5. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What criteria, if any, has she established for the release of personal information about beneficiaries?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I have not established any new criteria. I have followed the practice established by previous Governments. The only difference is that I am upfront and honest about doing it, unlike Ministers in the previous Government.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister or any member of her staff access the personal information about two solo mothers that was given to the media that came from the Ministry of Social Development’s computer system situated in her office complex?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am not sure exactly where the information came from. I myself asked my staff for the information, they accessed it for me, and, as such, it was put forward.

Hon Annette King: Was the staff member who retrieved the personal information about those two solo mothers from the Ministry of Social Development’s computer system—presumably, located in her office—a person properly authorised to have access to that information?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Let us be quite clear: I asked my Ministry of Social Development officials for the information. The information came to me. It must have come from the official Ministry of Social Development database, because that is where the information is held, and it was given to me. It is as clear and interesting as that.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was very straightforward: was the person authorised? He or she either was or was not. The Minister did not address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member should have listened to the answer. The Minister gave all the information she has. It would seem from her answer that she does not know who obtained the information. She was provided with the information.

Hon David Cunliffe: How does the Speaker know she doesn’t know?

Mr SPEAKER: Members must not get into a debate with the Speaker. I just listened to the Minister’s answer, and I suggest the Hon David Cunliffe does the same thing.

Katrina Shanks: Can the Minister please explain again the changes to the training incentive allowance that sparked this whole debate?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Currently, 12,700 people receive the training incentive allowance for all levels of study, and they will continue to receive it. The changes will affect only new applications for tertiary level study. Of those people currently receiving the allowance, 4,500 are studying at the tertiary level, and they will be able to continue their study.

Sue Bradford: Is the Minister aware that her release of personal information appears to be in direct contravention of paragraphs 2.57 to 8.61 of the Cabinet Manual; if so, will she undertake to never again disclose information in this manner about beneficiaries who dare to challenge Government policy, and, in the meanwhile, apologise to the two women who have been affected this week?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I made a judgment call based on the ministerial guidelines from the Privacy Commissioner. I stand by it. I believe that a complaint has been taken to the Privacy Commissioner. I welcome the outcome of that.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The questioner asked a two-part question about the Minister’s future actions, and received an answer about her past actions. I believe that the question has not been addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: The questioner cannot expect a yes or no answer to that kind of question. In my view the Minister adequately answered the question as it was asked.

Hon Annette King: Does the Minister consider it appropriate for a Minister of the Crown to access confidential information about New Zealanders from within her own office, with little or no scrutiny, and how can every other New Zealander, including pensioners, who has private information held by the Ministry of Social Development be sure that when she next wants to intimidate an outspoken member of the public she will not go straight online and trawl through that person’s private details?

Mr SPEAKER: The member has asked a question. If members want to hear an answer, they should give the Minister a chance to answer it.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I am constantly asked by the Opposition, as well as by various other people, to look up individual cases to make sure that people are getting all that they are entitled to. My office often does it. I can tell members opposite that my office receives 70 percent more correspondence than the same Minister did this time last year. People are interested in what we are doing and how it affects them. I have an obligation to New Zealanders to make sure they are getting what they need.

Sue Bradford: How can the Minister say that she was correct in the way she disclosed the information, in terms of her meeting the Cabinet Manual privacy guidelines, when the manual states, among other things: “Ministers should exercise great care in dealing with personal information,” and when it goes on to say that such disclosure would be appropriate only, for example, “if the disclosure is directly related to the purposes for which the information was obtained; if disclosure is authorised by the individual concerned; or if disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious threat to public health or the life of another individual.”; and in what way does the information she released this week meet those guidelines?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: At the end of the day, I made a judgment call based on the ministerial guidelines from the Privacy Commissioner. The member disagrees with that call, and that is her right. I understand that a complaint has been taken. I look forward to that process going through, and we shall see where it lies.

Hon Annette King: When was Peter Hughes, the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, made aware of her decision to release to the media the personal details of two solo mothers?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: To the best of my recollection, I had a conversation with Mr Hughes about it after it had been done.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister believe that in her role as the Minister for Social Development and Employment—

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member but I cannot hear her question. I say to members that if question time is to be at all reasonable, questions must be able to be heard. I appeal to members to keep the noise level down a little bit and not to continue interjections on previous questions.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister believe that in her role as the Minister for Social Development and Employment she has a duty of care to the beneficiaries who depend on her for their daily means of survival; if so, does that duty of care include breaking their privacy in the national media because they advocate against a particular Government policy?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Under no conditions was this about people speaking out against this Government’s policy. People have a right to do that, and, in fact, I encourage them to do so. It is good to see a feisty debate going on. The issue is whether the Government provides appropriate support for people on the domestic purposes benefit to do tertiary study. That is what the debate is about.

