Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:657;Page:6780] 
Questions to Ministers 
New Zealand Superannuation Fund—Contributions 
1. 
 Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he agree with his Minister of Finance’s comment: “we do not want to saddle future generations with the cost of short term policies”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Has the Prime Minister seen reports that the New Zealand Superannuation Fund has grown by 33 percent since March and does the excuse for cutting contributions made by his Minister of Finance—that it was losing billions of dollars—now ring a little hollow? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I note that the recovery in performance of the Superannuation Fund reflects the recovery in sharemarkets and managed funds across the world. They are getting somewhere back towards where they started. But the important reason the Government suspended contributions to the Superannuation Fund was that the Government simply did not have the cash to put into it. Current Budget projections indicate that it will be 10 years before the New Zealand Government has a surplus. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Prime Minister now admit in light of the $4.1 billion that the fund has made over the last 6 months that Labour was right in stating that the best time to invest was when the market was at the bottom and that contributions to the Superannuation Fund should continue? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No; the fund was set up to take Government surpluses and invest them to support future superannuation obligations. The fact is the Government does not have surpluses. It is going to have deficits in the region of $10 billion to $12 billion over the next few years and it will be 10 years before the Government will have surpluses again. 
Chris Tremain 
: In what context was the Minister of Finance’s comment made? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The comment about not saddling future generations with the cost of short-term policies was made in the context of the Government’s need to borrow significant amounts of money to maintain public services and to invest in infrastructure. We believe that the Government has set a reasonable limit to that debt and that any proposals to borrow more money than the current Government is already borrowing are reckless. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I ask members of the House to be a little more reasonable in their interjections. The question is one being asked by the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that hearing the answer would be of interest to the Opposition. That unacceptable level of interjection should stop. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister concede that the pre-funding of superannuation meant not only that there was greater certainty that current entitlements could be met even as the number of people in retirement was due to double but also that investment in the Superannuation Fund provides a net benefit rather than a cost to the taxpayer? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No the mathematics of this are pretty simple. This Government has decided it is willing to borrow to save entitlements and maintain public services but it is not willing to borrow to invest in world equity markets. That is a prudent way of doing business. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Is the Prime Minister convinced that future taxpayers are getting good value for the $400 million the Government is borrowing each week and given that this is equivalent to building up $9500 of debt each year for each employed person in New Zealand might it not be appropriate for his Government to do what any normal person would do in this situation and start cutting back on spending and not saddle future generations with the cost of short-term policies? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The questioner points out the costs of extensive borrowing. The Government is currently borrowing $400 million per week and over the next 4 years it will borrow about $40 billion thereby doubling public debt. That is why propositions to borrow more for any reason are reckless. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister agree that there are two ways of addressing the future doubling of the number of people in retirement in New Zealand: first by increasing the age of retirement; and second by pre-funding the future liability created by the ageing population? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The current Government supports the institution of the Superannuation Fund. We have used the provisions in the legislation that were designed explicitly for these circumstances—that is where the Government does not have surplus cash to put into the fund we can suspend the contributions and make sure that that is a transparent process. That is what we have done. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement made by Mr John Key that makes precisely the point I just asked the Prime Minister about which the Acting Prime Minister disagreed with. The statement is from  
Agenda  
on 13 April 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from  
Agenda 
. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of policies that would increase Government debt? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have just had a question about one item on Labour’s list which is the recommendation that the Government should borrow $2 billion extra per year to put into the Superannuation Fund. Adding up Labour’s other promises it comes to about $6 billion a year on top of existing borrowing. By any measure that is reckless. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Does the Prime Minister accept that pre-funding for the liability for superannuation created by the ageing population is not about spending for consumption but about investing in an asset for the future and can be justified on that basis; if not why not? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member is making a few assumptions. The fact is that the Superannuation Fund return over the years it has existed so far does not match what would have happened if people had put the money in the bank. So pre-funding is no guarantee that the country will be better off. With the member’s current proposition in the future there would be a bigger fund but there would also be significantly bigger debt so the country would be no better off. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: I seek leave of the House to table a statement made by Mr John Key that makes a statement very similar to the question I asked the Prime Minister which the Acting Prime Minister disagreed with. It is from  
Agenda  
on 13 April 2008. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document from  
Agenda 
. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Green Party the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change the G-20 Sir Nicholas Stern the World Bank and many others that we should not saddle future generations with the long-term costs of climate change which were described today by Barack Obama as “catastrophic”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is moving to put in place an emissions trading scheme which I have to say is further than many other countries have gone—in fact it is further than any other country has gone. We believe that we have made pragmatic decisions that balance our responsibilities to the environment with our responsibilities to the economy and New Zealanders today who face the cost of climate change. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: If the watered-down emissions trading scheme is to save taxpayers $100 million reduce costs to heavy industry and to households and let off farming for a further 2 years can the Prime Minister explain to the House just who will be paying for New Zealand to meet its international obligations? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The scheme represents a balance between the proportion of the liability that the Government will meet the proportion that will be met by New Zealanders who pay for their electricity bills and fill up their cars with petrol and the proportion paid by agriculture and industry. We believe we have made a balanced decision and I point out to the member that New Zealand has gone further with its emissions trading scheme than any other country on earth. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: With that statement is the Prime Minister admitting that because agriculture industry and households will pay less taxpayers will actually pay more under his emissions trading scheme than they would have under the existing law; if not will he answer my previous question? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the member knows calculating the cost of this scheme depends on whether we count the next couple of years when taxpayers will be paying more than they would have under the existing scheme or whether we take the next 50 years when it will be very uncertain. But the Government has made clear its view that in the long run this scheme should be fiscally neutral—that is not a mechanism for raising taxes on the New Zealand public. The previous scheme was going to raise taxes on the New Zealand public. 
Economy—Growth in June Quarter 
2.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the New Zealand economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Data released today shows that the economy grew marginally by 0.1 percent in the June quarter. It is the first positive quarter after a succession of five negative quarters stretching back to the start of 2008. It indicates that the economy is stabilising and that growth is likely to pick up. That is good news particularly for New Zealanders who are worried about job security or who want to see the prospect of getting another job improving. 
