Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:654;Page:4133] 
Wednesday 3 June 2009 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2009—Factors 
1. CHRIS TREMAIN (National—Napier) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What factors were considered in preparing Budget 2009? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Budget was prepared with the world economy going through its most synchronised recession since the 1930s. The Budget takes steps to protect the most vulnerable by maintaining entitlements and increasing funding to improve front-line services such as health education and law and order. It took into account the need for investment in infrastructure such as roads broadband schools and hospitals and it took the first steps to getting the Government’s books in order to turn round forecasts of skyrocketing debt as the Government looked to be incurring significant deficits for the next 10 years. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Minister seen reports of any alternative strategies to manage the economy through these difficult times? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen some alternative strategies proposed by the Labour Party. A flurry of press releases following the Budget indicated that its intention would be to continue to increase Government spending to the extent where on our calculations the Government’s operating deficit would approach $15 billion next year. In our view managing Government expenditure back to about $7 billion is a first step towards closing deficits that could still last for 10 years even under good fiscal management. 
Chris Tremain 
: What are the main differences between the road to recovery outlined in the Budget last week and that alternative approach? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The main difference is that the current Government’s Budget recognises the reality that the world has changed and therefore its management needs to change. The Labour Opposition’s strategy seems to be predicated on the view that the economy is operating the same now as it was 12 months ago. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the Minister take into account analysis based on Treasury’s forecast model that showed the Government will be between $8 billion and $23 billion worse off net of interest costs by canning contributions to the Superannuation Fund and why does the Minister hide from the reality that cutting the Superannuation Fund in fact means cuts to future superannuation entitlements in breach of John Key’s promise? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should read the statements made by Dr Cullen the Minister of Finance in the previous Government who made it explicit that there is no connection between the Superannuation Fund and national superannuation entitlements. The Government’s decision to suspend contributions to the Superannuation Fund is based on one very simple view: when we have $10 billion deficits and deficits that will run for 10 years the Government does not have the savings to put into the fund. When we do have surpluses we will contribute to the fund. That is what was originally envisaged when it was set up by the member’s party when in Government. 
Chris Tremain 
: What would be the effect of that alternative strategy on New Zealand households and businesses? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: A strategy that involved spending at the rate proposed by the Labour Opposition would mean that New Zealand would almost certainly face a credit-rating downgrade if the Government did not get on top of debt. Treasury analysis shows that a downgrade could push up interest rates by as much as 1.5 percent which is around $50 per week in repayments for a family with a $175000 mortgage. An immediate and significant increase in borrowing costs for businesses would also lead to more job losses. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the Minister take into account New Zealand’s high level of private debt highlighted this morning by Fitch Ratings as the primary threat to New Zealand’s credit rating; if so why did he persist with cuts to KiwiSaver and ruin the Superannuation Fund? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government took into account the fact that credit-rating agencies have relied on the low level of Government debt to offset the bad effects of the high level of private debt. That is why this Government decided it could not persist with very large deficits that ran on for more than a decade. We decided to do something about that. Apparently that is not the view that the Opposition holds. That is its business. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table a letter to the editor from Dr Michael Cullen asking reporters to henceforth call the Superannuation Fund the English fund not the Cullen fund. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a letter to the editor from the newspaper. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Ministers—Confidence 
2.  
