1. PESETA SAM LOTU-IIGA (National—Maungakiekie) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on unemployment forecasts?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Unemployment is clearly rising as the impact of the global downturn is felt in New Zealand. I have seen widely divergent projections of where unemployment might peak, ranging from projections from Business and Economic Research Ltd, which believes that unemployment will rise to double digits, to projections from others who believe that it will barely rise to 5 percent. None of these forecasts is new. Since before Christmas there have been forecasts of a substantial increase in unemployment, and, unfortunately, those forecasts are proving to be correct. Frankly, the focus of the Government is not on the forecast but on taking action that will make some difference to people who may be threatened with losing their jobs.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What measures is the Government taking in the short term to lessen the impact of rising unemployment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government has taken a number of initiatives to take the sharp edges off the downturn. As of 26 March, 1,303 people are participating in the ReStart scheme, which was announced several months ago. This scheme enables people to retain their Working for Families payments and their accommodation supplement for a period of up to 16 weeks after they become unemployed. There have also been other wider-ranging measures, including a $480 million package for small and medium sized businesses, and the round of tax cuts on 1 April were designed to put money in people’s pockets and prop up the economy through the recession.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What measures is the Government taking in the longer term to ensure full employment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The one thing we need to be able to offer to those who have lost their jobs is the prospect that they will get another job back. The only way new jobs will be created, coming out of this recession, is if businesses are confident enough to invest in those new jobs. The Government has outlined a wide-ranging programme designed to lift our growth rate as we come out of the recession, including investment in infrastructure and a wide range of regulatory changes to areas such as the Resource Management Act and the Overseas Investment Act, as well as focusing on the Government running its own services much more effectively than it has in the past.

Hon David Cunliffe: Can the Minister confirm that the latest New Zealand Institute of Economic Research survey shows further deterioration, with a net 36 percent of firms intending to lay off staff in the next 3 months, a net 51 percent—the worst result in 30 years—reporting a decline in profitability, and that Treasury has now confirmed estimates of a further 60,000 unemployed by the end of this year, and that that is now worse than Treasury’s previous worst-case scenario?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I have seen those forecasts about what might happen, and they are all concerning, although I have to say they are not a surprise. Since before Christmas, when most of our trading partners went into coordinated recession, there had been forecasts of rising unemployment. As a community and a country we are now facing the reality of those forecasts becoming facts, and that is significant numbers of people losing their jobs. It is the Government’s intent to help cushion those people from the worst effects of the recession, at the same time as gearing up this economy to come out of that recession and create new jobs.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: What previous strategies to address unemployment is the Minister aware of, and how successful were they?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Unemployment is not new in New Zealand. It turns out that we have just passed the 20th anniversary of a previous job summit when the then Minister of Employment, Mr Goff, participated in a special 1-day ministerial conference over employment. It was 20 years ago, but the things he said are still relevant. Mr Goff said: “Any sector in the economy who thinks it can get better salaries without a rise in productivity ought to think again, because the impact of that is to have people in jobs with high wages but a hell of a lot more people out of jobs.” I think Labour’s spokespeople could take notice of that advice.

Hon David Cunliffe: Speaking of the Job Summit, is the Minister aware of a recent ShapeNZ survey that shows that nearly two-thirds of New Zealanders regard this Government’s Job Summit as either ineffective or unproven, that over 20 percent of New Zealanders believe they will lose their own jobs this year, and that most New Zealanders regard the Government’s economic performance as either neutral or negative; and does he therefore agree with the well-known right-wing tip sheet Trans Tasman that says: “Some within National’s ranks”—that will be Mr Power—“fear that the party could come down with a thud as winter’s grip takes hold and unemployment climbs rapidly.” It goes on to say: “John Key and Bill English don’t appear to be singing from the same sunny song sheet.”?

Mr SPEAKER: Could both questions and answers please be a little shorter—answers, too.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I am not at all surprised that the Labour finance spokesperson has decided to join the chorus of negativity, because that is what Labour members have always done—wrung their hands and done nothing. This is an activist Government, rolling out a programme of positive initiatives.

2. Hon ANNETTE KING (Deputy Leader—Labour) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because they are hard-working and competent Ministers.

Hon Annette King: When does the Prime Minister lose confidence in a Minister? Would it take, for example, the Minister of Labour to personally support the illegal opening of businesses at Easter, while at the same time saying she does not condone “sort of breaking the law”, as stated on TV3 on 6 April, or does he allow his Ministers to have a personal view and a ministerial view on their portfolio responsibilities?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Minister of Labour, I think, was expressing the same frustration that Ministers of Labour have expressed for several decades, in trying to oversee our Easter trading laws.

Hon Annette King: Why does the Prime Minister continue to express confidence in the Minister of Internal Affairs, who has now on no fewer than four occasions failed to disclose all details of his “public-private” trip to India, when just after the election the Prime Minister said that the standard he would be setting for his Ministers would be one strike and then they would be out?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister has set out his expectations clearly, and the Minister of Internal Affairs has taken all the steps necessary to meet those expectations.

Hon Annette King: What is the Prime Minister’s response to a Minister who has preached spending restraint, supported the sacking of 70 staff—throwing them on the unemployment scrap heap—then has wasted $1,800 of taxpayers’ money on a helicopter ride to get an overview of a university campus, which is something the Minister of Education could have got off Google?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I cannot believe that a senior member of the Labour Party is criticising anyone about wasting public money, after 10 years of Labour’s fiscal recklessness.

Hon Annette King: Does the Prime Minister stand by his comment that the Cabinet Manual is “only a sort of rule book”; and does that mean that he expects his Ministers to only sort of adhere to it?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: It would be very difficult for the current Prime Minister to show the same flexibility of attitude to the Cabinet Manual that the previous Prime Minister did.

3. SUE BRADFORD (Green) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: How does the Government ensure that all unemployed people are treated equitably and without prejudice by different Work and Income offices?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : This Government does expect people to be treated equally and without prejudice. However, each year, Work and Income’s 142 offices help 1.1 million New Zealanders, conduct about 1.5 million interviews, and receive over 5.5 million phone calls. So, unfortunately, they do occasionally get it wrong. When they do, I expect it to be fixed.

