Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
Questions for Oral Answer — Questions to Ministers Questions to Members 
[Volume:655;Page:4441] 
Questions to Ministers 
Budget 2009—Household Energy Efficiency 
1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: How does Budget 2009 help New Zealanders improve their household energy efficiency? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 The Budget allocates $323 million over 4 years to a campaign to fit homes with insulation and clean heating devices such as heat pumps and approved woodburners. The scheme was launched today by the Prime Minister the Minister of Energy and Resources and the Green Party’s energy spokesperson. We welcome the cooperation of the Green Party on this matter. More than 180000 New Zealand homes will have access to grants and the scheme will get under way from 1 July. I can advise the House now that it looks as if the scheme will be very popular. 
Craig Foss 
: What Government grants will be available under the scheme? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Government is offering to pay a third of the cost up to $1300 of installing ceiling and underfloor insulation in all homes built before 2000. Homes with sufficient ceiling and underfloor insulation may access $500 for clean heating devices. Additional Government funding will be available for holders of community services cards. The Prime Minister confirmed today that all main trading banks have agreed to waive their fees for top-up loans that homeowners get for insulation retrofits. 
Craig Foss 
: What other benefits will the scheme deliver for New Zealanders? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I think the benefits of this type of scheme are pretty well understood. The scheme will reduce health risks for New Zealanders too many of whom live in cold damp homes and particularly will reduce health risks to our most vulnerable—that is children and older people. The scheme will create jobs for New Zealanders involved in the installations and it will provide substantial energy-efficiency gains for householders. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Does the Minister believe that low-income households should be a priority for home insulation refits; if so why do community service cardholders have to pay up to $100 more for an insulation refit under National’s scheme than they did under the scheme that was in place under the previous Labour Government and what incentives are there for landlords to make rental properties more energy efficient? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour scheme promised much but the funding for it was very little. A fairy tale about a billion-dollar scheme evaporated under the scrutiny of the new Government. 
Charles Chauvel 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a specific question about whether the Minister agreed that low-income households ought to be a priority under the scheme and if so whether two aspects that would address low-income households would be dealt with. That question was not addressed in the answer. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If the honourable member really wants to pin down the Minister he has to be more precise with the question. I was thinking as I heard the member ask his question that he was giving the Minister plenty of opportunity to give a range of answers which the Minister did. If the member wants a more precise answer he has to be more precise with his question. 
Charles Chauvel 
: When the Minister says that $323.3 million will be allocated to home insulation and heating over the next 4 years can he confirm that $100 million of the money has been taken from Vote Health and that $80 million is existing Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority funding with the result that the new money available is only $143 million per annum which is a $1800 grant per home and will provide for only 20000 additional refits per annum at a time when the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority estimates that 900000 Kiwi homes have substandard insulation? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Labour members cannot get out of the habit of complaining about anything positive. Thousands of homes will get insulated. Low-income New Zealanders are a priority. They will get a bigger subsidy. This scheme is a product of a constructive relationship between the Government and Labour’s former friends the Greens. Those are three great things. 
Finance Minister—Statements 
2.  
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Minister of Finance 
: Does he stand by all his recent statements? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) 
: 
 Yes particularly those statements that have been critical of the bizarre economics we are hearing about from the Labour Party. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Does he still stand by his statement of 10 June that “… taxpayers are supporting the banks and we want the banks to be able to demonstrate that they are going to support business and households through a tough time in the economy even if it affects their profits a bit”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member asked me that question yesterday. I said I did stand by those statements. The fact that he has asked that question again today tells me he has nothing else that he can question the Government about. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: To the contrary I have three more supplementary questions the first of which asks: why was he clear last week that banks should be passing through official cash rate cuts to short-term interest rates whereas this week he says the Government’s most important objective has been to ensure stability and orderly lending in the banking system and can he tell the House whether he has received any representations or contacts from the banking sector in the last week that might explain his change of emphasis? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: We have not changed our emphasis. There is some argument to be had about the gap between the floating rate and the official cash rate but I would have to say it is not our top priority. The answer to the second question is yes. 
Chris Tremain 
: Has the Minister received any reports on alternative approaches to managing the economy? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have. I have just received a report that tallies up the promises made by the Labour Party so far in the course of the Budget debate and its comment on Government policy. So far they add up to only $5 billion; I expect that number to get much greater over the next 12 months. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is a two-part point of order and I am sure that you can anticipate what it is. In the first place the dear old Minister has absolutely no responsibility for the Labour Party. Secondly the Labour Party has not released its policy for the next election yet; therefore we cannot have made any spending promises. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: Of course the Minister of Finance does not have responsibility for Labour Party policy but he does have a responsibility to receive a large range of reports which is what we would expect from a competent Minister of Finance. That is directly what he was asked about and what he was commenting on. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank honourable members. I do not think we need to take more time on this issue. What the Minister must not do is to go on and comment on the quality of the policies he has received reports on when they are Labour Party policies. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister appeared to be quoting from a report. If he was I require it to be tabled. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Minister whether it was an officials’ document. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is certainly a report but before I table it I must correct a figure. I said it was $5 billion; actually it is $6 billion. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: If it is an official report the Minister has been asked to table it and therefore he should do so. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I am quite happy to table it because I am sure that the Labour Party is not keeping track of that figure but I did not think it mattered whether the report was an official one. I am happy to seek leave to table the report— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: No the Standing Orders require that when a Minister who is answering a question quotes from an official document another member of the House can ask the Minister to table that document. That is quite proper; it is not a matter of seeking leave. The House can ask for the document to be tabled when an official document is being quoted from. That is why I was checking whether it was an official document. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is not an official document but I will seek leave to table the report. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We are dealing with this now. The Speaker has been told that it is not an official document so I have to take that at its face value. The Minister is now seeking leave to table a document in his possession that is apparently a compilation of figures. Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is none. 
