Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:646;Page:15123] 
Questions to Ministers 
Mortgages—Fixed 2-year Rates 
1. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he agree with recent media reports that fixed 2-year mortgage rates are likely to exceed 10 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 If we had a National Cabinet with Roger Douglas in it I am sure that would be very likely. Luckily the combination of the two together is a self-controlling prospect. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does he agree with recent media reports that fixed 2-year mortgage rates are likely to exceed 10 percent? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: My previous answer referred to a hypothetical future which is unlikely to happen; I am sure indeed that it will not happen. The member like many others is referring to other possible hypothetical futures. 
Charles Chauvel 
: What reports has the Minister received on factors that do drive mortgage interest rates in New Zealand? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: I have received reports—[ 
Interruption 
] So the National Party does want to slash spending; we have got that clearly on the record. Thank you. I have received reports of the continued fallout from the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States and the subsequent unravelling of credit markets is putting direct pressure on the New Zealand banking system in terms of its ability to lend. The banks are finding it difficult to access affordable credit and are raising mortgage rates as a consequence. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister that mortgage rates are not going through the roof; and if an increase in a 2-year rate from 8 percent—just 18 months ago—to 9.5 percent now is not a big increase in mortgage rates then what would be? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What would be is what the Prime Minister was referring to is what would have happened if Mr Key had had the chance to introduce $11.5 billion worth of tax cuts a year and the impact that that would have had on the need for credit and indeed on a fiscal stimulus forcing extremely contractionary monetary policy as a consequence. I thank the member once again for a patsy question where I can attack his leader. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister recall warning his Cabinet colleagues in the 2007 Budget that they needed to stick to their spending cap because they risked an interest-rate response from the Reserve Bank the exchange rate staying higher for longer and a more pronounced economic slow-down; and is it not correct that they did not stick to their spending cap and we have ended up with an interest rate response from the Reserve Bank the exchange rate staying higher for longer and a more pronounced economic slow-down even if more recent events have made that worse? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I can confirm is that this Government has consistently run a tighter fiscal policy than the Opposition has suggested it should be running. Every year the National Party has proposed a looser fiscal policy than the Labour-led Government then said that interest rates are too high. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Minister received any reports on views about the future prospects for the economy and for mortgage rates? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Yes I have. I received the following report from Mr John Key: “Um I was I was out there actually being a bit negative or saying saying you know look I was a bit concerned about the the economy but I mean one of the things and I often say this to business audiences particularly when I get up that look I it’s very easy when you are the Leader of the Opposition to sort of see shadows because you know quite honestly in weaker economic conditions Governments often get booted out um so you’ve got to be careful you don’t get too negative on things when an Opposition politician because you can you can see bad things in in a lot of things and that may not always you know always be right so um.” And that was the finish. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can the Minister explain what the Prime Minister meant when she said that mortgage rates are not going through the roof when in fact mortgage rates are rising more quickly than they have for a very long time such that people who borrowed money 18 months ago will find themselves rolling it over in another 6 months at 2 percent higher than they borrowed it and on the average mortgage that will cost them over $100 per week from their household budget? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: Firstly the Prime Minister in her speech at the start of this year acknowledged that people were facing increased mortgage rates and that was causing stress to some people. Secondly the member opposite when discussions occurred around monetary policy said that the Reserve Bank of New Zealand should be allowed to do its work and indeed attacked the Governor of the Reserve Bank for not raising interest rates earlier and faster. Thirdly interest rates have been much higher in New Zealand in the past which can be remembered under indeed Sir Roger Douglas who is now looking for a job in a National-led Cabinet. 
Heather Roy 
: When a 1 percent increase in interest rates on a $200000 mortgage costs a family an extra $40 a week—and there have been plenty of 1 percent increases while he has been Minister of Finance—what action does he intend taking to alleviate this problem affecting hundreds of thousands of Kiwis as a result of his actions? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: The Minister of Finance whoever he or she may be cannot be blamed for international oil prices for international food prices for an international credit crunch or for running the strongest fiscal position in New Zealand’s history which has taken the pressure off monetary policy. Unfortunately the members opposite including that member’s party have consistently called for tax cuts which could not be afforded and indeed today Sir Roger Douglas called for cuts in spending of $3 billion to $5 billion which would whack the most vulnerable in New Zealand but called for tax cuts which at a rough guess on my estimate are about $7 billion to $8 billion a year. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it that for 8 years the Minister has been willing to take credit for every international tide that has flowed for him such as higher commodity prices and plenty of low-cost easily available credit but as soon as circumstances turn on him suddenly it is everyone else’s fault? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What we have done during that period is take advantage of that situation so we have the lowest unemployment rate that we have measured. Secondly we have paid down debt as a proportion of GDP. Thirdly we have built up the New Zealand Superannuation Fund for the long-term future. Fourthly we have introduced Working for Families to help low-income families through this period of time. Fifthly we introduced a whole range of other social policies. Sixthly we introduced the KiwiSaver scheme in order to help people prepare better for retirement. Every one of those policies was opposed by the National Party. 
