Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers 
[Sitting date: 12 June 2012. Volume:680;Page:2799. Text is incorporated into the Bound Volume.] 
Questions to Ministers 
Government Financial Position—Financial Statements for 10 Months Ended 30 April 2012 and IMF Report 
1. 
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on the Government’s financial position? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Last week Treasury published the financial statements for the 10 months ended 30 April. That shows an operating balance before gains and losses of about $1.4 billion better than forecast. Although this is encouraging it is only one set of monthly figures which fluctuate from month to month. The Government remains focused on spending discipline to stay on track to surplus in 2014-15 as we make a moderate adjustment compared with most countries back to surplus. 
David Bennett 
: How does the Government’s financial position compare with that of other countries? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Although we have had some tight Budgets that do require changes if we are going to produce more public services for less any number of other countries including Australia and Australian states are making much harsher adjustments to their public spending through reductions in family entitlements large-scale redundancies in their public services and a reduction of public services. We do not have to take those measures. 
David Bennett 
: What reports has he received endorsing the Government’s economic programme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Last week the International Monetary Fund issued its report on New Zealand for 2012. It noted that if we get back to surplus by 2014-15 that would put New Zealand in a better position to deal with future shocks and take pressure off both interest rates and the exchange rate. It also noted that the New Zealand banking sector remains sound. By comparison with other countries this means we are in a fairly good position for moderate growth. 
David Bennett 
: What other approaches to managing the Government’s finances is he aware of? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a number of other reports around suggesting considerable extra Government spending—and of course that would have to be paid for by more Government debt—such as borrowing to pay for reducing the retirement age to 60 for many workers paying for the doubling of paid parental leave and bringing back the research and development tax credit. Those are all Labour Party policies. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: In view of the turmoil in the eurozone and the serious implications for the New Zealand economy if the crisis deepens and further impacts the global financial markets and of Australia’s growth rate which was 300 percent higher than that of New Zealand as of March this year does he not consider it imperative that the Reserve Bank has the appropriate powers to deal with such a potentially dangerous macroeconomic condition? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is I think a good question in the circumstances. I believe the Reserve Bank does have sufficient powers to deal with a very significantly negative international event. Those were tested unexpectedly back in 2008 and since then there has been considerable work done by the Reserve Bank both on its own capacities and on how they link with those of the Australian Reserve Bank and bank regulators and I think they are in reasonable shape to handle some significant negative event. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I seek leave of the House to have the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (Amending Primary Function of Bank) Amendment Bill which is in my name drawn from the members’ bills ballot and introduced to the House following question time today. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought for that course of action. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Schools Class Sizes—Teacher to Pupil Ratios 
2. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by all his statements? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he think that the policy to increase class sizes was “not wrong”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I think it had great merit if the money was going to be used to improve teacher quality. Clearly New Zealand parents did not agree with that. I do note that when David Shearer gave a speech earlier in the year lording it about the problems with education the first thing he said was “We need every teacher in our classrooms to be a good one. The vast majority are but the truth is some are not.” This Government was prepared to tackle that issue; that Opposition is not. 
David Shearer 
: Does he think therefore that parents are wrong when they believe that smaller class sizes are beneficial for their child’s education? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. 
David Shearer 
: Do the savings that were to be made from increasing class sizes still need to be found and from which vote will they come—education or elsewhere? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Ideally yes. Yes they will be found from education but if they cannot they will be parked up against the new Budget spending allowance for 2013. 
David Shearer 
: Was he aware of the effect of increasing class sizes on intermediate schools before either the Budget announcement or the Minister’s pre-Budget announcement? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was aware that 90 percent of New Zealand schools would have a very modest adjustment—plus or minus one full-time teacher equivalent. I was aware that the other 10 percent would have a larger adjustment. And I was also aware that the ministry had a significant transition fund to take the rough edges off that transition. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That was a very specific question very direct and not answered. [ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The question if I recollect correctly asked specifically about intermediate schools the impact on intermediate schools. It was a direct question and asked whether the Prime Minister was aware of the impact on intermediate schools from memory. I think the right honourable Prime Minister should answer that. 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I was aware that some intermediate schools would be part of that 10 percent. 
Schools Class Sizes—Treasury Advice 
3. 