Hon Annette King: Did the Minister provide the media with the actual cost to the taxpayer of supporting those two mothers on the domestic purposes benefit, including any contribution paid to the Government by the non-custodial parent; if not, why not?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: What I gave the media was simply the information that I had access to via my department. It may surprise the Opposition but there is no cloak-and-dagger, no smoke and mirrors, or anything else, going on. I have been quite upfront about what I did and about what information I presented to the media. I am quite happy to stand by that judgment decision of mine. There were no vanilla envelopes slipped under doorways, which is what those members are used to. This is quite upfront. There is nothing secret about it.

Charles Chauvel: Does the Minister understand that child support payments paid by liable parents to the Crown offset the cost to the State of the domestic purposes benefit; if so, does she also understand that if there are child support payments in this case, she cannot have placed accurate information in the public domain about the actual State assistance received by these women?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is ironic that the Opposition would now like to rake through the personal details of those individuals. A complaint has been lodged by that member with the Privacy Commissioner, according to media reports I have heard. Let us allow that complaint to go through its process. I do not think it is appropriate to speak more now about what is going on.

Charles Chauvel: Mr Speaker—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I have appealed to members to be reasonable about the level of interjection. I struggled to hear the Minister’s answer. If members appeal to me about the answer, there is no way that I can assist them, because I struggled to hear it. I think the House has become a bit unreasonable about the level of interjection. I do not mind interjection, as long as it is reasonable. It gives the House a bit of life, but it has become too unreasonable in recent days. Was the member raising a point of order?

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The supplementary question asked the Minister about her understanding of the effect of liable-parent contributions on the net burden to the State of people in receipt of benefits. The question simply was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member thinks a little about his question, he will recollect that he asked the Minister for an opinion—whether she understood something—and she gave an opinion back; I did hear that much. But I warn the honourable member that if his colleagues interject so loudly that I cannot hear the detail of an answer, I cannot assist members in getting answers. The member should reflect that his question sought an opinion.

Hon Annette King: Is the Minister now confirming that when she decided to give the personal details of two solo parents to the media, she failed to disclose all the details and gave only those details that made the women look like “ungrateful bludgers”, as John Campbell said on Campbell Live last night; and will the Minister acknowledge that details not available publicly paint a different picture of the cost to the taxpayer?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would not repeat in this House that I thought they were ungrateful bludgers.

Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear the answer, I say to Government members.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I actually do not think that is true. What I presented to the media was the information I had access to.

Hon Annette King: What was the “lesson” that the Minister referred to on Close Up, on Television New Zealand last night, that the two solo mothers were to have learnt from speaking out on the cuts to the training incentive allowance; was the lesson that the Minister will clobber any pensioner or beneficiary who crosses her, or was the lesson that no private information is now private?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I would say neither of those. They have just taken assumptions that are there. The media can be a pretty vicious thing when one gets into the middle of it, and I suppose those women are seeing that now in quite how it has been. I suppose there is a lesson about what it might actually be like to allow the Labour Party to use a person as a political football.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I understood that when a member had made a personal statement, such as the one that I made, and had tabled proof of the situation, one could expect that explanation to be honoured in this House. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: A point of order is being considered. I say to the honourable member that my dilemma is that I have no idea what she is objecting to. There was so much noise that I could not hear exactly what the Minister was saying, so I am afraid I cannot assist the member, unless she makes clear exactly what it was that the Minister said that caused offence. I did not hear anything that could possibly have caused offence.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: On I think it was Thursday last week, Opposition members got up in this House and raised individual cases of a number of members of the public. It was the Opposition that brought those people into the political debate.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: The two people whom the Minister is referring to, or has referred to, whose personal financial details are in the public arena are the two who were mentioned in the Herald on Sunday article. I have now tabled a statement from the person who wrote the article that says she got none of that information from the Labour Party.

