Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:655;Page:4925] 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2009—Credit Rating Upgrade 
1. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Does he stand by his statement that “we have actually delivered a Budget that saw a credit rating upgrade in New Zealand”? 
Hon JOHN KEY (Prime Minister) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: If a change in outlook by Standard and Poor’s is a credit upgrade as the Prime Minister has claimed is he now admitting that a downwards change in outlook from Fitch Ratings is a downgrade in New Zealand’s credit rating? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes. 
Chris Tremain 
: What did the Fitch Ratings release say about the New Zealand economy? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Fitch Ratings was concerned as is this Government about New Zealand’s persistently large current account deficit and rising foreign debt. The release goes on to say that because of these imbalances the Government needs to rein in spending. The Government outlined a balanced and credible plan to do that in the Budget and Standard and Poor’s backed that up. If the Opposition is worried about a much smaller player Fitch Ratings putting New Zealand on a negative outlook then it should tell us how it intends to make further cuts to Government spending because that is what Fitch Ratings wants to see done. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Can the Prime Minister explain why Fitch Ratings downgraded New Zealand’s credit rating after analysing the last National Budget and the Prime Minister’s own speech on National’s plans for the future? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I can explain one of two things. The thing I can explain is that Fitch Ratings looked at a very large current account deficit which the Labour Opposition of 1996-99 led by Michael Cullen campaigned on doing something about. Labour did; the deficit doubled under its watch when Michael Cullen came into office. What I cannot explain is what was going through Phil Goff’s mind yesterday because at one point it was welfare for millionaires and today it is welfare for nobody. It sounds as though the pixies at the bottom of the garden got swine flu overnight! 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Apropos of the Prime Minister’s last comment does he believe that a person who has been made redundant should get no transitional financial assistance for job search or retraining simply because his or her spouse earns $26000 per year? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: I do and he or she would already get that assistance from the Ministry of Social Development. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do want to hear the supplementary question from Chris Tremain. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Prime Minister seen any recent reports about a previous Government’s management of our economic imbalances? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Funnily enough yes I have. I have seen a report that says: “I do not pretend either that our record was perfect nor deny that there were significant questions unresolved. Our current account deficit [something that Fitch put us on negative outlook for] was stubbornly high and the savings deficit … was unsustainable. Productivity growth was too low …”. That frank and honest assessment came from a recent speech to “Mood of the Boardroom”. It was of course by David Cunliffe. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it the Prime Minister’s intention next year before the Budget is released to show the Budget in advance to Fitch Ratings as well as to Standard and Poor’s if we are going to allow the rating agencies to determine what is in a Budget that is meant to be for New Zealanders? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: We need to get one thing perfectly right: Fitch Ratings did not put New Zealand on negative outlook because of the Budget. Actually if it had followed a Budget that Labour had written then Moody’s and Standard and Poor’s would have downgraded New Zealand. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has he seen any reports of alternative fiscal strategies and how does he think rating agencies would respond to them? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes I have seen reports from the Opposition arguing that we should have further tax cuts expand the welfare State bring back large KiwiSaver subsidies reinstate tax credits and spend more on tertiary education early childhood education overseas aid and health. This massive and totally irresponsible increase in Government spending would have set New Zealand on a downgrade by every single rating agency and Phil Goff knows that is the case. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it part of his plan to impress the rating agencies by using proxies such as Mark Weldon and John Whitehead to promote National’s secret privatisation agenda? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: If John Whitehead is a proxy how come he was Secretary to the Treasury under the last 9 years of the Labour Government? 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does he agree that one of the central drivers for the imbalance in foreign debt and the current account deficit in the New Zealand economy has been the housing market’s speculative bubble and will his Government support measures that tackle the bubble directly such as a capital gains tax excluding the family home and ring-fencing the losses from investment properties? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: Yes in answer to the first question. In terms of the latter question the member will be aware that Bob Buckle is leading a tax review. I do not want to prejudge that review because there may be all sorts of things it looks at. But I personally have stated many times and am happy to state again today that I do not support a capital gains tax. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Is it also the Prime Minister’s attempt to impress credit rating agencies that is the reason he is appointing Don Brash as head of the Productivity Commission notwithstanding that that brings back an agenda that the electorate rejected decisively in 2005? 
Hon JOHN KEY 
: From my memory we lost the 2005 election by only a smidgen so I am not quite sure that is the right assessment. I do not know whether I have missed something but I cannot understand the Leader of the Opposition’s fixation with rating agencies at the moment. When Standard and Poor’s upgraded us apparently it was the guy who got it wrong with regard to Enron and should not be believed. 
Economy—Imbalances 
2.  
PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he received on economic imbalances inherited by this Government? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have seen a statement from the Fitch Ratings agency saying that New Zealand’s economy is burdened with severe imbalances as indicated by a persistently large current account deficit and now growing public debt. The deficit ballooned under the previous Government’s decade of economic mismanagement. Labour campaigned on the idea that the current account deficit was too big when it was 5 percent of GDP. By the time Labour had left office it had almost doubled. The Government is addressing these imbalances by implementing policies that promote exports and investment over borrowing and consumption which have been the pillars of economic management for the last 10 years. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: Has he seen any reports in the last week arguing for large increases in Government spending? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Despite the warning from a number of ratings agencies that out-of-control Government spending could lead to a downgrade in New Zealand’s credit rating I have seen reports from the Leader of the Opposition who yesterday proposed that everyone should get the dole regardless of the family income and today he is reported as backtracking on his call for the dole. When asked whether it meant everyone should be entitled to the unemployment benefit no matter how wealthy his or her partner he said: “No no that’s not true.” which directly contradicted what he said yesterday. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What are the implications of Mr Goff’s proposal to expand the welfare system? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I think the member might want to rephrase that question because the honourable Minister has no responsibility for the background of the proposal. He can comment only on reports he has seen in that regard. 
Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga 
: What are the implications of the report that the Minister heard of detailing Mr Goff’s proposal to expand the welfare system? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is pretty hard to work out the implications because yesterday Mr Goff promised that anyone who lost his or her job under Labour would get the dole regardless of his or her spouse’s income. Today he has backtracked on it so we are not sure whether he is for it or against it. We suspect that he is not sure either because he is trying to satisfy two contradictory factions in his caucus. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Despite the historically low debt low unemployment and higher growth inherited from the previous Labour Government when will the Minister stop whining about the economy he inherited and start formulating some new ideas and a real plan to lift New Zealanders’ incomes or is he happy to hide behind the skirts of the Secretary to the Treasury and the Governor of the Reserve Bank? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The only whining is coming from Labour members who have yet to understand just how bad the effects of their decade of economic mismanagement have been. For instance in this once-proud exporting nation in the last 5 years we have seen exports in recession. In fact the tradable part of this economy shrank in the last 5 years while the non-tradable part of it grew by 20 percent. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In light of Fitch Ratings’ downgrading of New Zealand’s credit rating watch and Alan Bollard’s criticism last week of the lack of saving in New Zealand does the Minister now realise that cancelling the research and development tax credit cutting KiwiSaver contributions and suspending contributions to the Superannuation Fund undermine New Zealand’s performance or does he think that the timing of Fitch Ratings’ downgrade was purely a coincidence after John Key’s speech? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think as the Prime Minister pointed out that the continuation of the previous policies of encouraging borrowing over-consumption and reckless Government spending would certainly have led to a downgrade by every ratings agency. 
Unemployment Increase—Government Policies 
3.  
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: What steps is this Government taking to address the growing number of people who are now unemployed? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 We are concentrating on providing a stable economy where employment growth can improve as the recession abates. My focus is on ensuring that those who are in genuine need get the assistance they need to get back into work. 
Hon Annette King 
: Why is the Minister refusing to provide weekly updates of the unemployment benefit figures that she receives? Is it because she does not want Kiwis to know that last week alone 1342 people went on the dole? Why is she trying to hide that fact? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: There is no hiding of the figures; this Government has been presenting them sooner than the previous Government did. There is no doubt about that. In fact that the figure of 1342 is out there is evidence that figures are being reported on a weekly basis. Since we are talking figures I add that last week alone 1557 people went off the benefit and into work. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of responses to rising unemployment in previous years when the Budget has been tight? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to raise it after the member’s question but I have been thinking very carefully about the Minister’s reply and I want to take some care here. She said “the benefit” referring to unemployment benefits. She could not possibly have been correct. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member must not do that. He must not litigate answers like that in a point of order. The matter can be followed up with further supplementary questions but certainly not by way of—[ 
Interruption 
] Members will not interject while I am on my feet. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of responses to rising unemployment in previous years—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to show a little courtesy to the member asking a supplementary question. She is towards the back of the House and the interjections are flying across the front. I cannot hear her. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister seen any reports of responses to rising unemployment in previous years when the Budget has been tight? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. In fact I have seen a report that states: “In reality there are no quick-fix solutions or easy answers. Unemployment has to be addressed at a number of levels.” and also that benefits in terms of jobs are much longer coming— 
Hon Annette King 
: “A number of levels.” Very good! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The member who interrupts the Hon Annette King was the author of that report. 
Hon Annette King 
: Is it a measure of the success of her unemployment policy that only 1245 people have benefited from the much-hyped ReStart package which is fewer than the number of people who went on to the dole in 1 week? Is the fact that so few people are getting this assistance an indication that this assistance is not much help at all? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I am sorry I did not hear the member’s number but just to be clear I say that to date a total of 3690 people have been granted ReStart assistance. Every single one of them is grateful for that assistance over 16 weeks which helps them through a pretty tough time of redundancy. I am quite proud that we have been able to offer that assistance to those people. 
