Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Volume:668;Page:15151] 
Wednesday 10 November 2010 
Mr Speaker 
 took the Chair at 2 p.m. 
Prayers 
. 
Questions to Ministers 
Financial Position Government—Reports 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister but it would be helpful if the House allowed the Minister to say one word before just a barrage of interjections. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I am pleased the House is so enthusiastic about the 3-monthly accounts. The accounts show that the impact of the Canterbury earthquake and lower-than-expected tax revenue contributed to a $3.7 billion operating deficit which is about $2.2 billion higher than forecast. The lower tax take was due to largely subdued consumer spending as New Zealanders paid down debt and saved more. This in turn led to lower business profits which impacted on corporate tax revenue. Although Treasury expects some of the lower tax take to reverse in coming months the accounts reinforce the need for ongoing fiscal discipline. 
David Bennett 
: What steps is the Government taking to manage its finances responsibly? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is taking many positive steps. In the past 2 years the Government has identified around $4 billion of low priority spending and redirected it from back-office bureaucracy to better front-line services. We have also committed to capping future new Budget spending at $1.1 billion. In some ways though restraint in the public sector is only just starting. The Government has set itself the task of getting back to surplus which will take 4 or 5 years of disciplined spending constraint. 
David Bennett 
: How does the Government’s approach to managing its finances compare with approaches in other countries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would describe the Government’s approach as moderate and balanced. A number of other deficit countries like us have taken a more aggressive approach to spending cuts. The UK is looking at cuts of up to 20 percent in departmental expenditure. I am advised that in France the Government is in the process of sacking 45000 teachers. However in New Zealand we have focused on longer-term change. We have been willing to run significant deficits as the economy gets on its feet but over the next 4 or 5 years there will need to be strong spending constraint. 
David Bennett 
: What kinds of policies would put New Zealand’s return to budget surplus at significant risk and burden hard-working New Zealanders with more debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any policy that either allows wasteful and inefficient spending to continue or proposes more wasteful spending—such as a GST exemption on fruit and vegetables or Labour’s persistent call to keep the Wellington bureaucracy growing as fast as it was under the previous Labour Government—would be reckless. 
Income Gap Parity with Australia—2025 Taskforce Report 
2. 
Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Has he reviewed table 1 in the latest report from the 2025 Taskforce; if so does he stand by his statement that the wage gap with Australia is reducing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes; and yes. If the member takes a look at table 1 he will see that it does not refer to wages. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does he stand by his statement that a “fundamental purpose” of his Government is to narrow the wage gap between ourselves and Australia; if so does he accept that the 2025 Taskforce actually shows that he is failing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes we do stand by that statement; and no we do not accept that about the 2025 Taskforce. In the shorter term the measure of real after-tax wages shows that the gap is closing but the member needs to keep in mind that the Government has had to deal with two substantial issues. One is the economic mismanagement of the previous Labour Government which left this economy in a mess. That was followed by a global recession. In that context we have made a very good start. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How does the Prime Minister reconcile that answer with the explicit statement by the task force: “… we do not see any realistic possibility that the gap in real per capita income has narrowed in the past year.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is curious to hear that member quoting Don Brash— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Minister that I have let him get away with an earlier answer that claimed that certain policies were the policies of the Opposition then dumping on them. That question was a perfectly fair question because the task force was established by the Government. There was nothing political in asking the Minister about statements contained in the task force’s report. The questioner was not being political and the Minister does not need to give the questioner a lecture about those sorts of things. The Minister should answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I disagree with the task force. It has not taken account of the decade of damaging economic management by the previous Government or of the global recession. In that context to achieve an increase in real after-tax wages has been quite an achievement. There is no doubt at all that if we followed the policies of the previous Labour Government New Zealand’s economic performance would continue to drop like a stone. 
Chris Tremain 
: How has real after-tax wage growth been tracking in New Zealand compared with that in Australia? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Between September 1999 and September 2008 real after-tax wages in New Zealand grew by only 3 percent in that 9-year period compared with 19 percent growth in Australia. The wage gap blew out substantially. Since September 2008 real after-tax wages have grown by 8 percent in New Zealand compared with 5 percent in Australia so the wage gap has narrowed slightly. As I said before we started a long way behind Australia having been handicapped by a decade of economic mismanagement and this is just one small gain. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can he name any independent economic commentator who accepts his spin that the wage gap with Australia is narrowing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The calculations that the Government has done on real after-tax wages are based on the statistical series legislated for by the Labour— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You will understand that the question was straightforward. I asked him whether he could name one independent economic commentator who accepted his view on the wage gap narrowing. He has not addressed the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I must say I have considerable sympathy for the honourable Leader of the Opposition. It is just unfortunate that he added the last bit about “spin” to his question because if the member had cut his question short to the first part I would have insisted on the Minister answering. Once the last part was added it makes my job hard. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Any commentator who looks at the statistics used to calculate national superannuation will come to the same conclusion as we have. I cannot name one commentator who believes that following Labour’s policies would do anything but send us to the bottom of the OECD table. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister name one independent economic commentator who agrees with his position that the wage gap with Australia is narrowing? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said before any commentator who looks at the real after-tax wage series— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member on this occasion asked a very specific question. The answer may be that the member cannot name a commentator but he should not rabbit on about stuff that is not the subject of the question. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. The Standing Orders are very clear about that point; information should not be included in an answer that is not necessary to answer the question. I have been pretty generous to the Minister and have allowed him to get away with a lot of comments about the Opposition’s policies. The Opposition has now asked a very straight question of the Prime Minister. The Minister is answering on his behalf; he should answer the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I said any commentator who looks at the facts on real after-tax wages will have to come to the conclusion that the gap has closed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member if I heard the question correctly—and do forgive me if I am wrong—asked whether the Prime Minister could name any credible commentator who believed that the wage gap with Australia was closing. It may be that the Minister cannot name one but he should answer the question that was asked. There is nothing wrong with not being able to name one but it is not within the Standing Orders to include other information that is not the subject of the question that was asked. I have allowed a fair bit of licence. The Minister has dumped several times on the Opposition and has made claims about the state the country would be in if Labour’s policies had been pursued. In fact one of those answers was to a question from one of the Minister’s own colleagues. That is not in my view the way that questions from colleagues should be used—just to dump on the Opposition. The Opposition has asked a straight question; I believe it deserves to hear an answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I do not think any commentators have looked at those figures. When they do look at them they will be forced to the correct conclusion: real after-tax wages grew by 3 percent in 9 years under the previous Government and they have grown by 8 percent in 2 years under this Government. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which of these apparently contradictory statements is correct: the statement in the National-ACT confidence and supply agreement that sets out the closing of the income gap with Australia as being a “concrete goal” or Mr Key’s or Mr English’s more recent statements that this is merely an “aspirational goal”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: ACT and National both agree that New Zealand can achieve parity by 2025 and that we should take all steps to achieve that. We know that the first steps have been to undo the incredible damage done to this economy— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was again quite straightforward: is this a goal that is simply aspirational or is it concrete? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well they are both— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister should not be answering when he has not been called because a point of order is being considered. If the Acting Prime Minister is prepared to assist the House it would be helpful if he could now answer. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: They are both correct. ACT and National both agree that the recipe followed by the previous Labour Government gave us reductions in real after-tax income a shrinking export sector and a bloated Government sector and put us on a path towards the bottom of the OECD ladder. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Which promise is more credible: his promise to catch up with Australia or his promise not to raise GST? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Both of those promises are promises that the Government is adhering to. If the member is opposed to the rise in GST he is free to go out to Mana and announce Labour’s new policy: to cut GST and take away the income tax cuts. As far as I am aware the member has not been brave enough to do that. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: How is he adhering to his promise not to increase GST when he has just increased it by 2.5 percent? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows there was much discussion over those quotes and as is usual with the Labour Party members they are making them up. The Prime Minister answered a question— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was again quite straightforward and a series of attacks were made on the Opposition but there was no endeavour to answer the question. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well I will hear the Minister on the point of order. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I was dealing with the regular issue now whereby the Opposition manufactures quotes. We have the choice of either just ignoring manufactured quotes like this one today and one yesterday that was applied to me or of trying to deal with them. It is in the public interest that there is clarity over whether the assertion made by the Opposition is correct or not correct. In this case I attempted to clarify it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the Minister and that is a valid point. When a question contains a quote that gives a misleading impression a Minister can certainly correct that—I have no problem with that at all. But there is a difference between correcting that and just dumping on the questioner. Today it is my view that the Minister has attempted to dump on the questioner a little too much on the wrong questions. Some questions invite a political response and others do not. That last question I believe did have an element of politics in it. The reason why it had an element of politics is that anyone who has been around this House for a while would know the quote was taken from a wider context and the wider context was left out of the quote. But the Minister in answering the question should deal with that and not just dump on the questioner. That is the way to handle that kind of question if this House is to avoid excessive disorder. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I think there is one further point. I accept that there is always a context to quotes but I think there is a difference between taking a quote out of context and manufacturing a quote which was the accusation. That I think is the equivalent of misleading the House and that accusation should not be made across the House. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think under the circumstances we should let things lie where I have ruled but I do understand the point that the member makes. There is a difference between manufacturing a quote and taking a quote out of context and I think the Minister should not have alleged that anyone was manufacturing quotes. I understand the concern about taking a quote out of context but the way to deal with that is to demonstrate the way in which it is out of context rather than just dump on the questioner unless the quote is used in a highly political way. Then I will not protect questioners and Ministers are free to deal with questioners in a reasonable way if they are foolish enough to make a question highly political. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am waiting to get the answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Some time has passed so I will invite the honourable Leader of the Opposition to repeat his question. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: To the best of my memory the question was: how does he reconcile the statement that the Government is adhering to its promise not to increase GST when he said “National will not be increasing GST”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister never said that. He said he would not increase GST in order to close the deficit. What we did was to increase GST in order to pay for income tax cuts because we had to rebalance this economy from excessive consumption debt and excessive Government spending which occurred in the last decade to a focus on savings investment exports and a better reward for work which will be the tone of growth in the next decade. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek the leave of the House to table both the video and the transcript in which the Prime Minister says National will not be increasing GST and another quote that goes something like this: that a half-good Government— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the member will not use points of order to try to score his political point. 
