1. CRAIG FOSS (National—Tukituki) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on New Zealand’s external financial position?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Today’s data shows that the balance of payments deficit for the year to June narrowed to $10.6 billion, or 5.9 percent of GDP, in the June quarter. This represents a narrowing of the deficit from the recent range of 8 to 9 percent, the record high levels that it has held since 2005. The decline would have been greater than it has been but for the 9 percent decline in the terms of trade in June, the largest quarterly fall since 1975 and the largest quarterly fall in export prices since 1951.

Craig Foss: What consequences will the improvement have for the economy?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Mr Speaker—

Hon Trevor Mallard: Pay more for the house in Messines Road.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: This is the bit where Trevor yells for the TV camera.

Hon Member: Every day.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, come on, Trevor. [Interruption] It is the same script. Today’s adjustment is what one would expect during a recession. The falls in imports, interest rates, and profits are all to some extent temporary, and as the economy improves, each of them will tend to reverse. The need to rebalance the economy towards investment and exports remains as important as ever. That rebalancing is critical to creating sustainable jobs.

Hon David Cunliffe: If the Minister is encouraged by the reduction in the financial and trade deficits, when can the struggling families who are currently having trouble meeting their power and grocery bills see a bit of light at the end of the tunnel and something extra at the end of the week?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Families, particularly those families who are struggling with the loss of jobs, must be concerned that, despite the best economic conditions in a generation, that member’s Government so badly mismanaged the economy that thousands of Kiwis have now lost their jobs.

Craig Foss: What other assessments of New Zealand’s external financial position has the Minister seen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen some quite knowledgable comments from the Hon Phil Goff when the current account deficit was last a significant issue. He said we had got into the habit of borrowing from overseas, effectively relying on the savings of foreigners, to pay for our consumption and invest in our businesses. Given that Mr Goff identified the problem correctly, it is hard to understand why his Government managed to make such a mess of it once Labour got into power.

Dr Russel Norman: Will the Minister join the Greens, Treasury, the Reserve Bank, manufacturers, and exporters in admitting that we need to change the taxation treatment of investment properties if we are to rebalance the New Zealand economy away from debt-fuelled consumption towards productive enterprise?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Treasury and the Tax Working Group are working through those issues and will provide advice to the Government at some stage.

2. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: When he said last week in the House that the Government was interested in “making sure that our scheme is affordable.”, what is the estimated cost to the New Zealand taxpayer over the life of the scheme of the changes he announced to the emissions trading scheme?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Acting Prime Minister) : As the Prime Minister said last week, over the next 3 years the revised scheme will cost around $415 million to halve the petrol and electricity price increases that were inherent in the scheme that was already on the books. It is more difficult to estimate the costs past 2013 because the international rules are not known. However, Treasury’s mid-range estimate is that the revised scheme will actually save $493 million during the period 2013 to 2018, so over the next 9 years it will cost taxpayers less than the existing scheme. That brings into question some of the claims that have been made about huge industry subsidies.

Hon Phil Goff: How can the Acting Prime Minister make that comment when the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development, which represents about 43 percent of the gross domestic product of this country, says: “Capping the price on emissions and delaying the phase out of assistance for major emitters could cost the taxpayers billions of dollars,”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The advice that we have been given by Treasury, which has had many years to work out how to calculate these things, simply contradicts the claims by that council, and contradicts the claims made by the member. In the interests of broad agreement about the scheme, it should not be too difficult to get to the bottom of what drives the numbers.

Hon Phil Goff: Why, in making the changes to the emissions trading scheme, has the Prime Minister transferred billions of dollars of costs for carbon and methane pollution from those causing the pollution to ordinary, hard-working New Zealand taxpayers?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government simply disagrees with that description. It does not matter how many times that member uses it; it does not make it right. We have balanced up our environmental responsibilities with our economic responsibilities. The member ought to bear in mind that Labour’s scheme was going to impose very significant price increases on electricity and petrol, and very significant job losses for the hard-working New Zealanders whom he pretends to represent.

Chris Tremain: Is the Government still open to discussions with Labour on changes to the emissions trading scheme, noting that Labour’s opposition is based on a flawed assumption that these changes will cost taxpayers a whole lot more over the next decade?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister for Climate Change Issues, Dr Nick Smith, has said he is open to talks at any time. It seems to me that, in light of the advice from Treasury, it should not be too difficult to get agreement on the numbers about what the scheme is costing, but I understand that those are not the principal issues that Labour is concerned about. We are open to further discussion on the issues that Labour is concerned about.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I ask whether the question you have just allowed from the National whip about the policies of another party, and the assumption he made about what the effect would be of the policies of another political party, are now in order. If they are, the Labour Party cannot wait to start asking those sorts of questions.

Mr SPEAKER: I assure the honourable member that he ought to be pleased that I do not apply the particular Standing Order, because more than half the questions his colleagues ask would be ruled out. What is good for the goose is good for the gander, and that is why—

Hon Darren Hughes: That’s good.

Mr SPEAKER: I just alert members to the fact that if they put those kinds of assertions into questions, they will not get the answers they expect—

Hon Darren Hughes: About things they have no ministerial responsibility for?