Hon Bill English 
: Can he confirm that the things that are going up under Labour are mortgage interest rates the exchange rate the number of people leaving for Australia which has just gone up again today food prices petrol prices the proportion of income people pay in tax household debt and office space occupied by the Government which is projected to increase by 50000 square feet in Wellington over the next 2 years; and the things that are going down are growth productivity New Zealand’s ranking in the OECD and his polls? 
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN 
: What I can confirm is that things going up include things such as the number of people in jobs—far higher than under National. Things going up include the proportion of the workforce that is in paid employment. What is going down is the number of people of working age on social welfare benefits the number of people who are unemployed and the number of children living in poverty. What is going up is the number of people who are saving for their retirement. What is going up is the support for early childhood education. What has gone up is the level of New Zealand superannuation under this Government. We are proud of that record. 
Early Childhood Education—Availability 
2.  
DIANNE YATES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Education 
: What support is the Labour-led Government providing to increase the availability of quality early childhood education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER (Minister of Education) 
: 
 This month the Prime Minister and I announced $6 million of new funding to build new or expanded early childhood centres across the country—around 20. Four of the centres that will receive funding are in Mangere which has been identified as a priority community for new services. Among them is the Akoteu Lotofale’ia early childhood centre which the Prime Minister and I visited and which is using a $470000 grant to increase its roll by 50 percent. All of the centres funded will offer the Labour-led Government’s incredibly popular 20 free hours and are part of a $90 million investment through the discretionary grant scheme by the Labour-led Government to build up the capacity of the early childhood sector. 
Dianne Yates 
: What reports has the Minister seen about the impact of Labour’s excellent policy of 20 free hours’ early childhood education? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I have received an email from a parent that notes how important the policy of 20 free hours’ early childhood education is for her family. She said: “I am just wanting to write a note to thank the Government for the 20 free hours childcare initiative. Since our 3-year-old turned 3 in December the relief of our reduced kohanga fees have already made a huge difference to our family and the things that we have struggled with. Thank you thank you thank you.” The 20 free hours policy is extremely popular with Kiwi families so it is strange that National does not seem to have a position on it. Paula Bennett said National would scrap free early childhood education and John Key said he would keep it. Which policy can we believe? 
Paula Bennett 
: Can the Minister of Education confirm reports that at a recent early childhood sector meeting where he was being questioned on policy he had to turn to his officials to ask at what age children have to start school? 
Hon CHRIS CARTER 
: I cannot confirm that. What I can confirm is that a discussion was had about Montessori education. Montessori centres want to keep 5-year-olds in their centres and to have them qualify for the 20 free hours. So the member of course is being quite duplicitous in her question. 
Hawke’s Bay District Health Board—Conflicts of Interest 
3.  
Hon TONY RYALL (National—Bay of Plenty) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: On what dates did the former Minister of Health Hon Annette King meet with Mr Hausmann in the last term of office and what was discussed on each occasion? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I am no more responsible for the private diaries of former Ministers than I am for example for those of district health board chairs or indeed Opposition members. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: When did the then Minister Mrs King first discuss with Mr Hausmann an appointment to the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Neither do I have that information nor would I necessarily expect to have that information. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that official documents show that Minister King met with Mr Hausmann on numerous occasions including on 8 September along with a number of other senior Ministers and is he aware of whether there she discussed Mr Hausmann’s plans for a joint venture with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I am not aware of any formal meetings during the last term of office that I have been able to find information of to date. However I am aware of some interesting meetings involving the former chair of the board and National MPs. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Has he seen reports that Mrs King was a guest in the family corporate box of Healthcare New Zealand’s Mr Catley on two occasions along with Mr Hausmann and that despite spending some hours with a couple of the biggest private sector players in health according to Mrs King “they did not discuss health matters on those occasions”; and how believable is that? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: An extensive forensic analysis using the full search powers of the State has revealed this article in the  
Sunday Star-Times 
 of 16 March in which Mrs King is quoted as saying she was present in a corporate box. I am pleased that the Opposition is now taking a stronger interest in behaviour in corporate boxes. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is it part of the Minister’s objective as a good Minister of Health to promote a sound work-to-life balance and would such a thing have a Minister go off for example to a corporate box for a sporting occasion and to spend his or her whole time talking not about the sport or something to do with the social occasion but rather about his or her personal portfolio business—and what sort of wuss would do that in the first place? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I hope that the Opposition will discover an interest in sports and I hope that the Opposition’s spokesman gets a life. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Why in the full knowledge that Mr Hausmann was seeking a multimillion-dollar contract with the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board did Annette King appoint him to that board? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: As I have said to the House on previous occasions firstly because it was clear that the gentleman had extensive skills and knowledge in the health sector and secondly because the appropriate Cabinet disclosure processes were gone through. Almost 2 years ago those papers were made available to no less than the National Party. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: Is the Minister aware that the Greens the Maori Party ACT and National all support this issue being referred to the Auditor-General and given that the Minister is so supremely confident that this matter has been adequately dealt with by the review panel why will he not refer it to the Auditor-General to give the people of Hawke’s Bay a clear answer? 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: Firstly let me reaffirm that it is for the Auditor-General to make such decisions as he considers fit and proper. I am aware that the Auditor-General has an ongoing programme of work in respect of the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board as with other district health boards around the country. We would expect his office to be working on that district health board within months. I am sure that the Auditor-General would not thank the spokesperson opposite for implying that he was subject to political pressure from parties in this House. 
