3. Dr PAUL HUTCHISON (National—Hunua) to the Minister of Health: Why has the Government approved a plan to invest $22 million over 3 years to help treat methamphetamine users?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : Methamphetamine is a drug that destroys lives and communities. Every day we read about the pain that this drug causes not only the users but also their families and the innocent victims of their crimes. The Government has announced a comprehensive package of measures to control precursors, break supply chains, and improve access and routes to treatment. The $22 million being invested from the Ministry of Health is to provide better treatment options for users.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What details can he advise in relation to these better treatment options for users of methamphetamine?

Hon TONY RYALL: As many members of the House will know from their constituency work, the families of P users talk about their frustration in trying to find somewhere to get their loved ones treated, and it is very difficult. The resources that the Government is making available under the leadership of the Prime Minister will be used to develop a dedicated treatment pathway for methamphetamine-dependent users, which will include provision for 2,700 users to have ready access to dedicated social detox beds over a 3-year period, and 400 longer-term treatment places will be created for the most seriously affected users over the next 3 years. The Prime Minister has also requested that there be investment in dedicated methamphetamine capacity for the Alcohol Drug Helpline, including new full-time clinical staff.

Hon Jim Anderton: Can the Minister confirm in terms of priority for the health care and well-being of New Zealanders that last year fewer than 10 people died from methamphetamine abuse, 1,000 died from alcohol abuse, and 5,000 people died from smoking?

Hon TONY RYALL: I can confirm to the member that the Government is making a significant investment in those areas that he identified, but I think it is quite clear that the scourge that methamphetamine represents for our communities and families certainly warrants additional commitment, particularly in the areas of providing a treatment option for those families.

Iain Lees-Galloway: Why will Kiwis suffering from flu symptoms now have to pay $60 to go to see their doctor and get the medication they need, when the Government has already been offered a free electronic monitoring system that would have exposed the criminals while still maintaining pharmacy supply for bona fide customers?

Hon TONY RYALL: Eighty percent of the cold and flu pills purchased in New Zealand today do not contain pseudoephedrine, so most New Zealanders who are using cold and flu tablets are using those without pseudoephedrine; 20 percent are. I am very disappointed that Labour is so opposed to trying to deal with something that represents a huge scourge in so many of our communities, including those represented by the member opposite.

Hon John Key: Can the Minister confirm that far from being free, the computer-based model, firstly, does not work, because most pharmacies in New Zealand do not have broadband; secondly, it requires extremely intensive monitoring by police of every transaction; and, thirdly, rather than being successful, it has been found to be ineffective in Australia, where it has been trialled?

Hon TONY RYALL: I would be able to confirm that, because the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that that is the case. I can also tell the member that my feedback from around the country is that New Zealanders consider methamphetamine P to be a scourge that warrants a coordinated attack by the Government. If any of those members opposite had ever spoken to parents of kids affected by methamphetamine, they would be changing their minds. When we talk to a grandfather who had to pin his 19-year-old grandson to the ground to stop him from going out and buying his drugs, then we know the heartfelt commitment that New Zealanders feel towards the policy that this Prime Minister has announced.

Dr Paul Hutchison: How are methamphetamine users treated now, and what will change?

Hon TONY RYALL: As any constituency member will tell us, there is a real frustration felt by families regarding their inability to get treatment for their kids who might be P users. It is estimated that of the up to 2,000 people seeking help for methamphetamine addiction each year, only 1,000 of them get the treatment they need. The new dedicated methamphetamine treatment pathway will provide short-term detoxification options whereby users will come off the drug and then be assessed for further treatment, which will include the option of longer-term residential care. Additionally, there will be a greater focus by district health boards on reducing the waiting list for community-based treatment. Treatment is well established in international studies as being cost-effective—in terms of both the personal and the wider social benefits, and the reduction in crime in our communities.

4. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Minister for the Rugby World Cup: What discussions, if any, has he had with Rugby World Cup Ltd on broadcasting rights for the Rugby World Cup 2011, and what consultation has he undertaken on that issue?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY (Minister for the Rugby World Cup) : As the member would know, Rugby World Cup Ltd regards the broadcast rights for the Rugby World Cup as a matter between itself and the broadcasters that have bid for those rights. Accordingly, any discussions regarding broadcasting rights have related to the process and timetable for those rights being resolved. I have had a number of discussions with Ministers and officials, including attending a meeting convened by the Hon Mr English.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is he responsible for the overall coordination of Government matters to do with the Rugby World Cup; if so, is he proud of his work in relation to this coordination?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I hold overall responsibility for the coordination of the Rugby World Cup. My position on the broadcasting rights is very simple: I want to see the widest possible access, free to air, for New Zealanders to see the games that they are at the present time substantially investing in. To the extent that Māori Television Service will contribute to that process in an economical fashion, I welcome it.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Why did the Minister confirm to Television New Zealand the financial detail of the Māori Television Service right bid?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: That assertion is simply not accurate.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Is he aware that his behaviour in relation to the chief executive of Te Puni Kōkiri is to be raised with the Prime Minister by the State Services Commission?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: The meeting that I think the member is referring to occurred in the office of the Hon Mr English, and several other Ministers were present. The member himself put out a press release on 2 October in which he raised a number of questions regarding the process for the Māori Television Service bid, and cautioned against a bidding war in which the International Rugby Board would be the only winner. I substantially agree with the questions that the member raised in that press release, and he will find that I put those questions firmly to Mr Comer only a few days prior to the member putting out that press release.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member’s question referred to a meeting and the possibility that as a result of that meeting the State Services Commission may be approaching the Prime Minister in respect of the Minister’s behaviour. That aspect of the question was not even remotely addressed.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I would be very happy to supplement my answer if you wish me to do so, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister does not have to do that, because he answered the other part of the question, but if he wishes to help the House, that is to be commended.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am not aware of any complaint from Mr Comer in relation to the meeting, but as it was chaired by the Hon Mr English and attended by two other Ministers, I am more than comfortable that they will be able to verify that the questioning of Mr Comer and other officials that I undertook was vigorous and professional.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Minister’s description of the Māori Television Service as “a millstone around … the neck of … Government.” justify his approach outside the House, which has been described as involving deceit?

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I suspect that the member is quoting from a very old article that relates to a time when he was a Minister and I was not. My position has been very clear from the beginning: I and the Prime Minister want to see that the New Zealanders who have invested some hundreds of millions of dollars in the Rugby World Cup preparations are able to see the games of the tournament free to air, in the easiest possible fashion, and without significant additional cost. To the extent that the Māori Television Service wants to contribute to that process, I welcome it now, and I always have.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker, kia ora tātau. Kua mōhio rānei a ia mā te whakapāohotanga o te Taumāhekeheke o te Ao i Peihinga i te tau 2008, me te takariri o te tokomaha ki Te Reo Tātaki o Aotearoa mō te hē o ngā kōrero, mō te koretake o ētahi pātai, mō ngā raruraru hangarau hoki ka mutu, e kore pea ēnei raruraru e aki i a ia ki te tautoko, ko tā Whakaata Māori tono ki te pāho i te Kapu o te Ao hei whai haere i tana mihi nui i tēnei rangi tonu mō ngā mahi papai e hia kē nei a Whakaata Ratonga Māori?

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Greetings Mr Speaker and to us. Is he aware that during the coverage of the 2008 Beijing Olympics Television New Zealand was accused of having left many viewers fuming because of mucked-up commentary, some dumb questions, and technical glitches; and would that not perhaps influence him to support the Māori Television Service in its bid to screen the Rugby World Cup, particularly acknowledging his statement earlier today that the Māori Television Service has done a good job of much of its sporting coverage?]

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I am reluctant to accept the opportunity to dwell on the shortcomings of other broadcasters in this respect, but I reiterate the response I gave earlier. New Zealand taxpayers have invested some hundreds of millions of dollars in preparations for the Rugby World Cup. Taxpayers deserve, as the Prime Minister has stated in recent days, the opportunity to see the games in that tournament in the easiest possible fashion, and without significant additional cost. To the extent that the Māori Television Service will form part of that process—and that negotiation process is ongoing—I welcome it.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Kei hea ngā pūrongo kua whakatakotoria ki mua i tōna aroaro e kī ana, ko Whakaata Māori anake, te teihana e kore e āhei ki te whakapāoho ki te motu katoa, ā, ka whakaputaina rānei e ia te kōrero pono, arā, kāore e taea e tētahi teihana, te whakapāho ki te motu whānui?

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[Where are the reports presented to him verifying that the Māori Television Service is the only television broadcaster that does not have universal coverage, or when will he tell the truth and acknowledge that there is no television coverage that gets to all parts of the country?]

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am very reluctant to defend Mr McCully against the obvious, but the statement that the Minister does not tell the truth—the fact that he does not tell the truth—cannot be put that way in this House.

Mr SPEAKER: I have got myself into trouble here. I just invite the Minister to handle that question in the way he sees fit.