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: When did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Dr Worth as a Minister? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Last Tuesday afternoon. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why having been given information on Tuesday of last week did the Prime Minister wait a week before requiring the resignation of Dr Worth? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because anyone is entitled to natural justice. There was a process to work through and information to be reached. It took some days to get that information. I had finally received the full information as I needed it by Monday. I accepted the resignation of Dr Worth when I had that information. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Dr Worth? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not at liberty to go through all the conversations but I have made it quite clear that I set the standards and I expect those standards to be met. If they are not met then people will not enjoy my confidence and they therefore will not be in my ministry. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why did the Prime Minister attempt to keep the reasons for the resignation secret this morning? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: The police are going to conduct a preliminary investigation as they noted in a press release they issued. I think any New Zealander is entitled to a fair investigation. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to contaminate that investigation by making loose comments. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: What is the nature of the police complaint again Dr Worth? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I am not at liberty to say. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Was Dr Worth meeting the high standards that Mr Key on becoming Prime Minister had said he expected of Ministers before the complaint that has caused his resignation? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: To the best of my knowledge yes. There have been instances where Dr Worth could have improved his performance. I pointed that out to him in relation to the India Trade Group. There was another incident that the member will be aware of. I investigated it and was satisfied that there were no questions to answer. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Why was the Prime Minister so indecisive in removing Dr Worth when under his one-strike policy he could have done it months ago? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Because I am a fair person and I believe in natural justice. When I found the information—[ 
Interruption 
] Well the member might laugh but everyone is entitled to at least have me get to the bottom of the facts. It took a few days to do that then I acted. I could point to other Prime Ministers who took a lot longer to act. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave to table a statement made by Mr Key this morning in which he advised us that this was a private matter and he would not be making further comment on it. That was before the press conference— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat when I call him to order. He has sought leave to table a press release of today. That is hardly consistent with what the Standing Orders Committee called for in terms of the tabling of documents. The press statement clearly is available to all members today and does not need to be tabled in this House to improve the information available to members. However leave has been sought to table that press release. Is there any objection to it being tabled? There is. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister confident that all the appointments made by Richard Worth as Minister were made openly and transparently including in particular the appointments of five corporate lawyers including one from Dr Worth’s old firm Simpson Grierson to oversee the Government’s rewrite of the overseas investment regulations? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes because in the case that the member has raised all five lawyers appointed to the Overseas Investment Commission were expert lawyers. I do not think the fact that one of them came from a firm where Dr Worth had worked some 10 years ago would preclude him or her from being on the commission. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is the Prime Minister confident that Dr Worth’s appointment of these five corporate lawyers to oversee the rewrite of the Overseas Investment Act was all above board especially considering that the appointments were made 5 days before the review was publicly announced? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. I note to the member that they are providing advice to the Government which will ultimately go on to make a decision. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: I seek leave to table a letter from Dr Worth making the appointments 5 days before the public announcement was made that the review was under way. 
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. 
Budget 2009—Home Insulation and Clean-heating Devices 
3.  
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What assistance does Budget 2009 provide for people wanting to insulate their homes and use clean-heating devices? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Budget 2009 appropriates $323.4 million over the next 4 years for the New Zealand home insulation fund. Funding for insulation and clean-heating devices will be available to all New Zealanders regardless of income who live in houses built before 2000. Households will be able to access one-third of the costs of insulation up to a maximum of $1300 and $500 for clean-heating devices. More money will be available to community services card holders. The Government’s goal is to see up to 60500 homes insulated each year by 2012-13. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Why is the Government investing in home insulation and clean heating? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government is making this substantial investment because insulation and clean heating have so many benefits. Let me name three: first the scheme will reduce health risks for many Kiwis living in cold damp homes at present; second the scheme will improve household energy efficiency; and third the scheme will provide a stimulus for the building and construction industry. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: How does this new scheme compare with previous schemes of its type? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There are many important differences in this scheme compared with the one that Labour promised. The most important difference is that this one is funded and Labour’s was not. The second difference is that the fund is available to everyone not just low-income earners. [ 
Interruption 
] Well members can tell how important it is. A much wider range of partners such as banks and electricity companies will be helping to deliver the scheme. Most important of all the Government has set aside the money and has not been engaged in wishful thinking unlike the previous Government. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister concerned that under the current Energy-wise schemes community services card holders have to pay a maximum of $500 to insulate their homes but that under his scheme a community services card holder will have to borrow $1200 to pay for the cost of an average insulation refit? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I am not sure where the member got his figures from— 
Hon Members 
: The Budget! 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —but my understanding is that currently very few community service card holders actually pay anything. It is our hope that with the partnership arrangements made available through this scheme community service card holders who for both insulation and clean heating can access up to $3000 will in fact have a partner that picks up the balance of that cost. 
Chauvel 
: I seek leave to table the information release from the Minister containing the figures that I cited. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is a point of order. The member will resume his seat. The provisions for tabling documents in this House are to provide information for members that might not otherwise be available to them. The provisions are not for political grandstanding. If the member thinks that a document from the Budget is not available to members of this House I do not know what is available to them. I make that point. The member has sought leave to table the document. I just want to ascertain exactly what the document is. The member said “information”. What is the document? 
