1. RAHUI KATENE (Māori Party—Te Tai Tonga) to the Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage: He kaupapa here tā te Kāwanatanga ki te tautoko painga mō Aotearoa whānui kei roto i ngā hui whakahirahira o te tangata whenua, mēnā kei te whakaae, he aha ai?

[Is it Government policy to support the recognition of indigenous celebrations as being of benefit for all New Zealanders; if so, why?]

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON (Minister for Arts, Culture and Heritage) : Yes, it is. Māori culture and celebrations of that culture are part of New Zealand’s unique international brand. The strength and vitality of that culture, and of celebrations of it, help to set us apart on the international stage. It attracts significant tourism income for New Zealand; it sustains thousands of jobs throughout Aotearoa. All New Zealanders benefit from the richness of Māori culture, and from celebrations of that culture. For instance, the Government supports Te Matatini celebrations. The member may be interested to know that the winning group from that celebration, Te Waka Huia, was selected to represent New Zealand at the Venice Biennale, and its stirring performances attracted international media recognition and acted as priceless marketing for New Zealand, from London to New York.

Rahui Katene: Does the Minister agree that supporting the Matariki bill would be an excellent way to make progress in achieving a distinctly New Zealand cultural identity; if not, why not?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: The recent report on cultural indicators for New Zealand stated that New Zealanders identify with a distinct cultural identity, and that expression of that identity includes Māori culture. There are a number of ways in which we can make progress, and I believe we are making good progress already in achieving that distinctly New Zealand cultural identity. Indigenous events on New Zealand’s calendar that are attracting increased interest and participation include Matariki, the Rātana celebrations, the Tūhoe ahurei, the Parihaka festival, and the Kīngitanga celebrations.

Rahui Katene: What reports has the Minister received that show that non-Māori New Zealanders have engaged with the indigenous people of New Zealand; and does he agree that community support for the revival of Matariki celebrations would be a fair indication of such engagement?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I recently received the report from the Ministry for Culture and Heritage entitled Cultural Indicators for New Zealand. The report noted that cultural celebrations enhance social cohesion within New Zealand, and I certainly agree that ongoing community support for Matariki is a fair indication of engagement between Māori and non-Māori.

David Garrett: Is the Minister aware that Dr Paul Moon, a professor of history at the Auckland University of Technology and a well-known expert in pre-European history, is of the view that many of the claims about the festival of Matariki are tenuous at best, and that with regard to it supposedly being linked to planting times Māori had much better natural science to rely on and “did not need a three-month advance warning of when to prepare for kumara sowing.”?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: No, I am not aware of that. The history book I am reading at the moment is Richard Boast’s Buying the Land, Selling the Land, which I am pleased to say won the Montana award for history on Monday night.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: When will the Minister consider closing down his generally unnecessary department, or at least reducing its size dramatically, so that his skills and the skills of the people employed in his department can be usefully used elsewhere?

Hon CHRISTOPHER FINLAYSON: I was momentarily detained, and I apologise to the member. I thought that ACT had had its quota of supplementary questions. Would he mind asking the question again? I promise I will concentrate.

Mr SPEAKER: Before I call the Hon Sir Roger Douglas again, I point out that the primary question concerns whether it is Government policy to support the recognition of indigenous celebrations as being of benefit for New Zealanders. The member is drawing a long bow to—

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: Do you think I’m stretching it? I might ask a supplementary question on question No. 2, then.

Mr SPEAKER: Please make the question relevant to the primary question.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: No, I am not sure I can.

Mr SPEAKER: OK.

2. AMY ADAMS (National—Selwyn) to the Minister of Finance: What steps is the Government taking to increase New Zealand’s productivity and economic performance?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : New Zealand’s annual labour productivity growth averaged 1.3 percent between 2000 and 2008, the lowest level for several decades. During this period significant imbalances were allowed to build up in the economy and they simply cannot be allowed to continue. The Government has set out a medium-term plan to improve New Zealand’s economic performance, including investment in productive infrastructure, improving the business environment, delivering better and smarter public services, better education and skills training, and investing in innovation and business assistance.

Amy Adams: What feedback has he received on the Government’s economic plan?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a number of positive reports, including one recent one from Business New Zealand, which described the Government’s growth plan as outlined by the Prime Minister 2 weeks ago as relevant and timely. Businesses are consistently indicating that they look forward to engaging with the Government and they support quick implementation of a number of the practical decisions the Government has made to increase economic performance.

Hon David Cunliffe: In view of the need for a clear plan to improve economic performance and protect jobs, does he continue to stand by Treasury estimates presented to the Finance and Expenditure Committee earlier this year that state that the Government’s fiscal stimulus to the economy represents 5 percent of GDP and puts New Zealand in the top five countries of the OECD for the magnitude of its anti-recession measures?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: That estimate of GDP is probably a bit high, because since then the Government cancelled the last third of its tax cut package. Nevertheless, the general point is correct in that the New Zealand Government has implemented a significant stimulus package, as is illustrated by the fact that we have to borrow somewhere between $30 billion and $40 billion over the next 4 years to support public services and entitlements and keep the economy ticking along during the recession.

Amy Adams: What alternative approaches to managing the economy has he seen?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have to say that not that many are credible. There is some legitimate debate about the size of the stimulus package and some debate about whether the Government should cut its spending more quickly than it is. The Opposition occasionally hints at the idea that it would spend a lot more money on the way through this recession, or that it would invest a lot more in infrastructure. But it is not clear who is in charge of Opposition policy or what direction it is trying to follow.