Rt Hon WINSTON PETERS (Leader—NZ First) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he have confidence in the advice he is receiving from the Treasury; if so why? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes because Treasury gives its best advice based on experience of New Zealand conditions. But of course that does not mean the Government always agrees with Treasury advice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: How can he have confidence in the advice he is receiving from Treasury when in the words of the Prime Minister implementing such advice would cause “months of industrial action” and “huge amounts of anxiety from parents and children …”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Given the choice between Treasury’s advice and the Prime Minister’s advice I would generally choose the Prime Minister’s advice. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: That being the case is it not true that the Treasury 2011 briefing to the incoming Minister of Finance in particular the recommendation on page 4 in the executive summary to “improve educational attainment at lower cost” means that he and not the Minister of Education was the main instigator of this horrendously unpopular policy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Ministers are under some pressure these days to ensure that they can meet the Government’s requirement for more public services for fewer resources. And as the Minister of Finance it is part of my job to make sure that Ministers understand the need to do that. I take my responsibility as part of the collective responsibility for all decisions that are made. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I recited the date or the timing of a briefing paper and in particular its recommendations which suggest that the finance Minister and not the Minister of Education was the first recipient of that advice. And I am asking whether that does not make him the main instigator of this policy. He did not answer the question at all. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Well the Minister I believe did give an answer. It may not have been quite the one the member was looking for but in his answer if I remember correctly he said he was involved in the matter. I accept that he did not go on to say whether he was the driver or not or the first person to push the policy but he said he was involved in the decision making with regard to the policy. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am not disputing what you are saying but he used the word “Minister” and I was not aware whether he was talking about the Minister of Education or himself. That is the confusing part of that answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I found his answer not confusing. I thought he was referring to himself in his answer if I remember correctly. 
Hon David Parker 
: Did the Secretary to the Treasury advise the Minister of Finance of his intention to give a speech promoting larger class sizes before he gave that speech? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot recall whether he did or did not but he would have given the speech on the basis of the pretty clear evidence that has come out of extensive educational research and I would expect Treasury to advance policies based on sound evidence. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Could you instigate an investigation—it is my understanding that all of the microphones in the House are live and are being broadcast and there have been some interesting things said on the other side. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I suggest that members if that is the case keep a little quieter. It is being dealt with at the moment but members should be aware that the microphones are all live and any interjection will be broadcast. We will do our best to get that remedied as soon as possible. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Did he instruct the Secretary to the Treasury to publicly advocate increasing class sizes in the  
Dominion Post 
 on 27 March 2012 and in the  
Listener 
 published on 24 March 2012; if so were Cabinet and the Prime Minister consulted? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The answer to the first question is no. The Government takes good ideas from anywhere: from Treasury from members of the public from Ministers and even from members of the Opposition. If it is a good enough idea we will have a listen to it and we might even try it out. 
Hon David Parker 
: How can the Minister have confidence in the Secretary to the Treasury when Treasury’s mismanagement of the Crown guarantee scheme caused additional avoidable losses to taxpayers of between $100 million and $500 million which the Secretary to the Treasury and no other arm of Government has inquired into to quantify? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We disagree with the member. His analysis is based on his misunderstanding of the deposit guarantee scheme. 
Oil and Gas Exploration—2012 Tenders for Permits 
4. 
JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: What new opportunities for petroleum exploration in New Zealand have recently been opened? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Last week I welcomed the opening of 23 new areas for oil and gas exploration around New Zealand. This is another important step towards realising the potential of our oil and gas resources. The Government is committed to long-term responsible management of our resources which will create jobs increase income and raise our standard of living. It may interest you to know that in Taranaki the industry has indirectly created over 5000 jobs and contributes $2 billion to the local economy each year. We want to see those benefits realised in other regions. 
Jonathan Young 
: What would the benefits of a significant discovery be to New Zealand’s economy? 
Hon PHIL HEATLEY 
: Recent reports released last year showed that New Zealand is set to earn more than $3 billion in royalties from oil and gas fields already in production. Given current strike rates if the current rate of exploration were to increase by 50 percent we could earn up to $12.7 billion in royalties over the life cycle of those projects. That is $12.7 billion that can be used for any number of things to improve the lives of New Zealanders whether it is schools new hospitals or roads. 
Superannuation—Entitlement Age 
5. 