Charles Chauvel 
: The document is the one that the Minister requested in his answer when he asked where I got the figures from. It is his own information release— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: But what is the document? 
Charles Chauvel 
: It is a document sent out by the Minister’s office as a set of questions and answers relating to the insulation scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document sent out by the Minister’s office. Is there any objection to that? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The point of order goes to the approach that was taken to the tabling of that document. You are correct that the Standing Orders Committee has looked at this provision and made some recommendations but it stopped short of making recommendations to the House to change the Standing Orders in this respect. I think there may well be a degree of unanimity around what the approach would be and that would involve a change to the Standing Orders. But until the time that the committee takes that step I suggest that it is not appropriate for you to make value judgments or to remind members. We are all now aware of what the Standing Orders Committee said. We are also aware that it chose not to make what it said mandatory. Having you editorialise I think is not helpful and it is actually making members on this side of the House quite unhappy. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That is another one of the long diatribes from the Hon Trevor Mallard that is supposed to be helpful. I think I can be more helpful by saying that I promise to read my own press releases. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable members. I just remind the honourable member Trevor Mallard that as Speaker of this House I am entitled to express a view over some of the behaviour in the House. I am concerned when the time of the House is wasted. I take the member’s point; that is why I put the leave that was sought to table the document. I wanted to establish exactly what the document was though. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is it the Minister’s intention that the 2012-13 appropriation of $78.2 million on top of the existing EnergyWise appropriation of about $27 million be continued in out-years until all the owners of cold damp homes have had the opportunity to take advantage of that assistance? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: As the member acknowledges the Budget projects out as far as it can. That decision will be for another Parliament to make. If I am in a position to I will certainly be advocating strongly for that. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about the scheme; if so what do those reports say? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have seen a large number of very positive reports about the scheme. For example the New Zealand Nurses Organisation has called the funding “excellent” the Salvation Army has applauded it and it has been welcomed by the Council of Trade Unions. The New Zealand Building Industry Federation has said that there will be “immediate gains in employment and activity in the industry”. A number of health professionals have welcomed the initiative because of the savings in health costs and more important the benefits to New Zealanders from living in dry warm homes. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Given that organisations in areas like Canterbury and the Manawatu-Wanganui area are fully subscribed as to the energy retrofits that they are to undertake what mechanism will he use to deliver further retrofits in those areas? How will he ensure that any additional capacity is not taken up by shoddy operators? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It is of great concern to me that the work that is done is done to a very high quality. The audit process that the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority will put in place will need to ensure that quality. Some concerns about existing work have been brought to my attention and I have made it clear to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority that it is to have stronger audit processes in place. Mrs Fitzsimons who has been working with me on this project has been equally insistent in that regard. We will be announcing full details of how the scheme is to work on 18 June. I am sure the member will be satisfied once those announcements have been made as to how the scheme will be delivered. 