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill—Customary Title 
3. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) 
 to the  
Attorney-General 
: Does he stand by his answer of “yes” to my question yesterday that under the proposed Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill “…when we have Treaty settlements that shift property and titles to iwi groups those settlements are brought before the House and select committees for public scrutiny and ratification by Parliament yet when it comes to the foreshore and seabed a Minister by private treaty in his or her office can sign the deal with no public scrutiny and no oversight by Parliament”; if so what protection will there be against allegations of political patronage and corruption? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) 
: 
 Yes the Minister answering yesterday confirmed that the processes are different. He did not necessarily accept the member’s description of those processes. As to the second part of the member’s question as recent experience has shown there can be no protection against allegations of patronage or corruption by people who either have not read the bill or do not care about the truth. The real question is whether patronage or corruption by individual members is protected against— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It should probably be ACT that raises this point of order but to accuse members in this House of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat. I listened very carefully to the Minister’s answer and he was speaking in a general sense. He did not accuse anyone in this House of not having read the bill or whatever. If I recollect his answer correctly he said that there was no protection against individuals who had not read the bill making allegations etc. It is quite improper for a member then to try to twist that and aim it at an individual in this House. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: It is very important to listen to answers— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Minister should just answer the question. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: The real question is whether patronage or corruption by Ministers can be guarded against. The answer to that question is yes. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: In light of his answer what protections are there within the proposed bill to guard against political patronage and corruption? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I refer the member to Part 4. In the case of when agreements are entered into the responsible Minister is negotiating on behalf of the Crown. It is the Crown that enters into those agreements. There will necessarily need to be adequate Cabinet and Cabinet committee review of those processes. One can enter into those agreements only if the requirements of the Act in relation to customary title are satisfied. Any attempt to subvert those requirements would be met with an application for judicial review. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: What public scrutiny and parliamentary oversight will there be of these decisions before they are ratified? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: If the procedure is done by way of an Act—and that is one of the options set out in clause 92—there will be an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. If the agreement is what is entered into I refer the member to clause 95 about registration and notification of the agreement and to the points I made earlier which will indicate there will be an opportunity for interested parties to be involved. 
Primary Health Care—Hospital Admissions 
4. 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Does he agree with the Ministry of Health’s annual report for the year ended June 2010 that states primary health care has failed to reduce admissions to hospitals compared with the base period ending September 2008? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Health 
: I can advise that the annual report details that the number of ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations increased by 3.2 percent in the year ended March 2010. But that number needs to be seen in the context of the total change in the New Zealand population of 119000 in the same period. I am advised that when this change is factored in the rate of ambulatory sensitive hospitalisations has increased by only 0.03 percent. Ambulatory sensitive admissions are not determined solely by primary care; they are just one indicator of the effectiveness of primary care. 
Hon Annette King 
: How many of the extra 2000 avoidable and costly hospital admissions over the past year arose out of cuts to home care for the elderly who suffered falls accidents and illness because help with things such as hanging out their washing and cleaning their toilets was taken away from them? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: There could be a long debate about funding for home care but the fact is that all district health boards have received more money under this Government and they have to prioritise funding to meet the needs of the communities they serve. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was about the 2000 avoidable hospital admissions and how many of them related to cuts to home care for elderly people. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member recollects her question she will see that she went on to describe all sorts of things about people hanging out washing. The Minister is at liberty to pick up on that part of the question and dispute it which he did. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen the information recently released by Capital and Coast District Health Board informing older people in the Mana electorate that after 1 December they will no longer be eligible for home help if their net income is over $399 a week; if so what is the expected rise in the number of avoidable hospital admissions from this decision and what is the expected cost to the taxpayer? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I would have to check the assertions that that member is making but I can tell her that in this annual report the Ministry of Health states: “Overall the state of public health results show continuing improvements in New Zealanders’ health and independence as well as ongoing improvements across a range of health and disability services and interventions.” Basically the state of the country’s health is getting better under this Government. 
Hon Annette King 
: Does he believe that the 88-year-old woman living alone with osteoporosis in the Mana electorate who is living on $124 a week after she has paid for the basics like rent and food is able to pay the $30 a week for home care or is he unconcerned that if she cannot cope the taxpayer will be paying about $42000 a year to keep her in a rest home? How can that be the best use of taxpayers’ dollars let alone be humane for this elderly woman? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Once again that member has brought a set of facts that may be open to some debate but it sounds like an individual case. If she would like to bring that case before the Minister then we would be happy to discuss it. 
Hon Annette King 
: Has he seen the Capital and Coast District Health Board report on children from July of this year that cites children in Porirua disproportionately suffering from dental caries asthma gastroenteritis skin infections and pneumonia and that the solution proposed is to take even more funding from the elderly; and why should one vulnerable group in society be played off against another in order to meet his demands for efficiencies? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I can tell that member that Capital and Coast District Health Board has had an extra $57 million under this Government over 2 years and it is putting that money into the front line where it is needed most. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. A pattern has emerged in health questions over the last year or two. The essence is that the Opposition says— 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: What is the point of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and members must not interject. That was very disorderly I say to whoever did that. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: The essence is that no matter what the Opposition raises about this or that aspect of health delivery—I exaggerate a little for effect—the answer from the Government is that more money is going in than ever was. Because in the history of New Zealand there is always more money going in than there ever was that seems to me to not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to reflect on the questions asked. The primary question referred to the annual report of the Ministry of Health and then supplementary questions brought up specific cases and claims about specific individuals that have not been validated because there is no way to validate a supplementary question. Ministers cannot be expected to have information in their hands in the House to answer directly that sort of question. It seems not unreasonable when the question relates to the amount of money being spent for the Minister to answer by saying: “I do not have the information but I would be happy to look into that situation. But with respect to that district health board X number of dollars more have been spent in that district health board.” That seems a perfectly reasonable answer. If members want to hear different answers they need to think about the questions being asked. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This will be my last go at this matter. The last question that was asked by the Hon Annette King was not about an individual; it asked whether the Minister had seen a report. The Minister’s answer was that more money is going into the district health board than ever was. I do not think that is good enough. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Mr Speaker you are increasingly being put into the position of having to rule from the Chair about the content both of answers and of questions—but more often it would seem in respect of answers. That is a completely debatable matter. It is nothing to do with order in the House other than the fact that if we get into too bad a state we get disorder. But merely calling for your ruling on the content of an answer is incredibly disrespectful to your role. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will not hear any more on this issue. It is not an issue as far as I am concerned. I heard a question asked and I heard an answer given and I was perfectly satisfied with the answer given. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What other recent reports from the Ministry of Health has he seen about access to hospital services? 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I have been pretty tough on Government Ministers today when answering questions and I expect a little more respect from the Labour front bench. The Minister had not started his answer and there was a barrage of interjections. 
Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN 
: I have seen a report released today about neurosurgical services for the South Island and I note that the outcome is quite different from all the speculation that has been aired during years and years of uncertainty. The acting director-general of the Ministry of Health has announced that the South Island service will have seven or eight neurosurgeons with at least three based in Dunedin and it will include an academic focus. The decision on how South Island neurosurgical services will be configured shows the value of finally having clinicians involved in the planning of services. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call Dr Russel Norman to ask question No. 5 I say that if members want a little more order in the House then applauding answers to patsy questions is not a great look. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I say that nor is it a good look for the Speaker to have a go at the Government over the types of questions it poses to its Ministers. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Forgive me but it is a tradition in this House that questions from the governing party have often been referred to as patsy questions. All I am pointing out is that it is not a great look to be applauding the answers to them. When Ministers give great answers to tough questions there is nothing wrong with applauding. But it is not a great look because it adds to disorder in this House. [ 
Interruption 
] The member will resume his seat. I have dealt with that matter and I am not inclined to take it any further. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It causes disorder in the House if questions asked by members about matters that are of great concern to them are dismissed by the Speaker as being of less relevance than some other questions asked. This is a members’ question time. Members on this side of the House have as much right to ask questions of Ministers as any other. The Speaker referring to them as patsy questions is no less offensive than the use of the terms “Tory” or “screaming lefty”. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the rebuke. 
Economy—Sustainable Development 
5. 
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have a plan to enable our economy to develop in a sustainable way; if so what is it? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It depends on one’s definition of sustainability. In our view the first call on sustainability is that new jobs and growth and incomes should be able to be maintained over time and that is what we are setting out to do with an economic programme that will contribute to sustainable economic growth. That programme consists of investment in productive infrastructure removing red tape supporting business innovation and trade lifting productivity and improving services in the public sector and strengthening the tax system where we took a significant step in Budget 2010. We believe this will make jobs and growth much more sustainable than the consumption-fed debt-financed growth over the last decade. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does his definition of sustainability accept the reality that the natural environment has finite resources; if so how does the fact that the natural environment has finite resources affect his plan for sustainable development? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I will use two examples that are relevant. One is the introduction of the emissions trading system. The member and his party were of course instrumental in putting that together. The current Government modified it but we have continued with that modified version. Secondly the Land and Water Forum has been working extensively to build consensus around better rules and regulation for water as one of our strategic advantages and a resource that is increasingly constrained around the world. In both of those cases I think the Government has shown an interest and an ability to recognise resource constraint and come up with what are generally accepted as effective tools for dealing with those constraints. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept then that within such a definition of sustainability the environment has limited ability to absorb our pollution and waste and therefore weakening the emissions trading scheme has actually reduced the sustainability of his economic development plan? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think it represents a better balance of the two definitions of sustainability that have been mentioned here. On the one hand the sustainability of the environment is recognised by the fact that we have a pretty comprehensive emissions trading scheme and others I am sure will follow. On the other hand we have introduced it in a way that ensures we are not putting at risk an economic recovery and the need for investment and jobs. I am pleased to say that the investment community is now seeing the presence of the emissions trading scheme as an advantage rather than a threat because it provides certainty for their investment decisions. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he accept the former World Bank chief economist and Nobel Prize winner Professor Joseph Stiglitz is correct when he says that events such as traffic jams or oil spills increase GDP while at the same time reducing people’s quality of life; if so does he still think that maximising GDP should be the sole and central driver of Government economic policy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I do not believe it should be the sole driver nor is it any more than maximising personal income is the sole driver of individual New Zealanders. They have a range of motives and a range of things they want to achieve that add up to quality of life. I think the Government has shown as I said before a willingness to use tools of environmental policy that may compromise economic growth—such as an emissions trading scheme or restrictions through the Resource Management Act—as part of the trade-off that New Zealanders want for quality of life here. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that former World Bank chief economist and Nobel Prize winner Professor Joseph Stiglitz is correct when he states that GDP figures can hide large increases in inequality that can result in most people being worse off even as GDP is rising? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Professor Stiglitz is an eminent economist and on that matter I do agree with him. That is one reason why the Government publishes a range of reports and I think the previous Government initiated some of them. GDP figures are published regularly. There is also a social report which measures progress against dozens of indicators and we are moving into a range of environmental reports—including I think one report pretty soon on water quality—which are other measures of welfare. I think that most New Zealanders are capable of looking at that range of data and making their own assessment as to whether their quality of life is improving. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: In light of that answer when he presents his Budget next year will he consider adding indices of environmental and social sustainability alongside GDP as a measure of progress? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think a number of those indices are readily available. It is tricky enough measuring GDP on its own without complicating that measurement; other measures are available. But I say that there is no doubt that a rise in GDP is a key to lifting environmental standards. Countries with higher GDP generally have higher environmental standards. Many people measure their progress by their economic progress. That is why it is pretty important we have policies that encourage growth. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister of Finance agree with world-renowned scientist David Suzuki who happens to be speaking at the Green economics conference on Friday who argues that separating economics from ecology is bad news for humans that it is not sustainable and that it is suicidal for the human race? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Well that is the kind of dramatic thing I might expect to see at a Green economics conference. But I do not disagree with the general idea. That is why—and the Green Party has been an advocate of economic tools for solving environmental problems—in that sense we are in agreement. All the work that the Green Party did on the emissions trading scheme has resulted in a tool that combines economic and environmental objectives. It does so in my view better than bureaucratic whim or random regulation. I expect as we evolve our thinking about water we will end up in pretty much the same kind of place—that is integrating our environmental and economic objectives. We have learnt a lot from the emissions trading scheme about how that might apply in a bit more relevant way to water. 