Sue Bradford: Why were some of a group of unemployed Burmese people who were rounded up and sent to do seasonal work in Napier given a 13-week stand-down period when they walked off the job because of appalling pay and conditions, when others in the same group were not given a stand-down?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I have been advised that one out of 27 of that group was given a stand-down period incorrectly. That has been fixed.

Carmel Sepuloni: How does the Minister expect her ministry to cope with the now forecasted further 60,000 jobless people by next year, given that her ministry’s chief executive officer said, in the financial review of the Ministry of Social Development, “We can deal with up to 60,000 people on the unemployment benefit at this stage, with our current level of resourcing.”, or is her plan to cross her fingers, hope for the best, and turn a blind eye to reality, like the Prime Minister, who has said he thinks the 60,000 figure looks too high?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Work and Income can certainly deal with the number of unemployed going up to 60,000. In fact, what is happening at the moment is that we have moved another 100 people on to the front line to deal with people on the unemployment benefit. I am confident that of the people walking into a Work and Income office, a high percentage of them are walking out with work, and that we are turning those people round. But we are well-equipped for some of the harder times ahead.

Sue Bradford: Does the Minister think it is acceptable that this group of unemployed Burmese workers were obliged to accept being put up in a local hall and having to pay around $180 a week each for the privilege, in some cases being left with only $20 a week to live on; if not, will she do anything she can to ensure that Work and Income supplies labour only when proper wages and conditions are on offer?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is a good question. In my understanding, what happened was that an employer took these workers on and Work and Income worked in good faith with it, but when the workers arrived at work, their conditions had changed, so Work and Income took back the workers. There was one who accidentally had a stand-down period, but the others were actually put back on to a benefit straight away. We do not think it is acceptable that people be put in halls for accommodation, and we will not be accepting that sort of behaviour from employers at all.

Sue Bradford: Why in that situation, then, did Work and Income make promises of transitional support for those workers in that difficult situation and not follow through with that extra support when the workers turned up in Napier?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: It is my understanding that transitional support is individual, so the department did not roll it out automatically, equally, for all 27 people. People have different needs for clothing, shoes, and other things to help them in those jobs. We fronted up with Work and Income to give the workers that help. They were back at Work and Income within 2 weeks. That is my understanding, but I am happy to look into that particular case further and to make sure that that information is correct.

Sue Bradford: What steps will the Minister take to ensure that the kind of systemic racism that appeared to occur in this incident—whereby only Burmese people were rounded up, sent to the north in this way, and not offered helped with interpreters once they got into trouble with the department—does not arise again through her offices?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: I absolutely do not think there was any racism going on in my department at all. I categorically say that that is not what happened. I stand up quite proudly and say that I think the staff in that department work for all New Zealanders, refugees, and anyone they can help, and that they take great pride in that work.

4. Hon NANAIA MAHUTA (Labour—Hauraki-Waikato) to the Minister of Māori Affairs: What steps is he taking to ensure that Māori have a voice in the Government’s decision-making processes?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU (Associate Minister of Māori Affairs) on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs: He, along with all other Ministers in the Government who share this responsibility, has taken great strides in ensuring that Māori have a greater voice in the Government’s decision-making processes. Great strides in this regard include receiving direct input from Māori communities, Māori organisations, whānau, hapū, and iwi, and also receiving input through the ministry’s network of regional offices, and through his direct contacts. On a more formal level, the Minister has this year convened a Māori economic workshop to receive—

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is my understanding that when a Minister is answering for another Minister, as this Minister is, she should be answering as he would be speaking and not referring to the Minister in the third person.

Mr SPEAKER: Technically I accept the convention, but I think—[Interruption] While I am ruling on a matter, members will be quiet. The Minister made it clear that she was answering on behalf of the Minister of Māori Affairs, and I think a little latitude is reasonable. Has the honourable Minister finished her answer?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: Thank you, Mr Speaker. On a more formal level, the Minister has this year convened a Māori economic workshop to receive very direct input from Māori into the Government’s responses to the current economic climate. He has convened and contributed to a range of other forums, including the Drivers of Crime ministerial meeting, the Prime Minister’s employment summit, and the pending Treaty summit. With his colleagues, he has established a consultation process for the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act. Across all of these processes, the Māori voice is heard by the Government, and it is included in and informs decision making.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Supplementary question to the real Minister of Māori Affairs: does she stand by his statement calling John Key’s decision to cut the proposed three Māori seats from the new Auckland super-council—

Hon Tariana Turia: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not think we need that member, or any other member, to imply that the Minister of Māori Affairs is not the real Minister of Māori Affairs. I think it is inappropriate.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable Minister’s point of order is absolutely correct. The member should not be making that kind of comment when asking a question. I ask her to please just ask her supplementary question.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does he stand by his statement calling John Key’s decision to cut the proposed three Māori seats from the new Auckland super-council as institutionalised racism; if not, why not?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The Minister stands by all the statements that he has publicly made in relation to this matter.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Tēnā tātou katoa. Does the Minister believe that the level of cooperation and consultation that he has had with colleagues is greater than that which the Ministers in the previous Labour Government had with their Māori Ministers, despite those Ministers sitting round the Labour Cabinet table?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The current Minister of Māori Affairs cannot possibly be responsible for consultation that occurred under a previous Government. That question clearly has to be ruled out, under all your previous rulings on these matters.

Mr SPEAKER: The honourable member makes a perfectly valid point. I invite the member to rephrase his question to bring it within the Standing Orders.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister believe that the level of cooperation and consultation in decision-making processes that he has had with his colleagues is greater than that which Māori Ministers in the previous Labour Government may have had with other Ministers, despite those Māori Ministers sitting round the Cabinet table?

