1. AARON GILMORE (National) to the Minister of Finance: How is the Government’s budget affected by State sector pay settlements?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : The Government now faces 10 years of deficits, including the largest structural deficits the country has seen for decades. Both the Government and the public sector owe it to those people who are dependent on public services to achieve the Government’s aim of providing smarter, better public services with limited funding. State sector pay settlements, therefore, need to take account of fiscal constraint and of the need to develop better ways of working, so we can meet public expectations of service, without rapid growth in expenditure.

Aaron Gilmore: Has the Minister received any reports on recent pay rises in the State sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has stated a number of times that it would honour those agreements that were entered into in pay rounds before the change of Government. I have seen reports that, for instance, senior doctors received a 4.25 percent pay increase on 29 June. Alongside their automatic moves up the scale, this amounts to a total pay rise of $11,000 a year for senior doctors. Nurses received a 4 percent increase in March, alongside automatic progressions. Under his or her contract, the average nurse is receiving a pay increase of around $6,000 a year. In the current climate, most New Zealanders are receiving little or nothing extra. No one should take those pay increases as an indication of settlements in the near future. They are legally binding agreements that the Government will stick to, but we have made it clear that that kind of pay rise is no longer sustainable.

Aaron Gilmore: Has the Minister received any reports on pay movements in the private sector?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is a little more difficult to get detailed information on private sector pay increases, but there are a number of reports on organisations that have, for instance, frozen their wages, such as Sealord’s, ASB, the New Zealand Rugby Union, and several media organisations. Many New Zealanders see State sector workers as having relatively secure jobs, and would be concerned if the representatives of State sector workers were out of touch with what was going on in the wider community and the private sector.

David Garrett: Has the Government considered performance-based pay, with financial penalties for chief executives such as Mr Barry Matthews, as planned in the contracts for privately managed prisons; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government will consider any arrangement that will enable us to provide smarter, better public services with limited new funding. The State sector has been used to having compound increases of around 8 percent a year. In the Budget, the Government signalled that next year there will be only a $1.1 billion increase in the operating allowance. We have given the whole public sector 12 months’ notice that it needs to be looking at a much wider range of tools to be able to secure productivity gains and to meet public expectations, without large and reckless spending increases.

Grant Robertson: Does the Minister accept that imposing a pay freeze will actually make it harder to provide the smarter, better public services that he wants, because it will be harder to retain and recruit skilled staff in areas of essential need where there is international demand, such as that for nurses and social workers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is showing how completely out of touch the Labour Party is with the real world. The fact is that turnover rates in the public sector have dropped to historical lows, and it is going to be necessary to ensure that any pay increases are met with productivity gains. Productivity in the public sector over the last 7 or 8 years has been appalling. That will have to change, because if it does not change we will not be able to offer the range of services that the public deserve.

Grant Robertson: Can the Minister confirm that he is signalling to primary and secondary teachers, and to nurses, that they can expect no pay increases when their collective contracts expire in 2010; if so, what does he expect will be the result of that signal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Nurses and teachers would be regarded by the public as having among the most secure jobs in the economy right now. We are signalling very clearly that there will be restrained funding, and those professional groups, whose dedication we admire and whose services we need, have the opportunity to think about better ways of working. But the days of going to Ministers and getting large increases at the expense of the taxpayer, without any productivity gains, are over.

2. SUE KEDGLEY (Green) to the Minister of Consumer Affairs: If country-of-origin labelling remains voluntary for single-ingredient foods—such as fruit, vegetables, meat, and fish—then how will the Government guarantee that all such labels are fair and accurate?

Hon HEATHER ROY (Minister of Consumer Affairs) : The accuracy and fairness of country-of-origin labelling, like the labelling of other goods, is regulated by the Fair Trading Act. This requires that information about goods must not be misleading or deceptive.

Sue Kedgley: Is it not the case that if labelling remains voluntary, and there are no minimum mandatory standards that retailers are required to meet, there will actually be no way of guaranteeing that unscrupulous retailers do not mislabel imported products as products of New Zealand, and there will be no way of ensuring that the more than 1,000 retailers of fresh food actually bother to label their fresh produce?