Economy Rebalancing—Contribution of High New Zealand Dollar 
6. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he consider the high New Zealand dollar is contributing to “rebalancing” the New Zealand economy; if so how? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 It is arguable as to whether the New Zealand dollar generally is high. It is high against the US dollar but not against all currencies. The economy has been rebalancing towards savings and exports as it needs to. As governor Bollard noted this morning if a high currency is continued then rebalancing towards the tradable sector would be more difficult to achieve. Although the dollar is highest against those countries that are experiencing the weakest growth the exchange rate with Australia is close to its lowest level in 15 years. Australia is our largest trading partner and that represents a major boost for New Zealand manufacturers. Overall on a trade-weighted basis the currency is today very close to its average for the past 5 years and is 10 percent below its recent peak in July 2007. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In respect of the comparison with Australia does he then agree with the Reserve Bank’s  
Financial Stability Report 
 page 11 which states: “Against the Australian dollar the NZD has fallen significantly as diverging economic data point to a widening growth gap between the two countries.”; if so does he still maintain that his Government is closing that gap and that the markets and the Reserve Bank are therefore all wrong? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have only to look back over recent years to see that there has been a diverging growth path. That has been a consequence of two things: first the huge lift in prices for Australian resource exports; the other has been the dreadful economic policy that this country pursued for the last 10 years. We are in the process of changing that and it will take some time for the gap to close. 
Craig Foss 
: What has been the path of the trade-weighted exchange rate in recent years and why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The so-called high dollar is not a phenomenon of just the last month or two. New Zealand experienced sustained overvaluation between 2003 and 2008. In fact over that 5-year period the average level of the real exchange rate was the highest since the 1960s. That was driven by the irresponsible economic policy of the time such as rampant Government spending which contributed to the Reserve Bank lifting the overnight cash rate to 8.25 percent. It is currently 3 percent. The consequences were disastrous in particular for our export sector which went into a 5-year recession. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister knows exactly what he is doing. We have just had an exchange over this earlier in question time. A question from a colleague asked about the pattern of the trade-weighted index exchange rate over a certain number of years. The Minister then went into a whole further exposition over whose fault it all was and that was not the subject of the question asked. What is more in my view it is not appropriate for questions from one’s own colleagues to be used to dump on any other party. The other party has asked plenty of questions and some of them invite being dumped upon but Ministers should not use questions from their own colleagues for that purpose. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I just make two points. First of all the question asked what had been the path and why so I was asked why. Secondly if we are going to get into this territory of deciding what can be said then you as Speaker will have to be able to determine between facts and political assertions. There is a set of facts in this case about why the exchange rate is high. I do not think the House should be prevented from hearing those facts because in someone’s opinion they might sound political— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure what level of education one needs to understand the difference between “disastrous”—or an emotive term to describe an administration by another Government—and facts. In my view and forgive me if I am wrong where one uses an emotive term to describe something—such as “disastrous management” or that kind of thing—that is hardly a fact. It certainly is a legitimate view that some people might have but it is not difficult to discern in this House when questions are politically loaded and when they are not. All I am asking of Ministers is to show a little more discretion and to not use colleagues’ questions to excessively dump on other parties. I did not pull the Minister up initially; it is just that the Minister started to go on and on about it. All I am asking for is a little reasonableness in answers otherwise the Opposition will start to become more and more disorderly the place will become more and more disorderly and the public will suffer because they do not actually hear the facts that the Minister is referring to. I have no problem with the Minister referring to facts so long as they are facts from the record. My concern is where emotive language is used to describe what has gone on previously because those are not facts. 
Craig Foss 
: Why is it important to rebalance the economy and what success has the Government had? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The New Zealand economy needs to rebalance because it has been spending more than it has earned particularly over the last 10 years and we now owe the rest of the world $170 billion. There are some early signs of success now because New Zealanders are restraining their spending increasing their savings and paying off debt. At the same time the export sector has started to get some momentum after 5 years of recession. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of his ongoing concern about the level of the trade-weighted index does he agree with Dr Bollard who said at the Finance and Expenditure Committee this morning that our dollar is currently overvalued or with the Prime Minister who said yesterday that he expects our dollar to go above US80c? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Of course both of them can be right: it can be overvalued now but still be likely to go higher. In the light of US policy and the weakness in that economy and UK policy and the weakness in that economy there is every probability that the dollar could continue to go higher even though it is overvalued. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: If the Minister is arguing that the dollar is both overvalued and could go higher who then is right: the Prime Minister who says there is nothing that can be done about the high New Zealand dollar or the Governor of the Reserve Bank who told the Finance and Expenditure Committee today that if currency appreciation continues he would consider tactical intervention in the foreseeable future if the appropriate tests were met? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is the proper role of the Reserve Bank. There can be a discussion over whether interventions work. The Reserve Bank Governor has a role and I am sure he will execute it independently of the Government. The Prime Minister has been responding to calls from people who think that the exchange rate can be fixed at a level that suits us and that is simply not the case. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he then consider Dr Bollard correct in saying this morning that the continued rebalancing of economic activities towards the tradable sector is difficult to achieve with a high New Zealand dollar; if so what action will his Government take to relieve pressure on struggling exporters and savers? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is taking a whole series of actions that will assist with that rebalancing. It needs to deal with domestic cost structure so that our exporters can be competitive. It needs to persist with free-trade agreements because as the experience with China shows even if the currency is against us we can increase our trade. And it needs to get the non-tradable sector back under control after many years of reckless growth under the previous Government. 