Document by leave laid on the Table of the House. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My point of order now is that the Minister claimed that he was quoting from a report. His ministerial responsibility for answering the question was attached to the fact that there was a report. My request to you Mr Speaker is that after question time you look at the supplementary question and the Minister’s response to it and you come back and rule on whether the Minister did have any ministerial responsibility given the fact that he did not have an official report on this matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is no need for the House to take more time on this matter. That is no responsibility of the Speaker whatsoever. The Minister was asked whether he had reports. He has a report and he has now tabled it. The report is available on the Table and that is where the matter ends as far as the Speaker is concerned. Members can make their own judgments about the quality of the report that has been tabled. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You have been very vigorous Mr Speaker—and I think you were quite vigorous this week with one of my colleagues—in requiring members who are tabling a document to provide a detailed description of that document. That is your right and you have ruled on that. Further you have been quite vigorous—and I will not comment on the veracity of this—in berating members when you take the view that a document does not exist. You have used that term quite often. When the member sought leave to table the document you did not require a similar— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will sit down forthwith. The document exists. I have been concerned about the seeking of leave to table documents when they do not exist. The document was being held in the Minister’s hand. He had already described what it was because he read out a whole lot of figures from it. The member is wasting the time of the House. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member had better not trifle with the Chair. I am listening. 
Hon Clayton Cosgrove 
: I would be grateful if you did not anticipate my point of order. You have required not only a detailed description but also—quite rightly; I agree with you—that members when tabling documents provide authentication and details of the source of those documents. I put it to you that you did not require the Minister to give details of the source of that documentation. That Minister got the invitation to table the document and he did but I invite you to be as vigorous with members on that side of the House as you are with those on our side. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need further assistance. I warn the Hon Clayton Cosgrove that any further such comment from him will have him leaving the Chamber for the rest of this sitting day. I will not tolerate any further comment from him of that kind. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Can the Minister tell the House which banks he has received representations from and on which dates he received them since he just answered “yes” to my previous question “… can the Minister tell the House whether he has received any representations or contacts from the banking sector in the last week that might explain his change of emphasis?” 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I cannot see any point that the member has made about a change in emphasis. I am in regular contact with the banks because of the importance of ensuring that banks continue to lend. If they stop lending people will lose their jobs. That is more important than a bit of cheap politicking over one small aspect of the interest rates. In the last week I have spoken to probably three if not four of the major banks. 
Metiria Turei 
: Is the Minister not concerned that the official cash rate has fallen by 5.75 percent but that credit card rates have fallen by only 1.5 percent and does he not think that this is clear evidence of the banking sector failing to pass on savings to New Zealand families in deep need of relief and is yet another reason to hold an inquiry into the banking sector? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I support New Zealand families and businesses being able in a competitive banking market to pick the lowest rate that they can find because that is what will keep the banks honest. If a parliamentary select committee thinks it can change the way that banks set their interest rates I invite it to explain just how it will do that. 
Dr Russel Norman 
: Why is the failure of the banks to pass on the cuts in the official cash rate to ordinary New Zealanders not a top priority as the Minister answered to an earlier supplementary question when it is costing New Zealand families millions of dollars; and in the meetings earlier this week with at least three major banks that the Minister talked about earlier did he communicate to the banks that that was not his top priority? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have been absolutely open about the Government’s top priorities. The first priority is banking stability because we have seen the enormous damage it has done in the US the UK and European economies when weak unprofitable banks have collapsed. It is our top priority to make sure the banks are stable. Our second priority is that they keep lending. Whatever decisions are made about interest rates for the people who are renewing their borrowing and whatever arguments can be made there on behalf of those who are interested in the floating rate which is a very small proportion of the market are less important than the fact that the banks keep lending to the whole economy so that people can keep their jobs. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Why would the Minister expect the banks to take seriously his earlier protestations about the interest rate pass-through when he has had contact with nearly all of the major banks in the last week and presumably confirmed to them what he told the House: that the Government’s top priority is their financial stability? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It may be a revelation to that member but from observing the practices of banks over the years I can say that politicians’ opinions about interest rates are only one factor that the banks take into account. I communicate with the banks about those issues that I think are the most important for the health of the economy and our ability to grow out of recession and replace jobs. I am quite happy that the job of raising the relatively small but legitimate issue of the gap between the cash rate and the floating rate is something that the Finance and Expenditure Committee has picked up. That issue has had a lot of airing in the media and we will see whether the banks take any notice of that. 
Corrections Chief Executive—Confidence 
3.  
DAVID GARRETT (ACT) 
 to the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Does she have any confidence in the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections Mr Barry Matthews following recent revelations of a senior manager’s involvement in a drug ring at Rimutaka Prison; if so why? 
Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) 
 on behalf of the  
Minister of Corrections 
: Yes; I have confidence that Mr Matthews has acted swiftly to deal with this issue at Rimutaka Prison. 
David Garrett 
: Would the Minister of Corrections think it was good news if more drug rings were detected in prisons because that meant that Mr Matthews was efficiently detecting them? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: The matter of drugs being in the prison system should not be seen as a positive thing in any light. But it must be seen as being positive that the issues in this case have been detected dealt with and prosecuted. 
David Garrett 
: Does the Minister of Corrections agree that the mark of an efficient chief executive would be that no cannabis-growing operations were detected because there were none to detect; if so how many more instances of Mr Barry Matthews’ incompetence will she tolerate? 
Hon SIMON POWER 
: Broadly speaking yes. But it is important that where these matters are detected we acknowledge that swift action has been taken which is the case in this instance. 
Adult and Community Education—Cuts 
4.  
Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Tertiary Education 
: How does she expect cuts in Adult and Community Education to “…ensure that New Zealand is positioned to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens” as she has stated previously about the Government’s aim in Vote Education? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Minister for Tertiary Education) 
: 
 As I have told the member for the last 2 days when she has asked the same question the Government remains committed to adult and community education because it sees value in it. Over the next 4 years we will spend $124 million on adult and community education. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does a cut of $70 million for adult and community education courses that are specifically targeted at literacy language and numeracy skills enhance the ability for people especially young people to upskill and retrain? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: As the previous Government had this Government has extensive investment in helping young people to upskill and retrain. We happen to think that it is time to tidy up that sector because of the misdirected policy of the last Government. In addition to that funding of hundreds of millions of dollars for young people to upskill and retrain the Government will be spending $124 million over the next 4 years on adult and community education. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: How does the Minister for Tertiary Education reconcile the cuts in adult and community education affecting valuable parent education classes in west Auckland Orewa and Tauranga—as examples only—with the National Party’s centrepiece pre-election policy that promoted parenting courses as an essential part of what was known as “A Fresh Start for New Zealand”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I make two points. Firstly there is $124 million available for adult and community education which will be allocated consistent with the Government’s priorities. Secondly there is some confusion over the impact of changes to do with adult and community education. All community groups that are currently funded in their own right will continue to be funded. Some get funding through subcontracts with schools and they will have to go through the priority process. 