Hon HEATHER ROY: We are a small, reasonably well-educated economy. We are often able to achieve through voluntary means what other jurisdictions can achieve only through compulsion. The industry has shown, as indicated, a willingness to participate in a voluntary code; in fact, some supermarkets have already started. Given that there is increasing demand from the public to know where their food comes from, I put this issue on my work plan in January this year. Subsequently, the Prime Minister asked me to progress work on voluntary country-of-origin labelling of wholefoods, and I have set up a working group to explore the options around this issue. The working group is led by me. Its other members are the Minister for Food Safety, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Trade. Our respective officials have begun work and have been in discussions with retailers.

Sue Kedgley: Why, when country-of-origin labelling is mandatory for clothing, footwear, and wine, should it be voluntary for food, especially when other food labelling, such as ingredients and nutrition labelling, is mandatory and underpinned by a regulatory standard?

Hon HEATHER ROY: My understanding is that the mandatory requirement for clothing and footwear to be labelled was an initiative that was put in by a previous Government quite some time ago, in the early stages of a “made in New Zealand” campaign. Things have moved on significantly since that stage, and, as I indicated in my last answer, due to an increasing demand from the public to know where their food comes from, I have put the issue on my work plan. A working group is dealing with the issue now.

Sue Kedgley: Why, when she is Minister of a department whose main role is to encourage the provision of accurate information between suppliers and consumers, would she not support consumers’ right to know where their food comes from and to be confident that labels are fair and accurate, especially when point-of-sale labelling of fresh foods is very easy and cheap to implement?

Hon HEATHER ROY: The reason I set up a working group is to explore the issues. We want to see consistent guidelines put in place so that it is easy for retailers to conform in a voluntary capacity. I have every confidence, based on discussions that I have had to date with retailers, that they are willing to put things in place. It is important, in my position as Minister of Consumer Affairs, to ensure that information is easy to access for consumers. I am confident that a voluntary regime—as supported by the Labour Party, the National Party, and the ACT Party—is enough to cover this issue.

Sue Kedgley: I seek leave to table a document showing 47 countries that have mandatory labelling of fresh produce.

Mr SPEAKER: And the source of the document?

Sue Kedgley: The source of the document is a Horticulture New Zealand report.

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.

3. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement that “taxpayers are supporting the banks, and we want the banks to be able to demonstrate that they are going to support businesses and households through a tough time in the economy, even if it affects their profits a bit”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes.

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister, in reaching his view that a select committee inquiry into banking is unnecessary, taken into account the view of the 86 percent of respondents to a Manufacturers and Exporters Association survey who say they want a public inquiry to establish whether they are being overcharged interest on their business loans at a time when many can barely afford to make their next GST payment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The matter of whether there was an inquiry was a matter for the committee. But as I understand it, the committee was not going to be inquiring into the issues that the member raised. I tell him that if grandstanding and hand-wringing fixed problems, then interest rates would not have reached record levels under Labour.

Amy Adams: How do current home mortgage interest rates compare with those of the past 10 years?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Reserve Bank data shows that the average floating first mortgage housing rate for new customers in May this year was 6.41 percent. In May 2008 the average rate was 10.9 percent, the highest interest rate in more than 10 years. Of course, the people now saying you can fix interest rates with an inquiry did nothing about record rates then, and those record rates had a big impact, particularly on our export sector.

Hon David Cunliffe: As the Minister seems willing to confuse the level of interest rates with interest rate margins, has he taken into account the publicly expressed view of the Governor of the Reserve Bank that the proposed inquiry should proceed, and that there has been an unexplained hike in the margin spread between the official cash rate and short-term interest rates up to 275 basis points? Has he also taken into account the views of the chief executives of the ANZ National Bank and the BNZ, who have publicly supported the inquiry proposal?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The committee made its decision about the inquiry. I assure that member that, actually, people in the real world are worried about the absolute level of interest rates more than the margins. Of course, the absolute level of those interest rates is much lower now than it was when he was in charge. If he could have lowered them with an inquiry why did he not do it then?