Budget 2009—Education Funding 
4.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: Is it the purpose of the funding for education in the Budget to help New Zealanders improve their skills and enable the country to emerge quickly from the recession; if so does she think it meets that purpose? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 The overall purpose of the Budget is to put New Zealand on the road to recovery. Our commitment to education and skills is demonstrated by the fact that despite significant financial pressures we have managed to spend more on education than any previous Government has spent. By staying focused on quality education and training we will ensure that New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: In view of the last part of her answer how does the Minister respond to the New Zealand Vice-Chancellors Committee which considers the university funding cuts to be so savage as to provoke it to say “Budget 2009 has dealt universities a body blow denied students study opportunities and raised serious concerns over future Government support for the university system.”? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I disagree with the Vice-Chancellors Committee’s comments and point out to it as I said in the House yesterday that spending on tertiary education is to rise from $2.66 billion in 2008-09 to $2.78 billion in 2009-10. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What reports has the Minister received on the funding that the previous Government left for the promises it made to the tertiary sector? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The previous Government’s scorched earth spending policy seems to have reached its pinnacle in the tertiary education arena. Over $500 million was promised without any dollars being committed. Promises such as the CPI indexation into 2010-11 and commitments to increases in student support entitlements in the out-years were left unfunded. That was news to the sector which had been told by the previous Government that the money was locked in and ready for it to use. Well we have managed to find funding to give those tertiary institutions the CPI adjustment in those 2 years and to maintain student support. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That was a very long answer. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think I can speak for members on this side of the House when I say again your intervention there was not helpful. The Minister was answering the question we were interested in it and the more she was answering the more interested we were getting. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has been in this House long enough to know that the Speaker is the sole judge of the length of questions and answers. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What does the Minister say to the Risingholme Community Centre in Opawa Christchurch which because of the cut to its community education programme will be unable to continue to provide the affordable courses it has provided until now and may have to close? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The savings in the adult and community education sector are aimed at ending Government subsidies for hobby and recreation courses and to redirect the remaining funding to courses that are focused on literacy numeracy and foundation skills. It was a decision for the Government to make in Budget 2009 between providing Government funding to make courses like concrete shell mosaics or gardening in the wind cheaper and providing extra money for special education students. The member can make up her own mind on this but this Government’s education priorities are significantly higher than the previous Government’s. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Which of the community groups previously funded by the Risingholme Community Centre to run courses that will not be able to be funded in the future does the Minister think run hobby courses: English Language Partners Stopping Violence Services the Adult Reading Assistance Scheme or Christchurch Resettlement Services? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: As I said the change in funding priority is aimed at maintaining funding to those who provide literacy numeracy and foundation skills. We are targeting for cuts courses like Moroccan cooking gardening in the wind and concrete shell mosaics. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Target 
5.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Is he concerned that New Zealand’s failure to commit to a greenhouse gas reduction target at the current Bonn climate change talks will damage our clean green brand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No New Zealand has committed to a 50 percent reduction in our 1990 emissions by 2050 and to a global target of stabilising carbon dioxide levels at 450 parts per million. We will state our 2020 target at the August negotiations. Members will be aware of the wild variations in New Zealand’s emissions data because of the uncertainty over forestry. In the next month we want to get the satellite data from the Land Use and Carbon Analysis Scheme to which the Government has committed millions of dollars so that we can make realistic and achievable targets by 2020. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he proud that at the international climate change negotiations in Bonn New Zealand is competing with Russia to be the very last country at the negotiations to table a medium-term emission reduction target; how does this add to our clean green reputation? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first point I make to the member is that most of the countries that have committed to so-called targets have actually committed to a wide range. Those countries have said that if the international community comes on board they will follow one course of action or if nobody comes on board they will follow another course of action. The Government has not received any concern from other countries about the fact that New Zealand wants to take its time about setting that 2020 target. That is a very important target for New Zealand to set and it is the Government’s intention to set that target in a very careful and considered way. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is the Minister surprised that New Zealand was awarded the “Fossil of the Day” award at the climate change talks today in Bonn given that today’s excuse for not naming a 2020 target is apparently the need for public consultation but April’s excuse was the need for further data? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I note that during the term of the previous Government New Zealand received that so-called fossil award on several occasions. The fact is that the previous Government committed to New Zealand being carbon neutral and for all of that emissions increased at a greater rate than in almost any other developed country. I make absolutely no apologies for this Government wanting to take a very considered view of the target that we will set for 2020 noting that that is a binding agreement which will have huge implications for New Zealand. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Can the Minister tell us whether he is waiting to set a target as a result of waiting for the satellite data that he spoke of in his first answer or is he waiting to set a target as a result of wanting to conduct a consultation as the Government told the international negotiations in Bonn? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Both are correct. We have satellite data coming from the Land Use and Carbon Analysis System scheme on which the Government has spent over $10 million. We are due to get that data in July. That is critical. Members opposite would know that variations in figures around forestry can make a difference of up to 10 to 20 percent on New Zealand’s emissions debt data. It is also the Government’s intention on a target that is set for New Zealand for 2020 to engage with the public about what would be an appropriate level for us to commit to as a Government. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: What specific steps has the Government put in place to begin this consultation that it has talked about at the Bonn negotiations if this is to be taken seriously by this Parliament and the international community? Presumably the Government has in place a series of steps that it has already begun around this consultation. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The first step is to get very good quality information including economic analysis on the impacts of various targets. For instance if we are going to set to a bold reduction target in emissions by 2020 we need to be honest with New Zealanders about what the costs of that will be. The Government will be bringing that information together so that we can have an honest dialogue with New Zealanders about what an appropriate 2020 target should be. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Is he aware that at the conference extensive comments have been made that New Zealand is not taking the negotiations seriously and that the New Zealand Government is treating the negotiations with contempt by not naming a target and by saying that it will begin a consultation process back in New Zealand to determine a target and does he not believe that this will have a significant impact on New Zealand’s clean and green reputation which is worth at least $1 billion in export earnings every year? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Neither I nor my officials nor my Associate Minister Tim Groser have received any such comments from other countries or organisations. In fact from the contact I have had countries have been very aware of New Zealand’s unique emissions profile and when in the last year the Government’s figures have changed by more than a billion dollars around forestry then it is the Government’s view— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Like the tax cuts and the Superannuation Fund. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I say to Mr Hughes that the question is about climate change if he had not noticed. When there has been a shift in more than a billion dollars in a single 12 months it is absolutely responsible of the New Zealand Government to want to get reliable figures before we make such an important commitment. 
Schools—Quality of Learning 
6.  
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What is the most important factor the Government can influence to improve the quality of learning in schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I believe there are a number of very important factors that influence the quality of learning in schools. These include students who are engaged in their learning high-quality teachers who are focused on student achievement and parents who are interested and involved in their children’s education. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Does she agree that the quality of teaching is a vital factor influencing the quality of learning in schools; if so why has she cut teacher professional development by over $35 million in the Budget? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The Government is continuing to provide at least $104 million for professional development of teachers. This sum does not include money that schools are able to spend on professional development directly through their operations grant funding. Given this strong investment to suggest that we are cutting a huge swathe through professional development funding is typical Labour Party exaggeration. 
Allan Peachey 
: How is the Government improving the quality of learning in schools? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: There are many ways. One in particular is a key plank of our national standards policy and that is to deliver school reports to parents in plain language with clear achievement information. The evidence is clear that when parents are involved in their children’s learning the children have a greater chance of succeeding. When parents are not receiving good information about their child’s performance that is a barrier to their getting involved. It is a barrier that this Government wants to bring down. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What is the research base she referred to that justifies her decision to make cuts to teacher professional development? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I did not refer to any research base. I referred to the fact that the Government is continuing to provide directly from the Ministry of Education $104 million for professional development of schools. Schools are still able to fund more professional development out of their operations grant. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why has the Government cut the funding for early childhood education centres of innovation the early childhood education advisory training and education fund the early childhood education exemplar development programme and the early childhood education information and communications technology framework and cut the funding to reduce staff-child ratios all of which improve the quality of early childhood education? 
Hon Shane Jones 
: No aroha for the mokopuna. 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: I am not sure whether that is early childhood language or what. We have made changes to the priorities for spending on early childhood education. We want all New Zealand children to participate in early childhood education so our highest priority is to increase participation. The extra funding of $69 million will increase participation. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister receive any expert or professional advice that indicated to her that the quality of teaching and learning could be improved by cutting teacher professional development? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Treaty of Waitangi Settlements—Settlement of Historic Claims 
7.  
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations 
: What is the Government doing to advance its target of settling historical Treaty of Waitangi claims by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations) 
: 
 Budget 2009 provided an extra $22.4 million over the next 4 years to help achieve that target. The new funding will be used among other things to provide resources for extra facilitation and mediation assistance to claimant groups and for increased use of Crown negotiators like the Hon Paul Swain and Dr John Wood. That will help result in more settlements being reached more quickly. 
Hekia Parata 
: What other Treaty settlement initiatives has the Government undertaken since the election? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Last week’s announcement of an additional $22.4 million to resource the Treaty settlements process was on top of an additional $4.1 million which the Government allocated earlier in the year to maintain the increased pace. In April the Prime Minister and a number of other Ministers attended a hui in Auckland with iwi to discuss ways to improve the Treaty settlement process. Since then the Office of Treaty Settlements and Te Puni Kokiri have jointly hosted a series of regional hui for claimant groups and the feedback from iwi has been very positive indeed. 