Mr SPEAKER: There will be no more of these points of order. They are not points of order. They have nothing to do with the order of the House. It was my fault for allowing— [Interruption] They are debating points; they have nothing to do with the order of the House. It was my fault for allowing them, but we will now come back to the question that was being asked.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think there has been a little bit of a misunderstanding here. It has certainly been the case in the past that when members give personal explanations their word must be accepted. The Minister for Social Development and Employment, both in her response and in her point of order, doubted the word of a Labour member. That is something we find unacceptable.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: That is stretching things far too far. Firstly, the Minister was right in saying that last Thursday individual cases of members were recited in this House by the Labour Party. She was asked what she meant by “lessons learnt”, and she simply said that, quite clearly, many people who provided those bits of information to the Labour Party would have learnt that it was not a good idea to get tangled up—

Mr SPEAKER: It is unacceptable to use a point of order to in any way criticise another party in this House. Debates are where the member is perfectly welcome to be critical of other parties’ views and actions, but not points of order. I can only say to the Hon Trevor Mallard that I heard nothing that I could perceive where the member questioned the personal statement that the Hon Lianne Dalziel had made to the House. But he makes a perfectly correct point that where a member makes a personal explanation, there must be no questioning of it. Forgive me, but I did not perceive any contravention of that important practice in the House. If the member cannot make clear to me what has caused offence, I am afraid there is nothing further I can do.

Charles Chauvel: Is the Minister aware of the process that the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development used in releasing the personal details of a convicted benefit fraudster, which required legal advice, careful consideration, and detailed reasons why the information was released; and how does that careful process compare with the approach she took to two solo mothers who had the audacity to speak out on one policy change made by her?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I will just make it clear that what we were doing was having a debate about whether the Government provides appropriate support for people on the domestic purposes benefit to go into training, and whether the training incentive allowance applies at levels 4 and 5. That is actually what the debate was about. To say it was about audacity or intimidation is simply not true. Look, I followed the ministerial guidelines. That is why we have ministerial guidelines on privacy. I followed them. I think I followed due process.

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister whether she was aware of the process followed by the Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development, and how that compared with the process she followed. Again, I do not think the question was addressed.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: At the end of that question, the member asked another one about audacity and other things, and that is what I chose to answer.

Charles Chauvel: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need further assistance on this point of order. The member learnt yesterday that if he asks a very precise question, I can assist him in getting an answer to it, but where he seeks opinions or tries to make comparisons, the Minister is entitled to respond to that kind of question in a much wider way. I am afraid I cannot assist the member further in that.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Will the Minister stand by the staff member who accessed the information, if that staff member is disciplined for inappropriate access to the Social Welfare Information for Tomorrow Today system?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I do not think I am here to talk about hypothetical situations that may or may not be made up by the Opposition. It is not what I am here to do as a Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That was a very straight question: “Will the Minister stand by”—

Mr SPEAKER: The member must resume his seat. The member has been in this House long enough to know that hypothetical questions cannot get precise answers. The member has been around long enough and answered enough questions to know that it has never been possible to get precise answers to hypothetical questions. I think members do need to be reasonable.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry to keep litigating this, but someone’s job is clearly on the line here. A Ministry of Social Development staff member—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. I now caution the member: he must not abuse the point of order system.

Hon Member: Wanker.

Mr SPEAKER: Fortunately I do not know who made that interjection, but it was unacceptable, and I warn Government members. The House should come to order. I realise that this issue is deeply felt, but it still has to be dealt with within the Standing Orders. I have to protect the rights of the Opposition to question a Minister and hold a Minister to account, but I must also make sure that the practice of how questions are to be answered is also upheld in the House.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Does the Minister stand by the statement that “the women were misleading the public by releasing ‘selective information’ ”; if so, what was misleading about the statement that “The DPB is a living, for which my children and I have been very grateful. But it does not afford an ability to save for these sorts of extra expenses.”, which was quoted in the Herald on Sunday of 19 July, 3 days before the questions in the House?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: At this point, I would just say that there is a lot of information out there about these women. They have put out a lot of information via the website and via TradeMe. These women have put out personal information about money they are receiving, what they are, and everything like that, so that is probably the statement that I would stand by.