Brendon Burns 
: What does the Minister say when due to a lack of Government response to rising unemployment in Canterbury which is now seeing 4000 people on the unemployment benefit a private initiative has today been launched in the Christchurch  
Press 
 specifically to combat youth joblessness which is soaring? Will her ministry support the Christchurch youth compact? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Unlike the previous Government we support private initiatives the non-governmental organisation sector stepping up with initiatives and Government initiatives. We are pretty keen to see people taking the initiative in terms of what works best in their communities and we certainly back them to do that. I would be interested in hearing more. 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister started her answer in quite a political way but putting that issue to one side the member for Christchurch Central Mr Burns asked the Minister a very specific question about her department and about a specific programme. The answer canvassed all manner of things but did not come back to the point that Mr Burns asked about which was that programme in Christchurch. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: At the beginning he asked about a particular private enterprise that was running in Christchurch and I addressed that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept that the question asked by the member was a pretty straight question. The only dilemma is that being a supplementary question it is possible the Minister may not have specific information on that particular scheme. But because it was such a straight non-political question if the Minister has any information on the particular Christchurch proposal I ask her to answer that part of the question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: As I stated I do not think that the Government alone has solutions to what is going on. We support private enterprises and we support non-governmental organisations coming up with initiatives. I have not had a full briefing on that particular initiative but I am certainly happy to listen. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister heard of any other sensible ideas to address unemployment? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have heard a number of reports this week but no sensible ones from the Opposition—that is for sure. Labour’s big idea to put hundreds of thousands of middle-class people— 
Hon Darren Hughes 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but she has no responsibility for what ideas she may have received from the parliamentary Opposition. She has an entire department that she is meant to be responsible for and we have questioned her on those matters. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I accept the point the honourable member makes. The Minister does not have any responsibility for Opposition policies. I invite the Minister bearing that in mind to answer the question. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I have been reading the paper and seeing reports that talk about hundreds of thousands of middle-class New Zealanders going on to welfare which we believe is impractical unaffordable and unfair. But a headline today says that “Goff backtracks” because he is not sure whether that is a good policy. So it would be fair to say that I have seen no sensible ideas this week. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: Will the Minister answer the question the Prime Minister did not answer which is: does she believe that if a person is made redundant that person should not be eligible for any financial assistance for job search or retraining if his or her spouse happens to still be earning just $26000 a year? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I think the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that although that person will not be eligible for a main benefit he or she could be eligible for special grants some training incentives or child support payments—[ 
Interruption 
] Opposition members should calm down; they asked the question and I am just giving the answer. Such people could actually be eligible for other assistance and I suggest they contact Work and Income because we would like to help them if we can. 
Hon Phil Goff 
: You don’t believe it. You don’t believe they deserve any support despite the fact you had it— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Leader of the Opposition must not interject “you” did this and “you” did that because the Speaker was not involved. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What initiatives is the Minister implementing in Te Tai Tokerau to address the problem of the dozens of Maori becoming unemployed there each week? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Unfortunately unemployment numbers are going up throughout the country. There is no doubt about that. But we are still seeing a triage rate happen in those areas. A number of people who are walking into Work and Income offices and expecting to go on a benefit are actually walking out not on one because they are able to secure jobs or further training opportunities through Work and Income. I am proud to say that there are more people on the front line working with the individuals who need it most. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister agree with Wanganui Work and Income regional commissioner Gloria Campbell that the number of young people going on to the unemployment benefit is of “great concern”; if so what specific initiatives is she taking to get them and the rest of the 3000 people in the Whanganui area on the unemployment benefit back to work? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Yes. I am pleased to hear that the regional commissioner thinks that is of great concern. It is certainly of concern to this Government as well. For the year ended 30 June we processed a total of 131164 student allowance applications and 249822 student loan applications. This is an increase of 28.6 percent and 14.64 percent respectively on the previous year. I think a number of youth are moving into those training incentives which is where we are supporting them as well. 
Hon Annette King 
: I seek leave to table a letter from the Minister to me in which she refuses to provide the weekly unemployment benefit figures she receives. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Superannuation—Affordability of Current Entitlements 
4.  
AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: What reports has he seen on the affordability of current entitlements to New Zealand superannuation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Budget 2009 fully costed current entitlements to New Zealand superannuation and these were built into the fiscal forecast published with the Budget. Under this Government New Zealand superannuation will be maintained at 66 percent of the average wage for a married couple to be paid from age 65. 
Amy Adams 
: What alternative approaches to providing New Zealand superannuation has the Minister seen? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a report of comments made by Labour’s finance spokesperson Mr David Cunliffe who told the “Mood of the Boardroom” meeting in Auckland: “Nor if you listen carefully have I closed the door on re-examining questions of the age of entitlement for example.” Mr Cunliffe should clarify whether he is speaking on behalf of the whole Labour caucus or just himself and should clarify just what Labour’s policy on the age of entitlement now is. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister share Labour’s commitment to preserve the eligibility age of 65; if he does why did he jeopardise future entitlements— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but I cannot hear his question. I think the House owes it to members to at least enable us to hear the question. The member may start again. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does the Minister share Labour’s commitment to preserve the eligibility age of 65; if he does why did he jeopardise future entitlements with his suspension of contributions to the Superannuation Fund a move that Treasury says is an indication that the Government is “seriously considering winding up the fund altogether”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I thought we shared Labour’s commitment to the age of entitlement being 65 but if that is the view held by the Labour caucus it is certainly not the view held by its finance spokesman David Cunliffe. 
Amy Adams 
: What economic policies would put the affordability of New Zealand superannuation in jeopardy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: In the end the affordability of New Zealand superannuation is directly related to the health of the economy. There is no doubt that continuation of the policies of the last 10 years favouring over-consumption too much borrowing and reckless Government spending would certainly be bad for the health of the economy and that would put at risk the affordability of future national superannuation. 