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister believes that the committee has made up its own mind, has he had any contact with the Finance and Expenditure Committee chair Craig Foss on the matter in recent weeks, noting that Craig Foss has said there is “a lot more communication going on with senior banking industry figures”; if so, has he received any new information from the banks, their Australian parents, or the Australian Government, and did this information assist him to change his mind on an inquiry?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The inquiry was a matter for the committee. I have made it plain to anyone who will listen that our top priority is to ensure that banks keep lending, because when they stop lending, people lose jobs. There is some argument to be had about margins that apply to a very small amount of the lending they do, but we want to maintain the advantage New Zealand has of a stable banking system, which is rare in the world at the moment, and can make sure the banks keep lending to businesses, which can keep employing people. Grandstanding over an inquiry about a marginal issue is the proper role of the Opposition, but it has no impact on economic policy.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I expect you will know what the point of order is. The Minister has not attempted to address the process question that I just posed to him, which was whether he had had any contact with the Finance and Expenditure Committee chairman, with the banks, with their parents, or with the Australian Government. He did not attempt to address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the honourable member is making. I could have assisted the honourable member far more if he had asked just that question. If the honourable member wanted that question answered, he should have just asked whether the Minister had had any contact with the chair of the select committee. Then we could have had an answer. But no, the member went on and added at least three other questions that I heard. There is no way I can assist him in getting an answer to whichever bit of the question he particularly wanted answered. I think that is an object lesson in how to keep his question to the point if he wants it answered.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It may assist the House and the Minister if I were to reread a more truncated version of the same question.

Mr SPEAKER: Forgive me but I cannot give the honourable member that benefit, this time around; but does the member have a further supplementary question?

Hon David Cunliffe: Has the Minister taken into account the views of the Productive Economy Council, which points out the irony of the Government spending $9 million on a smacking referendum that it plans to ignore, while deeming unnecessary a banking inquiry that affects many thousands of hard-working New Zealanders potentially paying too much for their mortgages and business loans?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I understand that the Productive Economy Council consists of one person. But, nevertheless, the overriding issue for all New Zealand businesses and households is that there is an adequate supply of credit and that the banks are able to keep lending. The select committee came to its own conclusion about an inquiry. The inquiry seemed to be focused on a very limited aspect of what is going on at the moment. I can assure anyone in the productive sector that this Government is working a lot harder than the previous Government to provide a better environment for them because we understand what they need, whereas the previous Government did not.

John Boscawen: What options, if any, does the Government have to tell the ANZ that it should not bully its elderly customers who wish to accept ING’s offer into waiving their legal rights to obtain proper redress through the Commerce Commission, or does he think that this sort of behaviour is acceptable on the part of the ANZ?

Mr SPEAKER: I will leave it up to the Minister to assess whether that question is consistent with the primary question.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As I think I said to the member yesterday, we would certainly sympathise with older people who have lost their savings through bad advice, bad choices, or bad management of those savings. The Government does not have any legal means of determining the way the ANZ should behave in these circumstances.

Hon David Cunliffe: Is the Minister of Finance therefore saying—when Government members of the Finance and Expenditure Committee initially proposed a narrow inquiry, and the Opposition proposed broader terms of reference but later compromised and said it would accept either, but Government members voted against both, including their own—he would support broader terms of reference and reconsider the Government position on that basis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does the Minister agree with Don Nicholson, the President of Federated Farmers, that “Small businesses … are paying a lot of money for their working capital funding, so I’m not sure what took the steam out of the sails of the committee.”, or with banking union FinSec: “What this shows is that the Government is either impotent or in the pocket of the Australian banks.”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I almost always agree with Don Nicholson; he is a constituent of mine and a fine man. I have met with FinSec members a couple of times over different issues; I agree with some of what they say but not all of what they say.

4. NIKKI KAYE (National—Auckland Central) to the Minister of Transport: What progress has been made on advancing public transport projects in Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : I am pleased to report that the Auckland Regional Council and the New Zealand Transport Agency have reached agreement to advance a range of public transport projects in Auckland that were to have been funded by the Auckland regional fuel tax. New and improved rail stations, including those planned at New Lynn, Manukau, Onehunga, Grafton, and Avondale, will receive a subsidy of up to 60 percent from the New Zealand Transport Agency. In addition, the New Zealand Transport Agency will pay for 60 percent of the outstanding work on the Newmarket station and make a $5 million contribution to work already done. The agency has also agreed to lend the Auckland Regional Council $33 million for the purchase of new diesel trains to cater for growing patronage until the electric trains arrive. I note that this has all happened without saddling the people of Auckland with an extra 9.5c per litre regional fuel tax.