Hekia Parata 
: What else is the Government doing to help achieve its goal of settling historical Treaty grievances by 2014? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Next week the Government will host a second hui providing an opportunity for over 60 iwi to present ideas on how to improve the process. For the first time since the 1990s a Government has asked iwi for their input into Treaty settlements. This Government has brought high-level political leadership to Treaty settlements. The Prime Minister has re-established and chairs the Treaty of Waitangi Cabinet committee and I enjoy a very close and constructive working relationship with the Minister of Maori Affairs the Hon Dr Pita Sharples who makes an enormous contribution to Treaty settlements. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou. What recognition is there that the accelerated process is likely to increase the demands already placed on claimants to advance settlements and what progress has been made in responding to the Maori Party’s call to review claimant funding? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The Government is very aware of the pressures on claimant groups. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Oh what a surprise question! 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: In response to the advocacy of the Maori Party and claimant groups I tell Mr Hughes the Government is currently reviewing claimant funding and I hope to be able to say something about that very soon. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Does the Minister accept that in the vast majority of settlements people find themselves in difficulty with the mandate of appointees to iwi entities; and would the Minister consider a proposal being presented to the iwi meeting at Te Kokiri Ngatahi that mandated representatives and settlement entities be required to be established prior to the legislation coming before the House? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Yes I would be very happy to consider that proposal and have a discussion with iwi next week at our hui. It is but one of a number of very very good ideas to come from iwi and the Maori Party. 
Purchase Advisers—Compliance with  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
8.  
CHRIS HIPKINS (Labour—Rimutaka) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by earlier claims that the engagement of ministerial purchase advisers complied with all Public Service requirements for the contracting of staff and that the purchase advisers are covered by the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. The engagement of purchase advisers did comply with all Public Service requirements for the contracting of staff. I am advised that as they were independent contractors though they were not covered by the  
Public Service Code of Conduct 
; none of the independent contractors employed by the Public Service of whom I understand there are hundreds are. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Why did the Minister insist that the cost of the purchase advisers be met by individual departments rather than be funded through Ministerial Services as recommended by both Treasury and the State Services Commission? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I asked Treasury and the State Services Commission to come up with satisfactory arrangements for chief executives to employ these purchase advisers. I must say that for a group of half a dozen experienced publicly minded people who on average are earning much less than $40000 for 6 months’ work the whole exercise has been extremely successful. 
Chris Hipkins 
: Does the Minister agree with the advice provided by the State Services Commission that “If the role of this group is to service Ministers’ offices it would seem proper that they sit within Ministerial Services; Ministerial Services is set up for this function and would provide a transparent process.”; if not why not? 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Because he doesn’t like transparency. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I can tell the former Minister that there was discussion between the State Services Commission and Treasury and that everyone was satisfied with the arrangements. The Government is particularly satisfied with the fact that although under Labour political hacks spent all their time wasting taxpayers’ money these advisers have helped Ministers to save $2 billion of taxpayers’ money. 
Chris Hipkins 
: What confidence can the public of New Zealand have that the Government is sticking to its pre-election commitment to protect the political neutrality of the Public Service when it has foisted people hand-picked for their political views such as ACT candidate Graham Scott on to the books of Government departments at the same time as it is sacking legitimate public servants? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That member would know what it is like to be hand-picked for his political views and to be paid thousands of dollars—probably hundreds of thousands of dollars—by taxpayers for being a political hack. These advisers have acknowledged high levels of Public Service expertise and they have assisted the Government in saving $2 billion of taxpayers’ money. 
Government Expenditure—Projected Increase as Percentage of GDP 
9.  