Banking Practices—Interest Rates 
5.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by his statement that “We made it clear right through with the banks that with taxpayers supporting them and their depositors and their overseas borrowing we expect that they will give borrowers a fair go.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why then did his Government block its own MPs’ proposal for a Finance and Expenditure Committee inquiry into pass-through of official cash rate cuts to short-term interest rates having simultaneously criticised the major banks for failing to pass through cuts and appealed to the Reserve Bank to take action? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Our top priority is that banks keep lending because when banks stop lending people lose jobs. In respect of the relationship of the short-term cash rate and the overnight cash rate as we have said many times customers of banks have the opportunity to choose lower rates than the floating rate being the fixed 6-month and 1-year mortgage rates. I might say that when customers make that choice it will have a much bigger effect on the banks than a meeting of Opposition members in a phone box with all their supporters. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: Has the Minister seen any reports about competitive pricing within the banking sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes I have. Here is one: “To reduce the cost of mortgages to homeowners on a permanent basis the Government has to deal with the high overexpenditure in level of borrowing of Government.” The second one states: “To reduce interest rates it is necessary to tackle the causes rather than simply to try by regulation to disguise the symptoms.” Both of those statements were made by Phil Goff. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister confirm whether he has received any correspondence or indications from New Zealand’s major banks that they are reluctant to continue current levels of lending if an inquiry into interest rate pass-through should proceed; if not why does he not now support an open transparent cross-party parliamentary inquiry that will allow New Zealanders the opportunity to voice their concerns and get the facts on the table? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: No I have received no such correspondence. It is a bit rich getting lectured about interest rates by members who were part of a Government that presided over record interest rates in New Zealand at a time when bank margins— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: It was the Lange Government not the Clark Government. That’s almost as old as Don Brash! 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member should listen to this. Under Labour bank margins reached record levels. They are currently 30 percent lower than they were when that man was a Minister. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister tell the House why the Prime Minister has now asked the Reserve Bank to come up with suggestions for his Government and is it the case that after a few months in office he has already run out of ideas when just a couple of weeks ago he was telling the Reserve Bank that it was all its responsibility to fix the mess? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Most of the things that can be known about banks passing on interest rate cuts are already known. The Reserve Bank did a very thorough and insightful report into the gap between the floating rate and the overnight cash rate. The next question is what can be done about it. The Prime Minister quite reasonably has asked the Reserve Bank for suggestions about what can be done about a well-known set of information. 
Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart—Creation of Jobs 
6.  
MICHAEL WOODHOUSE (National) 
 to the  
Minister of Energy and Resources 
: Has he received any reports that the Government’s Warm Up New Zealand home insulation scheme is helping to create jobs? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) 
: 
 Yes I have. I have seen a report entitled “Insulation offer cuts dole queue” in yesterday’s  
New Zealand Herald 
. The story outlines a number of firms taking previously unemployed people and training them to install insulation in New Zealand homes. Premier Insulation for example— 
Hon Phil Goff 
: And how many lost over the same day? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Government has a scheme. It is providing jobs but Phil Goff does not want it; he just wants those workers and their families to take the dole. Premier Insulation has put an extra 80 people into work. Eco Insulation has put an extra 50 into work. All of those people were previously on the dole. Fletcher Building has increased the production of the insulation product from its factories. That has put more people into work for the 24-hour shifts it is now running. This is a very good scheme. The scheme is working well and it is also getting New Zealanders working well. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: How will the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart home insulation scheme help the New Zealand economy in the medium and long term? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme will help the New Zealand economy in many ways in the longer term. One way will be through the reduction in health costs because warmer homes are healthier homes. The scheme should lead to fewer people being admitted to hospitals with respiratory illnesses thereby easing pressure on our health system. Warmer Kiwi homes will also ensure that more children go to school and more people stay in work when they might otherwise be sick as a result of their cold home and other living circumstances. Of course there is the ongoing job creation that I have already spoken of. 
Michael Woodhouse 
: What has been the response from the public to the Warm Up New Zealand: Heat Smart scheme? 
Hon GERRY BROWNLEE 
: The response from the public has been overwhelmingly positive. I am advised that since the programme started on 1 July there have been some 9000 calls to the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority call centre and over 100000 unique visitors to the website have been making inquiries into how they may access the scheme. It is very pleasing that demand is so high. In fact we are now making sure that there are more providers in order to ensure that people do not have to wait too long for this excellent Government assistance. 
Folic Acid in Bread—Commencement of Mandatory Requirement 
7.  
Hon RUTH DYSON (Labour—Port Hills) 
 to the  
Minister for Food Safety 
: What scientific evidence is she using to support any decision to defer the mandatory addition of folic acid in bread as planned under the joint trans-Tasman food standards? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister for Food Safety) 
: 
 No such decision has yet been made. Deferring the commencement date is our preferred option but it is certainly not predetermined. We have made a decision to ask the public of New Zealand what they want. The member will be aware that a discussion document is being released tomorrow. It includes the options of the status quo revocation and deferring the commencement date to allow for a considered review. I will be making a decision after considering all the submissions. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s chief scientific adviser Professor Peter Gluckman that because of a lack of folate— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the honourable member but again I cannot hear the supplementary question the member is asking. How can I assess whether the question is being answered if I cannot hear it? 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does she agree with the Prime Minister’s chief scientific adviser Professor Peter Gluckman that because of a lack of folate in the diet of pregnant women there were many cases of neural tube defects resulting in abortion and in babies being born dead? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I think the benefits of added folate in one’s diet are actually known but can I remind the member that Ireland has a voluntary fortification scheme which has resulted in a 30 percent increase in folate in that population. It was voluntary; it did not have to be mandatory. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask both sides of the House to please be reasonable. I realise that today is the first day back and it is always going to be a bit noisier but I do need to be able to hear. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What reports has the Minister seen about the mandatory fortification of bread with folic acid? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I have seen a report from Annette King calling the standard a “triumph for humanity and common sense” and one from Phil Goff last week stating: “The public is rightly concerned. … Let’s get a review let’s get the information out into the public let’s make an informed decision about it and let’s do it without waiting till they bring it in. … It needs action now. You know if I didn’t know any better I’d say ‘Well what the hell are we doing?’ ”. Finally I saw on Sunday a press release from Ruth Dyson stating: “Deferring the introduction is a cheap cop out.” 