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. That question actually has not got round the issue, and, obviously, it is factually impossible for the Minister to answer it. I am quite sure that the previous Minister of Māori Affairs, the Hon Parekura Horomia, played a far greater role round the Cabinet table than the current Minister of Māori Affairs could physically possibly do.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Mr Speaker, in the past you have ruled about the issue of questions asking whether a Minister has a belief, with wording such as “What reports does a Minister believe …”, and questions seeking a comment or an opinion. In this particular case, the question is seeking an opinion about issues of decision making that come from the initial question, as well as about those sitting round the Cabinet table. In other words—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Thank you, Dr Cullen, for those efforts.

Te Ururoa Flavell: The question I raised was about the decision-making process of Government, and about the table that the Ministers sit at. I am trying to work out the complication in respect of the question, because it was clearly within those ambits. First, it was about the decision-making processes. Second, it was about where decision making is done in respect of the Government—at the Cabinet table. Surely the question addresses both of those points, in particular for this Minister to answer.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I think the problem for the member is that he is stuck on the horns of an impossible dilemma. If he is asking a question about the role of the Minister of Māori Affairs and the level of consultation, then, in any case, it would be impossible for any Minister sitting outside Cabinet to claim that he or she has had more consultation than a Minister who sits inside Cabinet. If the member is asking a question about the role of a co-leader of the Māori Party, then I think we have by now established, without any shred of doubt, that there can be no ministerial responsibility for, or questions about, the role of a co-leader of the Māori Party in terms of consultations with the current Government. That is not a matter of ministerial responsibility, except, of course, for the Prime Minister, potentially.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their contributions, because it is a serious issue. Questions should relate to ministerial responsibility, and objection has been raised to this particular question. Te Ururoa Flavell is correct, of course, in that questions seeking opinions can be asked under today’s Standing Orders. However, the dilemma for the member is that the Minister to whom he is addressing the question is not responsible for relationships that might have existed under the previous Government. If the member wishes to ask a question that seeks an opinion, the question cannot include matters relating to relationships that might have existed in the previous Government, because the current Minister is not responsible for that, in any shape or form. I realise this is fairly tricky ground, so I invite the member to have one last go at asking a supplementary question, because I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity to ask a supplementary question. But it does need to come within the Standing Orders. I am sure members will be listening carefully.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might help the member, perhaps, if the question was phrased: “Has the Minister had an unprecedented level of input into Government decision-making?”. That would be a legitimate question, and we would be interested in the answer.

Mr SPEAKER: I thank the honourable member for his advice.

Te Ururoa Flavell: Does the Minister believe that the level of cooperation and consultation amongst the current Government is of a level that he is happy with, or does it exceed his expectations?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The Minister of Māori Affairs is exceedingly satisfied with the level of cooperation between him and other Ministers of the Government. He is very confident that the views he puts forward in a number of forums are heard and listened to.

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: In light of that answer, does the Minister stand by his statement that there is a tussle between the Government and Māori rangatiratanga, and when there is a clash, the Government wins and throws out rangatiratanga, even though the Minister did a deal with the National-led Government, and sits on the Government benches while the National Government is throwing out Māori rangatiratanga?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The Minister stands by everything he has said publicly. In answer to that question, there can be no better reply than the Minister’s statement in reply to a question in this House yesterday: “The agreement that the Māori Party has with National is totally mana-enhancing. We agree to disagree and to not talk behind each other’s backs.” [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: Order!

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: I will continue the quote from the Minister, from yesterday: “We have an open, honest policy. We agree to disagree. We have done that, and at all times there are no surprises, and that is why our relationship is growing stronger every day.”

Hon Nanaia Mahuta: Does the Minister agree that the so-called mana-enhancing relationship between him and the Government is a farce when the Government has clearly refused to listen to the views of him and his party on the 90-day fire-at-will Act, the minimum wage, the foreshore and seabed, and, now, representation on the Auckland super-council; if so, when will he realise that the only mana he is enhancing is National’s?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: The answer to the first of the several questions that were asked is no.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: Does the Minister accept that given that the Māori Party’s views on Auckland representation have been rejected, but the Government has supported the provision of more money for the Māori Party MPs, the public might be forgiven for thinking that this arrangement is more about enhancing money for the Māori Party than enhancing mana for Māori?

Hon GEORGINA TE HEUHEU: No.

5. SANDRA GOUDIE (National—Coromandel) to the Minister of Corrections: What changes, if any, are proposed to the working relationship between the Department of Corrections and the New Zealand Parole Board?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS (Minister of Corrections) : I am pleased to advise that since March, in addition to uniformed staff, our prison unit managers now attend Parole Board hearings for prisoners. This was a pre-election commitment to ensure that the Parole Board hears all relevant information about prisoners’ behaviour during their time in custody. I am pleased that it has been implemented so quickly.

Sandra Goudie: How is this different from what occurred previously?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: In the past a corrections officer could attend a hearing with a prisoner, even if he or she was not familiar with that prisoner or his or her behaviour. Now the responsibility is at unit manager level, and those managers will attend hearings with prisoners from their own units—prisoners that they know well. This simple and sensible change will go a long way towards ensuring that the Parole Board has all the information it needs to accurately assess the risk of an offender.

Sandra Goudie: Does the Minister believe that this change will improve public safety?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: Yes. Gaps in communication represent a significant risk to public safety, as we saw when the Parole Board freed Graeme Burton because it did not hear all the relevant information. This common-sense change reduces the likelihood of the type of communication breakdown that occurred when Burton was granted parole, and I am surprised that the previous Minister of Corrections, Phil Goff, did not implement this change.

David Garrett: What assurance will the Minister provide that prison officers and unit managers who tell the truth about scumbag prisoners will be protected from potential legal action brought by or on behalf of such persons?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: That question actually highlights that this is a very serious issue, and one that the Opposition obviously does not think is serious. Our prison officers deal with 8,500 of the most dangerous people in New Zealand, and every day their lives and the lives of their families are at risk. It is something that the Opposition should consider when it laughs all the way through that question. One of the steps, I think, that we have taken is that I have made it very plain to the management of the Department of Corrections that I expect that staff safety must be a priority, and that any actions that are taken to threaten our staff will be met in kind.