Prisoners—Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation 
7. 
SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: What priority is being placed on the provision of alcohol and drug addiction treatment in New Zealand prisons? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that I have just recently opened another drug treatment unit for prisoners. The new unit at Auckland prison is the first of its kind in the Greater Auckland area. It brings to eight the number of treatment centres operated by the Department of Corrections. There are now more prisoners receiving drug and alcohol rehabilitation in our prisons than ever before and we are going to increase this number further. By 2011 we will achieve our goal of doubling the number of prisoners receiving drug and alcohol treatment in any year from 500 to 1000. 
Shane Ardern 
: Why is the Government placing such a high priority on increasing drug and alcohol treatment for prisoners? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is because drug and alcohol addictions are major drivers of crime in New Zealand. About two-thirds of prisoners enter our jails with drug and alcohol problems. If we want to reduce the number of people behind bars it is crucial that we break the cycle of drugs and alcohol offending. Drug treatment units are very effective in doing this and the programmes run by the Department of Corrections are producing excellent results. Recent analysis has shown that they can reduce reoffending by up to one-third and we plan to open a further treatment unit in Whanganui next year. 
Roading State Highway 1—Decision to Delay Announcement of Route 
8. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: On how many occasions was he in contact with the chairperson of the New Zealand Transport Agency on the weekend of 30-31 October regarding the decision to delay announcing the route of the new State highway through Kapiti until possibly after the Mana by-election; if so who initiated the contact? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 On Thursday 28 October prior to the weekend I received a verbal briefing from the New Zealand Transport Agency which I followed up with one phone conversation with the chair and also one with the chief executive on Saturday 30 October. I was informed during those conversations that the nature of the consultation document as it stood would mean that a second consultation would be required at the northern end of the alignment at a later date. The outcome of the conversation with the chair was agreement between us that the level of uncertainty in the consultation material over the northern end of the route was likely to be unacceptable to householders there. The chair advised me of his intentions—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: —to raise it with senior executives and the board at their meeting on Monday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the Hon Darren Hughes I say that a very particular question was asked and the Minister went to some trouble to give a detailed answer to it. That kind of interjection when members are trying to hear the detail of the answer is very unhelpful and the Hon Trevor Mallard knows whom I am talking to there. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: If the decision had nothing to do with the Mana by-election why does the agenda for the agency’s meeting last Monday make no reference to the new State highway through Kapiti when other roading projects the agency was being updated on were specifically named? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: As I pointed out in my answer to the substantive question it was as a result of the discussion that the chair and I had on Saturday that he advised his intention to raise the issue with senior executives and the board at the meeting on Monday. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Was any aspect of the idea or decision to delay announcing to the public details of the new State highway’s location through Kapiti discussed during item 11 of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s board meeting which is headed up: “Board members meet the Minister at his Beehive office at 2.15 p.m.”? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I met with the board members at my office on that afternoon to discuss the statement of intent. At that time they informed me that they had made the decision to postpone the consultation and we had a general discussion about the importance of providing as much certainty as we can about roading projects before we proceed to consultation. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Did anyone—members of his staff officials or parliamentary colleagues—point out to him the closeness of the proposed consultation to the Mana by-election before he discussed it with the chair of the agency towards the end of October? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think it was obvious to blind Freddy that the Mana by-election is coming up. The point of this though is that the focus of the change was nothing to do with the Mana electorate; it was because of insufficient detail on a section of the road towards the northern end of the alignment which the member may or may not be aware is outside the Mana electorate. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: What is his response to members of the community who resolved unanimously last night for the details of the plan to be released immediately—in other words before the Mana by-election—at a public meeting that did not have $22000 worth of advertising spent on it but in fact had zero spent on advertising and still got a good turn-out reflecting the deep concern the public has with the games the Minister is playing? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: I think the member has to decide which side of this argument he is running. On the one hand he is accusing me of interference; on the other hand his press release today says that I should step in and immediately release detailed plans of the planned route for the Kapiti Expressway. He cannot have it both ways. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. After a slight glance to my leadership and a search for the rapidly shifting Hekia Parata over there I seek leave for her— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not a point of order. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the New Zealand Transport Agency’s board meeting agenda which made no reference to the Kapiti road. 
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. 
Education—Increases in International Students 
9. 
ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What trends are there in New Zealand’s international education industry? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 The number of international students enrolled to study in New Zealand is continuing to increase. The latest enrolment figures show a nearly 5 percent increase in numbers for the first 8 months of this year. This increase comes on top of an increase of 6 percent for 2009. International education contributes at least $2.1 billion to our economy and supports about 32000 jobs so it is very pleasing to see the sector continuing to grow despite strong competition from Australia and other countries. 