Amy Adams 
: What challenges now lie ahead for the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the challenge for this economy has been generally recognised: to get the right kind of balance in our recovery. The last recession occurred to some extent because of strong increases in Government spending a housing boom and excessive household debt. We do not want to go down that track again so the Government will have to work hard to create the kind of environment where the economy grows from savings investing and exporting rather than from fast Government spending and too much household debt. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: What additional measures is the Minister therefore planning in order to ensure that the 135000 New Zealanders currently unemployed will benefit from a turn-round in the economy? How many Kiwis will be forced on to the dole queue before the Government comes up with a real and credible action plan for jobs and exports? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government has outlined six policy drivers that will shape the recovery. They include significant investment in productive infrastructure that employs people in the shorter term but lifts the productive capacity in the longer term and a very strong focus on creating the kind of business environment in which the private sector will be willing to invest and employ and therefore create more jobs. Over the next 5 to 10 years new jobs are unlikely to come from a Government sector that is already borrowing $400 million a week just to keep going. 
Amy Adams 
: What risks are there that the recovery could be derailed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have learnt a lot of lessons from the last 10 years when even in the best of times the economy was mismanaged so badly that New Zealand went into a recession before everybody else and thousands of New Zealanders lost jobs that they thought were sustainable. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In the best of times and the worst of times does the Minister stand by his answer given yesterday that “New Zealand is now reaping the benefits of being an open and resilient economy” in forecasting a lower peak of unemployment? Can he confirm that the difference is the strong record of the outgoing Labour Government which had the world’s lowest unemployment zero net national debt and GDP growth a full 1 percent higher than it was the last time National was in office? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The previous Labour Government had the opportunity to oversee the best economic conditions in two generations. Labour managed to create a recession before almost anyone in the world. That and not the shower heads is what it should apologise for. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In the Minister’s opinion would New Zealanders—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have called the Hon David Cunliffe and I want to hear his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: —be better off now if the previous Government had taken the advice of “Minister Oliver Twist” and borrowed more to fund tax cuts that would have fuelled the consumption he now rails against? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: If the previous Government had taken the advice of the National Opposition it would not have had a recession on 1 January 2008. It is time those members apologised for that. It will take us years to undo the damage. 
Question No. 3 to Minister 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I seek leave to hold this question over until the Minister for Social Development and Employment returns. I believe she is in Paris for the next 2 weeks. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to hold the question over. [ 
Interruption 
]—a point of order is being heard and there will not be interjection anywhere while I deal with it I say to the Hon David Cunliffe. Leave is sought to defer the question. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is objection. 
Unemployment—Current Rate 
3.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What reports has she received on New Zealand’s current unemployment rates? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Acting Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 I have seen a number of reports in relation to New Zealand’s current unemployment rate. One report shows that New Zealand is in the top third of the OECD—ninth out of 30 countries. New Zealand is performing well in a number of labour market indicators having a low unemployment rate high labour force participation and a high employment rate. In fact I could compare our rate with that of the UK which is 7.8 percent and that of the US which is 9.7 percent; New Zealand’s rate is 6 percent. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is the Minister aware there are now 1700 registered unemployed in Canterbury alone and that her promise of 4000 Job Ops placements for the entire country over the next 2 years is increasingly becoming a token gesture leaving most young people without a job and not much hope; and will she now revisit the timid approach she has been taking in trying to assist struggling unemployed New Zealanders? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not think anyone would ever accuse the Minister of being timid. However noting how worrying it is for young people not to have work I contrast the concern that this Government has for them with that of the previous Minister Ruth Dyson who stated that 29000 jobs being lost was “not bad news at all”. She said that at the beginning of last year. 
Hon Annette King 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question had nothing to do with what the Hon Ruth Dyson did or did not do as Minister for Social Development and Employment. I asked the Minister whether she was aware that there are 1700 young people unemployed in Canterbury alone and that 4000 Job Ops placements over the next 2 years just will not cut it and what she will do about her timid approach. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the House to respect the Standing Orders. When a point of order is being raised the House will be silent so that it can be heard. I remind the honourable member that her question went on somewhat longer than that; in repeating it she left out a chunk of it. However acknowledging that she left out a chunk of it I think it would be helpful if the Minister did address the part of the question about whether any changes are proposed. I understood that to be the key part of the member’s question. If the Minister has any further information on that the House will be obliged. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I advised the member that I was aware of the situation. If she wants to ask me five questions in one that is her problem. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will the Government continue to support those facing unemployment? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hope the Minister heard the question because I could not hear it at all. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes I did. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I ask the member to repeat the question because I must be able to hear it. I ask members to show a little courtesy to their colleagues. That is all I am asking—not to be silent but just show a little courtesy. 
Katrina Shanks 
: How will the Government continue to support those facing unemployment? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: This Government is committed to creating economic conditions for sustainable jobs so that when people find themselves out of work they are able to move into another job quickly. We recognise that losing a job creates an enormous amount of stress on individuals and families. That is why we will continue to do everything we can—much more than the previous Government did when the recession first hit—to get people back into work as soon as we can. 