Hon Tony Ryall 
: I seek leave to table an internal Healthcare New Zealand document showing that the Minister Annette King was briefed about and supported the Hawke’s Bay District Health Board innovation. 
Document not tabled. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE 
: I seek leave to table a document showing that chairman Atkinson met with MPs Foss and Tremain but would not allow the chief executive to do so. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Sustainable Land Management—Research 
4.  
Dr ASHRAF CHOUDHARY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent research initiatives has the Government approved to support sustainable land management? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 I am pleased to announce today that the Labour-Progressive Government has approved over $5 million in climate change research funding as part of the $175 million  
Sustainable Land Management and Climate Change: Plan of Action 
. This funding supports 45 different projects covering mitigation of agricultural emissions and adaptation mechanisms to cope with climate change as well as forestry and carbon sequestration research. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Who will benefit from these initiatives? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: This research is being conducted in partnership with a wide range of organisations including four universities the Foundation for Arable Research Crop and Food Research AgResearch the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Landcare Research Scion New Zealand Winegrowers Canterbury and North Otago Irrigated Farmers and many many more. All of these organisations are delighted that this Government is making climate research a serious priority which is why it is truly extraordinary that last week the leader of the National Party John Key said: “The Government is doing no real research on climate change … um … R and D—I mean they’ve done very little in that area.” The leader of the National Party— 
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: It’s true though—absolutely true. 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: —joined by Dr Nick Smith—obviously has no idea that the Government’s record is as good as it is but everyone else in New Zealand seems to know except him. Mr Key is just hoping that no one will notice the hole he has dug for himself on this matter. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: How is the Government informing stakeholders of its research initiatives? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: The Government has established a peak group of industry representatives from the land management sector to provide liaison and partnership between Government and industry over its research initiatives. In this spirit of partnership last week I offered the Leader of the Opposition a briefing on the New Zealand Fast Forward innovation initiative. Last Friday his chief of staff advised that Mr Key would like to take up this offer of a briefing and would provide a time for this to happen this week. Unfortunately I must advise the House that Mr Key after receiving repeated phone calls and emails this week is now ducking having such a briefing. I can conclude only that he does not want to confront the cold hard reality that he got his facts wrong about New Zealand Fast Forward and his reaction has put him completely out of step with the largest companies and industries and with the whole of the rural sector that he lays claim to represent. 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Has the Minister seen any commentary on the Government’s research and innovation initiative? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: Yes I have; it would be hard to miss. I have seen extensive commentary including editorials in a well-known Government-supporting newspaper the  
New Zealand Herald 
 and in the  
Dominion Post 
 praising the Government’s latest research and innovation initiative New Zealand Fast Forward. I have also seen comments from the Leader of the Opposition saying he would scrap the fund. That has taken aback many New Zealanders including the president of Federated Farmers Charlie Pederson who is another well-known supporter of the Government! Charlie Pederson said: “I am a little surprised by Mr Key’s position and I would like to understand the reasoning behind his statement.” So would we all! 
Hon David Carter 
: Can the Minister confirm that the funding from the Fast Forward fund that will be available next year is only $20 million which is a far cry from the $85 million to $100 million that Helen Clark claimed would be available last week? 