David Garrett: If parole is a privilege and not a right, does the Minister agree that a prisoner’s right to privacy must be reassessed, especially with regard to information about prisoners and their conduct being placed before the Parole Board; if not, why not?

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not have the responsibility for the Parole Board, but certainly in relation to the Department of Corrections I am fully of the opinion that the department should provide the Parole Board with all relevant information relating to the prisoner, the likely risk of reoffending, and the threat to the community.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: In light of that answer, which is correct: the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which has the New Zealand Parole Board listed—and I have a copy of the document here—under the ministerial responsibilities of the Minister of Corrections; or the Minister herself, who said in response to question for written answer No. 1385 in 2009, and she has reiterated it now, that she is not responsible for the New Zealand Parole Board? I am reliant on documents that I have here; perhaps she may wish to do her homework.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: My information is that I am correct, and the Minister of Justice seems to be indicating accordingly.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have checked the delegation list, and I have in front of me a document I have printed off today of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet’s list of ministerial portfolios for corrections, where it lists joint responsibility for the Parole Act between justice and corrections. But it lists clearly: “Ministerial Portfolios - Corrections, Minister—Minister of Corrections … Other Organisations—New Zealand Parole Board”. You have said very clearly that you have to take a Minister’s word in respect—

Hon Member: Oh, come on!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I am making a serious point. You have said very clearly that you have to take a Minister’s word as to whether he or she is responsible in respect of questions about ministerial responsibility. That is the first document. The second document is the answer I quoted stating “I do not have the responsibility for the Parole Board”, so could we have some assistance?

Hon Simon Power: I think I am correct in saying that the member may find that Vote Corrections provides the funding for the administration of the Parole Board, and I may have responsibility for the Parole Act in that sense. I think it is pretty unclear, though. The Parole Board itself, as an independent entity, may report to the Minister of Justice, but I am not sure that it is right to say that any Minister specifically has responsibility for the board.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: That is not actually the issue. The issue is that we have two responses. We have a response on the one hand, and reiterated in this House, that the Minister is not responsible—and the Government is responsible for telling us which of its Ministers is responsible, I would have thought—and we have a document from the Government’s own Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet that lists responsibility for the New Zealand Parole Board as being with the Minister of Corrections. If the information is incorrect and there is a mistake, then it is up to the Government to correct that. But how are we expected to take the Minister at her word? Which word should we take; which document should we believe?

Mr SPEAKER: It is not the role of the Speaker to sort out such matters of ministerial responsibility, and neither is it the proper process in this House. If the member is concerned about that matter, he should pursue it with the Government to further elucidate who is responsible. But as Speaker I cannot adjudicate on these matters. I have no way of knowing which Minister is responsible, in my role of Speaker. If the member believes the House is being misled, there are avenues available for him to pursue that, but I do not believe we can litigate the matter in this manner in the House right now.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Hon Simon Power: Get a life!

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: Points of order are to be taken in silence.

Mr SPEAKER: Let me hear the point of order.

Hon Clayton Cosgrove: I make this point to you. You have said, quite rightly, that you have to accept a Minister’s word about the responsibilities he or she does or does not have. My question is simply to ask which word of the Minister of Corrections we are to believe.

Hon JUDITH COLLINS: I do not think that I can be responsible for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, but I have already said the information that I have been provided is that the Parole Board is not something for which I am actually responsible. I am certainly responsible for information that the Department of Corrections provides to it—I have made that plain. If there is an error, then I am happy to correct it, but I am not responsible under any circumstances for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet.

6. Hon DARREN HUGHES (Labour) to the Minister of Transport: What is the current status of the State Highway 20 Waterview Connection project?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Minister of Transport) : Following the release of the Waterview Connection business case commissioned by the previous Government, showing a cost of $2.77 billion including funding costs for a two by two - lane tunnel option, I have asked officials to investigate alternatives to the proposed tunnel option. I have received some information from officials, and I am seeking further information at the moment. I expect to be able to make an announcement of the Government’s view on this issue in the next few weeks.

Hon Darren Hughes: Does he prefer a surface road or a tunnel option for the Waterview Connection?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I have previously said in this House, I prefer a cost-effective option for completing the very important State Highway 20 Waterview Connection. I have received some information from officials that will help me evaluate the options, and I am seeking further information, as I said in the previous answer.

Dr Jackie Blue: Why is the Government so concerned about the cost of completing the Waterview Connection?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: The business case report commissioned by the previous Government provided a cost estimate, including finance costs, of up to $2.77 billion for Labour’s preferred two-lane bored tunnel option. In anybody’s language, that is a huge amount of money for a 4.5 kilometre road. The business case further advised that if the project was to be paid for by, for example, a property tax, that tax would cost $460 for every dwelling in Auckland for 35 years.

Hon Darren Hughes: Can the Minister of Transport tell the House what of his actions lead the Auckland City Council transport chairman to say that the Government was disingenuously lumping in a lot of costs on the tunnel option that were not there before?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: As I have previously advised that member, the business case I quoted from was prepared for the previous Government, which called for it from the Cabinet business committee on 18 August 2008. The business case refers to the finance costs during the construction period of the project, because a project of that magnitude could not be completed from the National Land Transport Fund and would need to be financed.

Hon Darren Hughes: Why does the Minister not just tell the people of Mount Albert that he is planning to slash and burn hundreds of homes in that community to build a surface road to complete the Waterview Connection?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: That member is a victim of hyperbole. I do not propose to slash and burn anything.

Keith Locke: Will the Minister put the Waterview Connection project at the back of the funding queue given the huge expense—whether it be the $2.7 billion for the tunnel as Labour seems to advocate, or almost the same amount for an overground version—given its extremely low benefit-cost ratio of 1:0 and the urgent need for more investment in Auckland’s public transport?