Aaron Gilmore 
: What statements has the Minister for Tertiary Education seen endorsing the need to reprioritise tertiary education funding? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I have seen a statement that says: “it is about prioritising what is a shrinking amount of money so I think that any government and that’s true of National or Labour would have had to of sat down and said ‘Okay we in good faith” can we do what we said we would do? “ ‘Maybe we should have a think about what comes first.’ ” That statement a very wise one comes from the Hon Steve Maharey who is currently the vice-chancellor of Massey University. 
Hon Maryan Street 
: What does the Minister say to the woman who wrote to me recently and said: “Personally I have been taking night classes at various institutions around Nelson for the last 19 years. When I was made redundant and feeling pretty worthless I signed up for various classes at Nayland College and these helped me feel like a worthwhile person again. I have learned Maori language and gained qualifications through night classes. I have gained so much from them and on speaking to others at the classes I currently attend they all feel the same.”? How does the Minister encourage this woman to take advantage of the economic recovery as it happens if her adult and community education classes are axed? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would say two things. First the Government will spend over $120 million in the next 4 years on the kinds of classes that that woman benefited from. Second she will have the opportunity to take further opportunities as a result of the expenditure of well over a billion dollars on tertiary education which is open to any adult in New Zealand who wants to for instance study Maori language or learn other skills so that he or she can get a job. 
Hazardous Materials—Playgrounds Sportsgrounds and Parks 
5.  
CATHERINE DELAHUNTY (Green) 
 to the  
Minister for the Environment 
: Has he requested advice as to how many playgrounds sportsgrounds and parks around New Zealand are situated on landfills where toxic or hazardous materials have been dumped; if so what was that advice? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for the Environment) 
: 
 It is the regional councils not the Ministry for the Environment that keep records of information on specific contaminated sites. The sites on which the environment ministry has detailed information are only those that have received funding from the Contaminated Sites Remediation Fund. None of those includes playgrounds sportsgrounds or parks; they are predominantly previous industrial sites. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister agree that people have a right to know which playgrounds sportsgrounds and parks are known to be contaminated by historical toxic dumps? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I do. I think the great difficulty is that to take the situation in New Plymouth it is very difficult to know where they are. No records were kept. There are about 20-odd dumps in a community like New Plymouth. I think that is true for communities right throughout New Zealand. In a previous era like the 1940s 1950s and 1960s contaminants were dumped in some of those sites; the difficulty is that we do not know which ones. 
Jonathan Young 
: What steps have the Minister and his ministry taken since I raised the Marfell Park problem with him to reassure local residents that all practical steps have been taken to ensure that it is safe? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The member rightly raised with me the problem in his constituency and I have subsequently received reports from both the Taranaki Regional Council and the environment ministry. I am satisfied that the regional council took practical immediate steps to remove drums from the park and a large amount of the surrounding soil. We now need to check that there is no residual contamination in that park and tests are being commissioned right now. I have indicated in response to the member’s requests that the Government is open to making a contribution to ensure that those tests are done so that his constituents can be reassured that the site is safe. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister agree with Dr Nick Smith who said in 2006 that there would be no progress on contaminated sites and indeed that the problem would get worse without stronger direction from central government; and would a key part of stronger Government direction include better information for the public? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes we have a number of steps under way. Central government needs to provide clearer direction. The first is providing some clear guidelines for the regional councils on how to deal with both potentially contaminated and contaminated sites. We also have on our important programme of work discussion of the future of the Environmental Protection Authority. We know from the report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment on the situation at Mapua that a policy agency is not well qualified to do some of the operational functions. The Government will need to work through that question as we detail the Environmental Protection Authority’s functions. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Will the Minister agree to the creation of a national public register of all known contaminated sites on public lands? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Under the Resource Management Act as it stands responsibility for such registers rests with the regional councils. I think it makes little sense to have a duplicate—that is a bunch of bureaucrats in Wellington as well as those in the regional councils with both doing the same job. A further point I would make is that the Ministry for the Environment is a policy agency and where it has got into operational areas as I noted in the case of Mapua its performance is not satisfactory. I think we need to take that into account. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: Does the Minister agree that the companies that contaminated these sites should take responsibility for their damage to the environment and people’s health; and will he consider introducing the change to the Resource Management Act proposed in 1999 by his predecessor the Rt Hon Simon Upton which would make anyone responsible for land contamination before 1991 liable for cleaning it up? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: I first make the point that there is a difficulty. For example in the situation in New Plymouth it seems that the dumping of such containers or drums was actually lawful in the 1960s. I think there is an issue where a company behaved lawfully for the time but that behaviour is now inappropriate. What is the best way to handle that? I have asked the Ministry for the Environment to do some policy work on the state of the law in respect of contaminated sites and that work includes the issue the member has raised. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: I seek leave to table two documents. One is a statement made by Rt Hon Simon Upton on 15 October 1999 in an article in the  
Southland Times 
. 
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. 
Catherine Delahunty 
: The second document is a statement made by Dr Nick Smith to the lower North Island regional conference of the National Party on 13 May 2006. 
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. 
Pay Equity—Investigations 
6.  
SUE MORONEY (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Women’s Affairs 
: What work has she directed the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to undertake to eliminate the gender pay gap now that the Government has closed the pay and employment equity unit? 
Hon PANSY WONG (Minister of Women’s Affairs) 
: 
 I have asked the Ministry of Women’s Affairs to take a policy role in relation to the gender pay gap that is broader than the pay and employment equity review and pay investigations. My ministry’s brief will address the following factors contributing to the gender pay gap: education qualifications; work experiences including time out to care for children; and women being clustered in female-dominated low-pay occupations. 