Hon JIM ANDERTON 
: If Mr Carter is the answer it must have been a really horrible question. That is all I can say. The amount of money that comes from the $700 million capital sum upfront will be determined by a governance group of equal representatives of industry and Government. That body will make the decision on what the projects are and how much they will get. The National Party says that its policy will be revealed and that we will know all but I ask when that will be. I would like to know when because our policy is upfront but that party’s is nowhere to be seen. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How comfortable would the Minister be if for example he stood for and was not nominated for the Rakaia electorate—a farming electorate I might add—then tried the same with Banks Peninsula and Lyttelton and was fired from there and was described recently by a farming publication as the “invisible man”; how would he feel about being the Minister of Agriculture if that is what his description was? 
Madam SPEAKER 
: The Minister has no ministerial responsibility for that. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. A report on an agricultural publication describing some spokesperson as “invisible man” is a report. The Minister has responsibility for quoting it because it is inside his portfolio of published interests. That is why it is relevant. Unfortunately it might be embarrassing to Mr Carter but it is a fact and he is not denying it. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: No I have ruled on the matter. 
Election Advertising—Financial Agent Authorisation 
5.  
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) 
 to the  
Minister of Justice 
: Has she been advised of a joint statement from the Chief Electoral Officer and the chief executive of the Electoral Commission stating that election advertisements promoted by financial agents must contain a statement setting out the name of the financial agent and the full address of the place where that person usually lives? 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) 
: 
 Yes it was issued on 7 March and can be found on www.elections.org.nz. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister believe that Government policy intended that authorisation statements on election publicity should be visible clear and legible; if not why not? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: The Parliament decided what would be in the Electoral Finance Act and every party in this House needs to abide by it. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen copies of the large billboards that the Greens have put up around the country—including the one I am holding up—that contain an authorisation statement written so small it can hardly be seen and does she believe that this conforms with Government policy on election advertising? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: It is not my role to decide whether it is appropriate and I do not intend to give an opinion as to whether it is appropriate. It is up to the Green Party to ensure that it abides with the Electoral Finance Act. 
Hon Bill English 
: Does the Minister have some sympathy with the Green Party when it is required like every other party to conform with the ridiculous requirement that a financial agent has to put his or her residential address on a billboard and does she agree that to make this billboard legal the staff person from the Green Party has to put his or her residential address on it; why should that person have to do that and when will she admit that her policy is stupid and impractical for—and probably dangerous to—the individuals concerned? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: This Parliament decided what would make up the Electoral Finance Act. Every time this question is asked the National Party forgets that in this House there is still a democracy and the majority vote wins. 
Hon Bill English 
: Has the Minister seen the application by the Public Service Association (PSA) to become a third party which includes material where the association’s financial agent who is a private citizen has put down the PSA’s building address as what the agent believes is the correct address when in fact Ms Pilott will have to put down her own residential address of an apartment or a suburban street and every New Zealander who looks at PSA material will know where she lives and be able to track her down and do some of the crazy things that all sorts of people do these days? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: No I have not. But I know that many members in this House actually have their name and address in the phone book. 
Hon Bill English 
: Why is it Government policy that every billboard newspaper ad TV ad T-shirt and balloon that is put out by any political party or third-party campaigner in election year has to include the home address of an individual New Zealander—the place where his or her partner and children live—and why did the Government believe that that is the best way to frame our election law to put individual New Zealanders at risk by identifying their place of residence for everybody? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: I am afraid I will sound like a cracked record— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: No you’re not. 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Yes I am very very sorry but I will sound like a cracked record. This Parliament decided that that is what the Act would be. 
Hon Bill English 
: Will the Minister support an amendment to the legislation that would allow the financial agents of political parties and third parties to put an organisational or corporate address on election publicity or will the Labour Party insist on its ridiculous and vindictive policy that anyone who wants to campaign against it has to have his or her residential address made public while the Labour Party deliberately broke this law with the publicity it put out this year? 
Hon ANNETTE KING 
: Of course Mr English is well known for his selective memory. In this Chamber no less than 2 weeks ago my colleague held up the photograph of Mr Key’s DVD which he issued this year at a fair in Auckland—[ 
Interruption 
] One of his members did. There was no authorisation no name and no address on the DVD. So it is very good to come in here and point the finger at the Labour Party but if the member wants to take this issue seriously instead of throwing insults around I say to him he should put up an amendment and see what this Parliament thinks because at the end of the day it is this Parliament that will decide. 
Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Madam Speaker. I wonder whether we could clarify just what the Minister meant by that. Can we get an indication whether if Mr English were to seek leave to introduce a bill amending the Electoral Finance Act the Government would in fact support that leave. 
Madam SPEAKER 
: As the member well knows it is not for the Speaker to try to understand what the questions or answers are or to give an opinion on them. 
Question time interrupted.