Dr Ashraf Choudhary 
: Does the Minister agree with Professor Gluckman that there is no causal link between folic acid intake at the proposed levels under the food standards and increased rates of cancer in humans? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I am aware that there is scientific evidence that does indicate it is safe. I have always maintained that I am not a fan of the standard and that I support New Zealanders being able to choose whether their bread has folic acid— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I realise that this issue creates some emotive involvement but I want to be able to hear the Minister. The question that was asked was a dead straight question—whether the Minister believed the evidence of the chief scientific adviser—and I think the House ought to be interested in the answer to it. [ 
Interruption 
] I do not know who interjected on me then but I would appreciate it if they did not do it further. The Hon Kate Wilkinson may start her answer again if she wishes. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: We are not ignoring the advice of the chief scientific adviser. The safety of folic acid is not the only issue here; the Government understands that New Zealanders want choice and that is something I do not need to consult a scientist about. 
Sue Kedgley 
: Why did the Minister repeatedly claim that New Zealand could not possibly get out of a joint trans-Tasman standard on folic acid fortification when in fact New Zealand opted out of the joint standard some years ago and issued its own separate standard under the New Zealand Food Act to fortify bread not flour as the Australians are proposing to do? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: Our advice was that the window of opportunity to opt out of the standard actually ended 2 years ago in September 2007. The issue has always been about finding a workable solution a workable way to work through the process without jeopardising our food treaty obligations. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Does the Minister agree with Mr Lyall Thurston of the Coalition of Parents of Children with Spina Bifida who said that commercial interests had prevailed over public health in her decision to defer fortification of bread? 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: I repeat that the benefits of folic acid are well-known but— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I apologise to the Minister. I ask the front-bench members on both sides to please show a little courtesy to those members who are asking and answering questions. I am sure the House cannot hear the answer that the Minister is giving. I apologise to the Minister and ask her to please answer the question. 
Hon KATE WILKINSON 
: The benefits of the addition of folic acid to women’s diets before they are pregnant are well-known. But we must look at the example of Ireland where voluntary fortification of bread with folic acid resulted in a 30 percent increase in the uptake. It did not have to be mandatory. 
Banking Practices—Reports 
8.  
Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Has he received any advice that would lead him to question that all banks operating in New Zealand are acting responsibly? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 I have not received any policy advice in that respect but in dealing with my constituents when I am getting around the country I often do receive quite strong advice from people about their bank not acting responsibly. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Does the Minister believe that rorting more than $400 million from taxpayers is an example of responsible behaviour which is what the High Court ruled that the Bank of New Zealand has done? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a matter that has been pursued through the courts. I understand there is still some way for the issue to go. It will probably be better for me representing the Government to not comment on that matter in detail. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: How does the Minister explain that the increase in remittances of profit and interest charges by overseas-owned banks in New Zealand—primarily Australian—to their overseas parents has risen from $4 billion in 2004 to $11.7 billion last year? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: That is a question that the member might like to answer himself given that he was the leader of the previous Government’s economic policy and that he oversaw the banks for the best part of a decade. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: How can the Minister be confident that the banks are behaving responsibly relative to passing on interest rate cuts when we have prima facie evidence that the banks are behaving in a grossly irresponsible way when it comes to tax evasion? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I caution the member that the Minister of Finance is not responsible for the private sector banks. I will allow the question but I alert him for any further supplementary questions. The Minister needs to be conscious of that when answering the question. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The behaviour of the banks is determined by the competitive pressures of their customers and by the regulatory regime that applies to them. The current rules under which banks conduct their business were laid down by the previous Government and the Reserve Bank. We are most open to any suggestions about how to improve those rules for the improvement of the competitiveness of the banking system. We asked for suggestions but have not heard any. We do not believe that a meeting of Opposition MPs with their supporters in a phone box will solve any problem. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why does the Minister continue to defend the banking industry that is happy to make loans at unusually low interest rates to firms working out of the Cayman Islands when farmers and small-business owners are offered rates here that they cannot possibly afford which is what the Minister referred to from being told during his travels around the country? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As I have said the behaviour of the industry is nothing in particular to do with my own role. It is dictated by the regulatory regime which is as far as I am aware supported by the whole Parliament. I have not heard any particular suggestions about how that ought to be changed. It is also determined by the law of the land that industry is expected to behave lawfully and if those involved do not behave in that way then the Crown will take action. The Crown has taken a court case against the banks. It is also determined by the behaviour of the banks’ customers and probably the least influential group to the industry is Opposition MPs. 
Public Services—Privatisation 
9.  
GRANT ROBERTSON (Labour—Wellington Central) 
 to the  
Minister of State Services 
: Is it Government policy to privatise the delivery of public services? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of State Services) 
: 
 We want to have a strong and efficient Public Service and we will continue the long-time practice of contracting out in areas where that benefit taxpayers and consumers. 
Grant Robertson 
: Will he rule out the privatisation of key public services in particular in the areas of education health and housing? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think the member is trying to create a picture of a slash-and-burn approach to the Public Service. This is not the approach of this Government but it does surprise me that the member would even broach the question because he is from Labour which while in Government cut the number of Public Service jobs by 33000 between 1985 and 1990 a period when Annette King and Phil Goff were senior members of that Government. 