Hon STEVEN JOYCE: I absolutely agree with the member that there is an urgent need for investment in Auckland’s public transport, and, as he knows, the Government has made commitments to fund that major capital investment in Auckland, which is to the order of $1.6 billion. In relation to this project, the completion of State Highway 20 and the western ring route of Auckland, it is a very, very important project; however, I share his concern about the benefit-cost ratio of 1:0, and I await further information as to whether there is a more cost-effective way in which the project can be completed.

Keith Locke: I seek leave to table a letter from Transit—now the New Zealand Transport Agency—dated 16 July 2008 showing the benefit-cost ratio to be a very low 1:0.

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

7. KATRINA SHANKS (National) to the Minister for Social Development and Employment: What is the Government doing to support working parents?

Hon PAULA BENNETT (Minister for Social Development and Employment) : I am pleased to say that this Government is taking another step towards helping hard-working parents who are juggling jobs and looking after their children. We are funding some new programmes to give hundreds of families a break in the school holidays that start tomorrow. We are providing more than $100,000 just for extra places on a few Blue Light for kids programmes in rural parts of the North Island, many in the South Island, and in the central North Island. I know better than most what happens when idle children have too much time and not enough supervision in holiday periods.

Katrina Shanks: Is the Government providing any further additional support for youth services?

Hon PAULA BENNETT: Yes, we are. Altogether, just for the Easter school holidays, we are making about $450,000 available for 15 youth services projects around the country. As well as those school holidays programmes there is support for mentoring programmes, youth community facilities, outdoor recreation, and evening recreation activities. We know that prevention is better in the end. I bumped into an Opposition colleague at the airport and it was especially pleasing to get talking about one of those services in Māngere and about how we could support it during the Easter school holidays. The service will be providing 500 places in a holiday programme for 5 to 16-year-olds. That is a positive thing.

8. Hon CHRIS CARTER (Labour—Te Atatū) to the Minister of Education: Does she stand by her statement in relation to national standards, “I want it done in a responsible way that doesn’t lead to league tables”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister of Education) : Yes, and can I say that I am glad that the member has finally convinced his colleagues to let him have a primary question, after more than 5 weeks in the wilderness.

Hon Chris Carter: Well, at least I was not helicoptering around the country! How does she reconcile the previous statement, promising that national standards would not lead to league tables, with her statement in the Christchurch Press on Tuesday, under the front-page headline “Govt to fast-track school league tables”, where she said: “Personally, I think the more information that’s out there the better.”?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I remind the member that better achievement information helps teachers and parents to support students. It helps schools to support their teachers, and it helps the Ministry of Education to support schools. I also remind him that the information that we gather from the national standards policy will be very important to lift achievement levels in reading, writing, and maths for young New Zealand children. I tell Mr Carter that it is all about achievement for those children.

Hon Chris Carter: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked the Minister a simple question about how she could reconcile her contradictory statements where, on the one hand, she said she is for league tables, and, on the other hand, she said she is not. She did not seem to address that question at all.

Mr SPEAKER: The member knows he did not exactly ask that question. He referred to quotes, and they were picked up on.

Aaron Gilmore: What evidence has she seen to suggest that a national standards policy is needed?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a large amount of evidence to suggest that this policy is needed. The latest Progress in International Reading Literacy Study survey found that the average reading literacy score for New Zealand, in statistical terms, did not change from 2001-05. That means that our youngest New Zealanders’ literacy levels did not improve under the Labour Government’s watch. That is why overwhelming numbers of parents, in November last year, voted for a party that believes in standards for literacy and numeracy, believes in giving parents plain-language reports of their children’s progress, and believes in ensuring that all schools carry out best-practice formative assessment.

Catherine Delahunty: Will the Minister guarantee that national standards will not lead to performance-based pay for teachers?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: We have no plans to use national standards for performance pay for teachers.

Aaron Gilmore: What reports has she seen on the way that schools use achievement data to help their students?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I have seen a report that suggests that a number of schools are using formative assessment, and the data produced by it, to help their students. For those schools the national standards policy will complement the excellent work they are already doing. The same report from the Education Review Office states that 56 percent of schools were not using worthwhile achievement data. The national standards policy is about ensuring that those schools do use good assessment practices to help our young New Zealanders to read, write, and do maths at a much higher level than they do at present.

Hon Chris Carter: How can the Minister reconcile her statement in December, when she said she was opposed to league tables for primary schools, with her statement in the Christchurch Press of this week, where she says she is in favour of them?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: Firstly, I did not say in the Christchurch Press that I had a favourite. I want to make it very clear to that member that the Ministry of Education will not be publishing league tables. I will say that again to the member. The ministry will not be publishing league tables. This Government will be using the information that we gather from the national standards policy in a responsible way, to help to lift the literacy and numeracy standards of young New Zealand children. That is what this policy is about.

Hon Chris Carter: What work, if any, has she asked her ministry to undertake to prevent the information on school performance that is to be held by the ministry being used for the production of league tables; and will she give an assurance that before she announces the standards for literacy and numeracy, there will be safeguards in place to prevent the misuse of such information?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I am very interested in discussing with the sector, as part of the national standards consultation process, how we can ensure that the information gathered by all those involved in the process—teachers, parents, principals, and the ministry—is used in a responsible manner. Labour Party members cannot have it both ways. If we do things without consulting, Labour accuses us regarding that, but if we do consult, Labour complains that we have not made a decision. I have said all along that we are going to consult with the sector about national standards and how they will be implemented, and that is what we are doing.

9. HEKIA PARATA (National) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: What is the Government doing to develop Memorial Park in Wellington?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) : The Government is committed to developing Memorial Park, but we need to ensure the design for the park will be one that meets the needs of the country, the city, and the local community. Planning work is under way to tidy up the site in the interim. Work is required because the previous administration provided no detailed costings for its preferred option, and made no provision in Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage for ongoing maintenance of the work. This is yet another example of the previous Government’s phantasmagoria that was not properly costed.