DAVID SHEARER (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he still stand by his statement that he would resign rather than change superannuation? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Does he stand by his statement: “With all due respect to the Retirement Commissioner there’s a lot of things on my plate I need to deal with in the here and now rather than things in 2020 and beyond.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
David Shearer 
: Why does he think that the retirement age is not a current issue when the Budget shows that spending on superannuation will exceed spending on education in just the forecast period? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Of course superannuation is an issue but one thing that is worth noting is that increasing the age of eligibility has much less of an impact than commentators might imagine. For instance moving the age to 67 makes a difference of about 0.7 percent of GDP and that is not until 2030. So it is an issue but growing the economy and fixing some of the other issues we inherited from Labour are more significant. 
David Shearer 
: Does he understand that for most New Zealanders superannuation will be a significant part of their income as they age and that it is only fair to give them time to make those inevitable changes? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes but that is why you need a National Government that will grow the economy and solve many of the problems that it inherited from Labour. Interestingly enough there was a chap on from the OECD this morning who made this statement and I quote: “I don’t think that New Zealand pensions are unaffordable in the sense that expenditure is still very much below the OECD average in the long term”—by which he means 2050. Even if there is no change by then it will be 8 percent of GDP compared with the OECD average which is 11.5 percent. 
David Shearer 
: Is it because he is governing for the immediate term and not the long term that he is pursuing policies such as freezing funding for early childhood education or selling off our State assets? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: No. We are delivering an economy that is growing. We have forecast growth rates to be higher than the eurozone UK Japan Canada and the United States over the next 3 years. But let us just understand one thing. Labour went to the last general election wanting a capital gains tax and raising the age of superannuation for one reason and one reason alone. It was not to claim the moral high ground; it was a catch-up with the spending promises Labour had made and it still has not learnt how to grow the economy.  
Accident Compensation Corporation—Confidence in Chair of Board and Management of Long-term Claimants 
6. 
KEVIN HAGUE (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: Does she have full trust and confidence in John Judge as ACC board chair and if her confidence is less than full what is she doing about that? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 Earlier today I announced that Mr Judge would remain as board chair until 30 June 2012. I would like to thank Mr Judge for the contribution he has made during his time as board chair and in particular for turning round ACC’s financial performance from the massive losses left by the previous Labour Government. 
Kevin Hague 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. This question was a question on notice and although certainly events have perhaps overtaken some of the purpose of the question none the less the first part of the question asked whether or not the Minister had full trust and confidence in Mr Judge and she has declined to answer that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member makes a valid point—that this was a question on notice. I think an answer more directed to the question on notice would be appropriate. 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Speaking to the first part of the question my having already answered the second part I had full trust and confidence that Mr Judge would see to ACC’s financial situation which he did. I however reserve judgment on the privacy issues until after the Privacy Commissioner and Auditor-General reports are available. 
Kevin Hague 
: Is the Minister concerned about the reports of multiple and repeated privacy breaches in ACC including private information being mistakenly sent to other claimants and health professionals and ACC’s claims management system being more or less transparent to anyone in ACC including information about sensitive claimants? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Yes. 
Kevin Hague 
: Given reports of multiple and repeated breaches of good practice by ACC in its claims management will she ask the Office of the Auditor-General to bring forward the review of claims management scheduled for the 2013-14 financial year to address the widespread public concern about ACC’s practices? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Well that is an issue that I will discuss and consider.  
Kevin Hague 
: Does she endorse the view expressed by Denise Cosgrove ACC’s General Manager of Claims Management that the organisation has been too focused on client needs?  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is difficult to answer that given that I have never heard Ms Cosgrove make that sort of comment. But I want to make it very clear that I expect that ACC will treat all claimants as though they are claimants who have options as to where they can go for their assistance even though we know that under the ACC system they cannot. So I would like to see all claimants treated well professionally and with the utmost care. But I am also aware of the fact that there are from time to time situations where claimants may make false claims to ACC that it needs to do work on. But generally I expect an improvement in the culture.  
Kevin Hague 
: Is the Minister aware whether her predecessor in her role the Hon Dr Nick Smith approved the ACC decision to focus on limiting expenditure at the expense of a focus on client needs or was this purely a decision of the ACC board?  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not have that information to hand.  