Nikki Kaye: How is the Government going to purchase electric commuter trains for Auckland now that the 9.5c per litre fuel tax has been cancelled?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The Government is committed to the electrification project. The Ministry of Transport is currently investigating various options for the purchase of electric trains in Auckland. These include the Crown increasing investment in KiwiRail, KiwiRail borrowing the money and the Crown providing an additional direct passenger subsidy until patronage increases, or some form of public-private partnership, most likely on an availability basis. We must ensure it goes ahead in a way that meets the needs of Aucklanders and ensures the most efficient use of taxpayers’ funds.

Phil Twyford: When the Minister told the select committee this morning that funding for the purchase of Auckland’s trains was outstanding, how much is the Government contributing and when will that money be provided?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I said in answer to the previous supplementary question, we are currently working on a number of options and that decision is yet to be made.

Phil Twyford: When the Minister cautioned the select committee this morning that integrated ticketing systems can end up in budget blowouts, just how much of the estimated $100 million cost is he planning to contribute, and what guarantees can he give this House that the information technology component will be kept under control?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Personally, none.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is a relatively simple point of order. That member is a new Minister, but he cannot give personal answers in this House. He must answer as a Minister, and not give his personal views.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear what the honourable member is saying. I assume the Minister was speaking as Minister, but he should correct that answer and make it clear what his answer meant.

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As a Minister, I am also contributing nothing. If there are any funds to be contributed—and there will be—they will be contributed by the New Zealand Transport Agency.

Nikki Kaye: What work is being done to introduce integrated ticketing to Auckland?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Again, I am pleased to report that the New Zealand Transport Agency and the Auckland Regional Transport Authority are working together on developing a sensible integrated ticketing system that balances the needs and conveniences of commuters with what is affordable. I commend their cautious approach, and I note that the sums of money involved and the potential for cost escalation have been viewed nervously by all participants. The New Zealand Transport Agency will provide financial assistance at the same rate as for other public transport projects.

5. TE URUROA FLAVELL (Māori Party—Waiariki) to the Attorney-General: What response has he received from Māori to the report of the ministerial review panel on the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Attorney-General) : I have received a lot of feedback from Māori and non-Māori alike—too much to list here. I note the response of the Māori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, who described it as a turning point from “the conflicts and divisions of the past five years”. I also note the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition, who stated his party would act constructively over the review, and I very much look forward to engaging with the Labour Party on this issue. I endorse the comments made by the Māori Party co-leader Pita Sharples yesterday that public access to the beach had never been an issue “as far as Māori were concerned”. But the fact that it has caused so much angst is why public access must be enshrined.

Te Ururoa Flavell: How will the Government ensure that a conversation can be held between Māori and non-Māori on this issue so that the country can move forward together?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think it is important to emphasise that the report is just the latest stage in the ongoing conversation between Māori and non-Māori since 2003, but I think the panel’s report provides a real opportunity for Māori and non-Māori to continue that conversation. I very much appreciate the constructive way in which the Māori Party has raised the issue, and I am confident that the Government, with the Māori Party working alongside it, will do all it can to ensure there is a just and durable resolution of this issue.

Hon David Parker: Was the Labour Party’s submission to the ministerial review panel, which advocated amending the legislation to restore the right of hapū and iwi to apply for customary title while preserving by statute public rights of access, helpful in efforts to achieve a fair and durable solution?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Yes, I believe it was. The contribution of the Labour Party was valuable, and I certainly think its ongoing contribution, particularly through the member who asked the question, will be very useful.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister have confidence in the robustness of the report and the panel members?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I think the review panel did a very good job, especially given the very tight time frame given by the Government. It has produced a robust report, which gives the Government a very useful starting-point to enable all parties in this House, and the wider public, an opportunity to resolve this issue.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Can the Minister confirm that the current legislation already guarantees public access to the foreshore and seabed; and will iwi who have substantial Treaty claim interests—including their harbours, foreshore, and seabed—such as Hauraki, be able to negotiate a remedy under the Treaty settlement process, or will they need to wait for the Government to respond to the report of the foreshore and seabed review panel?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I certainly agree that the current legislation did address the issue of access, and I would like to think that, as a result of this report, beyond peradventure, the question of public access to the foreshore and seabed is no longer an issue that, shall we say, certain parties in this country will be able to raise in a mischievous way.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister intend to lift the cap on Treaty settlements, in light of the foreshore and seabed review panel recommendation?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The whole question of Treaty settlements, which this Government is very committed to, is one that I am addressing every day. In general terms, I am not in a position to answer that question at this time.

6. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: What reports has she received on the need to upskill the workforce to assist in job placement?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) : I have received a number of reports that recognise that upskilling the workforce is important in order to ensure we are in a position to take advantage of the economic upturn. That is why this Government increased the spending on tertiary education in Budget 2009 from $2.66 billion to $2.78 billion.

Hon Maryan Street: What does the Minister say to Sandy Gibbs of Wellington, who said on 18 June that adult and community education was a last chance for her to gain qualifications and a profession, leading to the establishment of a graphic design business, and that “I feel very strongly that these classes provide people with the means not only to gain confidence, but to study and go on.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I would say to Sandy that this Government remains committed to adult and community education, and that is why we are spending $124 million over the next 4 years. That money will be spent on the priority areas of literacy, language, numeracy, and foundation skills.

Hon Maryan Street: When the Minister said yesterday at the Education and Science Committee that difficult economic times made her choose between funding adult and community education and getting a young person into a more vocational polytech course, did she factor her refusal to extend the caps on student numbers at polytechs into that equation; if she did, where does she expect the 6,000 to 8,000 students who are likely to be turned away from polytechs over the next year to go to for their upskilling opportunities?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I said to the member yesterday at the select committee, she should not rely on projections that are based on April enrolments. They have proved to be unreliable in the past, sometimes quite spectacularly so. As I said to the member yesterday, this Government is watching the enrolments in tertiary institutions very carefully. I am reporting to Cabinet and the Prime Minister on a regular basis, and I am in constant touch with the technology institutes and polytechnics sector, in particular.

Colin King: What areas has she targeted for additional spending in Budget 2009?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: The Government has put an additional $11 million into the Workplace Literacy Fund over the next 2 years. This will mean that for the next 2 years we will fund 4,500 places through that fund. That compares with the previous Government, which in good times could fund only 3,000 places. Decisions like this show that we are committed to helping workers to gain the skills that they need in order to succeed and to produce the increases in productivity that the country needs.

Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister stand by her statement to the select committee yesterday that the chief executive officers of polytechs are inflating the number of students they expect to have enrolling at their institutions in the next 6 to 12 months; if so, why does she think they are doing that?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I do not accept that member’s assertion. That is not what I said to the select committee. What I said was that the projections that the chief executive officers were making were unreliable, and that in the past they have proved to be so. The April enrolment figures cannot be taken as, and have been shown in past years not to be, a good indicator of the enrolments for the rest of the year.

7. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister of Defence: What steps is the Government taking to ensure that New Zealanders can have their say in the current defence review?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Defence) : Last Friday the Associate Minister and I launched the public consultation phase of the defence review. The public has until 24 August to make its views known. I should note that this is the first defence review for more than 10 years, and it will, in fact, be the very first time that the public has had a direct say in a defence review.

Todd McClay: How will this consultation be undertaken?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: At the launch last week the Associate Minister and I released a public consultation document for comment. This will be widely available in libraries, and online at www.defence.govt.nz. There will also be eight to 12 public meetings so that the public can have its say directly. The Associate Minister will be leading that phase. For instance, next Thursday the Centre for Strategic Studies at Victoria University is hosting a day-long seminar for defence experts to discuss the review.

Todd McClay: What other measures is the Minister taking to get wide-ranging input into the defence review?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: The defence review includes an independent panel comprising Mr Simon Murdoch; Martyn Dunne, the former major-general; and Mr Rob McLeod. They have been appointed and have already met with the review team and Ministers. Independent advice is also being sought on procurement, given the Auditor-General’s report of last year. The outcome will be a thorough and comprehensive review and is intended to place defence on a sound footing for the next two decades.

8. SUE MORONEY (Labour) to the Minister of Labour: Does she stand by her statement in the House on Tuesday when she said: “The law is clear: people cannot be discriminated against because of their gender. The standard is equal pay for equal work.”?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) : Yes.