Sue Moroney 
: Supplementary question to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The members’ colleague is asking a supplementary question. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did the Minister tell the National Council of Women that “We have plenty of research and investigation on the need for pay parity and it is time we made changes in the law.”? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: As usual I find that the recall of the member is not quite reliable. I am not too sure where she got that quote from. I advise everybody that in 1972 the National Government passed the Equal Pay Act. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: Supplementary question to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Will Government members please pay respect to their colleague. I cannot hear. Dr Jackie Blue has the floor. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How has the pay gap in New Zealand evolved over time? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: As I said the National Government passed the Equal Pay Act in 1972. Since that legislation was passed the pay gap between women and men has started to close until 2001 when under the then Labour Government the pay gap was 12 percent where it has stayed. I am privileged to once again be part of a National Government that addresses the pay gap. 
Sue Moroney 
: Why did the Minister agree to having the statement that the National Council of Women of New Zealand checked with her before they published the comment in the June issue of its newsletter  
The Circular 
 which I read out attributed to her? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I do not remember being asked to check a statement. It is appalling that the Labour MP would suggest that a Government MP—or any MP—should sanction what community non-governmental organisations say in their newsletters. 
Dr Jackie Blue 
: How does the Ministry of Women’s Affairs now have the capacity to undertake this gender pay gap work? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: In Budget 2009 the Ministry of Women’s Affairs received an increase of $2 million in its funding over the next 4 years. That equates to a 12 percent increase in budget. That funding contrasts starkly with the previous Labour Government which rejected budget bids from its Ministry of Women’s Affairs in both 2007 and 2008. Labour said no to the capability budget bids put in by the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. National supports the Ministry of Women’s Affairs. 
Sue Moroney 
: Supplementary question to the Minister—[ 
Interruption 
] 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I cannot hear the member seeking to ask a question. Please show her some courtesy. 
Sue Moroney 
: What changes in the law is the Minister considering in order to eliminate the gender pay gap? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: As I said before the Ministry of Women’s Affairs received a budget increase of $2 million over the next 4 years thanks to the support of the Prime Minister and my senior Cabinet colleagues. We will leave no stone unturned in trying to close the pay gap. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question I asked was quite specific and the Minister failed to address it. My question asked what changes in the law she is considering in order to eliminate the gender pay gap. I invite you to invite the Minister to address that question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to answer that question. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I fully addressed the question. With the $2 million additional funding— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question was very clearly about changes to the law not about funding. I invite the Minister to answer the question. 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: As I said we will have an extra $2 million to examine the three factors I mentioned previously: education qualifications time out of work and women being clustered together in low-paid occupations. We will leave no stone unturned. If there are glitches in legislation then I am sure my colleagues will look at them if we need legislative intervention. 
Sue Moroney 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If the answer to my question is none then the Minister may well say that but she certainly did not address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We must be careful not to push this matter too far. As I heard it the Minister talked about money that was being deployed to examine certain issues in relation to the law. That appears to me to be identifying the areas the Minister is focusing on. I believe therefore that she answered the question. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a copy of the June issue of  
The Circular 
 published by the National Council of Women of New Zealand and containing the quote from Pansy Wong. 
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. 
Sue Moroney 
: I seek leave to table a press statement in the name of Kate Wilkinson that states that the pay equity issue is the responsibility of all employers and that good employers will work to tackle it. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Is this a recent press statement? 
Sue Moroney 
: Yes it is dated 13 May 2009. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Leave is sought to table a press statement from Kate Wilkinson. Is there any objection to that press statement being tabled? There is objection. 
Rahui Katene 
: What specific projects has the Minister initiated to address the pervasive inequalities for Maori women who earn less than women of all other ethnicities and just 86.1 percent of the average Pakeha woman’s salary? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Women’s Affairs will be doing some work looking at young Maori women’s participation in employment and education and identifying the factors that influence participation and the degree to which these factors differ between Maori and Pakeha women. The ministry will also be looking at overall factors such as qualifications work experience and education that affect the pay gap. We will definitely include the experience of Maori women in that work. 
Rahui Katene 
: Does the Minister agree with Sharon Clair vice-president of the Council of Trade Unions that the high levels of participation of Maori women in voluntary and unpaid work is a major driving force in the cultural recovery and resilience of Maori communities; if so what policy implications emerge from this situation? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: My vision for women is that they will exercise real choice and use their strength to maximise social and economic success. It is very satisfactory that the benefit may be that Maori women may choose to contribute in that way to their own communities. The important policy consideration is that we value community work and not limit women’s choices to contribute only to the paid sector. But if women choose to join the workforce then they should enjoy equal pay and employment opportunities. I seek leave to table capability Budget bid documents from the Ministry of Women’s Affairs in 2007 and 2008. The first one is the Vote Women’s Affairs 2007 capability Budget bid initiative and the second one is the Vote Women’s Affairs 2008 policy capability Budget bid initiative. Both of those bids were rejected by the previous Labour Government. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Of course there will be objection but I would like to appeal to the Leader of the House and the Minister of Finance on this question. There is a lot of precedent around getting clearance for official documents from previous Ministers to be released which has certainly not occurred in this case. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Does the Minister still wish to proceed with seeking leave? 
Hon PANSY WONG 
: I take the honourable former Minister’s suggestion. I will ponder the matter and withdraw my seeking of leave at this stage. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I thank the honourable Minister. 
Health Workforce—Voluntary Bonding Scheme 
7.  
Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) 
 to the  
Minister of Health 
: What has been the response to the Government’s voluntary bonding scheme for graduate doctors nurses and midwives? 
Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) 
: 
 In February the Government announced the launch of its voluntary bonding scheme offering student-loan write-offs or cash payments for doctors nurses and midwives to work in a number of hard-to-staff specialities and locations. We expected up to 100 doctors and 250 midwives and nurses combined to apply for the scheme or 350 in total. In fact we have received over double that number of registrations—893 in total. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: What decisions have been made as to how many of these 893 health professionals who have registered an interest will be accepted given that that is over double the number anticipated? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: The Government has decided that it will confirm all applications under the voluntary bonding scheme and we will be writing to every one of the 893 doctors nurses and midwives accordingly. The Government has made the decision to accept over double the number initially expected because we want to further encourage our young doctors nurses and midwives to stay in this country. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: In congratulating the Minister on that initiative can I also ask him to acknowledge his giving with one hand and taking away with the other in respect of his Budget’s slashing of $98 million worth of scholarships in respect of which the New Zealand Medical Students’ Association said: “With fewer scholarships available to students we’re only going to see higher levels of student debt. Debt has consistently been shown to have an adverse impact on the New Zealand medical workforce.”? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: I do not think that member should be so disingenuous on that issue. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I understand that the Minister may have had a long week but it is only Thursday and I really implore you to ask him to address the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The dilemma I say to the honourable member in all good faith is that it was difficult to discern the question so it is very difficult for me. I have demonstrated I am prepared to ask Ministers to answer questions where they are clear. But it was more a statement that the Minister responded to than a question so I fear I cannot assist the member further on that. 
Dr Paul Hutchison 
: Is this the final size and coverage of the voluntary bonding scheme; if not what other changes might be made? 
Hon Paula Bennett 
: That’s a very good question. 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: Yes that is a very good question. There will be another intake of the scheme next year which will mean even more young graduate doctors nurses and midwives will be offered student-loan write-offs or cash payments to stay in the country. When first announcing the scheme the Government said that the hard-to-staff areas would change over time to meet the changing needs. I think it is very important to be clear that in the significant announcement made today there are no guarantees that all applicants will qualify for a payment or write-off at the end of their 3 to 5 years; that depends on how they manage their careers within the positions available in the country. 
Hon Ruth Dyson 
: When the Minister heard the response of the New Zealand Medical Students’ Association to his Budget slashing $98 million in scholarships which was that that would have an adverse impact on the New Zealand medical workforce what was his response? 
Hon TONY RYALL 
: There has been no slashing of scholarships within the health sector. But it does not surprise me that that member would quote those figures because in the select committee yesterday she was talking about a table that told about a whole lot of cuts in the health system. It was actually a table that stated that that was the extra money that has been voted over the last few years. 
Domestic Purposes Benefit—Policy Decisions 
8.  
CARMEL SEPULONI (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister for Social Development and Employment 
: Does she stand by her statement “Having been on the receiving end of the DPB and knowing what it was to live from day to day and struggle there is no way that was the future I wanted for me … That’s the sort of ambition and goals I want to bring to other DPB women” when making decisions regarding policy that may affect beneficiaries especially solo parents; if so why? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) 
: 
 Yes I do and it is something I stand by. I thank the member for raising it again so that we can put it out there as a level of aspiration. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Why then was the training incentive allowance good enough for her to take as a solo parent but now is not good enough for her to give out as the Minister for Social Development and Employment and how can she cut solo parents off from an opportunity that was essential in assisting her to receive further education? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: It may surprise that member because I am older than I probably look to know that it was quite some time ago when I was at university and receiving a benefit. We are in different times. These are times when we are making decisions— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: Listen up: it is called a recession. A recession is what it is called and we make decisions accordingly. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am struggling to hear the Minister. The members’ colleague asked a question; I am sure she would like to hear the answer. I am struggling to hear it. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I can assure that side of the House— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. There was quite a lot of it that I did not hear. Could we ask that she start again? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister has been asked to commence her answer again. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: The other side of the House may not realise that we are in a recession and we are in tough economic times. This means that we are making decisions accordingly and $22.5 million will be spent on the training incentive allowance in the next year. We have not cut the training incentive allowance; we have merely changed the level. I think that is about fairness and about being responsible at this time. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The Minister appeared to make a most inappropriate one-fingered gesture as she sat down. I think Ron Mark got into serious problems when he made a similar gesture. It certainly appeared to members on this side that that was what the Minister did as she sat down. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I actually take— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The House is very disorderly today. Would members have a little decorum please. 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I actually take huge offence at that. There is no way that there was any hand gesture. There was a lot of ribbing coming from the other side which I take in good humour— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is sufficient. The Minister has denied any such gesture. Point of order the Hon Trevor Mallard. [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Do you want to deal with the comment that was just made to you? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I have invited the Hon Trevor Mallard to raise his point of order. I am waiting for him to do so. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: The first point of order Mr Speaker is I take objection on the House’s behalf to your being referred to in that way by Phil Heatley. I ask you to deal with that first. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The honourable member sought to raise a point of order prior to an unwise interjection by Mr Heatley and I invite him to raise that point of order with me. If he does not wish to we will go on to a supplementary question from Katrina Shanks. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I do not mind doing it in a different order Mr Speaker although it would have been simpler to do it the other way. The first point of order that I stood to raise with you is in light of a letter that you have written to me on a question of privilege dated earlier this month but received yesterday where you outline the circumstances in which you accept a breach of privilege. I ask whether if the television footage shows a gesture from the Minister it will in fact be a breach of privilege. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Oh! 
Hon Bill English 
: Point of order— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I do not need any assistance. An experienced member like that knows that he cannot raise a matter like that under a point of order. He cannot raise an issue of privilege under a point of order and he should know that well. I do not think we need to take further time on this. It is— 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The other point of order is about the way that Phil Heatley addressed you during my last point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The Minister’s behaviour was quite inappropriate in interjecting when a point of order had been called. I accept that but as far as I was concerned it did not impede my paying attention to the member. That is where the matter will lie although I warn Mr Heatley not to do that sort of thing in the future. 
Katrina Shanks 
: Has the Minister seen any recent reports on the number of people moving off the domestic purposes benefit? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: I was shocked to discover that over the past 2 years nearly 1000 people have moved off the domestic purposes benefit directly on to New Zealand superannuation. Although some of those people would have been caring for the sick or infirm it leaves around 800 sole parents spending the best years of their lives trapped in the welfare system. We intend to intervene earlier to support people back to independence. 
Carmel Sepuloni 
: Is the Minister aware of the research that highlights the correlation between a mother’s level of achievement and the subsequent levels of achievement that are attained by her respective children; if so why would she limit access to the training incentive allowance so that sole parents undertaking higher-level qualifications such as diplomas and degrees are no longer eligible? 
