Confidence 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I refer the member to the response to question No. 12 on Tuesday 16 June. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What information if any did the Prime Minister’s office seek and receive that led him to the view that he did not have confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: As I have said on numerous occasions in this House I am not going to go into those specifics because I do not believe it is in the public interest to do so. But I am satisfied that Dr Richard Worth met the test of no longer enjoyed my confidence. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has the Prime Minister sought the telephone records of his former Minister of Internal Affairs in order to investigate whether taxpayer-funded telephones were improperly used to arrange meetings for favours or to make harassing calls or texts; if not why not? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The member made some allegations and assumptions in his question. I think he should be careful not to do so. But I can say that yes my office has sought and received a copy of Dr Worth’s mobile phone records. Of course the member will be well aware that phone records do not provide any evidence as to what calls and texts were for or about. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister receive those mobile phone records before or after he lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: After. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Mr Speaker— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I advise the honourable member that his party’s question have all been taken up. 
Question Time 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have deliberately waited to the end of question time to raise this point of order because I think there is an opportunity for a correction in the House. You indicated that at the beginning of our lives as parliamentarians members had only one supplementary question for questions for oral answers. I have gone to the records and on two days 22 and 23 November found examples of up to six supplementary questions on questions for oral answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: During the 1980s? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In 1984. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It must have changed around then. I thank the honourable member for his advice. There was certainly a period in my time in this House when supplementary questions were very limited. It is a more recent development that many supplementary questions can be asked.