Kevin Hague 
: Does she and did her predecessor in the role the Hon Dr Nick Smith endorse ACC’s decision to target people with long-term disabilities for what is termed in the insurance world actuarial release—in lay terms kicking people off earnings-related compensation—or was this purely a decision of the ACC board?  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: It is difficult when you have a question like that which includes so many allegations to answer it as clearly as I would like. I am happy however to say to the member that actually I expect that ACC will in fact look at how it can bring people back to independence how it can get them back into work. I do not subscribe to the fact that everybody has to be able to get back into work. I do however believe that where people can it is absolutely in their best interests for them to get back into work because what we do know is that even with physical disabilities most New Zealanders want to work when they can and work is very good for them. It is also extremely good for mental health. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Relating to the primary question’s statement “what is she doing about that?” has the Minister expressed concern that an ACC claimant along with a former National Party President Michelle Boag attended a meeting with ACC officials that the claimant taped yet at no time offered in good faith to hand back to ACC the material the claimant had improperly received; if not why not? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have expressed concerns about that matter in the past but it is currently being reviewed by the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General and I think that to comment further at this stage would be inappropriate.  
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Is it her intention to apologise to Michelle Boag for giving the impression that Michelle Boag was involved in the extortion of ACC?  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I do not know why I would given that I have not made those sorts of statements.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Kevin Hague—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I have called Kevin Hague.  
Kevin Hague 
: Will the Minister instruct Paula Rebstock to return ACC to its original role as provider of compensation and full rehabilitation for injured New Zealanders and will she require the removal of ACC board members and senior staff who have presided over the culture of disentitlement since 2009?  
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: Perhaps the member is not aware that Ms Rebstock has been appointed as acting chair for only a matter of weeks rather than months and I believe that it is important to note that there will be further appointments to come and that would be more appropriate. But I also do not necessarily agree with the assumptions in that member’s question.  
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: Is the Minister not concerned that a claimant attending a meeting with ACC officials along with the former National Party President Michelle Boag did not at any point in time offer to hand back the tapes which moved ACC to say: “When this matter is resolved will we get them back?”; is she not concerned about what that looks like or seems like in the proper conduct of public affairs? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I have answered that question. I have previously expressed my concern about the allegations that were in the report provided to me and released on 16 March. However the matter is now subject to two investigations—one from the Privacy Commissioner and the other from the Auditor-General—and I do not think it is appropriate for me to wade in there and express my views when both of those agencies are independent and extremely capable of making their own investigations. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Why is this Minister invoking the sub judice rule when it does not apply here? I am asking her straight out whether she thinks there is cause for the Minister to make it very clear as to her concern that a claimant with an adviser is withholding information improperly received and does not that go to the good faith of the claimant in the first place? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Well— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: It is not a sub judice matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No order! If one gets down to the nitty-gritty the Minister is not remotely responsible for the good faith of a claimant. The Minister could—and I am surprised in some ways that the Minister did not—simply say that she is not responsible for the actions of a claimant. She chose though to try to express her concern about the whole situation and what she is trying to do about it and that is fine. But the member asked a question over which the Minister has no ministerial responsibility at all. 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. With respect you have taken the view that the claimant’s actions are not the Minister’s responsibility. I am saying that the officials’ actions are the responsibility of the Minister and were they not— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not— 
Rt Hon Winston Peters 
: —grievously mistreated? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! We are not going to litigate this by way of point of order. The Minister did handle that part of it. She has expressed to the House her lack of complete satisfaction about the way the whole thing has been handled and I think in the circumstances given the question asked it was not an unreasonable answer. 
Kevin Hague 
: I seek leave to table two documents. The first is an ACC internal memorandum from Phil Riley the long-term claims project lead dated 16 February 2009 and entitled “Strategy for the Future Management of Long-term Claims”. 
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. 
Kevin Hague 
: The second document I seek leave to table is a transcript of a presentation entitled “ACC—The Winds of Change” delivered by Denise Cosgrove and Darryl Frank to the Institute of Actuaries of Australia and it is dated 20-22 November 2011. 
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. 
Maternity Services—Improvements and Increase in Midwife Numbers 
7. 
Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What reports has he received on improvements to midwifery services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 I have seen a report this morning reporting that more midwives are practising in New Zealand than ever before. The College of Midwives puts this increase down to stricter qualifications a mentoring programme for graduates and better staff retention. They also report that midwife numbers in rural areas are steady for the first time in years and I am very pleased to be able to report to the House that 176 midwifery graduates have been confirmed on the Voluntary Bonding Scheme to date. The 2012 registrations of interest are scheduled to open this Friday. Having said that there are still some pressure points around the country and district health boards continue to work on dealing with these. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: What initiatives has the Government put in place to improve midwifery services? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has put around $114 million extra into maternity services since 2008. We have had a very strong focus on quality and safety delivering better services for parents and babies. Last year the Government launched the maternity quality and safety programme and midwives have been attending workshops around the country to learn about these new quality and safety initiatives. Midwives obstetricians general practitioners and anaesthetists are working together in a way that we have not seen before to deliver better services to parents and babies. This is all part of the extra $2 billion that this Government has invested in our public health service since 2008. 