Hon Annette King 
: If her Job Ops scheme is so successful as she has been claiming why have only 29 young people in the whole central region found work through the scheme while at the same time unemployment in the Wairarapa has tripled leading the local newspaper to state that the situation is bleak for people living there; and will she now rename her flagship programme from Job Ops to “Job Flops”? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: That member might find it funny that young people are out of work but this Government does not. That is why I am very pleased to be able to say that one-third of all people who go to Work and Income at the moment looking for work are able to go either straight into work or into training; they do not go straight on to a benefit which is what that member would rather see. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou katoa. How many young people have been placed on Job Ops and Community Max since the Youth Opportunities scheme was announced on 2 August? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am pleased to report that in only 7 weeks employers have listed over 1206 job opportunities. That means that 625 young people are now gaining valuable work experience— 
Hon Lianne Dalziel 
: What about the normal jobs they have been advertising? There’s nothing new. They are not new jobs. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: —I know that Ms Dalziel may not like to hear it—and 30 percent of those are young Maori. For Community Max there are already 267 opportunities available. One of the first Community Max projects that Minister Turia launched was with Ngati Rangi in Ohakune. It is investing $152 million in young people and creating almost 17000 new opportunities. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I call question No. 4 Dr Paul Hutchison. [ 
Interruption 
] This time it is the Labour members. I ask the Labour members to treat the House with a little more courtesy. This is the New Zealand Parliament; many people are watching it and listening to it. I ask the members to treat it with a little more courtesy. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw to your attention the orchestrated clapping that preceded those interjections from Labour members. If you are going to tidy up one side then I think you have to stop the orchestration on the other side. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Let me be very clear and polite to the honourable member who risks questioning my even-handedness in this House. The applause stopped when I called Dr Hutchison. The interjections went on and on and that is my concern. I am not troubled by some interjection and some noise. I am not asking people to be silent; I am just asking people to treat the House with a little more courtesy. 
Elective Surgical Discharges—Numbers 
4.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: Has he received any reports confirming that the yearly increase in the number of surgical elective discharges from 2000-01 to 2007-08 averaged 1436 a year and can he confirm that the comparable increase in 2008-09 was 11805? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I can confirm that the number of people getting elective surgery increased between 2000 and 2008 by a very slow average of 1436 a year which was below population growth and ageing meaning that real access was cut. Many more people got elective surgery in the past financial year with the largest increase coming under the new Government. The past year’s performance was over eight times the past average—a record increase of 11805 extra operations for patients. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Has the Minister seen reports claiming that this increase was due to doing less complex surgery; if so are these claims correct? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes I have seen those reports; it is disappointing to inform the House that those claims by the Opposition spokeswoman on health are wrong. The facts show that in the past financial year the average complexity of operations was exactly the same as the previous year and above the average complexity of the previous 7 years. It is worth noting too that most of the increase occurred in the second half of the financial year—January to July 2009. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Can the Minister confirm that during the 2008 calendar year elective surgery actually rose by 15039 procedures meaning the elective surgery increase he just tried to claim credit for actually happened under Labour’s watch not his? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The one thing I have learnt in this House is that I cannot rely on that member’s claims in question time. But regardless of that the fact is that under the 9 years of the previous Labour Government the average increase in operations for patients was 1436. In this financial year with a very big increase in the second half of the year we are getting that average up. That means more service for New Zealand patients. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I waited until the end of the Minister’s answer. I ask you to reflect on how he started his answer. He said he could not rely on the word of another member. You have delivered a homily today to Labour members about performance. We have heard one Minister answer a question by saying that if a member chooses to put five questions in a question that is their problem and then plump herself down. In that case the member concerned had not asked five questions. Now another Minister has said he cannot rely on another member’s word. That leads to disorder and I think you need to reflect on it. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: No actually—that is what leads to disorder. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: A point of order is being heard and there will be no interjection. I ask Ministers not to start answers in that manner because it will lead to disorder. I support the member’s point of order. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What were the main reasons for this record increase; and is it usual for more elective surgery to be done in the second half of the financial year than in the first half? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: A number of factors contributed to this result. It is very significant that this is the first time since district health boards were established 9 years ago that the number of patients getting elective operations has been higher in the second half of the financial year than in the first. I am also advised that in line with Government expectations district health boards are making smarter use of the private sector which in the past year helped to deliver around 3500 extra operations than in the previous year. That number is up nearly 50 percent. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table figures provided by the Minister of Health himself that show there was an increase from 2007 to 2008 of 15039 surgical procedures. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I seek leave to table the minutes of the meeting of the Northland District Health Board—dated Tuesday 2 June—where the hospital advisory committee notes that the Minister of Health is focusing on patient numbers rather than on case weights which is the complexity of the surgery. 
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. 
Adult and Community Education—Redundancies 
5.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: What advice has she received if any about the extent of the potential liability schools face if their adult and community education coordinator and tutors have to be made redundant because of the adult and community education funding cuts? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) 
: 
 I am advised that the responsibility to pay redundancy to adult and community education coordinators and tutors rests with the employers. Whether individual schools have a redundancy liability will depend on whether the schools have chosen to employ staff or to contract for their services. I have not been provided with advice about the extent of the potential liability of redundancy costs. Employers have been advised to seek advice and guidance from the New Zealand School Trustees Association about the entitlements of their employees. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Does the Minister believe that schools should use the adult and community education funding provided in their funding contract to pay for redundancies? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: The advice from the Tertiary Education Commission is that adult and community education funding can be used to meet redundancy costs. Any school that is intending to withdraw from adult and community education is encouraged to contact the Tertiary Education Commission if it has not already done so. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Would the Minister reconsider her decision to cut funding for adult and community education provision through high schools if it transpired that the cost of redundancies would cause schools significant financial hardship in 2010? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: No. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Tena koutou. Is the Minister aware that the United Kingdom Government announced an additional £20 million investment in community education this week in response to a white paper that found that “Informal learning is important at any time. But during an economic downturn it is essential.”; and why is New Zealand’s position on this issue so out of step with this international thinking? 
Hon ANNE TOLLEY 
: Yes and that is why this Government is investing $124 million in community education over the next 4 years. 
Question No. 6 to Minister 
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
: 
 My question has been transferred to the Minister for Climate Change Issues. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should ask her question as on the Order Paper. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—10 Percent Target 
6.  
JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Does he agree with United States President Barack Obama who said “the threat from climate change is serious it is urgent and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history;” and if so will the Prime Minister be telling world leaders in New York that a conditional 10 percent emissions reduction target is a sufficient response to this challenge? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Yes. The position that New Zealand has tabled in the United Nations negotiation is considerably more ambitious than that proposed by President Obama’s administration. Its proposal is for a 4 percent reduction from 1990 levels; our proposal of a 10 to 20 percent reduction from 1990 levels is significantly greater than that. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What will the Prime Minister be telling world leaders that his Government has done to reduce climate change emissions in New Zealand since it was elected; and how will his list compare with President Obama’s list in his speech today setting out a doubling of generation from renewable energy in 3 years financial incentives for solar photovoltaic panels and batteries for hybrid vehicles billions of dollars to cut energy waste and energy bills in buildings tough new fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles and the phasing out of subsidies to the fossil fuel industry? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: This Government has a very clear programme around emissions. Let me go through some of the initiatives. More solar water heaters have been installed in the last 10 months than were installed in the entire period of the previous Government. If we look at road-user charges we see that from 1 October there will be an exemption for electric cars that enter New Zealand. The big changes we have made to the Resource Management Act will have us building renewable energy stations whereas over the course of the previous Government we saw a 120 percent increase in emissions from the electricity sector. The changes we are making to the emissions trading scheme will make it workable and realistic. Let me give another example. On 1 July next year the aluminium smelter in Bluff will become the very first smelter out of 168 in the world to face a price for its emissions. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: How does the Government believe New Zealand can best make a global contribution to the problem of climate change? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: New Zealand’s emissions are just 0.2 percent of the world’s emissions and they are not globally significant although we do need to do our share in reducing them. The area in which we can make a real difference is by tapping into the expertise of our considerable agricultural research capacity in order to reduce pastoral farming emissions. That is why David Carter has taken a lead on a new global initiative in this area which the Prime Minister announced today in New York. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister stand by his statement yesterday that “If we can settle our emissions trading scheme by December we will be at the front end of international action on climate change and will actually have the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme of any country in the world.”; if so how is that in line with the policy that John Key endorsed that New Zealand should be a fast follower on climate change rather than a world leader? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: National campaigned on a policy of establishing a moderated emissions trading scheme and the changes that we have announced are absolutely consistent with that approach. The emissions trading scheme that will come into effect next year will be more comprehensive than that of many countries because it is our view that we need to get a price on carbon in order to incentivise more energy-efficient behaviour. 
David Garrett 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was quite specific. It asked whether the Minister stood by a statement that was made yesterday which I then gave him. We had an answer that was a précis of the changes to the emissions trading scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that if the honourable member reflects on his question he will see that it really sought an opinion. With questions that seek opinions I cannot ask for very precise answers. 
Dr Cam Calder 
: What advice has the Minister received from officials on the credibility of the more ambitious “40 percent by 2020” climate change goals proposed by the Green Party? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Officials have advised me that the Green Party’s plan is unlikely to result in the emissions reductions that the party claims it would and that it is likely to involve significantly higher costs than those that it has stated. Officials rate only two of the nine initiatives proposed by the Green Party as being achievable. Two of those are initiatives that the Government is doing five are rated as not being cost-effective and two— 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I wonder whether the House could be advised as to what ministerial responsibility the Minister has for Green Party policy. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need assistance. The reason why it was relevant is that the Minister was describing official advice he had received on the matter in consideration of the issues to do with climate change. I was listening very carefully and if he had personally launched into a criticism of Green Party policy I believe that would have been out of order. But I see describing the official advice he had received on the issues as being in order. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: Is the Minister confirming that other than weakening the existing emissions trading scheme and delaying the date by which the aluminium smelter will take responsibility for its emissions he really has no plans for reducing emissions within New Zealand: no fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles which would save 3 million tonnes of emissions no management of indigenous forests which could save 10 million tonnes no phase-out of coal-fired power stations saving 4 million tonnes or anything else in the Greens’ thoroughly thought-out plan to reach a minus 40 percent target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I would only hope that the plan was thoroughly thought out. The advice I have received from officials is that it has holes that are so large we could drive a whole tractor through them. I would be happy to table the report because it simply shows how poorly the Green Party has applied its mind to the important challenge of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister made it clear that he would be happy to table that report. I require it to be tabled. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I seek leave to table the report from the Ministry for the Environment on the Green Party’s emissions reduction plan. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is it the entire document or is it part of the document? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it is the entire report that has been provided to me. 
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. 
Kyoto Protocol—Costs 
7.  
Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: Under the Kyoto Protocol do taxpayers bear the costs for increases in agricultural emissions if those are not paid by the emitter? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 No not necessarily. The Kyoto Protocol requires that New Zealand’s net emissions not exceed 1990 levels over the period from 2008 to 2012. There would be a cost to the taxpayer only if these levels were exceeded and we needed to buy units internationally. The 120 percent increase in emissions from electricity generation the 72 percent increase in transport emissions and the 12 percent increase in agricultural emissions are offset by both the forestry and the waste sector. Current projections are that New Zealand will slightly exceed the target and will actually have a small surplus. 
Hon David Parker 
: How does the Minister justify rejecting settled economic principle by allowing the agricultural sector to increase its emissions at the cost of other businesses and taxpayers? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Members opposite seem to be intent on reducing the size of the economy. Members on this side of the House are of the view that we want to incentivise greater energy efficiency behaviour and adaptation and the technologies to do that. We are absolutely honest about our ambition which is to grow the New Zealand economy. Labour’s approach to these issues would see the New Zealand economy contract and more New Zealanders out of work. 
Nicky Wagner 
: On what basis has the Government determined the timing of various sectors’ entries into the improved emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The timing decision has been based on four key factors: first the extent to which available technologies enable emissions reductions; secondly the extent to which emissions have increased since 1990; thirdly the extent to which a sector is trade exposed; and fourthly the practicalities of applying an emissions trading scheme to that sector. On all these four criteria there is a strong case for the entry of the agricultural sector to be later. 