Hon MURRAY McCULLY: I again reiterate that New Zealand taxpayers have invested some hundreds of millions of dollars in preparations for the Rugby World Cup 2011. The Government believes that they deserve the opportunity to have access to those games without significant additional cost. To the extent that the Māori Television Service can contribute to that process, I welcome it. I do not intend to enter the debate that others can have about what coverage can be provided by what channel. The International Rugby Board has a process, which is ongoing, for the resolution of the various bids that are on the table. I am comfortable with leaving that matter in its hands, and with the issues amongst the various broadcasters to be dealt with through a different process.

Te Ururoa Flavell: He take whakatau, e Te Mana Whakawā. Kia ora, Mr Speaker. Ki taku mōhio, kāore tērā whakautu i whakautu i taku pātai ka mutu, āe, he pai tonu te kōrero engari, ko taku pātai hei whaiwhai haere ko tāna i whakatakoto mai ai, he ngoikore te pāoho a Whakaata Māori ki ērā atu teihana. Ko tāku īnoi ki a koe, māna tēnei e whakautua.

• [An interpretation in English was given to the House.]

[I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Thank you, Mr Speaker. To my knowledge, that response did not answer my question; further to that, yes, his grandstanding was eloquent, but my question for him to follow up related to the statement he made that coverage by Māori Television, compared with that of other broadcasters, was weaker. My plea to you is that he should be made to answer it.]

Mr SPEAKER: I believe, in fairness, that the question was a bit marginal, in any case, and I think it would be unreasonable for me to try to force the Minister to give a different kind of answer.

5. Dr JACKIE BLUE (National) to the Minister for ACC: What changes is the Government making to ACC to make it more affordable, sustainable and fair?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : Today I have announced a package of legislative, regulatory, and operational changes to accident compensation to secure its long-term future for New Zealanders. The board of the Accident Compensation Corporation has advised that levy increases of over 50 percent would be required under the current law. The changes I have announced today will more than halve those increases.

Dr Jackie Blue: Why is it that the Government’s legislative changes will not reduce the increased levies on wage and salary earners by much?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Pushing out the full-funding date makes a big difference to the motor vehicle account and the employers’ account, which have large residual claims. It is not a significant problem for the earners account, where it will save only a few cents on the levy per $100 of earnings. To illustrate this point, the average worker would pay an extra $500 without any change. Deferral reduces this by only about 40 bucks. That is why the Government needs to make broader real savings in accident compensation to get levies back to a manageable level.

Sue Bradford: Is the Government intending to lower the upper limit on weekly compensation; if so, by how much, when, and in what circumstances?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The principle of the accident compensation scheme, going back to the Woodhouse report, is for it to provide 80 percent of a person’s average earnings in the event that he or she is incapacitated and unable to work. Some changes that were made by the previous Government took the scheme well above that principle. The changes that we are proposing restore the Woodhouse principles, where employees would get 80 percent, and not those higher sums. We will not reduce the entitlements of any existing accident victims, but people coming on to the scheme in the future will face that lower rate.

Dr Jackie Blue: Can the Minister confirm that pushing out the full funding date does not actually save money but simply changes when we pay, and can he tell the House what savings the Government is attempting to achieve from the changes?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The member is quite correct that pushing out the full funding date simply spreads the historical residual costs over a longer period. I also note that it adds to the Crown’s net debt in the intervening years. In terms of the broader package of reforms around entitlements, regulations, and the operational changes, the package that we have announced today is aimed at saving $2 billion in terms of the accident compensation scheme’s future liabilities.

Hon David Parker: How does the Minister reconcile John Judge’s assertion on Friday that he will reduce the scheme’s administration costs with the information in the latest annual report showing that those administration costs jumped by 8 percent in the last year and were $29 million over budget?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I would point out that the biggest increase to the salaries of senior staff, noted in the annual report, was during Labour’s period in Government. A freeze was put on the salaries of senior staff members as soon as this Government came into office. The further point I would make to the member opposite is that it is a bit rich to raise a point about the staffing costs at ACC on the same day that members of the House are demanding we pay more to Public Service staff like those working for the ACC.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister agree with the National Party policy document of 2008 that stated: “In the brief time that these accounts were open to competition, before the Labour Government abolished the concept in 2000, there was a substantial reduction in levies for most employers and self-employed and greater attention to workplace safety and rehabilitation.”; if so, why will he not introduce that policy now?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: National campaigned in 2008 on a policy that stated that we would have an investigation into the option of competition in the work account. I have made it plain that the work account is, in fact, the one that is in the least difficulty. It is the non-earners account, the earners account, and the motor vehicle account that are in the greatest difficulty. That is why that policy is not a priority and why other reforms have been given the greatest Government attention.