Mr SPEAKER: Members will not interject while I am ruling on the point the member has made. If those kinds of assertions are put into questions, members can expect the Minister to respond to the assertion, not to the question. At the end of the day, I have to make a judgment about whether to rule them out. I do not want to intervene all the time. If I were to rule out that particular question from the Government member—certainly it was not strictly in order, and I accept that—I would have to rule out many questions from the Opposition. I have to try to play an even hand.

Hon Phil Goff: In response to the statements made by independent economic commentators about the billions of dollars of cost that this scheme will impose on the taxpayer, will the Prime Minister release to the public and to Parliament a breakdown of the cost of subsidies that he is making to a range of multinational companies that will continue to emit for much longer, such as Rio Tinto, Holcim Cement, BlueScope Steel, and Methanex; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The information concerned will be covered by the same rules as every other bit of policy advice that the Government gets, which means that it will almost certainly be released. But I stress to the member that there will be plenty of access to the information if we can have a reasonable environment in which to discuss it, and that would mean that the member would need to correct some of his more outrageous claims.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Why does the Prime Minister think it is affordable for New Zealand taxpayers that just one firm—Methanex—will benefit by $74 million a year more in free credits when it expands production, as it is planning, and that that level of subsidy will hardly reduce over three generations? If he disagrees with those numbers, will he release his analysis?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would have to go back and see whether the member’s analysis is correct. In the broad approach to this scheme, the Government has balanced up its environmental and economic responsibilities. We have been quite upfront in expressing our objective of wanting to reduce the cost. In fact, we have halved the cost to consumers of electricity and petrol—which is most New Zealanders—and we have made sure that successful industries are not exported overseas, taking with them thousands of well-paid jobs. I accept that other parties might have a different view; that is our view.

Hon Phil Goff: Does the Minister agree with the Minister of Agriculture, David Carter, who said last week that polluters will not face the full cost of their emissions for 90 years; if so, does that mean that New Zealand taxpayers will continue to pick up the bill for polluters until 2099?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We have made decisions that balance up the needs of the economy, the needs of the environment, and costs for everyday New Zealanders. It is a bit difficult to speculate 90 years ahead because past 2012 the international rules are not known.

Hon Phil Goff: Why is the Government prepared to spend what other independent commentators have estimated as billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to subsidise polluters, when it is going to slash adult education by 80 percent for the sake of just $16 million?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It is one thing for the Opposition to make extravagant claims, which I guess is the job of the Opposition, but if Labour members really are putting a priority on getting a broad agreement on the emissions trading system, then they need to put up their propositions, which I presume would take billions of dollars off these industries and export the jobs that go with them.

Hon Phil Goff: Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the honourable Leader of the Opposition I say to members that if they want to hear an answer to a question, then it is not helpful to interject quite so intensively.

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If Ministers give political answers that are provocative to the Opposition, then clearly there will be interjections. You have ruled in that particular regard. The Acting Prime Minister, who spoke about making extravagant claims, should have chosen slightly shrewder words that he did.

Mr SPEAKER: The member has just highlighted the problem of when members asking questions insert claims into their questions. The Acting Prime Minister, in responding, commented on the Opposition making an extravagant claim and thereby invited lots of interjections. The House would do so much better if members would simply ask clear, hard-hitting questions instead of making claims and allegations about things. Please understand that that statement applies to both sides. I guess, by and large, most of the questions are asked by the Opposition. I urge members to simply ask clear, hard-hitting questions. We can see the problems that come when statements are made instead of questions being asked. We get this kind of unhelpful interaction. I am sure people would have struggled to hear the answer.

Hon Phil Goff: Following your advice, Mr Speaker, I ask what the deal to get Māori Party support for the emissions trading scheme will cost the taxpayer, and who will benefit from that expenditure.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the member knows, there are ongoing discussions with the Māori Party. But I make the point that if the member really is interested in considered discussion about the emissions trading scheme, he has every opportunity to take part in that discussion. That might be better for the country than making extravagant—

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion the Leader of the Opposition asked a perfectly straight question. The Acting Prime Minister, in responding, either has information about the cost of an agreement reached or he does not. The House would appreciate receiving information about that cost, and certainly does not appreciate a lecture being given to the questioner, who asked a straight question. I invite the Minister to provide the answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will just repeat the first part of my answer, which was that there are ongoing discussions with the Māori Party.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Clearly, that answer did not answer the question, which was about what the deal will cost. The Prime Minister, in negotiating the deal, must have some idea of what it will cost, otherwise he would have been totally irresponsible in making the deal.

Mr SPEAKER: I hear the point the member has made. Either the Acting Prime Minister has information about the cost of an agreement entered into, or no agreement has been entered into. Either way, the House deserves an answer to a straight question. I have been trying to encourage straight questions. A straight question has been asked, and the House deserves an answer.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I can only repeat the answer I have already given: there are ongoing discussions with the Māori Party. There is no final information about cost.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a number of documents. The first document is from the Taranaki Daily News, in which the Minister of Agriculture says that it will take 90 years of subsidies before the emission—

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

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table a media release from the New Zealand Business Council for Sustainable Development on 14 September, which sets out how this scheme will cost the taxpayer billions of dollars.