Hon David Parker 
: Can the Minister not see that allowing uncapped free allocation to the agricultural sector fundamentally undermines the effectiveness of the emissions trading scheme and sees other businesses and taxpayers picking up that sector’s bill? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No it does not. Members opposite do not seem to grasp the key point that under the Kyoto Protocol or its successor New Zealand is allocated a base of emissions. We could be like Labour and nationalise all those units sell them off and try to make billions for the taxpayer or we could take the fair approach that we are taking in New Zealand. The last point I make to the member is to ask why the Australian Labor Government has adopted exactly the measures that we have in our bill and why what works for Labor in Australia is somehow anathema to Labour in New Zealand. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that if the Government agreed to cap the pool of free emission credits for agriculture at 90 percent of 2005 emissions it is likely that an enduring and effective emissions trading scheme could be achieved; and is the Government willing to seriously consider this? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I find it quite perverse that members opposite agree that a production-based approach to industry should be taken yet they seem to have an attitude that is anti-farmer and anti-agriculture despite the agricultural sector being the most important part of the New Zealand economy. In proposing to introduce the agricultural sector into the emissions trading scheme on 1 January 2015 we will be the very first country in the world to attempt to include agriculture. 
Hon David Parker 
: The Minister and the Prime Minister have been saying that they want to continue negotiations with the Labour Party. I asked a very simple question. It was not loaded; it was a factual question that asked about a point of principle as to whether the Government would be willing to seriously consider it. The Minister has not addressed that question. I ask whether I would be able to re-put the question and that he be asked to answer it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the member to restate his question. 
Hon David Parker 
: Is the Minister aware that if the Government agreed to cap the pool of free emission credits for agriculture at 90 percent of 2005 emissions it is likely that an enduring and effective emissions trading scheme could be achieved; and is the Government willing to seriously consider this? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government is not prepared to consider treating agriculture differently from industry. 
Hon David Parker 
: No I’m not suggesting that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Well the member is suggesting that there be a cap that is specific to agriculture. I say to the member again that in terms of negotiations between National and Labour I will make myself available any hour and any day to have discussions with Labour about how an accord might be reached. But I say to the member that members on this side of the House will not agree to changes that put agriculture at a disadvantage to other industries because the agricultural sector is the backbone of the New Zealand economy. 
Hon David Parker 
: What more proof does the Minister need that his proposed emissions trading scheme changes will not work than the statement from the forestry industry that because of his changes to the emissions trading scheme there will be little or no private investment in new forestry making a mockery of the National Party promise to plant 600000 to 800000 hectares of marginal lands? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is incorrect. The chief executive of the New Zealand Forest Owners Association made very positive remarks on the day that the changes to the emissions trading scheme were announced. I have seen some analysis since of about the same quality as that done by Labour and it is incorrect. The Ministry for the Environment will be providing information to those people to correct them on some assumptions that they are making about National’s improvements to the emissions trading scheme that are not right. 
Hon David Parker 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is a release from Roger Dickie saying that private investment in forestry will dissipate as a consequence of— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon David Parker 
: The second document is a report from Associate Professor Mason at the University of Canterbury to similar effect. 
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. 
Greenhouse Gas Emissions—Agricultural Sector Research 
8.  
COLIN KING (National—Kaikoura) 
 to the  
Minister of Agriculture 
: What recent development has the Government announced in agricultural greenhouse gas emissions research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) 
: 
 Earlier today the Prime Minister announced in New York the global alliance and international call for greater research into cutting greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. There is an urgent need for more international research and investment into ways of reducing agricultural emissions. The global alliance will push to find solutions faster through greater coordination with other nations. 
Colin King 
: Why is New Zealand pushing for greater international attention to be given to agricultural greenhouse gas research? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Agriculture currently produces 14 percent of the annual global greenhouse gas emissions. As the global demand for food rises dramatically it is expected that the 14 percent figure could increase by up to 40 percent by 2030. In order to meet the twin challenges of food security and climate change the world must find ways to grow more food and to do so without growing the greenhouse gas emissions. This is where New Zealand’s proposal for a global alliance fits well. 
Rahui Katene 
: What opportunity will Maori agricultural interests have to be actively involved in including agriculture into the emissions trading scheme and in particular in the development of an international research initiative? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Every opportunity. New Zealand’s agricultural emissions profile presents a challenge to all New Zealanders. With the huge involvement of Maori in both the agriculture and forestry industries Maori need to be fully engaged to help us as New Zealanders to find solutions. 
Colin King 
: How has the global alliance concept been received by other countries? 
Hon DAVID CARTER 
: Extremely well. The Government has been making representations to potential partner countries and at this stage the response is very positive. There have already been indications of support from the United States and India. International support is vital in order to turn this concept into a reality and we are talking to a number of developed and developing countries with significant agricultural production about coordinated research programmes. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Cost of Changes 
9.  
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What is the total fiscal cost of all proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 In the period up to 2013 the cost is $415 million for all the changes that are principally around reducing the cost increase for electricity and fuel. Cost estimates beyond 2013 are more difficult as we do not know the final outcome of international negotiations and there is more uncertainty about the price of carbon but the mid-range estimate by officials is that between 2012 and 2018 the improvements will actually save $493 million. So for the first 10 years of the scheme the improvements made to it by the Government will save the taxpayer in the order of $100 million. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked for the total fiscal cost of all proposed changes. The Minister gave an estimate first for the initial period of 3 years and then for a further period of 6 years. There must be further estimates in the out-years and the question did refer to those. That question was on notice and it was not fully addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: In fairness I think the Minister gave a very reasonable and comprehensive answer to the question. The member does have further supplementary questions in which to question beyond that period. I think it would be a bit unreasonable to criticise that answer from the Minister. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is it fair that taxpayers should pick up the bill for changes to the emissions trading scheme when households will receive assistance only until 2013 whereas large foreign-owned companies like Methanex Rio Tinto and BlueScope Steel will receive taxpayer support for up to another 90 years? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is incorrect. For the immediate period from 2013 to 2018 the scheme that National is proposing will actually involve less support for those companies. The member opposite may want to have an argument about what policy might be in 2030 or 2040 but although I am optimistic about the life of this Government I am not sure this same Government will be in office 70 years hence. 