Hon Sir ROGER DOUGLAS (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Is he comfortable that Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP is set to rise from 31.8 percent in the 2007-08 financial year to 37.3 percent in the 2009-10 financial year; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The figures do show a considerable rise in Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP a fact that might be noted by the Labour Opposition and by the  
Dominion Post 
 which labelled our Budget as “Slash and Burn”. The increase in the percentage of GDP is somewhat exaggerated both by the decline in GDP and by the fact that the Working for Families package and the KiwiSaver initiatives are classified as expenditures rather than tax reductions. Even so core Crown expenditure will have increased by 45 percent in the 5 years to June 2010 and the Budget signalled clearly that on behalf of the taxpayer this Government is setting out to get control of what was reckless growth in Government expenditure. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: In what way will the budgeted increase of $450 million for heritage culture and recreation do more to kick-start the economy than promised tax cuts worth the same amount especially when over the last 2 years we have seen a transfer from the private sector to the public sector worth around $10 billion? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Every Minister and every chief executive should be asking himself or herself exactly that question—that is what they are effectively going to deliver from their increased funding. The Government has signalled clearly that in the time it has had available as a new Government it has made considerable savings by tying up the loose ends left by the previous Government. And we have signalled that over the next few years Budget increases will be zero or minimal and that means people will need to find answers to those questions. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Can the Minister explain how the extra $450 million for the heritage culture and recreation budget will create more jobs than tax cuts worth the equivalent amount and is it not true that the Government’s extra borrowing to finance that expenditure is backed by nothing more substantial than thin air? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I agree with the member that because the Government is borrowing billions of dollars over the next 3 or 4 years—in fact almost doubling public debt—it needs to ask hard questions about every dollar of public expenditure. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What about the answers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that is a bit rich coming from the Opposition which criticises every answer that is given. The public of New Zealand understands that those questions should be asked. I think the Public Service is starting to understand that those questions should be asked. The only people who believe that the questions should not be asked are those in the Labour Opposition and that is why the public does not support them. 
Budget 2009—Research Science and Technology Funding 
10.  
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Research Science and Technology 
: Does he stand by his statement that the research science and technology sector has received “substantial extra funding” of $128 million in the Budget; if so why? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister of Research Science and Technology) 
: 
 It would be helpful if the member quoted the full statement. The Minister stands by his commitment that “There is a substantial funding increase for areas of the research science and technology budget identified by the Government as priorities”. The reason he stands by that statement is that there are substantial funding increases including funding for the Crown Research Institute Capability Fund the Marsden Fund the Health Research Council and capital for the Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network. 
Hon Shane Jones 
: All Labour policy. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I notice members opposite calling for answers then calling out during answers to ensure that they do not hear them. 
Moana Mackey 
: How can the Minister claim “substantial extra funding” when the actual increase is about $25 million over 4 years—the smallest for Vote Research Science and Technology in many years—and when we factor in the loss of the research and development tax credit the reduction over those 4 years is in fact more than $1.2 billion? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: There is extra support for research science and technology and it is allocated in a focused manner. In addition to Vote Research Science and Technology there is substantial additional money for agricultural research and development through the $70 million-a-year allocation to the Primary Growth Partnership. 
Moana Mackey 
: How does the Minister reconcile the $25 million increase over 4 years in this year’s Budget with John Key’s pre-election guarantee to boost funding for research and science by $315 million over the next 3 years? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: If the member had listened to the answer to the primary question she would have heard a long list of organisations designated as priorities by the Government that have received increases in funding. The previous Government was big on promises and small on actually committing funds to anything. It preferred to encourage New Zealand simply by press releases rather than by actual action. 
Moana Mackey 
: What role does the Minister see for research science and technology in helping New Zealand out of current recession or was the writing on the wall when the Crown research institutes scientific organisations and the Minister himself were excluded from the Job Summit earlier this year? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I see a very important role and that is why the Government has chosen to fund as priority areas the Crown Research Institute Capability Fund the Marsden Fund the Health Research Council and capital for the Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network. These are priorities for the Government they have been additionally funded and each will contribute in their own way to increasing the economic prosperity of New Zealand. 
Budget 2009—Fisheries Management 
11.  
JACQUI DEAN (National—Waitaki) 
 to the  
Minister of Fisheries 
: What did Budget 2009 deliver for fisheries management in New Zealand? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) 
: 
 Budget 2009 has delivered for fisheries particularly in the resourcing for front-line fisheries officers. Budget 2009 will see more fisheries officers patrolling New Zealand’s coastline. It fulfils National’s pre-election promise of ensuring that any resourcing that was not spent on improving fish stock health and fish stock management would be shifted to areas that did improve those. Policing was one of my concerns while I was in Opposition and I am very pleased to be able to deliver it as the Minister. 