Sue Bradford: Why does the Minister think that partially privatising the scheme through farming out long-term claimants to third-party administrators will save money or provide better rehabilitation outcomes, when 2008 evidence from Research New Zealand shows that the opposite happens, with claimants under that system going back on to accident compensation more frequently because they have been forced out of the system too early?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The first point I would make to the member is that if the current system is working, then I ask why there has been such a poor performance in rehabilitation, which has declined over the last 5 years, and such a huge increase in the income compensation portion of the scheme. The decision by the board to contract in third parties for dealing with long-term accident compensation recipients who are capable of going back to work is, in my view, a smart initiative and it is one of the things that we will need to do if we are to more broadly protect New Zealanders from very high levy increases.

Hon David Parker: Can the Minister confirm that the annual report for the year ended 30 June 2009 shows that changes made to the scope of cover by the previous Labour Government in the period since 2004 account for only 4 percent of the increase in the scheme’s liabilities?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, that is not correct, and let me tell the member why.

Hon Darren Hughes: It’s in the report?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: No, the member is reading only part of it. When the previous Government changed the rules around when somebody could be rehabilitated—say, the change from the 30-hour test to the 35-hour test—and changed the rules with regard to taking into account a person’s high income, those changes all had an impact on the rehabilitation costs. The member is drawing attention to only part of the changes. I give a further example. The change made around physiotherapy was not a statutory change, but it was a very expensive and foolish change made by the previous Government.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: What message has the Minister got for Nelson residents who signed the petition opposing the Labour Government’s renationalisation of the workplace and employers’ account, which reverses savings of $1.5 million for Sealord, $433,000 for Nelson Marlborough Health Services, and a 40 percent reduction for Hislop Motors; a petition that was organised and signed by National MP Dr Nick Smith?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: A very good member, too. If we look at those major employers, we see that both Sealord and Nelson Marlborough Health Services are part of the partnership programme, so they have the opportunity under that programme to be outside of the main accident compensation scheme. It is all very well to quote what might have been the case, but this Government is focused on what is right to do with the scheme now, and the package of reforms that we have announced is a responsible response to a pretty difficult challenge.

Hon David Parker: What steps has ACC taken to reduce home-support costs for seriously injured New Zealanders, as reported in the Dominion Post last week, and how does the Minister reconcile the fact that such significant changes had already been undertaken before the public was able to engage in the honest conversation that John Key this week promised we would have before changes were made?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The Government has been very upfront about the fact that an organisation that lost $2.4 billion last year and $4.8 billion this year has to make significant changes. In coming to Government, we found many areas in which the previous Government was funding things that it was not allowed to under the law.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Like Bill’s house!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Well, I am not surprised that Mr Mallard cannot focus on the very substantive problems that the previous Labour Government left this Government in respect of the accident compensation scheme, without being his normal, personal, nasty self.

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by all his statements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can he stand by his personal statement that his personal focus is on getting debt under control or by his call for permanent restraint, when his colleague Nick Smith has made inept changes to the emissions trading scheme that will increase Crown debt by up to 8 percent of GDP by 2050, amounting to tens of billions of dollars?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The business of the Government is about making balanced decisions that take into account competing objectives. The Government is balancing all the time the need to keep debt down along with other legitimate shorter-term objectives that serve the public interest.

Hon David Cunliffe: Given his call for permanent restraint, when will he restrain the Minister of Broadcasting and the Minister of Māori Affairs from spending millions of dollars of additional taxpayer money on outbidding each other; and can he confirm comments from the Minister of Broadcasting yesterday that a special appropriation will be necessary to support the Television New Zealand Rugby World Cup bid?

Hon Trevor Mallard: No, that’s scuppered. They’ve given up now; TVNZ has dropped him.

Mr SPEAKER: I take it that the member has finished his question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I think the member is getting a bit ahead of himself.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What recent reports has he seen on the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a number of reports that the economy has stopped contracting. It looks as though it has stabilised. But there will continue to be restraint, as the member opposite pointed out. Current forecasts include a significant pick-up in growth in the economy, but even with that pick-up in growth, the Government will be running substantial cash deficits and will need to borrow $250 million per week for the next 4 years.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister of Finance still stand by his advice to the previous Government that there was “room in the surplus to make reducing taxes the normal business of government”, and does he agree that the Government’s accounts would now be in a much worse state had the previous Government taken his advice then, rather than bequeathing some of the world’s lowest debt, best growth, and lowest unemployment to the incoming Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. The previous Government had choices with regard to the surpluses, and it decided to increase Government spending by 50 percent in the last 5 years, when the economy grew by only 25 percent. Now, Kiwis are paying the price for that.