Grant Robertson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask members to please respect the Standing Orders. A point of order is being called by one of their colleagues. 
Grant Robertson 
: Leaving aside the fact that I was in the third form in 1985 I did actually ask the Minister— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the member commences a point of order in that manner it invites disorder as he has just heard. He will not commence points of order in that manner. I will hear his point of order now. 
Grant Robertson 
: I asked the Minister a very straight question. I asked whether he will rule out the privatisation of key public services in the areas of education health and housing. That question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member cannot expect a yes or no answer but in relation to a fairly straight question the Minister did launch into a political tirade. I invite the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Contracting out is used frequently in the Public Service already and if that can improve public services then this Government will consider it. Contracting out is already used throughout the education service such as with school buses and the development of curriculum resources and early childhood education for example is privately provided. In the health service the care of the elderly is privately provided as are home-care services and laboratory services. The previous Government had the biggest single privatisation in the health service during its term when it sold off the Otago and Southland laboratory services. 
Jacqui Dean 
: What information has he received on Public Service redundancies during times of growing unemployment? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Newer members will be shocked to hear that the Public Service was cut by a massive 33000 jobs during the first term of Mr Goff and Mrs King as Cabinet Ministers. Did they slash education jobs? Surely not! They cut 1800 education jobs. In the Iwi Transition Agency 716 jobs were cut. In the Department of Labour did they cut the jobs of people dealing with the unemployed? Surely not! They cut 323 jobs. In transport did they cut the jobs of the people working on roads? They cut 465 jobs. Finally in the New Zealand Forest Service did they cut the jobs of the people dealing with greenhouse gas? They cut 4000 jobs! I repeat— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We have had quite sufficient an answer. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: Has the Minister seen the Treasury working paper 99/10 produced while he was a Minister in the then National Government that privatised New Zealand Rail which investigated higher productivity as a result of that privatisation? If so does he agree with the Treasury report that privatising New Zealand Rail was a glittering example of how to raise productivity in the public sector by privatisation? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I have not had an opportunity to see that report but I would suggest the member ask that of the people who privatised the Telecom Corporation of New Zealand the New Zealand Post Office the Post Office Savings Bank the Shipping Corporation of New Zealand the Government Printing Office and Government Computing Services—people that he shared being in Government with for 9 years. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister agree with Bill English who was quoted today as saying: “we are talking about significant and lasting change to the Public Service” or does he agree with the Prime Minister who said last year: “I also want to reassure people … that a new National Government is not going to radically reorganise the structure of the public sector.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Of course I agree with both of them. I also agree with Phil Goff when he said: “Thousands of jobs in the public sector have now gone because there was no need for them if those organisations were to operate effectively.” That is what Phil Goff said when he and his crowd got rid of 33000 public servants and there are many people in Wellington who do not forget that. 
Grant Robertson 
: Does the Minister agree with the following statement in relation to public services: “Few problems are solved by significant reorganisations—in fact many more tend to be created. It is easy to underestimate the amount of energy and inspiration soaked up by institutional change as well as the loss of personal and institutional knowledge. … there will be no wholesale reorganisation or restructuring across the public sector.”? That was John Key in October last year. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Of course I agree with the Prime Minister. I think his comments are completely relevant and would have been just as relevant when Phil Goff and Annette King got rid of 865 public servants at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries 319 at the Department of Conservation and only 35 at Treasury. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Would the Minister agree that the incentive structure within the public sector which is often dominated by a monopoly is such that it is vital that Government departments and enterprises face competition; if not why not? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I think there is no doubt that there is a greater opportunity available for the use of the contracting out of services and for the smarter use of the private sector in many parts of the Public Service. I know that particularly in the health portfolio we see the private sector as providing a supplementary support to improve the amount of elective surgery in New Zealand because despite a doubling of the health budget over 9 years fewer New Zealanders were getting surgery under the previous Government. 
Hon Sir Roger Douglas 
: Does the Minister agree that bringing internal or external competition to the public health care system could see improvements in productivity of at least 25 percent thereby freeing up billions of dollars for other uses including tax cuts or additional health care; if so when will he turn his back on government by opinion poll? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not think I have ever been accused of that. I think there are greater opportunities for smarter use of the private sector. In fact the previous Government agreed with that. It undertook the single-biggest privatisation in the history of the health service when it sold the Otago and Southland laboratory services to the private sector. That was a significant multi - tens of millions of dollars sale and I think the members opposite are very happy that they made that sale. 
Hon Jim Anderton 
: To assist the Minister I seek leave to table Treasury working paper 99/10. It says welfare has increased from the privatisation of New Zealand Rail Ltd because of the remarkable improvement in its productivity. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Greenhouse Gas Reduction—Engagement with Public 
10.  
NICKY WAGNER (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What effort has the Government made to engage with the public on reducing New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions and the setting of a target for 2020 to help conclude a global agreement at the Copenhagen conference in December? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 The decision on 2020 emissions reductions is significant and will impact on all New Zealanders so over the adjournment we went about engaging with New Zealanders on that 2020 target. Nine public meetings were held across the country involving over 1600 people. We also had three meetings with business groups a national hui with Maori leaders and last night held a webcast panel discussion. The feedback from those meetings will be considered alongside scientific economic and foreign affairs advice in making a decision on New Zealand’s contribution to this global problem. 