Allan Peachey 
: What more can be done to improve the industry’s contribution to New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: The Government of course is already investing additional funds in marketing international education with an additional $2 million in the Budget last year and again this year. The Government is confident that New Zealand has an excellent education system and the Government— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: There was a massive cut the year before. 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: If there was a massive cut the year before it was when Mr Mallard was in Government in 2008. I think that is called an own goal. 
Ministers—Compliance with  
Cabinet Manual 
10. 
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: What recent advice if any has he given to his Ministers on ensuring they are clear about in which of the three capacities set out in paragraph 2.52 of the  
Cabinet Manual 
 they are acting when signing documents? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 As is standard practice after every election Ministers are briefed on their responsibilities as Ministers and the provisions contained in the  
Cabinet Manual 
. The Prime Minister expects that Ministers will abide by them. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he stand by the answer of his office when asked by Radio New Zealand whether the Hon Pansy Wong had used her position to further her husband’s interests that “That is not a question that can really be answered.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the member looks at the circumstances surrounding his allegations of yesterday he will see that Ms Wong signed as a witness a contract between two private companies. She then listed her occupation as a Minister in the New Zealand Government as she is required legally to do. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he not think the New Zealand public would much prefer that the question as to whether Ms Wong was there to further her husband’s interests could be answered and that the answer is that the aim was to make a bunch of money but the deal went bad? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before the Minister answers that question I say that I am not sure the Prime Minister has a responsibility for why a Minister might be somewhere on a private trip. I alert the Acting Prime Minister that there are limitations on what the Prime Minister is responsible for. I am happy to let the Acting Prime Minister deal with the question as long as he realises that there are limits to how far he is expected to go on such a matter. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The whole point of this series of questions is that while on a private trip the Minister purported to act as a Minister and used her ministerial designation— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members can see what is happening here. The member in raising his point of order is entering into the substance of the “debate”—it is not really a debate—or rather the issue. He can see how this leads to disorder. Points of order should not be used for that; they should be used with respect for the processes of the House. There are clear bounds around what the Prime Minister is responsible for. The Prime Minister is answerable for Ministers’ management of conflicts of interest and he is also responsible for his confidence in Ministers. But members cannot use question time to examine the private affairs of Ministers. That is the only point that I am making. I sensed that the question went a fair way towards the private activity of a Minister in a private capacity but rather than rule it out I want to give the Acting Prime Minister the chance to handle the question in the way that he sees fit. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to invite my colleague to repeat his question because the question was very carefully worded around the— 
Hon Member 
: Who’s running the House? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: That was Jonathan Coleman again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have heard the member’s point of order and before I make a decision I want to hear whether the Leader of the House wishes to add to it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Not to that no—that’s rubbish. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: This is highly disorderly. Someone over here on my right yelled out very loudly: “Sit down.” It is up to the Speaker to deal with such matters. I do not want to distract the House on to these issues. This is a serious issue and I want it dealt with fairly and properly. The member has asked for his colleague to repeat his question. I do not want to cause a problem through my simply alerting the Acting Prime Minister of the bounds in relation to what the Prime Minister is responsible for in this regard. Given that I have now led to a considerable time lag I will let the member repeat his question but I make it very clear that the Prime Minister is responsible only for Ministers’ management of conflicts of interest and for his confidence in his Ministers. Question time cannot be used to question the Prime Minister about the private activities of Ministers beyond the point where it affects his confidence in them. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order—and I accept what you ruled—relates to how we got into this little exchange. Some comments were made to the House by way of a point of order by the Hon Trevor Mallard that were disorderly and they ascribed improper motives to another member. That is outside the Standing Orders and that member should formally withdraw those comments. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not want the House to take more time on this matter. I did not interpret the member as trying to do that. I believe he was pushing the bounds around a point of order more than I was comfortable with and that is why I sat him down. Then things got messy because he did not sit down fast enough and someone yelled out: “Sit down.” The place got disorderly. If anything I will accept the blame for that myself because I want to move on. I do not want to take more time over this. I caution members to please be a little more respectful of the Standing Orders. I invite the Hon Pete Hodgson to repeat his question so that it can be heard clearly but I alert him that he cannot use question time to pursue the private affairs of Ministers beyond the issue of whether the Prime Minister has confidence in them. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No one is more concerned about time-wasting in the House than I am. We want to get on with Government business as soon as possible. Today is a members’ day and obviously we want to see members given a fair go as well. Mr Speaker you will see from  
Hansard 
 that Mr Mallard’s comments earlier were extremely disorderly. They ascribed an improper motive to a member they are outside the written Standing Orders and he should withdraw his comment. I appreciate that you do not want to deal with that at the moment but I ask you to look at the transcript afterwards and perhaps the video this evening and consider the words that were used. Perhaps then you will reconsider your position this afternoon. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is not an unreasonable request. By practice I always look at what has transpired during the day because one can always live and learn—I fully accept that. I accept the concern over the issue and I ask members to be careful in how they use points of order. I will look at that matter. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he not think—[ 
Interruption 
] How much more of this— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the member to just ask the question please. I have shown him the courtesy of enabling him to repeat his question. There are often plenty of interjections when members ask questions; there is nothing unusual about that. I ask the member to please ask his question. I have extended the courtesy of allowing him to repeat it. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does he not think the New Zealand public would much prefer that the question of whether Pansy Wong had used her ministerial position to further her husband’s interests could be answered and that the answer is that the aim was to make a bunch of money but the deal went bad? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to the question is no she did not. The next statement I would make is that the member’s allegations are disgraceful. They are just another example of the kinds of smear campaigns that the nasty Labour Party runs. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Is the difference between his management of this case as opposed to that of the honourable Dr Richard Worth due to the fact that the honourable Dr Richard Worth was the director of the company in question whereas the Hon Pansy Wong was merely the spouse of the director in question; if not where is the brightline to be drawn? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: There is no comparison in the examples the member is using. The fact is that the Hon Pansy Wong signed a private document that required her to list an occupation. If there was any influence at all it could only be that she influenced her husband. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: At times like this why is the Prime Minister quick to tell the public that he has supposedly received advice from the Cabinet Office that no conflict has arisen yet he refuses publicly time and again month after month to ever release such advice? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member will know we are following a convention with Cabinet Office advice that the previous Labour Government followed for 9 years as well. The fact is that the member’s allegations are disgraceful and they have impugned a member of Parliament in a way that is absolutely unnecessary and unjustified. It is more from the nasty smearing Labour Party members who believe that if they keep saying it eventually someone will believe it. The member should be ashamed of himself. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Question No. 11—[ 
Interruption 
] Tensions are high when an issue like this arises. I accept that but I ask members please to respect this House. [ 
Interruption 
] I am on my feet. 