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

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

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table an article by Brian Fallow, a respected economics journalist for the New Zealand Herald, where he makes exactly the same point: that the purpose of this scheme is to transfer the cost—

Mr SPEAKER: Is this a recent edition of the New Zealand Herald?

Hon Phil Goff: It is from 17 September.

Mr SPEAKER: That is a recent edition. I will put the leave, but I ask members, in response to recommendations from the Standing Orders Committee, not to take the time of the House to table recent newspaper articles from major dailies that members see regularly. I am obliged to put the leave. Is there any objection to that document being tabled? There is.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I seek leave to table the analysis by Treasury that shows that in the first decade following the changes to the emissions trading scheme it will actually cost $100 million less than the scheme proposed by Labour.

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. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister of Internal Affairs: What advice has he received about the actions of Waitakere City Council, which has decided to stop granting consents for more gambling venues and gaming machines, and is its new “sinking-lid” policy likely to have implications for local government policy at a national level?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Minister of Internal Affairs) : I am advised that a number of territorial authorities have adopted sinking-lid policies. The Waitakere City Council policy appears to be an example of a territorial authority using the provisions of the Gambling Act to help to achieve outcomes that reflect its own community views and its own circumstances. If this policy is adopted widely by local authorities, then it is likely that the number of venues and gaming machines will remain steady and may gradually decrease over time.

Rahui Katene: What work has been undertaken to support councils to continue funding vital community development, when they have decided to cease receiving socially destructive gaming revenue in their commitment to address problem gambling?

Hon NATHAN GUY: In reviewing their gambling venue policies, councils need to weigh up the potential benefits and the negative impacts of gaming machines in their districts. Of course, councils determine these local policies to suit their own respective communities.

Rahui Katene: Is he aware of the finding of Judge Somerville in the Westport District Court last week, who told a Reefton woman that she was a victim of a Government-sanctioned industry that encouraged people to gamble; and what actions will he take to review the explicit connection between Government policy and gambling addiction?

Hon NATHAN GUY: I am indeed aware of those comments. Government policy is governed by the Gambling Act. The Act takes a balanced approach and aims to ensure, as far as is practicable, that gambling-related harm is prevented and minimised. The number of people seeking help for the high-risk forms of gambling has dropped significantly over the last few years. This suggests that the measures to prevent and minimise harm are working.

4. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Minister of Finance: What criteria, if any, did he establish for Ministers when they were reprioritising expenditure in their portfolios?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : As we set out in the Budget, our priorities were to ensure that we protected the most vulnerable, met the Government’s pre-election commitments, brought soaring debt under control, and took the sharp edges off the recession for New Zealanders. This freed up $2 billion to invest in front-line services like hospitals and schools over the next 4 years.

Hon Annette King: Is the Minister aware that his criteria have led to funding being stopped for speech and lip-reading courses in Wellington from December 2009—courses that have helped hundreds of deaf and hearing-impaired people stay in jobs and have a quality of life? Will he face those people and tell them that it is OK for him to ask for more assistance from taxpayers for himself, but that they must accept a closure of assistance that is vital to them?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am advised that if the member is talking about courses for the deaf that are funded through adult and community education, then she is wrong. She should get better information before she causes more concern among the deaf community.

Hon Annette King: I seek leave to table a letter from Hearing Association Wellington saying that it has been told that its funding will cease from December 2009.

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.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What are some examples of previous spending that this Government has discontinued?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: In the Budget round this year we found that the previous Government had left so many loose ends and unfunded commitments that the incoming Government was able to save around $2 billion over the next 4 years with no change in front-line services.

Hon Annette King: Is the Minister aware his criteria have led to English literacy programmes for new migrants to New Zealand being cut, when these are the very programmes that help migrants settle quickly and find employment? Will he front up to our new Kiwis and tell them that his priority is to fund $400 million for big polluters of our environment and they must accept that they will miss out?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would be happy to front up to the community the member refers to and say that the Government has committed $120 million over the next 4 years to adult and community education, and that the priorities of that funding are literacy and numeracy.

Hon Maryan Street: What criteria, if any, was Mrs Tolley abiding by when she cut funding to night classes, a decision that will directly result in the cancellation of New Zealand sign language courses at Mairehau High School, Taieri College, Kelston Boys High School, and Tamatea High School?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Opposition needs to sort out the facts of the matter. This looks like one of those campaigns where Labour went around saying that would happen and then people wrote to the Government saying that they had been told that is what would happen.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Does the Minister accept that, given the magnitude of the fiscal problems we face, the solution is not simply playing around with some low-quality spending that Labour left to the Government but cutting entirely some of that spending so that eventually he can ease the tax burden that keeps New Zealand’s households poor; if so, when does he intend to start?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The member is right to identify that there is a fiscal problem on a large scale. New Zealand is looking at 10 years before it can achieve surpluses. At the moment we are borrowing $400 million a week to continue with a whole range of public services and to continue with investment and infrastructure. However, eventually that tap will have to be turned down and the money will have to be repaid with interest. That is a challenge that will take 15 to 20 years to get through.