Hekia Parata 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. Kia ora tatou e te Whare. What advice has the Minister received on the claims by Opposition Leader Phil Goff that “Rio Tinto gets its two billion dollar subsidy if the carbon price turns out to be $30 a ton.”?  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The advice I have received from my officials is that the industry allocation to Rio Tinto for the first decade of the scheme would be 27 million units under Labour’s scheme but 21 million units under the improved scheme. This is 6 million units less and at $30 per tonne amounts to a saving of $180 million. The claim of a $2 billion subsidy for Rio Tinto is another Goff gaffe that is about as good as his proposed benefits for millionaires. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When will the Minister disclose what special deal has been done for Ngai Tahu and other post-Treaty - settlement assets so that the public can understand whether the Maori Party came to this deal for nothing or whether National is now allowing Maori-owned assets to be treated differently from other assets?  
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The contributions that the Maori Party has made to the revised emissions trading scheme make great sense for all New Zealanders. For instance all New Zealanders will benefit from a halving in the increase of the price of electricity. I think the changes that the Maori Party has made in respect of the fishing industry—which is important to New Zealand—are an improvement. I think the change it is making in terms of more support for insulation of low-income households is a good thing. I am surprised that the members opposite object to those extra support measures which will improve the scheme. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question asked whether there was any particular differentiation between post-Treaty settlement assets and non - post-Treaty settlement assets. That issue has not been addressed at all by the Minister’s answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member had restricted his question specifically to that issue then I could put some heat on the Minister to specifically address it. But if I recollect the member’s question correctly it actually contained more than that which gave the Minister more latitude in answering it. I feel I have to be fair to Ministers. I will put pressure on them to answer questions when I hear a very clear straight question but when the question goes on with a range of issues it is very difficult for me to ask the Minister to answer any specific part of it. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Is not the real reason the Minister is happy to selectively table mis-described documents that allow him to attack the Green Party and Labour when it suits him but he will not give a straight answer on the cost of the emissions trading scheme in the out-years that the Government has taken a short-sighted approach and has saddled future generations of New Zealanders with a fiscal black hole? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I have provided the House with the best very accurate estimates that are possible for the next 10 years. Given that the emissions trading scheme will have a review of the allocation system in both 2011 and 2016 and the fact that we have no idea what the rules will be internationally beyond 2012 let alone beyond 2020 quite frankly I believe that financial estimates beyond that period have little value. 
I seek leave of the House to table an analysis of the allocations to Rio Tinto for its Bluff smelter under both the existing and the improved emissions trading scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Analysis done by whom? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The analysis has been provided with figures from the Ministry for the Environment on the new and changed emissions trading schemes. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the Minister. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: Who is the document by? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I understand that the analysis was done by the Ministry for the Environment. Was it? There is some uncertainty as to whose analysis the Minister is seeking to table. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The information has been provided by officials. Information has also been provided from the smelter itself— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Ha ha! 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: —about the amount of emissions it is required to report I tell Mr Goff. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have to bring back some semblance of order. While I am on my feet there will be silence. The confusion for the House is exactly what the document is. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I am happy to be more specific. The document sets out the allocations that would be made to the Rio Tinto aluminium smelter relative to its reported emissions for each of the years through to 2018 under both the existing scheme and the revised scheme. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House needs to know who prepared the document. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The information has been prepared by my office on the basis of the information that has been provided by both the Ministry for the Environment and the smelter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The document has been clarified now. The member has sought leave to table it. Is there any objection? 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I seek a point of clarification. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have clarified what the document is. The member will resume his seat immediately. At my request the Minister in my view has very comprehensively described what the document is because there was some confusion about it. I am now putting the question on the leave being sought. Is there any objection? There is no objection. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Street Racing—Illegal Incidents 
10.  
SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) 
 to the  
Minister of Police 
: Has she received any reports on illegal street racer incidents? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Police) 
: 
 Yes. I have received a report that shows that since January 2009 the police have issued more than 1800 offence notices for illegal street racing incidents with more in Canterbury than anywhere else. 
Sandra Goudie 
: Has the Minister received any other reports on illegal street racing incidents? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. The police regularly report on the disorder caused by illegal street racers. I recently received extremely concerning reports. In the last week alone an innocent motorcyclist died as a result of two vehicles allegedly involved in illegal street racing and an innocent 55-year-old woman in her car was smashed into by two teenagers who were allegedly street racing. 
Todd McClay 
: What other reports has the Minister received on recent illegal street racing incidents? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have received a report from the police that shows that 31 boy racers are facing charges—many of them serious—after an illegal street racing incident in Rotorua involving 230 cars and 900 people. It is alleged that those people caused chaos throwing bottles and abusing police officers when they arrived at the venue. That type of incident is far too common and demonstrates yet again the need to toughen up the existing law which is widely acknowledged as being too soft. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Will the Minister support an amendment to toughen the provisions of the Vehicle Confiscation and Seizure Bill so that permanent confiscation of a third party - owned vehicle would be mandatory after two offences within 4 years rather than the discretionary confiscation and/or crushing after three offences in 4 years for third party - owned vehicles that her bill currently proposes? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sorry to say to that member that following the Labour Party’s minority report on the legislation which was completely littered with inaccuracies— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister might just answer the question asked. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am getting to it. I find it very difficult to accept the member’s statement that— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is not troubled whether the Minister finds it difficult to accept a statement. The member asked a perfectly straightforward question; he asked whether the Minister was prepared to consider an alternative to what is currently in the legislation. That question does not deserve an attack on the member; it deserves to be answered. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have read a report in the  
Press 
 from Saturday 19 September which states that Labour has been working constructively with the Government on the legislation. The member asked about some specific provisions that he has never once put to me. It is very difficult to give an answer on a proposition he has never brought to my attention or as far as I am aware to that of anyone else in this party. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I can do better than only reiterate your earlier ruling. I simply asked the Minister whether I had brought it to her now a week ago or whenever. I am happy to repeat the question; she is the Minister in charge of the bill— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have supported the member’s question but the Minister gave a perfectly reasonable answer. She made it clear that on a proposition put to her by way of a supplementary question on a serious matter she cannot give the member an absolutely unequivocal answer. She pointed that out. I think that was a fair answer. I was totally dissatisfied and unhappy with her earlier attempts to answer the question but I believe that that answer was perfectly reasonable. 
Question No. 11 to Minister 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker.  