Sue Bradford: I seek leave to table pages 116 to 118 of the Cabinet Manual, “Ministerial access to and use of personal information”.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table those pages of the Cabinet Manual. Is there any objection to that? [Interruption] The member makes a fair point. Do I take it that there is no objection? There is no objection.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: What assistance is available for a person who would have been eligible for the training incentive allowance before 28 May to assist him or her with course costs over $1,000, transport costs, and childcare costs over and above other entitlements, in light of the Minister’s statement in the House that there are other ways for people to get the sort of assistance they need so that they can go on to tertiary study?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The question was what was available before 28 May? Well, what was available was the training incentive allowance, up to a maximum of about $91 or $92 per week. I believe that the average amount that people got while they were studying was anywhere between $28 and $42 per week.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister has misunderstood my question. I said: “What assistance is available for a person who would have been eligible for the training incentive allowance”—

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the member’s point. I think the Minister did mishear the question.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Minister’s answer gave exactly that—what would have been available.

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is no longer available.

Mr SPEAKER: No. The member did not ask what would have been available; the member asked what would be available to assist with the costs she outlined. I think the Minister should answer that question. I am sure the Minister misheard the question.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I did. Well, I took a different interpretation. What will be available now is, certainly, access to childcare assistance. It is available at up to $181.50 a week for under-fives. Out-of-school care and recreation subsidies are available for children who are over 5 years old. That rate is up to $71.50, from memory, for some of them. There is certainly access to interest-free student loans. There is certainly access to those other benefits, and the main benefits around them. So they were available to them before 28 May, and they are available to them now.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I think the Minister is in grave danger here, because she has misunderstood. The student loan scheme is not available for any of those costs—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume her seat immediately. The member cannot—and I do not know how many times I have to repeat this—litigate a Minister’s answer because she does not think the answer was good enough or she thinks the Minister was wrong. That is not a matter that can be litigated by way of a point of order. The member can address that issue in other ways. She can ask further supplementary questions or whatever, but she cannot by way of a point of order litigate the Minister’s answer.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I seek leave to table the criteria for the student loan scheme, which do not allow—

Mr SPEAKER: I will not tolerate any further abuse. The member sought to table the regulations for the student loan scheme. Before I could put that leave, she went on to make a political point. That is not acceptable. When she seeks leave to table a document she is to do that, not to try to score political points. I caution the member. The behaviour is getting absolutely unacceptable. Leave is sought to table a document—

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Point of order, Mr Speaker. I—

Mr SPEAKER: I am putting the request for leave for the honourable member. If the member—

Hon Ruth Dyson: It is part of it she is describing.

Mr SPEAKER: I will give the member the chance to explain exactly what part, but she will not make a political point out of it. She will not comment on anything the Minister has said.

Hon David Parker: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Will the Hon David Parker please sit down. He will please resume his seat and show some courtesy to his colleague.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: The Hon Trevor Mallard will resume his seat immediately—immediately. And there will be silence. I have called the Hon Lianne Dalziel on a point of order. She is seeking leave to explain the document she wishes to table.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: I will have to go and print the eligibility criteria off the computer, which is why I wanted to narrow it down, rather than providing the entire student allowance criteria.

Mr SPEAKER: The member’s point is very clear. She has sought leave to table the eligibility criteria from the document.

Hon Lianne Dalziel: Yes, but I went on to—

Mr SPEAKER: The eligibility criteria from the document—that is very simple and very clear. Leave has been sought to do that. [Interruption] Does the member have the eligibility criteria? She has the rest of the day to table them. I believe that the eligibility criteria do exist; the member has sought leave to table them. Is there any objection to that course of action? There is no objection.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My colleague Lianne Dalziel was not making a political point; she was making a descriptive point in respect of the document she wished to table. It was not a political point. You interpreted it as being political, but it was merely descriptive, as Hansard will show.

Mr SPEAKER: If the member checks the Hansard, how is it descriptive to refer to the Minister? I do not believe—

Hon David Parker: She didn’t.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not believe that that Minister’s name will appear in any of the criteria, yet I clearly heard the member start to refer to what the Minister had said, and that is what is not acceptable.

Hon David Parker: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the member further.

Hon David Parker: If your recollection is correct, Mr Speaker, you are correct, but my recollection is different, and I invite you to refer to the Hansard to see whether that is the case. My recollection is that the Hon Lianne Dalziel said she wanted to table that part of the document that showed that one was not eligible to get a student loan on certain criteria. She did not mention the Minister or the National Government. She just described the document accurately.

Mr SPEAKER: If I am wrong I will apologise to the honourable member.

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I just seek clarification. The first time the honourable member talked about tabling the student loan application eligibility, and the last time she actually talked about the student allowance. They are very different things.

Mr SPEAKER: There was no need for that point. The record will show exactly what the member described, which she now has leave to table.

• Document, by leave, laid on the Table of the House.