State-owned Energy Companies and Air New Zealand Sales—Government Policy 
8. 
Hon CLAYTON COSGROVE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for State Owned Enterprises 
: Is it his understanding that the Prime Minister is still committed to his policy of partial asset sales in Mighty River Power Genesis Power Meridian Energy Solid Energy and Air New Zealand? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister for State Owned Enterprises) 
: 
 Yes the Government remains committed to its policy of minority share offers in the mentioned enterprises but as indicated from the outset this is subject to market conditions. Although the member may have various reasons why this policy should not proceed I would want to emphasise that this policy is important for a number of reasons the most important being controlling our debt and protecting New Zealand from the worsening European and international debt crisis that fills our television news screens every night.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he agree with the Prime Minister who on Radio Live yesterday said that he abandoned the increase in class sizes because “It’s pretty obvious that we weren’t winning that public debate.”; if so will he follow that same criterion and abandon State asset sales given that more than 80 percent of New Zealanders are opposed to those sales? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes; and no.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Given that his colleague the Minister of Education stated on  
Campbell Live 
 this past Thursday that the increase in class sizes was abandoned because “This was a trade-off people were not prepared to make.” will he reconsider the policy of partial asset sales in Mighty River Power Genesis Energy Meridian Energy Solid Energy and Air New Zealand? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: No. It is imperative that New Zealand take action to control its debt. The Government has a plan to ensure that and part of that is to sell minority shares in these State-owned enterprises. If we do not control our debt then New Zealand’s future will not be as successful as it could be.  
Hon Dr Nick Smith 
: What reports has he received on the previous Government in 2007 adopting the mixed-ownership model for State-owned energy companies and selling 49 percent of the shares in Spring Creek Mine Ltd for tens of millions of dollars all to a foreign-owned multinational company called Cargill Coal a policy that was described by the then Labour Government as innovative— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! Members are meant to ask questions not make speeches.  
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I found that question most interesting because I have heard from the people opposite that they would not want to do anything like that. But it seems that when they are in Government it is a completely different story.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: To the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
]  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I apologise—[ 
Interruption 
] Order! I want to hear the Hon Clayton Cosgrove’s supplementary question. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Too much starch in the Y-fronts possibly.  
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Does he consider it acceptable that as noted on the public record his officials from Treasury wrote the departmental report on submissions on the Mixed Ownership Model Bill prior to submissions being fully heard? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I am aware that after the departmental report was received the committee heard I think 10 oral submissions nine of which were based on written submissions that were considered for the departmental report. I think the Finance and Expenditure Committee has done a very fine consideration of the bill and I thank all members for the very studious way that they have dealt with this bill.  
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: Was the Finance and Expenditure Committee acting on his instructions while considering the Mixed Ownership Model Bill—in particular when Government members gave inadequate time for consideration and deliberation and when National MPs were disrespectful to submitters including one who demanded to know the voting intention of a submitter? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Far be it from me to instruct the members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee some of whom are in the Labour Party the Green Party and all sorts of other parties.  
Student Loans—Debt Recovery from Overseas-based Borrowers 
9. 
SIMON O’CONNOR (National—Tamaki) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment 
: How much overdue student loan debt has the Government recovered from overseas-based borrowers in the last two years? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Tertiary Education Skills and Employment) 
: 
 I am pleased to report that the Government’s programme begun in October 2010 in pilot form to collect overdue student loan repayments from overseas-based borrowers has so far brought in $20 million with a further $2.9 million under payment arrangements. To date we have received about $12.20 for every dollar invested in collections which is good progress as overseas-based borrowers have tended to take considerably longer to pay off their loans. The initial pilot phase of this project has proven the worth of chasing student loan debtors who are overseas and not meeting their obligations—something it has to be said the previous Government did not bother to do. 
Simon O’Connor 
: What effect is this recovery programme having on the level of outstanding student loan debt? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: More than 6000 borrowers have now made repayments since the initiative began. In fact 18 of these borrowers have paid more than $50000 each. However the value of outstanding debt held by overseas-based borrowers remains a big problem which we are committed to tackling with the valuable help of our support partner the Minister of Revenue Peter Dunne. As at April 2012 borrowers living abroad had loans of more than $2.6 billion of which around $400 million is overdue for repayment. The Government will therefore continue to ramp up its plan for debt collection efforts to ensure those overseas borrowers meet their repayment obligations and help contribute to further investment in the tertiary education system that trained them.  