Hon Maryan Street: Did the Minister provide the Minister for Tertiary Education with any advice on priorities for education funding, and did that advice prioritise funding for private schools over funding for high school - based adult and community education classes, or savings over accessible lifelong learning for people of all ages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As the Minister has pointed out, the Government has focused on one top priority: the large number of young New Zealanders who either are losing their jobs or, when they finish training, cannot get a job. We have decided that investing in those young people to ensure that they stay connected to the world of work is a top priority, and I have not found anyone who disagrees with that.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What are other examples of previous spending that this Government has discontinued?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There have been a number of particularly useless programmes that have been stopped, but they tend to be small in scale. The biggest problems the previous Government left us were a multibillion dollar problem in the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC)—the liabilities and costs in ACC have blown out by billions of dollars—and other assets that are virtually worthless such as KiwiRail, for which the previous Government paid $1 billion.

Hon Phil Goff: In light of the Minister’s earlier answer, will he give an undertaking that he will come with me to talk to the Auckland Regional Migrant Services Charitable Trust to find out why cuts are being made to courses that are vital to enable new migrants to settle in the community and learn to speak and write English properly so they can find employment, and about why those courses and assistance are being cut?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: As we have said, we have yet to establish whether the allegations the Opposition has made are correct. If courses are not being cut, there is no point in going.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Has the Minister seen any reports on alternative policy approaches?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have. New Zealand is currently borrowing $400 million a week, but that has not deterred the Labour Party from promising to provide welfare for millionaires, to reverse the KiwiSaver changes, and to increase the size of the Wellington-based bureaucracy. That list of promises adds up to $6 billion on top of the very substantial increase in debt that New Zealand is already incurring.

5. ALLAN PEACHEY (National—Tāmaki) to the Minister of Education: What reports has she received on consultation with parents about national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : On Sunday I released a report that included the results of consultation with parents and family members on national standards; 2,000 attended meetings and over 3,000 provided written submissions. From next year schools will be required to report in plain language to parents on their child’s progress. Parents have overwhelmingly told the Government that they want to know more about their child’s progress so that they can support their child’s learning, and this Government will deliver on that.

Allan Peachey: What other feedback has the Minister received from parents about national standards?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Parents strongly support national standards and getting good information from schools about their child’s progress. As one parent said in the consultation round, schools need to provide “Honesty, plain language, and no surprises.” As another parent said, “Honest reporting; tell me how he is really doing. I want reality—the good, the bad, and the ugly.” That is exactly what national standards in literacy and numeracy will provide for New Zealand parents.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Can the Minister explain to the House the effect of her decision to cut by 100 percent next year science advice to schools on national standards for science going forward?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: People in the education sector told me quite clearly during the election campaign that they were sick of the Labour Government, which had given them a whole number of initiatives without sufficient resources, so we have reduced the number of initiatives and focused the resources on those remaining. National standards in literacy and numeracy are the top priority. They can be taught right across the curriculum—in science, geography, history, or whatever. We are focusing our resources on supporting schools to implement national standards in literacy and numeracy.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I know that somewhere towards the end of that answer the Minister mentioned science, but it was a pretty direct question on the effect on science standards of the 100 percent cut in science advice to schools. That question was not addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I listened carefully to the Minister’s answer, and it seemed to me that she implied that that programme was one of the initiatives that the Government was not supporting. I cannot ask her to further answer it, unless the member wants to ask a further supplementary question.

6. Hon DAVID CUNLIFFE (Labour—New Lynn) to the Minister of Finance: Does he agree with the Prime Minister that “we do not believe that any Government programme will be able to prevent a significant rise in unemployment”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes, but alongside that the Government has introduced a rolling maul of programmes to assist people, where possible, with unemployment.

Hon David Cunliffe: How can the Minister maintain that view when the OECD has credited Australia’s fiscal stimulus with having saved up to 200,000 jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: We believe that the fiscal stimulus in New Zealand has saved thousands of jobs, as well. In any case, the Australian economy was in a better position to start with, because for the last 10 years it has been managed well, whereas ours has been managed badly.

Amy Adams: What forecasts has he seen on unemployment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: For New Zealand, the forecasts are showing that unemployment may peak lower than the 8 percent that was estimated in the Budget. Compared with many other countries, such as the UK, the US, and most of Europe, our unemployment is low. In fact, only a handful of developed countries, such as Australia, have a similar or lower level of unemployment.

Hon David Cunliffe: Does he agree with the Secretary-General of the OECD, who said: “Employment is the bottom line in the current crisis,”; if so, why does he not do more earlier to prevent New Zealand’s unemployment rising, as Australia has done—holding unemployment steady for 3 consecutive months?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I do agree with the OECD Secretary-General that unemployment is No. 1, and I wish that Labour did too, because then it would understand the decisions that were made about the emissions trading scheme, which will help keep thousands of jobs in New Zealand that would otherwise be exported to China.