Hon PAULA BENNETT 
: May I make it clear that what we are actually changing is the level of course. Sole parents can get the training incentive allowance to do a national certificate in journalism for example or a certificate in advanced welding or a certificate in aged care. We are supporting those people to do foundation courses or other certificates; when they get to university and are at university level then they are on an even playing field with all other students. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: Did the Minister receive a training incentive allowance; if so did she use her experience on it to argue against cutting that allowance? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I am not sure the Minister has ministerial responsibility for whether she once received an allowance. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I think she has responsibility to use her experience her life experience when she is cutting off a ladder that was available— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will resume his seat immediately. The member cannot use points of order to try to score political points. That is totally out of order and I warn the honourable member that I will not tolerate it in the future. The House has been very disorderly today and points of order will not be abused in that way. I gave the member the courtesy of not ruling out his question and of allowing him to justify the question. I am now ruling it out full stop. That question will not be answered and we will go on to the next question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I ask for a considered ruling on this point of order when you have had a chance to reflect upon it. I think it is fair to say that members on this side of the House have in general appreciated your good humour in this House and your willingness to listen to points of order and indeed to introduce new practice around Ministers and members responding to questions. But Mr Speaker you will have noticed that members on this side have been getting somewhat touchy of late and I submit to you that as you follow your normal practice today of reviewing the tape of today’s question time you might want to consider the fact that you have now in a short space of time threatened one of my colleagues with expulsion from the House— 
Hon Members 
: Oh! 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Mr Speaker I understand that an interjection has been made during my point of order. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member will continue with his point of order. I am listening to him carefully. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: In relation to my colleague Mr Mallard he did not raise a point of order. He was raising a supplementary question to the Minister which you then sought to rule out. It is the same Minister who has been on the front page of the  
Listener 
 in which magazine she tells the same story that the member has referred to. My point of order is not specific to that matter but to implore you—because you are a member and Speaker of great good conscience—as you reflect on today’s session to ask whether there has been a fair balance in your rulings on members from the two sides of the House. I think it is the feeling of the Opposition that there has not been a fair balance. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We will not take this any further. What I will do instead is apologise to the Hon Trevor Mallard because I accept the point that the honourable member has made. Where he in my view took the matter too far was not on a point of order. I apologise unreservedly to the Hon Trevor Mallard for my criticism that he was abusing a point of order. However we have moved on. 
New Zealand Film Commission Act 1978—Reform 
9.  
LOUISE UPSTON (National—Taupo) 
 to the  
Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage 
: What is the Government doing now to fulfil its election promise to update the New Zealand Film Commission Act 1978? [ 
Interruption 
] 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. You dealt with that matter just before in the way that you chose to deal with it. While the question was being asked Mr Mallard who is on a bit of a personal crusade against one of the members on this side of the House interjected consistently throughout the question. Generally what promotes order in the House is that members have their say on whether a matter is orderly or disorderly the matter is dealt with and we move on. But a continuous barrage of interjections during the asking of a question is not acceptable. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I wish to apologise. I was provoked by the waving of fingers once again. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We do not need to spend any further time on this. The honourable Minister was about to answer the question. 
Hon Bill English 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Labour members have broadcast widely that they intend to target Minister Bennett. We have now seen the third example of that member using the process of the House on matters that are nothing to do with order in order to continue to make an allegation that a member of the House has denied. The practice in the House is that when a member gets up and says something did not happen his or her word is accepted. Although Opposition members are going on about fairness the fact is that that member has now been permitted three times to make an allegation that has been denied and he has been using and abusing the order of the House in order to do so. We do not intend to accommodate this campaign of persecution that Labour is setting out on and the House should not either because it is out of order. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I was not pursuing the original allegation. The member did it again while Louise Upston was asking her question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: Members I accept responsibility for mishandling the issue formerly. I got the issue wrong and I have apologised for that. I think it is in the interests of the House that we take a breath and just get on with the business. That is why I ruled that we would move on to the next question and I would like to do that now. The Hon Chris Finlayson is to answer the question. 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts Culture and Heritage) 
: 
 Today the Government is announcing a review of the Film Commission. The film industry has moved on significantly since the New Zealand Film Commission Act was passed and the Film Commission was established by the late Allan Highet in 1978. New Zealand now produces a broad range of films from  
Black Sheep 
 to  
Whale Rider 
 and  
The Lord of the Rings 
. I am very pleased to announce the review will be led by Peter Jackson. He will be assisted by David Court who is the director of the Australian Film Television and Radio School centre for screen business. 
Louise Upston 
: Why has the Government selected Peter Jackson to review the Act? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: Peter Jackson who is a great New Zealander is our greatest film director and producer. He brings to the review unrivalled experience and expertise including an intimate knowledge of the film-making process from beginning to end. His films have encompassed the full spectrum from low-budget films such as  
Braindead 
 and  
Meet the Feebles 
 to artistic movies like  
Heavenly Creatures 
 through to global blockbusters such as  
King Kong 
 and  
The Lord of the Rings 
 trilogy 
 .  
I can think of no one who is better placed to conduct this review. 
Todd McClay 
: What other reports has he seen about the New Zealand Film Commission? 
Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON 
: I have seen a letter that was sent to the chair of the Film Commission asking for a meeting to discuss film issues which concludes “I look forward to hearing from you on behalf of your sector organisation or personal commitment to the arts culture and heritage.” The literary community will be surprised to hear that this masterpiece was sent by Steve Chadwick. 
Auckland Local Government Reform—Local Representation 
10.  
PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) 
 to the  
Minister of Local Government 
: Does he stand by the Government’s report on Auckland governance that the proposed 20 to 30 local boards for Auckland will “provide for strong community representation and the ability for residents and ratepayers to influence decision-making”? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) 
: 
 Yes I certainly do. The Government wants local boards to have a meaningful role as a strong local voice on local matters for their communities. This important role will allow the Auckland Council to focus on the critical regional issues. However this is a delicate balance as the Government does not want the local boards to undermine the Auckland Council’s decision making on regional issues. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with Local Government New Zealand president Lawrence Yule and former chair of the Royal Commission on Auckland Governance Justice Peter Salmon that the Government must revisit its proposals around the 20 to 30 local boards in order to ensure that the identity of Auckland’s local communities is preserved and that local assets are managed in the best local interests? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I do agree with him but it is not about revisiting the Government’s decision. The Government’s decision has been to consult the people of Auckland. That is why we have the select committee and that is why the process is under way. That is exactly what we are doing. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with Prime Minister John Key that public feedback has revealed “a desire that the second tier could be stronger” should have “more authority and autonomy” and that he had “no doubt” there would be changes to the second tier as a result? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: Yes I do— 
Hon Shane Jones 
: You made a mistake then. 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: —and far from getting it wrong as the Hon Shane Jones is calling out that is actually what genuine consultation with the people of Auckland is all about. It is about putting up our proposals and listening to what people have to say. I know that that might be quite a novel approach for Labour but it is the way this Government operates. 