Question Time 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Colleagues before going to the next question can I just update you on the gremlins in the sound system. There is apparently a serious failure in the circuitry somewhere and there is a problem with both our television and our radio sound being delivered. We hope to fix that in the dinner break. But what you need to be aware of members is that although your microphones are working when you speak they are on full time. The Clerk’s and my microphones are not working too well but apparently yours are working very well. So just be alerted to that—that anything you say may well be broadcast. 
Family Court—Introduction of Fees for Civil Disputes 
10. 
CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Courts 
: What decrease if any in the use of the Family Court after 1 July is expected to result from his decision to introduce fees of $700 plus a daily hearing fee of $1812 for applications for divisions of assets and fees of $220 for childcare disputes both of which applications are at present fee-free? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS (Minister for Courts) 
: 
 In answer to the question based on last year’s modelling there were 18000 applications before the court that would be liable for the payment of fees. About 8500 childcare disputes and about 1700 property disputes would be expected to pay the fees. The balance would be expected to avoid the fees either by applying to the registrar of the court for a waiver of which there is expected to be a significant number granted or by finding some other way to sort out the dispute and not come to the court.  
Charles Chauvel 
: What advice if any has he received on the risks to vulnerable children of introducing user-pays to a system that was deliberately designed to be fees-free in order to ensure that such children did not suffer as a result of the inability of their parents to pay a fee when trying to access the court? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: It is important to note that family violence matters such as seeking a protection order do not require fees and that those applications will be lodged free of charge as they are now.  
Charles Chauvel 
: What consultation took place with Family Court judges prior to his announcement that these fees would be introduced given that the dean of the Otago University law school said on the  
Nine to Noon  
show this morning that he had been told on Sunday by a Family Court judge that the Family Court judge was unaware of this decision? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: I am unsure why the commentator would make that comment bearing in mind that in September last year it was flagged that these fees could well be introduced ahead of the Family Court review being completed. I am unsure of precisely what consultation was had with Family Court judges or specifically which Family Court judges were consulted with. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Who is correct: Judith Collins when she said on 27 February that it was important to await the outcome of the Family Court review before progressing important decisions such as those around the Legal Assistance (Sustainability) Amendment Bill or he himself when he said on  
Morning Report  
this morning in respect of his decision to introduce these fees well before the outcome of the Family Court review is known “Quite honestly if we keep waiting and waiting … we’d never get anything done.”? 
Hon CHESTER BORROWS 
: The point is of course that people who are subject to this fees liability do not have to come before the court. There is always the opportunity of them getting around the table with their lawyers or other advocates and being able to sort these matters out without having to go through to litigation. There is no question of an access to justice issue here because those opportunities are open to them. I do not believe that the Minister’s statement and my statement are mutually exclusive. 
Beneficiaries—Prime Minister’s Statements 
11. 
JAN LOGIE (Green) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “It is also true that anyone on a benefit actually has a lifestyle choice. If one budgets properly one can pay one’s bills.”? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 I stand by my full statement at the time which included that the global recession has seen more people on benefit. That obviously had an impact on the demand for food parcels but the bulk of New Zealanders on a benefit do actually pay for their food their rent and other things of that nature. Some but not all make poor choices and do not have money left. I also stand by my statement at the time that although some people make poor choices there are other factors for why people would go to food banks or need welfare support. 
Jan Logie 
: Given that the recently published  
2011 Food Costs for Families 
 report prepared by Regional Public Health showed an unemployed couple on the benefit with two children will have just $75 left each week after rent and basic healthy food how would the Prime Minister suggest they cover health care power clothing transport school and other costs for four people with just $75? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: I have not seen the report but what I can say is in the worst global financial recession since the Great Depression this Government has supported benefit payments. We have continued to support the accommodation supplement. We have continued to support Working for Families. We have got on top of inflation—so in fact food inflation was very low last year—and we are continuing to provide support for New Zealanders to be able to move into work. I am proud to say actually that there are now 20000 fewer people on the unemployment benefit than there were a couple of years ago—positive government in action. 
Jan Logie 
: So—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! I want to hear the supplementary question. 