7. Hon TAU HENARE (National) to the Minister for Communications and Information Technology: How is the Government planning to improve broadband services in rural areas?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister for Communications and Information Technology) : I recently announced the Government’s $300 million Rural Broadband Initiative, combining direct Government funding with revenue from a proposed new, more transparent, and effective industry levy than the current telecommunications service obligation levy. Our target is to improve the coverage of fast broadband services so that 97 percent of New Zealand households and enterprises are able to access broadband services of 5 megabytes per second or better, and so that 97 percent of New Zealand schools are able to access ultra-fast broadband of 100 megabytes per second. Given New Zealand’s dependence on its rural sectors for economic growth and productivity improvements, there are considerable benefits to be obtained by delivering fast broadband right throughout the rural sector.

Hon Tau Henare: What will happen to the current telecommunications service levy?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Currently Telecom receives approximately $70 million per annum largely to compensate it for supplying local services to rural customers. This money is sourced from the industry by the telecommunications service obligation levy, which is paid by market participants, including Telecom, on a market share basis. However, there is concern about the lack of transparency around where this money is spent and what benefit rural customers actually receive. Instead, we are proposing a new, more transparent and contestable telecommunications development levy, which will deliver $300 million over 6 years. It will be contestable and made available on a grants basis primarily to develop rural broadband. Further details regarding the tender process will be released following the consultation process that is currently under way.

8. Hon DAVID PARKER (Labour) to the Minister for ACC: What is the estimated whole-of-life cost to ACC of all new claims made in the financial year ended 30 June 2009?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for ACC) : The annual report of the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) tabled last week shows that the current estimate for claim costs for the year ended 30 June 2009 is $7.103 billion.

Hon David Parker: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. My question asked what was the whole-of-life cost of claims made last year, not what was the current claims liability that year. It is a significantly different answer, and that is clear from the question. The point has been made on notice. I think the Minister should be asked to answer the question.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the honourable member. I thought the Minister did answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The answer is the advice I have received from ACC. The question was forwarded over to ACC, and that is the answer it has provided me with.

Hon David Parker: Is the Minister really saying that he thinks the whole-of-life cost of claims made in the year ended 2009 was $7 billion?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The answer that I have provided to the member is absolutely true, and that is that the current estimate for claims costs for the year ended 30 June 2009 is $7.103 billion.

Hon Annette King: And he’s in charge of ACC!

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The members interject about who might be in charge of ACC. That is not very good coming from that party when the unfunded liabilities have grown by $13 billion—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister will resume his seat. The question was perfectly fair. It was examining whether the figure provided by the Minister is accurate. There does not need to be a diatribe against the Opposition on that. It is a perfectly factual question.

Hon David Parker: Will the Minister concede that if it proves to be the case that the estimated whole-of-life cost to ACC of all new claims made in the financial year ended 30 June 2009 is significantly less than the $7 billion he has just told the House, he is not on top of his portfolio?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: What I think is not on top of a portfolio is when during the period of the last Government it ran—

Hon Darren Hughes: Here we go! Answer the question.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I ask members opposite how it is that, in the last 2 years, ACC lost $4.8 billion in the last year and $2.4 billion the previous year. If I were a Labour member I would be ashamed of Labour’s record on accident compensation. Furthermore, we should remember that Labour was the only party that breached the Public Finance Act by trying to hide the mess it left in accident compensation.

Michael Woodhouse: What reports has the Minister seen on not fully funding accident compensation, and returning it to a “pay as you go” model?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The problem with “pay as you go” is that the costs of today’s accidents are passed on to future generations. It also changes the financial incentives today to improve safety and makes it easy for politicians to extend the scheme without being upfront with the public about the true costs. I am concerned that the president of the Labour Party is advocating such a change. This contrasts with Labour’s policy in Government, when it actually promised to have the scheme fully funded by 2010. I only wish that it had done that, because my problems would be a fraction of what they are if it had achieved that.

9. JONATHAN YOUNG (National—New Plymouth) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: What was the value of oil exports in the 2008 calendar year?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : I am pleased to advise the House that the value of New Zealand’s oil exports in the 2008 calendar year was NZ$2.8 billion. In 2008 oil was New Zealand’s third-highest export earner, ranking behind dairy and meat exports only. In the last 12 months the Government has received more than $900 million in petroleum royalties and taxes. These numbers prove that it is worth New Zealand pursuing the full capacity that its offshore basins may contain.