Sue Moroney: Will the Minister then advise the Minister of Education to implement the findings of the school support workers pay equity investigation, which found that jobs in this female-dominated occupation paid $8 less per hour at the start rate than jobs in a male-dominated workforce with the same level of skills, responsibilities, demands, and working conditions; in other words, will she fix this unequal pay for equal work?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: If there has been a breach of the Equal Pay Act, remedies are available under the Act. The employee is entitled to make a complaint either under the Equal Pay Act or the Human Rights Act.

Sue Moroney: If, as the Minister herself said on Tuesday, the standard is equal pay for equal work—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: What’s the question? Start with a question word.

Sue Moroney: —I said “if”—will she instruct the Minister of State Services to reinstate the pay equity investigation for social workers at Child, Youth and Family, where men are paid 9.5 percent more than their women colleagues, or is she happy for her Government to be one of those unscrupulous employers she referred to in Parliament on Tuesday?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: I refer to my previous answer. The same answer applies to that question.

Sue Moroney: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I referred specifically to the Minister’s own statement in the House on Tuesday. She has failed to address the question of why, if her assertion is that the standard is equal pay for equal work, she will not instruct the Ministers. Why will she not address the question?

Mr SPEAKER: I apologise to the honourable member for repeating this, but if she reflects back on her supplementary question she will see that if she had asked the question in her point of order, and only that question, then it would be much easier for the Speaker to assist her. The dilemma was that the tail part of her question—if I remember correctly—put in a bit about whether it was part of the Government being irresponsible, or something along those lines. When a member does that, he or she cannot expect a question to be addressed absolutely, because he or she has added political content to it and will get a political answer. If the member asked the simple question then I would assist her every time if I could, but not when political content is added. That gives the Minister an out.

Catherine Delahunty: Tēnā koutou. Does the Minister think it is appropriate for her department’s staff to be issued with a directive that participating in a lunchtime rally on pay equity for public servants “may therefore call into question our role as public servants”, and can she comment on what kind of precedent that is in a democracy?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: That is a matter for the chief executive. It is an operational matter. He is following State Services Commission guidelines, which are there to safeguard the political neutrality of the Public Service.

Grant Robertson: Did the Minister or her office have any contact with the chief executive of the Department of Labour about staff attending the pay equity rally on Tuesday?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: As I said, it was an operational matter. I made no directive.

Hon Ruth Dyson: Yes or no?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: No, I did not have discussions with the chief executive about whether staff should attend the rally.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very tight question from Mr Robertson. It asked whether the Minister or her office were in contact. She said that she had had no contact, but she did not refer to her office. I accept that we cannot have two legs, but I do not think we could have a simpler question than that for a Minister to answer. But she avoided answering what is now becoming apparent.

Mr SPEAKER: I have to say in fairness on this occasion that I thought the Minister gave a pretty reasonable answer. I accept the technical point the member has made, but I thought the Minister was pretty upfront in answering the fundamental part of that question: whether she had any contact with the department over that matter. She answered that question very clearly to the House. In respect of the other part of the question, I think, had it been a primary question, there would have been no problem, but with a supplementary, I think the Minister did answer the question within the Standing Orders.

Sue Moroney: Why did the Minister say on Tuesday during oral questions: “If Labour members have evidence that women are being paid less only because they are women, … they need to bring that evidence forward.”, yet today she is shirking her responsibility to do anything about it?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: As I said on Tuesday, and as I have said today, if there has been a breach of the Equal Pay Act, there are remedies under that legislation. The employee is entitled to make a complaint under either that legislation or the human rights legislation.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the Minister’s office have contact with anyone in the department about departmental officials attending the rally this week?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: To the best of my knowledge, no.

Catherine Delahunty: I seek leave to table an email from the Deputy Secretary, Corporate, of the Department of Labour to all Department of Labour staff.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table an email from the Deputy Secretary of Labour to the staff. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is no objection.