Amy Adams: How do the unemployment forecasts compare historically?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Of course, New Zealand has had a combination of its own recession, starting at the beginning of 2008, followed by the global recession. Compared with other recessions, it looks as if New Zealand is now reaping the benefits of being an open and resilient economy, because unemployment is forecast to peak somewhere between 7.5 and 8 percent, whereas in previous recessions it has reached over 10 percent. That is a huge benefit to the thousands of New Zealanders who will keep their jobs instead of losing them.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that he said on Radio New Zealand today that “for most people the measure of the economy is whether unemployment is still rising”, and, given that it is, does he not now regret doing so little to keep Kiwis in jobs and prevent the erosion of living standards in families?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: No. What I do regret is that through some of the best economic conditions that the globe will see in a generation, that member’s party wasted the opportunity and thousands of people have lost their jobs.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I imagine you can anticipate the point of order, Mr Speaker, but every time that Minister is under pressure in an answer he resorts to quoting history and reciting Labour Party policy—or at least his version of it. Is there no way you can encourage him to talk about his Government, rather than make up stories about somebody else’s?

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member might recollect that when his leader asked a straight question, I sought and he got an answer from the Minister. The member may recollect that in his own question he asked whether the Minister regretted something. When a member puts that kind of part into a question it invites all kinds of answers, because it is seeking an opinion—whether the Minister regrets that bit or regrets something else. I cannot pin the Minister down on that kind of question. I invite the member to reflect on the question that his leader asked and on the question he asked, and I think he will see a difference.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your guidance in interpreting your learned remarks made previously. In my supplementary question I simply quoted the Minister’s own words and asked whether, in the context of his answer, he now regretted them, as they seemed to contradict his former point. How can that be grounds for him to depart from talking about his own Government and spend the whole of his reply talking about Labour?

Mr SPEAKER: Because, very clearly, to ask whether the Minister regrets some remarks is to seek an opinion. Once the member invites the Minister to give an opinion, it is far more difficult to be precise with answers.

Hon David Cunliffe: Very generous.

Mr SPEAKER: I think the member needs only to look at Speakers’ Rulings to see all the rulings around opinions, and it is difficult. It is difficult for the Speaker to ask a Minister to answer more precisely when an opinion has been sought, because often the opinion will not be what the member wanted.

Hon Jim Anderton: When the Minister of Finance claims credit for a low level of unemployment in New Zealand, does he believe that that low level of unemployment has happened in just the last few months, or was there a low level of unemployment relative to all other OECD countries for almost the whole 9 years of the previous Labour-led Government?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Opposition members need to decide whether they are attacking the Government for unemployment being low, as that member was, or for unemployment being high, as the previous questioner was. The facts are pretty straightforward. We went into this recession with relatively low unemployment, and it will peak significantly lower than for other countries and significantly lower than in other recessions.

7. JEANETTE FITZSIMONS (Green) to the Minister of Transport: Will he reconsider his decision to stop work on a vehicle fuel economy standard for New Zealand, in light of the recent US Government announcement that all new vehicles will have to meet 156 grams of carbon dioxide per kilometre by 2016?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : No. I think that adding up to $1,500 to the price of a vehicle is counter-productive, when the average fuel economy of vehicles entering our fleet is already steadily improving and is currently much better than that of vehicles in the United States right now. That is all happening over time, without any legislated fuel economy standards.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Is he aware that even at US petrol prices, which are much lower than ours, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that its new standard will save motorists US$3,000 in fuel costs over the life of a vehicle, after paying back the increased purchase price, and why does he not think New Zealand motorists should benefit from similar savings?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: There are a couple of reasons for that. Firstly, New Zealand fuel economy standards are already about 23 percent better than current US standards, and, secondly, New Zealand fuel economy standards are on track to become more efficient than US standards by 2016 without any intervention whatsoever.

Hon Darren Hughes: Is his decision in respect of fuel economy standards more in line with the policies of George W Bush or Barack Obama?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: Here we go again. I point out to the member that New Zealand’s fuel economy is already considerably better than that in the US market, so I would say it is definitely more in line with Obama’s policies, although I would not want to make that comparison.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Does he not think that if the US, which is the home of large gas-guzzlers, can achieve an average of 156 grams a kilometre, New Zealand could do somewhat better than its current 210 grams, which is actually rising with every new import?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The current New Zealand number is less than 200 grams, I understand. But more important, the US number by 2016 translates into a European Union standard of around 175 grams. I understand there is a difference between the way that the European Union and the US measure it. On current trends, New Zealand will be below that by 2016, once again without the Government having to intervene and legislate in a heavy-handed manner, as the Green Party would suggest that we do.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Will New Zealand not continue to become an international dumping-ground for other countries’ dirty, inefficient, second-hand cars as the US, the European Union, and even China set more stringent fuel economy standards for their vehicles?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I can only refer the member to the answers to her earlier questions.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: What other ideas does the Minister have to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from transport to meet even this Government’s pathetic 2020 target, if improving fuel economy in vehicles is not one of them?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: New Zealand’s fuel economy in vehicles is improving. We also have the road-user charge exemption for electric vehicles, we have the New Zealand producers of bio-diesel eligible for a subsidy, and we have bio-ethanol subsidies. I just do not understand the member’s rationale. New vehicles now have a better fuel economy than older, similar-sized vehicles. If we increase the cost of new vehicles, we will lower further the sales of new vehicles and increase the age of the fleet. That will damage the cause of improving fuel economy standards. I just do not understand where the member is coming from.

8. CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) to the Minister for Climate Change Issues: Have officials advised him that the changes to the emissions trading scheme transfer the costs away from polluters to taxpayers?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH (Minister for Climate Change Issues) : No. In fact, Treasury estimates over the first decade of the emissions trading scheme with our changes actually show a saving of about $100 million. The irony of Labour’s cries of billion-dollar subsidies for big polluters is that for the first 10 years of the scheme Labour had bigger subsidies. That is because our scheme starts phasing out industry support in 2013, whereas under Labour those high levels relate all the way through to 2018.

Charles Chauvel: Does he agree with the comment from David Carter last week in relation to the phase-out of allocation units that “We are proposing to move it at 1.3 percent over 90 years.”; if so, what is the fiscal cost of extending the phase-out for allocation units for the agriculture sector to 2099?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I am ambitious for this Government, and I know that it will be a long Government; I am not sure whether we will be here for 90 years! What I do know is that in the foreseeable future, between 2012 and 2018, Labour’s scheme provided no reduction in allocations at all, whereas under the revised scheme we are starting to phase out that support for industry from 2013.

Charles Chauvel: Has the Minister seen the recent environment report from Methanex, the world’s largest supplier of methanol, which shows that its New Zealand plant has the highest emissions intensity per unit of output of any such plant on the planet; and what financial benefits will Methanex receive from the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme—in particular, the switch to an intensity-based allocation with no cap?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: One of the changes we are making to the emissions trading scheme is to allocate on industry averages, rather than, as under the existing law, just 2005 figures. There is a good reason for that. Some companies out there that have invested in new energy efficiency will be disadvantaged by Labour’s scheme. With our approach, those industries that are better than the industry average will get higher allocations, and those that are behind the pace, who have not invested in any efficiency, will be worse off. That makes common sense.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I go to the next member, it would be helpful if the Minister, if he is able, was to answer some aspect of the question about Methanex. I invite the Minister to do so.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Methanex is just one of a number of companies in terms of the issue of industry allocations; there are about 80 of them. I do not have specific information about that company, any more than I do about the other 79.

Hekia Parata: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Tēnā tātou e te Whare. How does New Zealand’s revised emissions trading scheme compare internationally, noting that Jeanette Fitzsimons has said in response to the changes that when she goes to Copenhagen she will wear a sign around her neck stating “Ashamed to be a New Zealander”?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Jeanette Fitzsimons needs to consider the facts. On 1 July 2010 New Zealand will have the first emissions trading scheme up and running outside Europe, and it will cover more sectors than the European scheme does. We were also the first country in the world to include forestry, in 2008, and we were the very first country in the world to have a plan for introducing agriculture, in 2015. If we can settle our emissions trading scheme by December, we will be at the front end of international action on climate change, and will actually have the most comprehensive emissions trading scheme of any country in the world.

David Garrett: Does he classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant; if so, on what scientific grounds?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: As with all things, it depends on its concentration. Carbon dioxide is absolutely required for life, but as its concentration increases, it has the potential to destabilise the climate. That is why there is international concern and international negotiations to limit the amount of carbon dioxide that we emit into the atmosphere.

Hekia Parata: What reports has the Minister received on the claims made by Phil Goff that the taxpayer will hand over $2 billion to Rio Tinto’s Bluff smelter?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Those numbers are a nonsense. I would point out that of the more than 100 aluminium smelters in the world, the Bluff smelter, on 1 July next year, will be the very first to face a carbon price for its pollution. The European scheme excludes aluminium smelters until 2013, the Australian scheme excludes them until 2011, and the Waxman-Markey Bill in the United States excludes them until 2012. Let me tell members how much aluminium would need to be produced at the smelter for Mr Goff’s figures to be accurate: all of the aluminium produced in the whole world, from all 100 smelters, would need to come out of Bluff. I do not think that is a reasonable scenario, I say to Mr Goff.

Mr SPEAKER: I call Charles Chauvel. [Interruption] I have called Charles Chauvel. [Interruption] I ask members to please cease conducting a debate across the Chamber, and to show some courtesy to Charles Chauvel, whom I have asked to ask a supplementary question.

Charles Chauvel: How long will Rio Tinto receive taxpayer funding to offset its emissions, under the proposed changes to the emissions trading scheme, and what is the fiscal value of that increased taxpayer subsidy to Rio Tinto?

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Let me make the point again, because it is important. On 1 July next year the Bluff smelter will be the very first aluminium smelter of the 100 smelters in the world to face a cost—

Charles Chauvel: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very simple question with two elements and no political spin to it: how long will the subsidy last and what is the fiscal value? The question is not being addressed.

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the Minister to answer either one. He does not have to answer both bits, but I would ask him to answer at least one of them.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: The level of allocation made to the smelter in Bluff at 90 percent of its production levels will provide a level of support no different from what Labour provided under its legislation, and the reality of the changes is that it will get a lesser level of allocation between 2013 and 2018. The idea that I have specific figures for every one of the 80 industries—

Hon Phil Goff: Oh well, you had them before.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I can say this to Mr Goff: it is less than what was provided under Labour’s scheme.