Earthquake Canterbury—Assessment and Repair of State Houses 
11. 
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Housing 
: What progress has Housing New Zealand made in assessing and fixing State houses that have been damaged by the Canterbury earthquake? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Housing) 
: 
 Since the earthquake Housing New Zealand Corporation has investigated 6000-plus of its properties and carried out 2000 interim repairs. In fact almost 4000 State houses were damaged 38 have major structural damage and 183 require land remediation. Of the 4000 houses damaged contractors are completing about 100 permanent repairs a week on 1500 properties so they should be finished by about March next year. Of the 2500 remaining that require more serious work that should be completed within 12 months. So progress is very very good indeed. 
Nicky Wagner 
: How has Housing New Zealand Corporation assisted tenants whose properties have been significantly damaged by the earthquake? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Tenants whose homes are not safe to remain in due to structural or health and safety reasons have all been relocated to alternative accommodation. Tenants who opted to stay in their homes but who were suffering some sort of significant inconvenience due to unreliable essential services or things like that had their rent halved. So if they chose to stay and there were no health and safety issues they were paying only half rent at this stage. Housing New Zealand Corporation is actively working with many tenants to find interim measures such as installing temporary sceptic tanks and that type of thing in order to improve their living conditions. So Housing New Zealand Corporation is working very well with its tenant base. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Kia ora Mr Speaker; kia ora tatou. Is the Minister aware that one of the four safe houses of the Battered Women’s Trust in Christchurch which suffered extensive damage to the piles of the house during the earthquake will not be replaced as the local-level community housing manager has told them that the home that was being looked at for their relocation will not go forward as they will not replace the broken window and put up a fence or a gate; and what action can be taken to ensure there is sufficient emergency housing to respond to the increased levels of domestic violence in Christchurch? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: I think the member will be delighted to know that the women’s refuge will be moving into a new home in the weekend. The refuge is delighted to be doing that and I am delighted that that is able to happen. 
Brendon Burns 
: What assurance can the Minister provide to residents in areas like Richmond Avonside Dallington and Kaiapoi where there are ongoing concerns among Housing New Zealand Corporation tenants for their security of tenure where they have already been relocated to temporary accommodation because of uninhabitable homes and where there are those still occupying homes but who may have to move out to allow repairs to be made? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Tenants who need to move out of houses because repairs need to be made need to move out of their houses because repairs need to be made. Housing New Zealand Corporation will provide accommodation for them and when repairs have been made they will be able to move back into their houses. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: In the bigger picture as the national landlord what plan is in place to deal with the social impact of a disaster on social housing? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Housing New Zealand Corporation has an excellent system in place to deal with disaster impacts on social housing such as the civil defence situation with the Canterbury earthquake. As I outlined in my answer to the primary question members can see how that planning works through in practice in contacting its tenants relocating them getting repairs up and running as soon as possible and making sure that houses are fixed and then tenants are moved back into their home in due course. 
Research and Development—Tax Credits 
12. 
STUART NASH (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Revenue 
: When will the “new research and development tax credit” described in the speech on behalf of the Minister of Revenue in the first reading of the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill come into force? 
Hon PETER DUNNE (Minister of Revenue) 
: 
 I hate to disappoint the member but no such measure is proposed in the Taxation (International Investment and Remedial Matters) Bill. Last night the Minister who was introducing the bill in my absence was provided with the wrong speech by my office. I take full responsibility for this embarrassing error. I have apologised to the Minister for the situation that he was placed in and I now do likewise to the House. I seek leave to table the speech that should have been given last night. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave has been sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 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. I wonder whether there is some way of having the document published in order to get it more widely circulated or whether it could be— 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I would be happy to give it— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Take leave to do it. Take leave. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is the member quite finished? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: Yes he should have left ages ago. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to the Leader of the House now and to the Hon Trevor Mallard that when I am on my feet they will not do that. I accept that today I have let things get a bit messy. That is my fault; I took the point of order as being in good humour. Let us move on. 
David Shearer 
: Given that the Minister was also the Minister of Revenue in 2008 and praised the research and development tax credit what has changed his mind now? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: The member was not here at the time that the tax credit was repealed after the 2008 election but his colleagues would be able to tell him if they bothered to check that I voted against that particular provision of the legislation at that time. 
Stuart Nash 
: If the Minister himself had given last night’s speech would he have realised that it was not the correct speech before during or after the speech was delivered? 
Hon PETER DUNNE 
: I would have clearly realised that long before the speech was due to be given and would have given the correct speech which I have just tabled.