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

9. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: What advice has he received on the potential conflict of interest of industry representative DairyNZ being contracted to produce the Government’s Water Research Strategy?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP (Minister of Research, Science and Technology) : I have received advice from the Foundation for Research, Science and Technology relating to the draft Water Research Strategy. The strategy is to assist the foundation in its investment in water research. As the member has already been advised, the foundation contracted with DairyNZ to secure the services of Dr David Johns to act as a facilitator during the preparation of the draft Water Research Strategy. Prior to taking up his position with DairyNZ, Dr Johns had been employed by the foundation for 5 years as its general manager of investment strategy. The conflict of interest potential has been carefully managed through consultation with major stakeholders before Dr Johns was engaged, and through working the whole process through a governance steering committee to which Dr Johns reports.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Now that the Minister has confirmed that actions to manage the conflict of interest arising from the uncontested contract worth up to $100,000 being given to DairyNZ include consulting stakeholders to ensure there are no objections, which environmental and recreational non-governmental organisations were consulted about the suitability of DairyNZ preparing the Government’s Water Research Strategy?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I am advised that the advisory group that drew up the draft strategy had 10 members, including three eminent water scientists and representatives from other stakeholders, including Government departments, regional councils, and users. The draft water research strategy has been open for public consultation, and is currently being finalised for submission to the foundation’s board. I also note that it is the Ministry for the Environment, not Dr Johns or DairyNZ, that has provided administrative support for the development of the strategy.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Can the Minister confirm that DairyNZ included no environmental or recreational non-governmental organisations in its email of 27 April requesting comment on the 10-year strategy?

Hon Dr WAYNE MAPP: I am not able to confirm that point, but I do notice that the advisory group, as I have already informed the member, was quite broadly representative. In any event, the strategy is open now for public consultation. It is actually to support a research application that has been finalised for submission to the board of the foundation.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: I seek leave of the House to table three documents. The first one is an email dated 27 April this year from DairyNZ to about a hundred stakeholders that invites input, but excludes any environmental or recreational non-governmental organisations.

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.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: The second one is a file note from the foundation exploring the conflict of interest issues, and indicating that consultation ought to take place.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave is sought to table that document. Is there any objection to that? There is none.

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

Jeanette Fitzsimons: The third one is the contract for services, which is between the foundation and DairyNZ. It lists a bunch of stakeholders who are to be consulted, but, again, the list does not include any environmental non-governmental organisations.

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.

10. BRENDON BURNS (Labour—Christchurch Central) to the Minister of Health: What assurances can he give smaller New Zealand communities on the safety of their drinking water, given that he has announced a 3-year delay in implementing minimum water quality standards?

Hon TONY RYALL (Minister of Health) : The assurance I can give is that the local councils, which represent their local communities and are responsible for water supplies, are well aware of their responsibilities to both consumers and ratepayers under the drinking-water legislation.

Brendon Burns: Does the Minister agree with the Prime Minister, who only today told Federated Farmers’ national conference that “in many parts of the country water quality is poor or deteriorating”; if so, when will he uphold his ministry’s commitment to make water safe to drink for the one in five New Zealanders who are currently at risk?

Hon TONY RYALL: Of course I agree with what the Prime Minister said. Local government is concerned about the impact of compliance on people’s rates and water charges at a time of considerable financial pressure. The local councils have told us that the cost of compliance would significantly exceed the previous official estimates of between $50 million and $275 million. Local government has suggested that the burden could be around $800 million.

Dr Paul Hutchison: What response has there been to the Government agreeing to local body requests for additional breathing space?

Hon TONY RYALL: Although there has been a trickle of predictable criticism, there has been a flood of support from local authorities and communities from one end of the nation to the other. The President of Local Government New Zealand, Lawrence Yule, welcomed the decision, as did the Mayor of Hurunui District, who wholeheartedly welcomed it. The Mayor of Marlborough District also welcomed it, and, further, said that the previous Government had gone over the top on this matter. The list goes on. The member’s own mayor told me that this move would be welcomed.

Brendon Burns: What does the Minister say to the many small communities such as Cheviot, in the Hurunui District of North Canterbury—to which he has referred—which for 5 years has had people getting sick, with the result that the Canterbury Medical Officer of Health threatened earlier this year to shut down the water supply as a medical emergency?

Hon TONY RYALL: These communities are represented by their local councils, and these local councils have requested this action. The councils are worried about the huge financial impact on ratepayers during the worst recession since the 1930s. There is nothing to stop the councils from taking action.