Mr SPEAKER: Question No. 9, Shane Ardern. [Interruption]

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Cunliffe, who seems to be getting a bit agitated about this issue—

Mr SPEAKER: I would ask members when raising points of order to please not use that kind of language.

Hon Dr NICK SMITH: Mr Cunliffe made false claims, saying that I was misleading the House, that I was shifty, and that I was not telling the truth. I take offence at that.

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister has taken offence at an interjection made across the House. I would ask the member who made the comment to withdraw and apologise for it.

Hon David Cunliffe: First, a correction—

Mr SPEAKER: No. Offence was taken and I have asked the member to—

Hon David Cunliffe: I apologise. Point of order.

Mr SPEAKER: But I have asked the member to withdraw and apologise for the comment.

Hon David Cunliffe: I have, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: OK.

Hon David Cunliffe: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I would simply contend that in light of the Minister’s answer, which—following your ruling—refused to provide information—

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the member to resume his seat and reflect on whether it is helpful to the good order of the House for him to carry on in that way. I asked the Minister to answer the question asked, which not too many Speakers have done. I believed that it was in the interests of the House. It is not helpful then to have insulting accusations made across the House. The Minister took offence. I asked the member to withdraw and apologise, and that should be the end of the matter.

9. SHANE ARDERN (National—Taranaki - King Country) to the Minister of Agriculture: What steps has the Government recently taken to further primary sector innovation?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : Last week the Prime Minister was able to officially declare a major innovation fund, the Primary Growth Partnership, open for business. This is an ambitious and far-reaching partnership. It will play a significant role in delivering the step change in economic growth and productivity that New Zealand so badly needs. The Government has made this an absolute priority.

Shane Ardern: Why has the Government made such a significant investment in primary sector innovation in this challenging economic environment?

Hon DAVID CARTER: We have worked very closely with industry in developing the Primary Growth Partnership. We have put together a board that is already reviewing several applications, and we see this as being a potential transformation of innovation projects. The Government has always made it clear that the Primary Growth Partnership should be industry-led, and it is for this reason that the industry has been so closely involved in the partnership’s development. I am extremely confident that the Primary Growth Partnership will have good sector buy-in.

Hon Jim Anderton: How many research project proposals, and of what value, had the Primary Growth Partnership received as at 1 September, the date the Minister gave to the Primary Production Committee as the time by which he was confident research project proposals would be received?

Hon DAVID CARTER: As I have just outlined to the House, the project was finally launched as open for business on 16 September. It is close to receiving a very significant number of good-quality projects, which the board will be able to review, and then it will announce funding decisions.

10. DARIEN FENTON (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: Does he believe that communities must be involved in road safety education and activities to help prevent injuries and accidents, particularly for children?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : Yes, I believe every New Zealander has a role to play in improving road safety. That is why we are currently consulting with the public on Safer Journeys, which is the road safety strategy for the next 10 years. It is, of course, available on www.saferjourneys.govt.nz.

Darien Fenton: Why, then, is the Minister’s Government cutting funding for community transport safety education programmes in the National Land Transport Programme, and what effect will this have on communities that are having to revise school and workplace travel plans, cycle-safe programmes, drink-driving programmes, at-risk driver programmes, and safety-belt education programmes, and a host of other safety initiatives up and down the country, or does he not care?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I understand that the New Zealand Transport Agency, under its own initiative, has decided to undertake a value-for-money exercise on the demand management and community programmes activity class of the National Land Transport Programme, to which that member refers. That class had increases in expenditure last year of 45 percent on the previous year, and that year was 23 percent higher than the year before that. I think it is entirely appropriate that, with Government funds and road-user funds involved, the agency be very careful and ensure that every activity it undertakes has good value-for-money criteria.

Darien Fenton: Can we expect to see further cuts from the value-for-money review that the Minister is conducting in demand management and community education programmes, and should communities be preparing to cut the walking-bus programme and other programmes that keep children safe and encourage active and healthier modes of getting to school?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: It is important that the member does not unnecessarily scaremonger in these matters. The Transport Agency has allocated $120 million for demand management and community programmes over the next 3 years. It is a considerable sum of money, and it is important that, from time to time, the agency reviews that expenditure and ensures that it provides value for money and achieves the outcomes we were seeking. I note that, despite the best efforts of the last road transport safety strategy, our road toll has not dropped significantly over the last 10 years, with the exception of a few months last year, and the number of injuries on the road has actually increased. Of course, if you keep doing what you have always done, you will keep getting what you always got.

11. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Minister of Labour: Why is the Government undertaking a review of safety in the adventure tourism sector?

Hon KATE WILKINSON (Minister of Labour) : Recently there have been a number of concerning cases in the adventure tourism sector. Tourism is critically important to New Zealand and we must do all we can to ensure visitor safety. Tourists and New Zealanders expect that high standards will be in place from adventure operators, and it is timely to take a broader look at how well the industry is meeting its safety obligations and at what it could do better.

David Bennett: What groups will be involved in the review?

Hon KATE WILKINSON: Many firms in the sector already have comprehensive safety systems, and I want to make sure that we learn from their experience by consulting the industry. The Department of Labour will also be seeking input from the Civil Aviation Authority, Maritime New Zealand, the Ministry of Transport, the Ministry of Tourism, local authorities, and other groups that may be relevant.