Jacqui Dean 
: How many more fisheries officers and honorary fisheries officers will come on board? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: There is to be a large increase from 172 to 250 in the number of front-line honorary fisheries officers over the next 4 years. In terms of full-time paid fisheries officers they will also increase from 95 to 104. In this Budget we have reversed the slashing of the number of fisheries officers. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What else in the Budget did we promise at the election? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: In the Budget we have put much more resources into recreational fishing research. First of all we are putting resources into a new catch reporting system for charter boat operators. Additionally I was keen to see more research being undertaken in the recreational fisheries area and funding has been set aside to do that. We have an amazing recreational fishery. We are very fortunate to have it in New Zealand and getting data on what has been caught and where it was caught is vital to making it even better. 
Accident Compensation Corporation Financial Review 2008-09—Minister’s Statements 
12.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does he stand by all the comments he made during the debate on the financial review of ACC last Tuesday 26 May 2009? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Yes. I particularly stand by my statement that during Labour’s final 3 years in Government Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)’s liabilities increased by $10.5 billion equivalent to an additional debt of $5000 for every household. I stand by it because it is a strong reminder of how financially irresponsible Labour was and why its members would never again be trusted with the Treasury benches. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will the Minister apologise to staff at ACC and the chief executive for pre-empting the announcement of the loss of 70 jobs at ACC’s corporate office in his speech during the financial review debate? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite demand that Ministers be open and transparent. I was of the understanding that staff were informed on Tuesday prior to the debate. I subsequently found out that only senior staff had been informed. I think the apology should be from Labour that allowed a huge expansion of ACC’s head office that now means that this Government has to deal with the mess it left us. 
Grant Robertson 
: How does the Minister think that by pre-emptively announcing the loss of 70 jobs and now refusing to apologise for doing so he upholds his Government’s promise to “Promote an environment of professionalism and mutual respect.” in the Public Service.? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Nowhere in the statement I made in the House did I mention 70 staff. What I did say was that this Government’s policy is to focus public services on the front line. I make no apologies for that. The apology that is owed is to this Parliament and to the people of New Zealand and it should come from Labour. It left the accident compensation scheme in a huge mess which has required these sorts of difficult decisions. 
Grant Robertson 
: I seek leave to table an email from the chief executive of ACC to all staff at ACC that apologises for Dr Nick Smith’s comments in the financial review debate. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is an objection. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: Did the head office of ACC expand excessively as occurred in most Government head offices during the Labour Government’s tenure? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The head office of ACC expanded by 30 percent including over 100 additional staff during the last 5 years. It seems that the Labour members are far more— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am struggling to see the ministerial responsibility for this Minister in the answer he is giving and for how on the earth the question could have been in order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Mr Woodhouse’s question was about the number of staff and the degree to which the head office had expanded over the last 3 years. I think that is eminently sensible in a debate around the changes—[ 
Interruption 
] I thought points of order were meant to be heard in silence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister to please continue the point of order. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The question from the member was about the degree to which the head office of ACC had expanded in recent years. That is eminently relevant to a debate about the changes that the Government is currently having to make. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think it is an interesting point of order that the Hon Darren Hughes has raised but there is an informational responsibility that the Minister has in terms of what he has inherited from the previous administration. The issue around the question was in many ways based on the insertion of an assertion into the question. I ask members to forgive me but so many questions do that; they insert a political statement into the question. If I as Speaker were to rule out all the questions that contained an allegation or a statement I do not think we would get very far. I realise some of these things are a bit marginal but I think the point made by the Hon Dr Nick Smith is also valid so I ask him to answer the question. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The corporate office of ACC expanded from 377 staff to 490 staff over the last 5 years. This is an increase of 30 percent. At the same time the debt or liabilities of the accident compensation scheme increased by over $10.5 billion. That is a legacy that the previous Government should be ashamed of. 
Grant Robertson 
: Could I ask a supplementary question? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but in fact his party’s allocation of supplementary questions has been used up.