Brendon Burns: Does the Minister agree with the Minister for Regulatory Reform, who has variously described the minimum drinking-water standards as “ridiculous”, and as “inefficient and superfluous” regulation that needs to be removed?

Hon TONY RYALL: It is not for me to disagree with the Minister for Regulatory Reform. I think Mr Hide is exactly right when he says that everyone is in favour of pristine water quality, but that is not the question here. This is a matter of balancing the benefits and the risks with a significant financial impact on ratepayers during the worst recession since the 1930s. This position is overwhelmingly supported by the elected representatives of communities around the country.

11. TIM MACINDOE (National—Hamilton West) to the Minister of Youth Affairs: What examples can she give of new youth-focused programmes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister of Youth Affairs) : On Tuesday I met with a group of young people from On the Edge Trust. Those young people drove the iCAN initiative, which in just 1 month collected over 54,000 cans of food from school students, which were eventually donated to the Salvation Army and city missions. They also set a world record for the biggest canned-food structure. I commend those motivated young people, who took the initiative and got it all off the ground with no Government funding, but who received heaps of community support.

Tim Macindoe: Can the Minister give more examples of communities getting behind programmes they value?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes. Today is a big day in Ōpōtiki, which is a place I call the youth mural capital of New Zealand. It is a big day because the mural museum exhibit is opening, three new murals are being launched, the mayor is handing out certificates for the young artists, and a film is being made of the day’s events. A cake stall last week raised $1,300 to pay for a book about the murals. Although I am pleased that this project got under way with Government funding, I am even more delighted that the community says that the funding ending has inspired the whole town to get behind this very special project, and to make it its own.

Jacinda Ardern: What youth programmes will the Minister call for the introduction of to assist the 32,000 unemployed young people in New Zealand; or does she agree that the stalled emissions trading scheme and the Resource Management Act are sufficient, given that these were both used by the Prime Minister as examples of the Government’s action on youth unemployment?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I know that that member has already proven to the House that she likes to pluck numbers out of the air, so I certainly dispute her figure of 32,000 young people who are unemployed. We currently have over 15,000 young people, though, on the unemployment benefit. Those are young people aged under 24 years. This Government is certainly committed to engaging them. We have already seen a number of initiatives and industry partnerships, and they will continue.

Jacinda Ardern: Does she agree with the Prime Minister, who, when asked for explicit examples of what the Government had done to address youth unemployment, stated that one of the fastest ways to see youngsters get an opportunity was the introduction of the 90-day probationary employment period; if so, by what percentage can we expect unemployment to decrease as a result of this initiative?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, I certainly agree with our outstanding Prime Minister. I say that we are in a global recession, and, unfortunately, what happens at such times is that unemployment goes up. Let me say that I have no doubt at all that the 90-day probation period gives a number of young people an opportunity to get into employment that they would have not had otherwise. We would have more young people on the unemployment benefit if it was not for that fantastic initiative.

Tim Macindoe: What other reports has the Minister seen about youth programmes?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: The Sunday programme recently highlighted the Ōtorohanga trades training programme that the mayor and the town passionately support. Despite the impression given in that item, the trades training project has secure funding from this Government until December, and they had already been told that they would be funded until June 2010.

12. KELVIN DAVIS (Labour) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: Does he stand by his statement in the House on 23 June in relation to student achievement in secondary schools, “if secondary schools will not step up and deal with that problem, then we go elsewhere, such as universities, to deal with it.”; if not, why not?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Leader of the House) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: The Minister has made a number of statements recently on the need to increase the number of Māori completing degree qualifications, and he stands by all of them. He is also of the firm view that student achievement at secondary school is a responsibility of those schools.

Kelvin Davis: Does the Minister understand that many secondary schools may perceive his comments as him saying he has given up on those secondary schools that have difficulty raising Māori achievement?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: No, that is not what was said. What was laid out was a challenge for secondary schools to do better by the Māori students they teach at the present time. Any glance at the statistics will show the member just how big that challenge is.

Kelvin Davis: What are his solutions to raising Māori achievement at secondary schools?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Secondary schools are like all schools in New Zealand and need to be in tune with the needs of their students. The Minister simply lays down the challenge for them to recognise that they need to do more to lift achievement among this particular sector of their student body.