12. Hon PETE HODGSON (Labour—Dunedin North) to the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services: Further to his answer to the House on 10 September, who decided the criteria that must be met before it is permissible to lease a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence and when was that decision made?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services): Ministerial Services determines the criteria that must be met before a property is leased for use as a ministerial residence. It does that consistent with the determination that is in force at the time. In this case the determination was brought down by the Rt Hon Helen Clark in 2003.

Hon Pete Hodgson: On what basis does the Minister advise the House that Ministerial Services determines the criteria, when the document I have here, dated 3 February 2009 and between an official in Ministerial Services and the chief executive of Ministerial Services, reads as follows: “We sought advice from the ninth floor whether leasing from a family trust was appropriate, and we were advised that it was, given the following stipulations:”; why does the Minister say that it was Ministerial Services that set the criteria, when the proof, surely, is that the ninth floor did?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Prior to coming into the House before question time today—and I answer on behalf of the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services—

Hon Annette King: You are the Minister responsible.

Hon Trevor Mallard: You are the Minister. He’s out of the country.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Very good; thank you for that, Trevor. It was very helpful; I never noticed!

Hon Darren Hughes: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. In both that answer and the answer to the primary question, the Leader of the House made reference to his answering on behalf of the Minister responsible for Ministerial Services. Mr Key is out of the country, as everyone knows, so there has to be an Acting Minister. That is either Mr Brownlee or Mr English. If the Acting Minister is actually Mr English, who is present in the House, then he has to answer these questions. It would be good for us to know who the Minister in charge of all this mess really is.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I am. Why do we not start again, Mr Speaker.

Mr SPEAKER: I believe that it is not a crucial matter of order. It is totally the Government’s responsibility who answers questions. I have called the Hon Gerry Brownlee to answer the question, and I see no reason, given that he is the Minister designated to answer it, why he should not.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If he is answering on behalf of someone else, I think it behoves the House to know on whose behalf he is acting. It is clearly no other front-bench member, because they are all present—other than Mr Key. Either a very junior Minister—and I cannot see that even any of those is absent—is the Acting Minister, or, in fact, Mr Brownlee is the Minister responsible at the moment.

Mr SPEAKER: The only relevant issue I can see is the basis of the Minister’s answer, and maybe he can clarify that in proceeding with this answer.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Speaking as the Acting Minister responsible for Ministerial Services, prior to—

Hon Members: Ah!

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: That was a big revelation; I am sure it is. When one is scraping the barrel, one will take what one can get! Prior to coming into the House today, I had discussions, obviously, with relevant parties that related to all the material provided to the member in an Official Information Act release some time ago. They made it very clear to me that the communication may imply something that is not, in fact, correct. It is Ministerial Services that makes that decision, based on the determination that applies at the time.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I seek leave to table the memo, which seems to mean something else other than what I say it says, so that the Minister can take another look at it—

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.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Is the Minister aware that two pecuniary interest tests are under current circulation: the first contained in the email of 3 February on the advice of the ninth floor, which I am about to table, and the second in a Gazette notice of 26 May of this year?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes.

Hon Pete Hodgson: If there are two pecuniary interest tests in circulation, is the pecuniary interest test he spoke of in his answer to the House on 10 September a simple pecuniary test, as written in the email of 3 February, which I will table presently, or an expanded personal, familial, or association test, as gazetted by the Minister on 26 May?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Two things are important here. Firstly, the determination made in February was on the basis of the Ministerial Services determination of 2003 promulgated by the Rt Hon Helen Clark. The difficulties that have arisen since then have caused the Prime Minister to make some changes, but at all times Mr English has complied with the requirements of the determinations.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Supplementary question—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise to my colleague. Again, there are political implications here. The question was a very straight question as to which test was applied. Although the Minister was very good at describing both tests, he did not say which test was applied.

Mr SPEAKER: I am not sure that members can expect exactly the answer they want. I think the Minister was pretty clear about the test that was applied. His answer may not have been exactly the answer that the member was seeking, but he can ask further supplementary questions if he wants to further elucidate that.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Can the Minister confirm that the 2003 determination of which he speaks contains no criteria for the leasing of a home from a family trust for use as a ministerial residence, because no such occasion ever arose?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I can confirm that. The most extraordinary arrangement was in place. All I can say is goodness knows what the previous Labour Government Ministers were up to.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Why did the Minister just confirm to the House that there were no criteria in the 2003 determination, whereas earlier in this questioning it was, apparently, those precise criteria on which he had relied; what is true here?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I think the questioner is scraping the bottom of the barrel a bit here. I made it very clear that the 2003 requirements were met in the early part of this year. It is quite simple.

Hon Pete Hodgson: Supplementary question—

Mr SPEAKER: My advice is that all supplementary questions have been exhausted.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I seek leave to table the aforementioned email of 3 February between an official from Ministerial Services and the chief executive of Ministerial Services, speaking of advice from the ninth floor.

Mr SPEAKER: Leave was already granted. The member has already obtained permission to table that document.

Hon Pete Hodgson: I seek leave to table the 2003 ministerial determination that the Minister refers to, which has no pecuniary interest in it—

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.