Jonathan Young: What initiatives does the Government have planned to stimulate further oil and gas exploration in New Zealand waters?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has a number of initiatives planned. I am pleased to inform the House that this coming summer will see the largest exploration activity occurring in New Zealand during any drilling season to date. In fact, New Zealand is ranked as one of the top 10 most prospective countries in the world. The Government has a number of initiatives planned to keep up the momentum. The Raukūmara and Northland basins are currently open for exploration permits. Applications for those new blocks offers are considerable. Further, there will be a new blocks offer in the Reinga basin, which will open at the end of this year. Over the summer, new seismic data will be collected, thanks to the appropriation in Budget 2009 of some $20 million over the next 3 years. And, of course, the Government is continuing the 183-day tax exemption rules for explorers in New Zealand.

10. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Broadcasting: When did the Government decide to offer financial support to a TVNZ-led bid to gain the free-to-air rights for the Rugby World Cup?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: The Government is committed to the concept of a stadium of 4 million people supporting the Rugby World Cup in 2011. Free-to-air broadcasts of matches must, therefore, have the widest possible coverage. The Government is united in that view. However, the specifics of any costs have not yet been determined.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need a point of order. The question on notice asked a very straight question: when did the Government decide to offer financial support to TVNZ? Either the Government has or it has not offered support, but the House deserves to hear an answer to the question since it was on notice and it is a straight question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: And I gave a straight answer. The specifics of any costs have not been determined.

Mr SPEAKER: The question on notice did not ask what the cost was. The Minister is perfectly at liberty to point out that the Government has not decided to offer financial support, but the question asked “When did the Government decide to offer financial support to a TVNZ-led bid to gain the free-to-air rights for the Rugby World Cup?”. It may be that the answer is that the Government has not decided to do that, but if it has, the question asked about when it decided. It did not ask about how much money is involved. I ask the Minister to answer the question.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point or order, Mr Speaker. You are deciding to interpret the question as being one that is correct. I would love to know where the verification that the Government has made such a determination came from in the first place. I decided—

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to resume his seat. A perfectly fair answer to the question would be that the Government has not made such a decision. That is a perfectly proper answer, but the Minister did not offer the House that answer. It is a perfectly fair and proper question, and there is public interest in it. I believe that the House deserves to hear an answer. Forgive me; I am not interpreting the question. “When” is a very simple word.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government has not determined the specifics of any costs that may be required.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Again, I say the question was one of timing, and “when” is a very simple word. I think your office has been supplied with material from the Hon Jonathan Coleman, which I am sure people will be finding for us now, indicating that the Government had made that decision. All—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not want to get into debating the substance of the matter. The question simply asked “When did the Government decide to offer financial support?”. It did not ask about the specifics; it asked when a decision was made to offer financial support. It may be that it is not in the public interest to reveal that, but the question has been on notice for some hours and I think the House deserves to hear an answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I have said three times that it has not made that determination.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the Minister.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: Well, no, I do not see any room for another point of order. Well—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The problem I have now is that authentication was given—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. The member is now disputing the answer that the Minister has given. The Minister has given a very clear answer that such a decision has not been made. There are further supplementary questions to pursue that, and that is the proper use of supplementary questions.

Brendon Burns: Is it correct, as the New Zealand Herald website is reporting this afternoon, that the Government has now decided to do another U-turn and leave Māori Television as the lead provider of Rugby World Cup free-to-air coverage?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: This Government has not made a U-turn on this issue, just as it has not on any other issue.

Brendon Burns: Can the Minister say how it was made clear to Māori Television in the week before the bids went in, as the Minister claimed yesterday, that the Government supported the Television New Zealand (TVNZ) - led bid for Rugby World Cup free-to-air rights?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the member is relying on a series of media reports in order to reach the assertions that were made in that question. I can confirm that all the parties are currently meeting. They are discussing the matter amicably, and the stadium of 4 million people will be achieved by this Government.

Brendon Burns: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that neither he nor his office directly—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member. There was interjection from the Labour front bench, which meant I could not hear his supplementary question. I must hear these supplementary questions, and I must say that the interjection was unacceptable, too.