Jan Logie 
: With his extensive budgeting experience what would the Prime Minister advise a family on this budget to choose: shoes or food? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: If they were in desperate need of support I would urge them to go into Work and Income. It would be able to provide them with more support. 
Jan Logie 
: What kind of lifestyle does the Prime Minister think children of beneficiaries on this kind of income are actually living? 
Rt Hon JOHN KEY 
: Well I think in all fairness they are living a poorer lifestyle than any of us would want and that is why the Government is committed to moving people off benefits and into work. The single most important factor we can make for the overall household budget of New Zealanders is to move those on benefit into work. That party seems to rejoice in the fact that there are tens of thousands of New Zealanders trapped on a benefit and it does not want to do anything about it. This Government is actually progressively helping people with extra childcare helping people with extra training and investing hundreds of millions of dollars into helping move people into work and that party does not want to do anything about those tough issues. 
Jan Logie 
: I seek leave to table the Regional Public Health report that shows that working families are not much better off. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is objection. 
Accident Compensation Corporation—Release of Personal Information and Minister’s Actions 
12. 
ANDREW LITTLE (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for ACC 
: What actions apart from inviting or observing inquiries from the Privacy Commissioner and the Auditor-General has she taken since 12 March 2012 to see that issues arising out of the wrongful disclosure of personal information by the Accident Compensation Corporation to Bronwyn Pullar have been remedied or addressed by the Corporation? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister for ACC) 
: 
 I have stayed in close contact with and required regular updates from the chief executive on what steps he is taking to build a culture of privacy and information security at ACC and rebuild public trust and confidence. In the last 3 months I have also visited nine ACC offices and spoken personally with staff emphasising the need for privacy and information security. I would like to point out to that member that both my visits and the message about privacy have been extremely well received. I would also like to point out that while the Privacy Commissioner is reviewing ACC’s privacy processes it is sensible to wait for her recommendations. However I have supported ACC in the steps it has taken so far. 
Andrew Little 
: What action has the Minister taken to ensure the advice she receives from the corporation is accurate in light of both a police inquiry and a television current affairs programme confirming that the statement in the 16 March 2012 report to her from ACC concerning Bronwyn Pullar that “She made threats that if her demands were not met she would not return the information and she would inform the media of the alleged privacy issue.” was not true? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am not in a position to answer that in the way in which the member has asked the question. The reason is that it is still subject to inquiries by both the Auditor-General and the Privacy Commissioner. I think it is important to try not to tread all over those inquiries. 
Andrew Little 
: What action has she taken in light of the High Court injunction issued against an ACC claimant Mr T just 2 weeks ago on 28 May 2012 ordering him not to disclose personal information improperly disclosed to him by the corporation to ensure that the corporation is serious about fixing its information management problems? 
Hon JUDITH COLLINS 
: I am sure that I have answered that in my answer to the primary question. The fact is the issue that that member raises occurred in 2008. There has been a lot of work done at ACC since then. If the member would like me to I can outline some of the steps that have been taken in the last 3 months. ACC advises me that it has cooperated with KPMG to carry out an extensive review of its processes and policies around privacy and information security. It has undertaken to implement all recommendations arising from independent inquiries into privacy and information security. It has agreed to implement a zero-tolerance policy of security breaches. A number of initiatives already implemented within ACC include refresher training for all staff the establishment of a privacy response team to answer queries and complaints training privacy champions to promote ACC’s privacy culture and practice identifying system and process changes to support privacy improvements and interviewing private and public sector agencies to discuss— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! The Minister is doing very well but I think the House does not need to hear too much more of that. 
Andrew Little 
: What is more important to her: fulfilling her public duty to ensure ACC acts with honesty and integrity towards her and the public of New Zealand or pursuing her own personal and private interests in suing her political opponents and fund-raising for her legal costs because— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Order! [ 
Interruption 
] Order! I am on my feet if it has escaped members’ attention. That question is out of order. That brings to a close questions— 
Hon Members 
: Why’s it out of order? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members have interjected “Why was it out of order?”. Perhaps a point of order should have been raised rather than just interjecting “Why was it out of order?”. But if I heard the question correctly it referred to a matter that is before the court and that is why it was out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It referred to the fact that the Minister was taking action. It referred to nothing before a court. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: What I believe I heard did refer to a matter that was before the court and I was not about to allow that to be pursued in the House. The House is to hold the executive to account and not to be pursuing matters that are before the court and that is why I ruled that way.