Nicky Wagner 
: Is the baseline for setting the 2020 target the 1990 levels; if so does the fact that New Zealand’s gross emissions have risen by 24 percent since then not present a difficult challenge for New Zealand? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member is correct and that does need to be taken into account. Officials advise that on a business-as-usual basis emissions would be 41 percent above 1990 levels by 2020. We are fortunate currently that our emissions growth is being offset by trees that were planted in the 1990s but that situation will be reversed in 2020 due to the age class of our Kyoto forests and that makes New Zealand’s challenge in 2020 particularly difficult. 
Nicky Wagner 
: What additional reports has the Government sought to enable it to set a 2020 emissions target? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Firstly there has been significant uncertainty over New Zealand’s forest data which has seen billion-dollar variations in our Kyoto balance. A major investment has been made in the Land Use and Carbon Analysis System which utilises satellite imagery data to provide accurate data on forests and this information will be available to Cabinet before it makes the decision. The Government has also commissioned specific analysis on the economic costs of various targets and that report will also be used to inform the Government’s decision on a 2020 target. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When the Government determines the 2020 target for New Zealand what weight will it give to the significant public support expressed at the recent consultation meetings for a 40 percent target relative to the weight to be attached to the other criteria that the Minister has outlined? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: There was a range of views expressed at the meetings. For instance in Hawke’s Bay and in more provincial areas people were quite conservative particularly those from the farming community who were very nervous about the impacts of a bold target. There was an organised campaign by Greenpeace around a 40 percent reduction by 2020. Those advocating a 40 percent reduction need to explain to their fellow New Zealanders how that can be achieved when New Zealand’s emissions have gone up by 24 percent over the last 18 years. 
Jeanette Fitzsimons 
: What plans does the Minister have to counter the misinformation repeatedly published in the rural papers which has led many farmers to honestly believe that cows are carbon neutral and emit no greenhouse gases that climate change is not human-induced and that agriculture should be exempt because the world needs our butter and meat and if he does not have any such plans how will he set a target that will be supported by both town and country? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Government as part of the consultation on the 2020 target has been quite upfront with the farming community about the fact that agricultural emissions are contributing to human-induced greenhouse gas emissions and to global warming. Equally so I would say that the major players in the industry—and I include both the meat industry and the dairy industry—are actively and quite constructively engaging to see how the agricultural industry can constructively contribute to a solution. I say that we need to be cautious though. Those who are promoting very bold targets need to recognise that the technological challenges around reducing emissions from agriculture are quite difficult for New Zealand. 
Maori Development—Priorities 
11.  
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Maori Affairs 
: What are his priorities for Maori development? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES (Minister of Maori Affairs) 
: 
 My priorities are to achieve whanau ora and tino rangatiratanga in accordance with the promise of partnership expressed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Given that 400 to 500 Maori are joining the dole queue each week does he not think it would have been better to hold 21 hui on Maori job creation or Maori educational underachievement than on a flag? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Many issues face Maori and in terms of employment I am actively focused on a range of issues. I have an economic task force which is creating opportunities for employment as well as for business and for iwi industry. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: Name one. 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Trade training. On Thursday I am going to announce 250 places for Maori trade trainees. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am concerned and will seek advice on the flying of flags in this Chamber. In the meantime I ask the honourable member please to take them down. I will seek advice. If I am wrong I will fully apologise to the honourable member. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: How is the Minister promoting and protecting the exercise of tino rangatiratanga by Maori? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: The right to autonomy self-expression and self-determination underpins my consideration of all issues. This should be obvious in the high-profile work that I am doing on reviewing the Foreshore and Seabed Act bringing in a shift of Government— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Who wrote this? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I wrote it; I can write. I am working for Maori representation on the Auckland Council which I am involved in plus shifting the Government’s opinion on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples—something that member’s party should have endorsed. 
Kelvin Davis 
: What does it say about the Minister’s priorities for Maori development if during this recession symbolism comes before creating Maori jobs and raising Maori educational underachievement? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: It does not come before those things; it comes as well as them. There are many issues with Maori and as I spelt out my employment activities will create a lot of training positions plus employment and as well as that education. I am launching a literacy programme in South Auckland very shortly reviewing kaupapa Maori education and opening a trade agency in a school. We are involved in many issues for the betterment of Maori people. 
Te Ururoa Flavell 
: Has the Minister seen any reports on progressing his Maori development priorities? 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: I have seen a report from the  
National Business Review  
of 10 July 2009 that reported on an impressive— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: It is well named; the Tory rag supporting the Maori Party! 
Hon Dr PITA SHARPLES 
: Do you not read it? It reported on an impressive list of wins in Maori development including a possible repeal of the foreshore and seabed legislation that a Maori flag is to fly on Waitangi Day greater resources to speed up Treaty negotiations ratification of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples having two Ministers of the Crown being in charge of Te Puni Kokiri a planned major devolution of welfare spending the gaining of one or more Maori seats on the Auckland super-city council protection of the Maori seats in Parliament and a constitutional review—ea! 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I did not want to interrupt the Minister as I was enjoying his answer but I think he referred to you as endorsing a particular thing three times in his answer. I know we have— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member has made his point; he will now resume his seat. I simply ask the Minister to in the future be careful not to use the word “you” because he brings the Speaker into his answer and he should not do that. 
Victoria Park—Roading 
12.  
DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) 
 to the  
Minister of Transport 
: What progress has been made on advancing the Victoria Park road of national significance? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) 
: 
 Last Monday I was pleased to attend with the Prime Minister the New Zealand Transport Agency’s announcement of its preferred tenderer for the Victoria Park project. I congratulate the winning V-Formation consortium which includes some of our leading infrastructure firms. This is an important milestone for the project and I look forward to construction beginning in November 1 year earlier than originally planned. 
David Bennett 
: What are the benefits of bringing this project forward? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: This project when completed will eliminate a major choke point on one of the busiest stretches of the Auckland motorway network and will greatly ease congestion for the 160000-plus vehicles that use that route each day including people who travel to and from the North Shore and Auckland’s port. It is estimated that 120 people will be working on the project within 6 months rising to about 300 by the middle of next year and that will be maintained until the project is finished. Of course that does not include the downstream impact for businesses and workers involved in related work. 
David Bennett 
: How was this project able to be brought forward? 
Hon STEVEN JOYCE 
: Victoria Park is one of the first big projects to benefit from the Government’s decision to increase funding for State highway construction by $1 billion over the next 3 years through the National Land Transport Fund. Victoria Park was scheduled to commence construction in November 2010 but under the previous Government’s policy statement there was doubt that even that date would have been met. Without the additional funding this project might never have got off the ground; neither would the jobs and economic benefits it will now bring. 
Questions to Members 
Education Estimates—Supplementary Question 
1. 
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Is the question of considering whether to forward a supplementary question on the estimates for 2009-10 relating to advice the Ministry of Education or Tertiary Education Commission provided relating to the Budget’s funding of universities on the committee’s agenda for its next meeting? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Deputy Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee) 
 on behalf of the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Yes. The committee will reconsider whether to forward a question on that issue to the Minister at its meeting tomorrow. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: Under what agenda heading is the matter to be considered? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: It is to be considered under the heading “Notice of Motion: Estimates for Vote Education and Education Review Office” and it will involve the reconsideration of four estimates questions that were not referred for written response from the last committee meeting. 
Education Estimates—Supplementary Question 
2. 
MOANA MACKEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Is the question of considering whether to forward a supplementary question on the estimates for 2009-10 relating to advice the Ministry of Education or Tertiary Education Commission provided relating to the Budget’s impact on regional and rural polytechnics on the committee’s agenda for its next meeting? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Deputy Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee) 
 on behalf of the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Yes. The committee will reconsider whether to forward a question on that issue to the Minister at its meeting tomorrow. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why is the matter being reconsidered? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am afraid that question is out of order. I will give the member a chance if she wishes to ask a supplementary question that is in order but it would in fact be a breach of privilege to try to answer a question relating to previous decision-making of the committee. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is presuming that an answer relating to the previous meeting is given. I do not think you can assume that. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The matter is pretty simple because as chairperson the chairperson cannot answer why something took place. It is not the chairperson’s responsibility to explain why something took place. That question is simply absolutely out of order. I have ruled that it is out of order. I have invited the member to ask a further supplementary question. 
Moana Mackey 
: Why is it on the agenda for the meeting tomorrow? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: The matter is on the agenda for the committee tomorrow because there has been a request to reconsider the issue placed on that agenda. 
Education Estimates—Supplementary Question 
3. 
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Is the question of considering whether to forward a supplementary question on the estimates for 2009-10 relating to advice the Ministry of Education or Tertiary Education Commission provided relating to the supplying of Cabinet papers on the youth guarantee scheme on the committee’s agenda for its next meeting? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Deputy Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee) 
 on behalf of the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Yes. The committee will reconsider whether to forward a question on that issue to the Minister at its meeting tomorrow. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: What precedents will the chairperson rely on during the consideration of this matter? 
Hon Gerry Brownlee 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask you to think very carefully about that question. Certainly in asking about precedents the question would be within the Standing Orders but for goodness’ sake it is somewhat trivial. We have the Standing Orders and we have an acting chairperson who has accepted agenda items. Do we really need to go through the farcical sort of process we are going through at the moment? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: Speaking to the point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need to hear any further argument on the matter. The honourable member acknowledged that the question probably is within the Standing Orders and therefore the member is entitled to ask it. I will hear the Hon Trevor Mallard in answer. 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In researching this issue as acting chair I have been unable to find any precedents whatsoever. 
Education Estimates—Supplementary Question 
4. 
KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Is the question of considering whether to forward a supplementary question on the estimates for 2009-10 relating to advice the Ministry of Education has provided on each of the expenditure reductions within Vote Education on the committee’s agenda for its next meeting? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Deputy Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee) 
 on behalf of the  
Chairperson of the Education and Science Committee 
: Yes. The committee will reconsider whether to forward a question on that issue to the Minister at its meeting tomorrow. 
Kelvin Davis 
: Is the question relevant to the estimates examination? 
Hon TREVOR MALLARD 
: In that case I will take the ruling of the chairperson who has ruled that these matters are relevant matters for estimates consideration. 
Personal Explanation—Document Tabled 
Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) 
: 
 I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Earlier in question time the House gave me permission to table a letter from the Minister for Social Development and Employment regarding weekly unemployment benefit numbers. In fact it is a written answer to a written question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member has corrected the leave she sought. I appreciate her doing that. Is there any objection? Well it is a written answer but my having put it before I ask whether there is any objection to that written answer being tabled. There is none.