Brendon Burns: Can the Minister give the House an assurance that neither he nor his office directly or indirectly passed information to any other broadcasters regarding the size of the Māori Television Service’s bid?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government became aware of the Māori Television Service bid because the figure was in the general discussion around the matter.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Minister’s answer to the original question, why did Mr English tell Mr Sharples on 8 October and the media on 9 October that the Government was supporting the TVNZ bid?

Hon Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. With the greatest of respect, although there is a great deal of interest, that question cannot be in order. First of all, it started off with a long, rambling “In light of”. The Minister of Broadcasting cannot be responsible for what the Minister of Finance may or may not have said.

Hon Trevor Mallard: There is probably hardly any need to speak to that point of order, but in his answer the Minister indicated that something did not occur, when it is very clearly on the record from Dr Sharples and the media comments from Mr English that it did.

Mr SPEAKER: As far as the first part of the Hon Rodney Hide’s point of order goes, I do not accept the point he made, because all the member asked was along the lines of “In light of an earlier answer”, and in my view, that is not to be discouraged. To me it is to be encouraged in this House that members listen to answers and ask supplementary questions based on earlier answers. In my view, that is a good use of question time, so I have no problem with the member saying something like “In light of an earlier answer”. In respect of where the Minister’s ministerial responsibilities may or may not end, I leave that up to the Minister to be a better judge of than I am as Speaker. The Hon Trevor Mallard can ask his question again.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In light of the Minister’s final answer to the substantive question, why did Mr English tell Dr Sharples on 8 October that the TVNZ bid was going to be financially supported by the Government, and why did his office tell the media that on 9 October?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Minister of Broadcasting has no knowledge of what Mr English may or may not have told other Ministers, but I can tell the member that this Government is committed to the notion of a stadium of 4 million people. That requires as wide a spread of free-to-air broadcasting as possible. As the Prime Minister has said today, all parties are discussing the matter at the moment. There will be a good result for all New Zealanders. I think we should be very pleased that we have reached this position.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that you are very strict on not allowing people to dispute answers by way of a point of order, but I am faced with an enormous problem. In the reply to the substantive question—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon Trevor Mallard:—the Minister said—

Mr SPEAKER: The member must resume his seat right now. I cannot allow answers to be disputed by way of point of order. The Minister gave a perfectly fair answer to that. He said, speaking on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting today, that that Minister has no knowledge about what may have taken place between other Ministers. That seemed to answer the question the member asked. We cannot litigate the quality of an answer by way of a point of order.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The essence of the concern on this side of the House is that we have good reason to believe that the Minister’s answer to the primary question in question 10 was an error. We have—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. No, I cannot allow the accuracy of answers to be litigated by way of a point of order. I invite members to think about the answers they have given. They have more opportunities in the future, and even further opportunity today, to ask further supplementary questions on the matter if they remain concerned about the answers that have been given.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is all getting a bit silly, but I can clarify that it is unlikely that Mr English was in a position to make those comments, because he was actually out of the country at the time.

Hon Trevor Mallard: In response to that, I say some members on this side could use phones when they were Ministers—or even emails. I seek leave to table from the Stuffwebsite something updated at 0907 hours on 13 October: a statement from Dr Coleman indicating that the Government would put up money to boost the TVNZ bid.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document from the Stuffwebsite. Is there any objection? There is.

Brendon Burns: Are we to understand from the Minister’s response to the initial question that we are now seeing the Government, in an attempt to save its coalition with the Māori Party, overturn a comment and statement of only yesterday from the Minister of Broadcasting about a TVNZ-led bid, supported by the Government, for the Rugby World Cup?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No.

11. Dr RUSSEL NORMAN (Co-Leader—Green) to the Minister of Finance: How much did the Government pay Westpac in bank fees in the last financial year and how much does the Government currently have on deposit with them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : If the House will bear with me, the answer is a slightly longer than usual answer. The Government has a master banking agreement with Westpac, under which a range of banking services are provided to individual departments. In addition, departments have supplementary agreements with a range of banks for services not covered by the Westpac agreement. Treasury does not centrally collect information from individual Government entities on the fees paid to, or deposits held with, individual banks. The account balances of all New Zealand dollar Crown and departmental accounts are consolidated at the end of each banking day, and the net balance is then moved to the Crown settlement account at the Reserve Bank. So the Government, in that sense, does not have any deposits with Westpac; they are all held at the Reserve Bank. But the Government does not centrally collect information about bank fees.