Phil Twyford 
: Does the Minister agree with the assessment of his colleague the Hon Judith Collins that as they stand the Government’s local boards are nothing more than tea and scone clubs; if not why not? 
Hon RODNEY HIDE 
: I must say that I support Judith Collins. She has been a fierce advocate for Papakura and her district. I have had many meetings with Judith Collins and two letters. She and I are both of the same mind in wanting the local boards to have a significant role to play in their communities. Having said that I point out that as I said in answer to the primary question it is important that the local boards are not in a position to undermine the regional decision-making of the Auckland Council. 
Emissions Trading Scheme—Amendments 
11.  
HEKIA PARATA (National) 
 to the  
Minister for Climate Change Issues 
: What amendments to the Emissions Trading Scheme is the Government proposing in the short-term prior to the completion of the select committee review of the Emissions Trading Scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) 
: 
 Today the Government introduced into the House a bill amending technical aspects of the timing of the emissions trading scheme relating to forestry. Without this bill many forest owners would unknowingly find themselves in breach of the law or being adversely affected. The bill has no impact on obligations or on the effect of the emissions trading scheme on forestry. It is changing only the reporting and the submission dates in respect of units. 
Hekia Parata 
: What submissions has the Minister received on this bill from the Maori Party and has he taken any steps in response to these concerns? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The Maori Party has indicated a strong interest particularly in the provisions on forestry fishing and farming all of which iwi have very substantial interests in. It has also sought assurances that this bill will not adversely affect the very significant central North Island forestry settlement and I have given that reassurance. 
Hekia Parata 
: Has the Minister seen reports on Charles Chauvel saying on the radio this morning in respect of talks between National and Labour “Build a consensus so that you don’t always have politicking and political argument around the content of your emissions trading scheme.” yet this afternoon putting out a press statement saying that the Minister was incompetent and out of his depth and that his policy defies belief? 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. It is the pretty obvious point that if one of us had asked that question which was about something that the Minister has no responsibility for the question would have been ruled out. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The bit that I believe brought it within the scope of the Standing Orders was when she asked what reports the Minister had seen on the matter. That has long been accepted as a way to ask Ministers whether they have received any reports on a matter. I ask the Minister to be a little careful in answering the question. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. That is certainly how she started but then the last leg of the question referred to a press statement from my colleague. It had nothing to do with a report at all. It was something for which the Minister could not have responsibility. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member asked what reports the Minister had seen on those matters. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: Yes I have received reports. I did find it amusing and a tad inconsistent but National remains committed to working with all the parties in Parliament to come up with an emissions trading scheme that carefully balances New Zealand’s economic and environmental interests. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Has the Government complied with all deadlines and requirements currently contained in the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act 2008; if not which departments or agencies have not complied and why? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: The existing law required all forest owners to report any deforestation by 31 January this year. It was drawn to my attention in February that Land Information New Zealand and the Department of Conservation were potentially in breach. I drew that to the attention of both Ministers. Both agencies immediately met and ensured that their departments complied. However I have to say that I think there will be quite a high level of non-compliance with those procedures with many private forest owners being in exactly the same position. That is why I commend the bill before the House for consideration. 
Charles Chauvel 
: Given that the Minister said in his media release today that the dates in the Act are “unreasonable given the Committee review and the lack of public awareness of these requirements.” what efforts if any has his Government undertaken to make the public aware of the requirements of the law; if the answer is none is that because he had mistakenly thought until now that he had the numbers to repeal the emissions trading scheme? 
Hon Dr NICK SMITH 
: No. National’s policy has been quite consistent and it is that we favour a modified emissions trading scheme. But it is also true that we have strongly supported the select committee process being chaired by Mr Peter Dunne because I think it would be worthwhile to build broader consensus. I think it would be somewhat confusing for forest owners at the very time that they are making submissions to a select committee to seek changes to provisions in the Act in respect of forestry to meet some of the compliance requirements—for instance those around exemptions for small areas. That is why I think the change in the bill is sensible. 
Dr Richard Worth—Confidence 
12.  
Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) 
 to the  
Prime Minister 
: Why did he lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) 
 on behalf of the  
Prime Minister 
: I refer the member to the Prime Minister’s response to question No. 12 on Tuesday. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did the Prime Minister release a press statement on 3 June stating that Dr Worth had resigned but then say on bFM radio 8 days later that “I sacked him. Yeah I sacked him.”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The member may wish to litigate the details but the results of the whole process are pretty clear. Mr Worth did not enjoy the confidence of the Prime Minister. Dr Worth has now left Parliament and is a private citizen. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Why did the Prime Minister tell the House on 3 June that he lost confidence in Dr Worth on the afternoon of 26 May but tell Leighton Smith a day later that he lost confidence in Dr Worth 3 or 4 days after 26 May? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The outcome of these events is pretty clear-cut. The Prime Minister acted swiftly and decisively because he lost confidence in Dr Worth. Dr Worth has left Cabinet and he has left Parliament. He is a private citizen. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Dr Richard Worth as a Minister suddenly or progressively? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister moved decisively which is more than can be said of the performance of the previous Government which allowed incompetent Ministers whom the former Prime Minister did not have confidence in to sit around for months while collecting salaries. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. My question was a very simple question about whether the Prime Minister lost confidence in Dr Richard Worth suddenly or progressively. The question was not addressed. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: It is very difficult for the Speaker to try to insist on the member defining what is suddenly or progressively. The answer was that the Prime Minister moved swiftly and I guess that the answer indicates the fact that the loss of confidence was pretty swift. 