Speakers’ Rulings 
 sets out when questions can be transferred between Ministers and the Government has done that in the case of question No. 11 quite appropriately. We set this question down to the Prime Minister. It has been transferred within the rules to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services so that Mr English as Acting Prime Minister will not have to answer it. 
We are confused about Acting Ministers in portfolios and I wonder whether you could give us your understanding of this matter. Confusion arose yesterday when the Opposition understood that the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services was Mr English yet the question to that Minister was answered by Mr Brownlee. Mr English was present in the Chamber so if he was the Acting Minister he would have been required to answer the question. One of the problems for the Opposition is that we do not have access to the Cabinet Office list of Ministers who are acting in each portfolio. However I have a copy here of a list from earlier in the year where it makes it clear that the Speaker of the House receives a copy of the document. It sets out Ministers who are absent how long they are absent for what portfolios their absences relate to and who the Acting Ministers will be. 
The Opposition would like to know whether when you Mr Speaker know a Minister will be absent—as when Mr Key is absent on well-known official business—you check to see whom you expect to answer the question as Acting Minister in that portfolio. If another Minister answers on behalf of the absent Minister and the Acting Minister is present that is where the difficulty occurs. Our understanding is that Mr English is Acting Minister for all of the Prime Minister’s portfolios in his absence. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member makes a very interesting point of order but he will recollect that it is the Government’s responsibility to choose which Minister answers questions. The question is put down to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services and it is up to the Government who answers the question. Although it may cause difficulty—I accept that—there is nothing wrong with that under Standing Orders. It is the Government’s responsibility and it always has been to decide who answers questions. 
Hon DARREN HUGHES (Senior Whip—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You are absolutely right that it is up to the Government to decide which Ministers answer in which portfolio. They can transfer questions to which portfolio they like. But if a Minister is acting in that portfolio—for all intents and purposes is the Minister for that portfolio—and is in the Chamber when a question is being put to that portfolio then the question cannot be transferred to another Minister because it has been set down to the appropriate Minister. The Minister would be required to answer the question if he or she were present in the Chamber. Our difficulty is that we do not know for certain who the Acting Minister is. The question cannot be transferred because it has been set down for a portfolio for which there is an Acting Minister. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member raises an interesting point. But the fact is as I understand it—and I stress that it is as I understand it—that there is no requirement that an Acting Minister answer the question. That is an internal arrangement. It is for the Government to determine which Minister will answer when the actual Minister responsible for the portfolio is absent. That is the way it has always been. It is an internal arrangement. I suspect the member would be right were the actual Minister in the Chamber but it does not apply when it is an Acting Minister. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. All I will do is ask you to review that decision. It is certainly a requirement of the executive to have a Minister in every portfolio in the country at any one time. There must be someone who is appointed and who is responsible. It has certainly been the precedent in all the time I have been in Parliament that if that person is in the Chamber that person must answer the question. I will plead guilty to occasionally as a whip shuffling an Acting Minister out of the Chamber in order for someone else to answer the question. 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: I say to both sides of the House that a serious point of order is being considered. It is an interesting point of order because it is quite technical and it relates to the order of the House. It will be heard in silence. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It might come as no surprise to anyone in the House that Trevor Mallard has been involved in a bit of shifty behaviour. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the House above all others in the House should know that a point of order should not be abused in that way. The matter he raises should relate to the order of the House. I ask him to come to the issue at question. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: That was my point. I am the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services approved at Cabinet last Monday. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It does not alter the technical point that I made before which is that where an Acting Minister is involved it is up to the Government who handles the question. I have had advice on that issue. 
Ministerial Accommodation—Compliance with Rules 
11.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: Who provided any legal advice to support his view that the Hon Bill English is “fully compliant with the rules that operate”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) 
on behalf of the  
Minister responsible for Ministerial Services 
: The Department of Internal Affairs’ chief legal adviser advised Ministerial Services that there were no legal impediments to the lease occurring. No legal advice was provided to the Minister. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: What rules operated at the time: the rules set out in an email of 3 February which I tabled yesterday; the rules set out in the  
Gazette 
 notice of 26 May; which I tabled the day before; or some other rules? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I made an explanation yesterday about the email dated 3 February and that explanation should stand. The second point in the question the member asks—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If members want to hear the answer to a pretty significant question they may just listen. 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: —would relate to the determination brought down in 2003 by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. It was extremely wide and it raises questions about what those Ministers were doing for all those years up until their concern now. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Department of Internal Affairs’ legal division have full access to the Endeavour Trust deed and a record of recent meetings before it gave legal advice? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The requirements were that members themselves as is the case with all members of Parliament satisfy the pecuniary interest test they are asked to consider. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I invite you to ask the Minister to address the question. Can I repeat it? Would that be of any assistance? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I believe the Minister answered the question in pointing out that the issue the member was seeking to have the Minister confirm one way or the other was not the relevant issue. The Minister in his answer pointed out what the relevant issue was. To me that seemed to be answering the question. The member has further supplementary questions and I will listen very carefully to the answers he gets. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question asked whether the trust deed was in the hands of those who gave the legal advice. It seems to me impossible to give legal advice that the Minister has no pecuniary interest in the absence of the trust deed. Therefore the question is pertinent and was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I will allow the member to repeat his question. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the legal section of the Department of Internal Affairs have full access to the Endeavour Trust deed and a record of recent meetings of the trust before it gave legal advice? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: It would have no reason to do that. The advice it tended was around the satisfactory arrangements relating to this particular case. It was able to determine that in the absence of a pecuniary interest there was no impediment to the arrangements being put in place. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Noting that the Hon Bill English declared a pecuniary interest in the Endeavour Trust in 2008 would the Minister now like to tell the House again whether those who gave legal advice had access to the Endeavour Trust deed and minutes of recent meetings before they gave advice that he no longer has a pecuniary interest? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The first point I make is that a lot of members declared all sorts of things in the 2008 Register of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament including a number of then Labour Ministers who did not need to make such a declaration but did so for fear that they might leave something out. The question is always whether there is a pecuniary interest. If there is not there is no problem with the arrangements. Under Helen Clark’s rules there was no problem with the arrangements. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. I ask you the appropriateness of during that question Bill English calling: “Same answer! Same answer!” to Gerry Brownlee instructing— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down immediately. He knows that that is not a point of order under any of the Standing Orders. He should cease. He is a senior member and he should not use his position in such a way. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister agree with the Hon Bill English who said of a Labour Minister a few years ago in this newsletter called  
Plain English 
: “Tamihere took a golden handshake when he said he wouldn’t … The question is not whether he has broken the law but whether he has behaved according to the standards of a minister.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: I have no responsibility for anyone else’s statements. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Minister agree with the views of a member of the press gallery who wrote of the Hon Bill English: “He needs to drop the bitter and nasty attacks on the media. His language in private is unbecoming and unprofessional.”? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: Without fear of Trevor Mallard taking another point of order I simply give the same answer. 