Hekia Parata: Was the plan for Memorial Park inherited from the previous Government fully funded?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The previous Government allocated money for the project in 2003, but took no account of increased costs or the passage of time while taking 5 years to flounder about on the issue. No detailed costings were provided and no provision was made in Vote Arts, Culture and Heritage for ongoing maintenance of the work.

Hon Annette King: Tell the truth! The member didn’t want the project because he didn’t want Helen Clark’s legacy.

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I say to the member for Rongotai who is chirping away, that I see she voiced concerns about the future of the park, which took me by surprise, given that no one in Rongotai has heard anything from her since the election. One can only assume she is busy on her mayoralty campaign and, as mayor, she will be grateful that this Government—

Hon Annette King: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am surprised that you have allowed that answer, because that Minister has no responsibility for me. He certainly would not ever be my campaign manager for any campaign, because he cannot get his facts straight. The first person to become the Mayor of Wellington will be him, because he will not be here.

Mr SPEAKER: I have allowed the member to redress the situation that has occurred, but members should just settle down a bit and come to the next supplementary question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Annette King’s point of order, before she made any controversial comments at all, there was barracking from at least three separate—[Interruption]—there it is again. There was barracking from at least three separate National members. I think it is very important, if we are to have some of the decorum that you wish to have in this House, that people do not barrack during points of order.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly good point—

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I think the speaker system lets us down, but the point is that it would be relevant if the Hon Annette King had called to the attention of the House a point of order. Rather than doing that, she simply announced she was not standing for the Wellington mayoralty.

Mr SPEAKER: Things did get disorderly there, but we should go back quite a few paces. There was a lot of interjection while the Minister was answering the question. The Minister picked up on that interjection and maybe in his answer he took his response to the interjections a little further than he should have. The Hon Annette King got to her feet on a point of order and there was noise. That was why I got to my feet to quieten the House down so that we could hear the point the honourable member was making. It is highly debatable whether that was a real point of order, but I allowed it because I felt there was some transgression by the honourable Minister. I think the House has now settled down and I do not think there is any point in pursuing this further. The Hon Trevor Mallard makes a perfectly good point that the House should hear points of order in silence. I like the place being robust; I like this House being passionate because people believe in what they are doing here; but when the noise level gets so loud it is hard to hear, and that has been the case today.

Grant Robertson: When will the Minister honour New Zealand servicemen and servicewomen and their families and get on with implementing the design for Memorial Park, which is well advanced, or is he just more interested in playing petty political games?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The member obviously did not hear the answer to the first question. I am keen to get on with development. But I must say that I am surprised that the member, who is Labour’s associate arts spokesman—at least until Judith returns at the end of the month—had the temerity to ask me a question on the subject, because I saw a report last week in which he was criticising me over the Memorial Park issue, yet I understand, if we are talking about petty politics, that when he was the candidate for Wellington Central, he argued in favour of the school having some say but was overruled by the previous leader of the Labour Party.

Grant Robertson: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I do not see any relevance in the end of that answer from Mr Finlayson.

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat. I say to the honourable member very politely that when he builds into his question an allegation of a Minister playing petty political games, he will get a political dump in an answer. The solution to the problem lies in the member’s own hands, in the way he asks the question. If he asks a straight question, I will not let the Minister dump on him politically. But if he asks a political question, then he will get a political dump.

Hekia Parata: How has this Government’s approach differed from that of the previous Government?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Unlike the previous elitist Government, this Government is not ignoring local community groups and is not ignoring the well-being of the children who attend Mt Cook School. That is why I—[Interruption] I do wish the Labour Opposition would listen carefully. That is why I have spoken with representatives of the school about the children becoming guardians of the park and how that might actually work. Next week I am going to meet with a community group to ensure that the interests of the people of Wellington are not trampled on or ignored, as that previous elitist Government did.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to the honourable Minister that in the interests of good order in the House I have just pointed out that where a straight question is asked, as Hekia Parata asked, there is no need for a political broadside at the other side of the House. I do not consider that was helpful to good order. In fact, I invite the member to reflect on how the way he went about answering that question assisted the good order of the House.

Hon Rick Barker: Will the Minister put aside history and pay due respect to the veteran community and those who are memorialised by the National War Memorial and announce to the country when plans and money are being put aside for the completion of a war memorial that is long overdue?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: Of course respect will be shown, and that is why the job will be done properly. We are not going to go on in some half-baked way, like the previous Government did.

10. Hon SHANE JONES (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: What opportunities will he make available to the people of Auckland to be consulted over the Government’s decisions about Auckland local government reform?

Hon RODNEY HIDE (Minister of Local Government) : The people of Auckland have been consulted, and they will be further consulted. The people of Auckland have made their views crystal clear. The Government has listened, and accordingly has provided for one mayor and one council for Auckland, while ensuring what is important for Aucklanders—their local representation through local boards. The people of Auckland will also have the opportunity to participate in the select committee process later this year.

Hon Shane Jones: Does he agree with Tony McGowan of Community Waitakere that the Government’s “take it or leave it” attitude was incredibly arrogant, and that in 2 days the Government has overturned a decision that took a year, millions of dollars, and 3,500 submissions to make; if not, why not?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: No, I do not, which should not come as a surprise to that member. The Government has consulted through the royal commission process since receiving the royal commission report. That is why we listened to Auckland and provided for local representation. The Government will consult through the website www.Auckland.govt.nz, which has had over 10,000 visits and over 25,000 page views in the past 48 hours. The Government will be consulting through the transition process and, indeed, through the select committee process. What I will say, though, is that this is a Government that consults, listens, then makes decisions, and, most important for Auckland, acts—something that the previous Government never did.

Hon Shane Jones: How can the Minister maintain his positive disposition and belief that Māori will gain from the local government reform, when Dr Sharples’ office is organising a hīkoi, and a report from the Māori Party identifies the situation as hiding racism, and states that there ain’t a dog’s show of Māori getting a favourable result from any poll?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: I am a lot more optimistic than the member Shane Jones, who demonstrably cannot get elected—demonstrably cannot get elected. It is my job as Minister of Local Government to ensure good government at the local level around New Zealand, especially in Auckland. To have good government we need the input of Māori, and I want to say here publicly that the Prime Minister has directed me to engage with Māori, to involve Māori in the decision making, and also to encourage Māori to stand for the council in Auckland, and for the local boards. Unlike Shane Jones, I believe that there are Māori who can stand, and that Auckland will vote for them.