Hon Trevor Mallard 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. The question was not about how the Prime Minister moved but clearly about when his confidence was lost. The question was about whether he lost confidence progressively or suddenly. That is different from the swiftness of the sacking once confidence had been lost and it was a— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I hear the honourable member. I invite the member to think about what he is putting to the Speaker. Once the Prime Minister loses confidence that is the end of the matter. It is not something that can happen progressively because until that point confidence is not lost. I invite the member to carry on with his supplementary questions. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If that is how the Minister should answer the supplementary question could I perhaps get another chance to ask it? 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member still has some supplementary questions available to him. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Did the Prime Minister lose confidence in Richard Worth as a Minister suddenly or progressively? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister lost confidence in Mr Worth and he moved swiftly. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In respect of conversations between the Prime Minister and Dr Worth in the first week of this month why did the Prime Minister tell Mike Hosking on 
Newstalk ZB on Friday 5 June that “The only conversation I had with him was on Tuesday night.” but tell Paul Henry on  
Breakfast 
 on Friday 5 June that “I spoke with him yesterday.”? Did he speak with Dr Worth on Tuesday 2 June; on Thursday 4 June; on both days; or on neither day? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: It is typical of the Opposition’s style of politics that its members focus endlessly on the details of the process. This Government is about results. The Prime Minister moved swiftly and got decisive results. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I ask the Hon Bill English to not answer the question by launching into an attack on the questioner about the questioner’s behaviour or performance. The House deserves an answer that is a little more focused on the question asked. I invite the Hon Bill English to answer the question again without attacking the questioner. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has brought to this Government a decisive style. He works for results in contrast to the previous style of Government which focused endlessly on the process. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to the question in summary. The Prime Minister has said two things about when he spoke to Dr Richard Worth. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister which one of those two things was the case. I have written records of the two interviews. They are inconsistent— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: We should not debate the issue. I will give the member a further supplementary question although he has plenty of supplementary questions left with which to state his question absolutely precisely. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: In respect of conversations between the Prime Minister and Dr Richard Worth in the first week of this month why did the Prime Minister tell Mike Hosking on Newstalk ZB on Friday 5 June that “The only conversation I had with him was on Tuesday night.” but tell Paul Henry on  
Breakfast 
 on Friday 5 June that “I spoke with him yesterday.”? Did the Prime Minister therefore speak with Dr Worth on Tuesday 2 June; on Thursday 4 June; on both days; or on neither day? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Because of the recession since that time several thousand people have joined the unemployment benefit and the Prime Minister has been focused on that issue. He would have to go back and consult his diary on the details of those conversations which the Opposition seem to regard as being more important than thousands of people losing their job. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Has Dr Worth retained the honorific “Hon”? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: I would expect given the Opposition members’ attention to detail that that is a question that they no doubt know the answer to. The Prime Minister is focusing on the things that matter. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The question that was asked was pretty specific about a retired member retaining the title of “Hon”. I believe that the question deserves an answer. There is probably public interest in the matter. It may be that the issue is not known yet. 
Hon Rodney Hide 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. If members had listened to the Minister’s answer they would have heard that he did answer the question. He said he does not know and does not care. That was a clear answer to the question. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: I invite the Minister to further answer the question. If that is the case then that would be a perfectly adequate answer obviously. 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: The Prime Minister has not taken the trouble to establish that minor detail given the very significant issues this country faces with the recession and thousands of people losing their job. But I welcome advice from the Opposition members who clearly know the answer. 
Hon Pete Hodgson 
: Does the Prime Minister believe that he has a good understanding of the difference between the need to protect the public interest as expressed in Standing Order 377/1 and his desire to protect a political interest? 
Hon BILL ENGLISH 
: Yes. 
Questions to Members 
Banking Practices—Inquiry 
1. 
Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) 
 to the  
Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee 
: Is the Finance and Expenditure Committee considering initiating an inquiry into banking practices including the relationship between the official cash rate (OCR) and short-term interest rates? 
CRAIG FOSS (Chairperson of the Finance and Expenditure Committee): 
 The answer is no. The member may note that yesterday the Finance and Expenditure Committee issued a press release noting that it had resolved to further investigate whether it will initiate an inquiry into the relationship between the official cash rate and short-term interest rates in the context of matters raised in its report on the Reserve Bank’s  
Financial Stability Report 
 for May 2009. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: When will the committee make a decision on this inquiry given that the Governor of the Reserve Bank the chief executives of two major banks and today the Minister of Finance have all indicated their support— 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member should resume his seat for a moment. I am not sure that he can ask the chair of the committee about when the committee may do something because that is not a matter that is in the hands of the chair of the committee. That is a decision for the committee. I invite the member to rephrase his question. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I raise a point of order Mr Speaker. Without seeking to trifle with your ruling I seek further guidance. I had deliberately phrased the question in that way because I believed that in asking the question “when” I was directing the question to a process matter as guided. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: That is absolutely correct; supplementary questions should relate to the procedures of the committee but the chair of the committee cannot be asked about matters that are properly the decisions of the committee. Forgive me if I am wrong but it would seem to me that a decision on something that the committee might do is a matter for the committee to decide. The chair cannot be— 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: I fully agree with you that it would be improper for the member to presage what the decision of the committee might be. But I submit that the question of when the committee might make that decision is entirely a process question and the member is not only at liberty but obligated to tell the House if he knows the answer. If no time line has been set by the committee that would be an entirely appropriate response. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: The member is obviously able to frame a question along those lines with respect to process about when a decision might come before the committee. That indeed would be within the Standing Orders. 
Hon David Cunliffe 
: Perhaps I could assist by rephrasing it. Is the member aware of when the committee will make a decision on this inquiry given that the Governor of the Reserve Bank the chief executive officers of two major banks and the Minister of Finance have all indicated their support for the proposal; and does he therefore agree with the  
Dominion Post  
that National MPs are dithering on the matter? 
CRAIG FOSS 
: No. The committee will make its decision when the committee sees fit. I have seen such a report and the member who is asking the question is a member of that committee. The press release that was released yesterday was from the full Finance and Expenditure Committee. 
Mr SPEAKER 
: There is normally only one supplementary question allowed on questions to members. I believe that the chair of the committee answered the question very appropriately.