Senior Citizens—Recognition of Contribution to Community 
12.  
JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) 
 to the  
Minister for Senior Citizens 
: My question is—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise for interrupting the honourable member. Members know that they cannot interject saying “you”. 
JO GOODHEW 
: How is the Government recognising the contribution of older persons in our community? 
Hon JOHN CARTER (Minister for Senior Citizens) 
: 
 1 October is the International Day of Older Persons and it is an opportunity to honour older persons and acknowledge the huge contribution that older people make to society in every walk of life and as grandparents friends and mentors to the younger generation. I will be travelling to several events around the country to celebrate the day and I look forward to having the opportunity to celebrate it with older persons. I encourage other New Zealanders and particularly members in this House to take part in the many events that will be occurring on that day in New Zealand. 
Jo Goodhew 
: What else is the Government doing to support older New Zealanders? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: As the Minister for Senior Citizens my priorities are to concentrate on three particular goals in the Government’s Positive Ageing Strategy. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: He’s too old for night classes! 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: This is a serious issue. We on this side of the House respect our older people unlike those interjections we are getting from the Opposition. We will support the employment of older people by encouraging flexible work options and the negotiation of retirement plans to allow older people to work if they choose to. We will work to change attitudes about ageing by celebrating the contributions that older people make to communities and we will encourage older people to continue to stay involved. We will also raise awareness about elder abuse and neglect. Those three priorities are being actively championed and will have a very real impact on the day-to-day lives of older people. 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Tena koe Mr Speaker. 
Hon Members 
: Hooray! 
H V Ross Robertson 
: Such wonderful praise! Are making cuts to adult and community education because to quote Anne Tolley “The average age of people attending those night classes is about 46.” considering cutting tertiary education entitlements for over-65s cutting home support to the elderly and stopping contributions to the New Zealand Superannuation Fund good examples of how this Government is recognising the contribution of our older New Zealanders to the community? 
Hon JOHN CARTER 
: Unlike the previous administration this Government actually does respect the older people of New Zealand. More important it is working with the many organisations such as Grey Power and Age Concern that represent the older folk in our society. This Government with schemes such as those promoted by the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Minister of Housing is making sure that elderly folk are able to live comfortably in New Zealand in warm homes for example. We have put a huge amount of energy into that. This Government will continue to work with older folk to make sure they have a great standard of living. 
Questions to Members 
Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill—Status 
1. 
CAROL BEAUMONT (Labour) 
 to the  
Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill 
: What is the current status of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill? 
DARIEN FENTON (Member in charge of the Employment Relations (Statutory Minimum Redundancy Entitlements) Amendment Bill) 
: 
 My redundancy protection bill has been postponed until 20 October to give parties further time to consider their support for it. 
Carol Beaumont 
: What indications of support has the member had for her redundancy protection bill? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Supplementary questions are meant to relate to the process of the committee. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That would be correct in respect of select committee chairs. If the question was going to a select committee chair it could be about only procedure and process but the question is to a member in charge of a bill so you should be considering a wider range of supplementary questions. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to members; it was my error. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: Labour the Greens and the Maori Party are all supporting the bill and I understand that Mr Key is still mulling over National’s support. Meanwhile unions and community organisations are getting behind the bill to ensure that there is a fair deal in hard times. 
I seek leave to table a postcard addressed to the Prime Minister seeking his support for the redundancy protection bill and a fair deal in hard times. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a postcard to the Prime Minister. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
DARIEN FENTON 
: I seek leave to table a sticker supporting the national day of action that cleaners are taking throughout New Zealand and our cleaners in Parliament who are paid $12.55 an hour while Ministerial Services pays— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it was within my power not to seek leave to do that I would do so because it is so demeaning of this House to seek leave to table things like stickers. The provision for tabling documents is to provide serious information to members. Members show disrespect to this Parliament— 
Hon Phil Heatley 
: What a disgrace! 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Luckily I could not tell who interjected although maybe I can now from the smile. There will be no further interjection from that quarter. Recently someone sought leave to table some chippies or something. I make it very clear to members that I will not do that in future because it is so demeaning of this House. I do not see stickers as being documents. The Standing Orders provide for the tabling of documents. Therefore I am not putting the leave to the House. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I have two points to make to you. First does that extend to National members wanting to table badges as we have seen before? You may well have supported that measure— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Yes it does. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: The second thing is this whole area of getting members to clarify what they are tabling. Just before question time we had a problem in that not enough information had been put with regard to the tabling of a document by Dr Smith and that led to disorder because we did not think the right thing had been done. Then members who try to provide as much information as possible so that the House is clear what the item is are criticised as well. I think we have to find some sort of middle road. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think that earlier in question time the honourable member heard me seek clarification from a Minister as to exactly what was to be tabled; I did that to try to avoid the kind of confusion that was raised just before question time. However I believe that it is demeaning to this House when the procedure for tabling is used in a trivial fashion. It is an important procedure for tabling documents that are meant to inform members to provide information to them that may not otherwise be available to them. It is demeaning to the House when members use it in a trivial fashion. I make it clear to members that I do not intend to allow the seeking of leave to table such things. That is the end of that matter.