Hon Shane Jones: Does the Minister agree with the Auckland mayor, John Banks, that “Low-level, unseemly sort of seagull behaviour and rain-dancing never helps in the process.”, and “If these people think that by jumping up and down as a small minority group they are going to bully Rodney and his coalition Government, they’re mistaken.”; and are these comments not representative of his attitude, and the Government’s broader attitude, to Māoridom in general?

Hon RODNEY HIDE: This Government has listened to Auckland, and has consulted. It has then made the all-important decisions for Auckland, and is acting on them. This Government is committed to engaging with the civic and city leaders of Auckland, and, more particularly, with Māori interests, and with the many diverse ethnic and cultural interests across Auckland. But members should bear in mind that Auckland governance is broken; it needs fixing. This is the Government that will do it.

11. TODD McCLAY (National—Rotorua) to the Minister for Economic Development: What reports has he received on the Government’s initiatives to assist small and medium sized businesses?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister for Economic Development) : I have, of course, seen reports relating to the Government’s February announcement of a suite of measures to support small business. The measures include 11 tax changes worth some $480 million, an expansion of the export credit scheme, extended jurisdiction of the disputes tribunal, expansion of business advice services, and prompt repayment requirements for Government agencies. These changes are designed to try to help small business through what are very difficult times. By way of just a couple of examples, I tell members that the package was called a brilliant start by the Motel Association of New Zealand, and Claire Massey, the director of the New Zealand Centre for SME Research, said that the package was sending the right signal that the Government was listening, and that it was here to help during a difficult time.

Todd McClay: Has the Minister received any reports from chambers of commerce about the Government’s initiatives; if so, what do they say?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Throughout the country, chambers of commerce have expressed their approval of the package. The Auckland Chamber of Commerce, for example, described it as a welcome investment in the small business sector. The Rotorua Chamber of Commerce, an organisation the member will be familiar with, welcomed the initiatives and indeed hosted about 320 people at a function recently to hear the Prime Minister talk about the Government’s small business package. This organisation thought that it should balance things up, and therefore agreed to host a function with the Hon Phil Goff, in which he was to outline Labour’s objections to the proposed assistance to small businesses. I am delighted to report that only four tickets were sold to that function. One of them was purchased by Steve Chadwick, and therefore there was some uncertainty that it was ever paid for, and ultimately Mr Goff’s function was cancelled.

Hon Members: This is a speech!

Mr SPEAKER: Members are taking a lot of time in question time today; questions have been long and answers have been very long. I do not blame members for interjections that ask whether the answer was a speech.

12. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Prime Minister: Does he have confidence in all his Ministers; if so, why?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: Yes, because they are all hard-working and competent Ministers.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Does the Prime Minister have confidence in the Minister for ACC, given the clear inconsistencies in the explanations he has given and those provided by the chair of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee, in relation to the circumstances that led to the Minister’s attendance at the committee on 12 March?

1. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: On what day did he first learn that John Judge would not be available to attend the financial review of ACC for the 2007-08 year, held on 12 March 2009?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee) : I did not invite Mr Judge to attend, so it is not a matter of whether he was available to attend. Mr Judge made it quite clear at the select committee on 2 April as to his availability.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending the committee, before Dr Nick Smith told him this on Tuesday, 10 March?

DAVID BENNETT: Mr Judge was not invited by me, or I had no knowledge of his being invited on behalf of the select committee, to attend that meeting.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending, before Dr Smith told him that on Tuesday, 10 March?

DAVID BENNETT: I did not ask or invite Mr Judge to attend that meeting, and I did not understand that anyone, on behalf of the select committee, had asked him, so the matter of his attendance is not something I should know.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did he know that Mr Judge would not be attending, before Dr Smith told him that on Tuesday, 10 March?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are running through quite a large number of supplementary questions questioning a chairman of a select committee. I refer you to several Speakers’ rulings on page 149 of Speakers’ Rulings. While answers to questions are steadily being rewritten as we progress, it appears now that the standard for chairpersons’ answering of questions is also changing. Speakers’ rulings 149/2, 149/3, 149/4, 149/5, and 149/6 relate to what can be asked of a select committee chair. I do not believe that the opportunity exists for Parliament to interrogate a chair about matters that are ancillary to the actual proceedings of a select committee, and that is where we are at. We have put up with it for some days because there was no problem, and we have wanted people to let off a bit of steam. But when it becomes the same question over and over, and answers are given that relate to the responsibility of the chair relating to procedures of the committee itself, then I think we start to move into new territory, which I think is pretty dangerous—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear any more on this matter. The dilemma is this. The chair of the committee must know the answer to that first question; there is no way that the chair cannot know the answer. It is a matter of the proceedings of the committee. It is totally within the Standing Orders that the chair of the committee can be questioned on that matter. The question has been on notice as to what day did he first learn that John Judge would not be attending. It may have been the day of the meeting. It may have been when Dr Smith arrived at the meeting.

I do not know the answer, but what I do know is that if a question is put down on notice, it is not good enough for this House to not be told the truth. I do not know what the truth is, but I allowed further supplementary questions because there was a very clear question the answer to which must be known, but it was not answered. It relates to the proceedings of a select committee—an important matter, a financial review. All that is needed to save further questions is for the question to be answered, and the answer must be known.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If someone were to ask you, for example—if a forum existed for that—“Did you know that the Prime Minister of Great Britain will not be sitting on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association benches during its session in the House next week?”—your response, obviously, would be: “I never invited the Prime Minister, so I did not know that.” Quite clearly, that is where we are at with this question. How does a chair of a select committee answer within the ambit of what may be asked of a select committee chair without, in fact, opening up Parliament to quite a degree of scrutiny and harassment? For someone to suggest that the chair is not being truthful—particularly, if the Speaker were to suggest that the chair was not being truthful—is a pretty serious allegation.