Dr Russel Norman: Is there an obligation on Westpac, as the Government’s banker, to behave as a good corporate citizen; if so, does the Minister believe that Westpac was acting as a good corporate citizen when it structured its affairs to illegally avoid paying over half a billion dollars in taxes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That matter, as the member will know, is before the courts at the moment, and in that context I do not intend to comment on it.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The matter is not currently before the courts. The Minister has refrained from answering on the basis of sub judice. The matter is not before the courts; Judge Harrison has ruled on it. There is no appeal currently before the courts. This matter is not before the courts.

Mr SPEAKER: I invite the Minister to consider his answer in that light.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The time for Westpac to lodge an appeal has not expired. Given the large amounts of money involved—in this case, almost a billion dollars—I do not intend to make any comments that might compromise the Crown’s position.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If we are to accept the Minister’s position, then we as a Parliament have our freedom of speech restricted during the entire period between a judgment being made and the latest that an appeal can be lodged. It seems to me that there is currently no case before the courts, there is no matter of sub judice, and we have a right as a Parliament to speak about an issue until an appeal is lodged.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the Minister, in his further answer to the question, pointed out that he does not consider it to be in the public interest to further answer the particular question that the member asked, and I think that only the Minister can be the judge of that. I think the member will accept that there is a lot at stake and that Ministers have to be careful in these matters.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister commit to an exit strategy from his use of Westpac as the Government banker, in the light of its conviction in the High Court for tax avoidance—a conviction that means Westpac now owes the taxpayer nearly $1 billion in back taxes and interest payments?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will honour the terms of its contractual arrangements with Westpac, which have been in place now since 1989.

Dr Russel Norman: What does the Minister say to hard-working, taxpaying New Zealanders who honestly pay their taxes, while Westpac, the Government’s banker, illegally avoids paying half a billion dollars in taxes?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I say to those hard-working taxpayers that even the Government’s banker is subject to the highest courts in the land. In this case, the Government’s banker, along with other banks, has been vigorously pursued by the Crown.

12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister of Broadcasting: On what dates did he meet with NZ On Air between 1 May this year and today?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) on behalf of the Minister of Broadcasting: The Minister had meetings with the chief executive officer and the chair of NZ On Air on 8 June and 18 August. The Minister was also hosted by NZ On Air at the New Zealand Music Awards on 8 October.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Did he discuss at either of those meetings any issues concerning the Rugby World Cup; if so, at which meeting was the first of those discussions?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: At the meeting on 8 June the NZ On Air quarterly report and Platinum Television Fund were discussed, and on 18 August the Platinum Television Fund was discussed. The occasion on 8 October was primarily a social occasion; it was not a business-orientated meeting for the Government to push ideological agendas. That, of course, stands in stark contrast to when the previous Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage attended awards shows, which were described by—

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: —top musicians as like a—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will sit down. [Interruption] I am on my feet and there will be no interjection. The member is sitting right on my right-hand side. He can see when I get to my feet, so in future he will not continue; when I am on my feet he will cease answering immediately. The question was a perfectly fair question asking whether a certain matter was discussed at those meetings. It did not deserve a diatribe of attack from the Minister on the questioner or the questioner’s party. I will not tolerate further abuse like that.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why have the public statements of the Minister of Broadcasting in the last 24 hours been repeatedly challenged by the chief executive of the Māori Television Service and by Mr Derek Fox? Might it be because they think that he is not telling the truth?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The primary question was directed to meetings relating to the Minister of Broadcasting and NZ On Air. The supplementary questions should flow from that and should not, to quote you, be a general diatribe in the form of questions about broadcasting issues.

Hon Trevor Mallard: The long history of this Parliament is that supplementary questions flow from supplementary questions and answers as well as from the primary question. The matter of the Rugby World Cup was certainly a prior supplementary question.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not think I need further ruling on this. Because I realise the Opposition is running out of questions, I invite the member to reword his question to make sure it comes within the basis of the primary question. I will not penalise him; he will not lose a question.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Does he stand by his statement that an issue concerning his colleague Melissa Lee that he was advised of on 18 or 19 August was a relatively technical accounting matter that they just needed to let him know about? Was that advice in writing?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister is able to confirm that the advice was proffered. He is unable to confirm whether it was in writing or it was oral but he stands by what was said. It was certainly was not misappropriation, which is a term the member has been peddling.

Hon Pete Hodgson: What action, if any, did the Minister take having learnt on 18 August that NZ On Air was investigating his colleague; and how did he manage, as he advised Morning Report earlier this week, to completely forget about it, given that $100,000 was at stake?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The Minister confirms that this was a routine audit matter that was mentioned to the Minister towards the end of a meeting. Nothing further needed to be done by him because—it may come as a surprise to the Opposition—it was an independent investigation.