Mr SPEAKER: If that impression was given, I apologise for that. I apologise to the honourable member, because I did not mean to do that. My problem is that chairs of select committees are accountable to this House. They occupy an important role in this Parliament. A question has been laid down that is very clear. It is not a matter of whether the chair invited someone to attend the committee; the question is on what date did the chair learn that a person would not be coming. A perfectly fair answer would be on the day of the meeting, if the person did not turn up. That would be a perfectly acceptable answer. But the question has been fairly laid, because the chair is responsible for who attends meetings. It is a perfectly fair question, and I believe that the House does deserve an answer to it.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The very first time that this question was put to the chair of select committee, he made it quite plain to the House that Mr Judge had not been invited. At that point his responsibilities as the chair of the select committee ceased.

Mr Speaker, the great difficulty you pose is this: are you going to allow the chairs of select committees to start to be scrutinised on what may or may not have been said in the caucus room, for instance? On the Tuesday following the change in the chair of the Accident Compensation Corporation, I briefed the caucus on the change. If you are going to allow the House to start querying the chairs of select committees on what may or may not have been said in the caucus room—not in their roles as heads of select committees, but simply as members of the National caucus—I think you are substantially stretching the Standing Orders on the accountability of the chairs of select committees. Surely the answer rests at the point when the chair of the select committee said that Mr Judge was not invited—something that is not at all surprising, given the fact that Mr Judge had been appointed only that week.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I certainly do not intend to go into asking about caucus discussions. I have, throughout this matter, been relying on the word of Dr Nick Smith, who indicated publicly that this arrangement had been made in a phone call that the chairman made to him.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I might also ask you, Mr Speaker, to reflect on your own statement—I am not sure that you would call it a ruling—to the House the week before last, where you said to the Hon Trevor Mallard that if the invitation had never been issued, then, clearly, there was never an issue about when the chair knew that Mr Judge was not coming to the meeting. We get into the absurd situation where a chairman is supposed to be able to say when he found out that someone who had never been invited to the committee was not going turn up. That is not a position that a select committee chair should be put in. It goes back to the question I asked before; people could ask that of you, Mr Speaker, every day. No one could possibly know whether someone who has not been invited to attend somewhere is not going to turn up.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I think we are getting very close to the nub of the whole matter, and the reason for this questioning. What happened was something very unusual for a financial review in that a Minister came to the committee, and when he arrived he indicated that he was there because the newly appointed chair—although not quite properly appointed chair—of the board was not available to be there. There is common ground in that he conveyed the apologies of Mr Judge for not being there. It was clear to all of us that there is a general expectation that chairs of boards come to committees, and that Dr Smith came because Mr Judge was not available. All we are trying to do is to get to the bottom of those circumstances. I think there is a relatively simple explanation. The problem is—

Mr SPEAKER: That is not something that is explored under a point of order. Because we have taken a fair bit of time on question No. 1, and I want to reflect on the points that have been made by members, I think it is reasonable to go on to question No. 2 now. But I still struggle with this. It is such a plain question that has been asked, because it does not really relate to anyone being invited; it relates to when someone became aware of something, and I am not sure what the mischief is in answering that.

2. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Did John Judge convey his apology to him for Mr Judge’s inability to attend the financial review of ACC on 12 March; if so, how?

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): No, because there was never any invitation made for him to attend the select committee hearing on 12 March.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Did the member not hear Nick Smith apologise for Mr Judge at that committee hearing and say that Mr Judge had asked him to convey that apology?

DAVID BENNETT: The primary question asked: “Did John Judge convey his apology to him …”—that is, to me—and the answer was no. So I do not see why I need to answer the second question.

3. Hon TREVOR MALLARD (Labour—Hutt South) to the Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee: Further to his answer to question to members No. 4 yesterday, when he “agreed”, was he agreeing to a proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC?

Hon Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Once again, we have a hypothetical question—which is interesting, for a start—that tries to delve into matters that have nothing to do with the procedure of the committee. If we are to be opening up the issue of what a select committee chairperson becomes accountable for, then please rule, Mr Speaker, and tell us, because I think we have a right to know that. Where a question like that is being asked, which is entirely hypothetically based, I think the select committee chairperson is being put in an impossible position. Select committee chairs are not like the Speaker. They are part of Parliament. They do belong to caucuses, they do have political views, and they do exercise them. That is why the Standing Orders and the Speakers’ rulings have tended to ensure that all a select committee chair is responsible for is the procedure of the committee. The rest of us have put up with this questioning for quite a long time—for 4 weeks, in fact—but now it is well and truly getting right outside the normal conventions of the House.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Two points should be made in response. The first is that your office, Mr Speaker, accepted this question with proper authentication showing that that agreement had been made. The second point I should make, to reiterate the point I made earlier, is that I was not questioning any decision made at a caucus. I was relying on Dr Nick Smith’s word that this had been made as a result of a phone call from Mr Bennett to Dr Smith.

Mr SPEAKER: We are now getting into substance and not procedure. I realise that the House has been dealing with a difficult thing. But the Standing Orders provide for the chairs of select committees to be questioned. Chairs occupy an important role. Hypothetical questions are allowed. This is not a supplementary question; it is a primary question that has been accepted because it concerns the chairperson’s power to request persons to attend under Standing Order 191. So it is a proper question. Although these questions may be tough, it is not my job to prevent members from being able to pursue questions that are legitimate under the Standing Orders. I invite David Bennett to answer the question.

DAVID BENNETT (Chairperson of the Transport and Industrial Relations Committee): I agreed that the Minister would attend, and to my recollection no invitations were given by me as the select committee chair.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Was the member agreeing to a proposition put to him by the Minister for ACC; if not, whom was he agreeing with?

DAVID BENNETT: I agreed with the Minister for ACC that he would attend the meeting, and there were no invitations given by myself or the committee.