Amy Adams: What recent comments has the Minister seen summarising the serious economic imbalances now facing New Zealand?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I will quote from a speech I heard earlier this month that covered a few of the main problems: “I do not pretend that our record was perfect, or deny that there were significant issues unresolved. Our current account deficit was stubbornly high and the savings deficit, while responding well to KiwiSaver, was unsustainable. Productivity growth was too low, and that is an issue we must work together to resolve.” I must compliment David Cunliffe on identifying some of the major legacy issues his Government left behind.

Hon Sir Roger Douglas: In what way will increasing Government expenditure as a percentage of GDP improve productivity and enable us to raise our living standards to Australian levels by 2025?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Some of that expenditure will do so directly, for instance, through investment in productive infrastructure and longer-term objectives like national standards for literacy and numeracy. But as in other developed countries, Governments have spent considerable amounts of money on stimulus through a recession. As the economy comes out of recession, Governments will have to pull back on their spending, and that is why the 2009 Budget took the first steps towards constraining Government expenditure as we come out of the recession.

3. Hon PHIL GOFF (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does he stand by his denial that 40,000 jobs have been lost since the Job Summit; if so, what advice has he received on the number of jobs lost during this period?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Prime Minister) on behalf of the Prime Minister: The Prime Minister stands by his statement; the advice he has received is that no agency routinely collects information on the number of jobs lost in the economy. The member misunderstands what happens with jobs in the economy. Even when employment is growing, tens of thousands of jobs disappear each year, and tens of thousands of new jobs are created. If the member wants to dream up numbers, he would do well to listen to a former Minister of Employment, who said: “I have steadfastly avoided the journalistic game of putting estimates on employment figures. I don’t think it is helpful, and, secondly, I don’t think you can do so with accuracy.” That former Minister of Employment was Phil Goff.

Hon Phil Goff: I seek leave to table for the acting Prime Minister the household labour force survey for the March 2009 quarter, which shows that 25,000 jobs have been lost, extrapolated over a deteriorating situation—

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 Phil Goff: What, if any, plans or policies does the Prime Minister have in order to stop the number of Kiwis who are losing their jobs from reaching Treasury’s projected figure of nearly 180,000 by next year, or does he simply and complacently accept that more than 2,000 Kiwis each and every week will lose their jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: There is no complacency among the Government. In fact, there has been a very focused programme over the whole 9 months that this Government has been in office on creating the conditions that will lead to new, sustainable jobs. I point out that New Zealand enjoys one of the lowest rates of unemployment in the developed world. That is not a bad achievement.

Chris Tremain: Is the Prime Minister aware of a recent Government initiative that has saved jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government cannot roll back the effects of the worst coordinated global recession in 60 years, but it has initiated a rolling maul of initiatives to give people the opportunity to keep their jobs or to get new ones. For instance, Fisher and Paykel Appliances’ refrigeration plant now has sufficient orders to enable it—[Interruption] Members should listen to this; it is a good story. Fisher and Paykel Appliances’ refrigeration plant has sufficient orders to enable it to leave the Government’s Job Support Scheme and return to a normal 40-hour working week.

Hon Phil Goff: What advice did the Minister of Finance give to the Prime Minister on the accuracy of his claim that 3,700 jobs could be created by building a cycleway, and on the cost-benefit analysis of the cycleway in terms of the effectiveness of creating jobs—a question that this Minister should be very well capable of answering?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Prime Minister regularly consults with the Minister of Finance on all aspects of Government policy—in particular on the Government’s programme to create a business environment in which new, sustainable jobs will result from investment, and in which the people who depended on the previous Labour Government’s borrowing-driven, consumption-driven jobs will actually get an opportunity for a real stake in the economy.

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. As you will be aware, the question was very specific as to what advice the Minister of Finance gave to the Prime Minister on the accuracy of a particular claim. The Minister answering on behalf of the Prime Minister did not even attempt to address that question.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect, I do not believe that that was the sum total of the member’s question; I believe that it went on beyond that. The Minister did answer that the Prime Minister consults with him on those matters.

Hon Phil Goff: Mr Speaker, there were two specific things. If you examine Hansard you will see that for neither specific question did the Minister even attempt to address the question asked.

Mr SPEAKER: I will examine Hansard. My judgment was that the question had, in fact, been answered. I will examine Hansard for the benefit of the member, but he has many more supplementary questions to pursue the issue.

Hon Trevor Mallard: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It might have been a slip of the tongue, but I think you meant to say “address”.

Mr SPEAKER: No, no—

Hon Trevor Mallard: You say that he answered—

Mr SPEAKER: The member will resume his seat and will not trifle with the Chair. I chose my word intentionally.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Oh, you’ve got to be joking!

Mr SPEAKER: On this occasion, I tell the Hon Trevor Mallard that I will choose to ignore his interjection, but I warn the member that it was not very parliamentary.

Chris Tremain: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports of alternative ideas to save jobs?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have heard reports that there will be a recession response package. I understand that the first element of the package was to extend the welfare State to higher-income earners, rather than to save a single job. I think the package came from the same party that has found work for the pixies by sending them to the bottom of the garden to print money.

Hon Phil Goff: What is the Prime Minister doing to assist the 60 fellmongery workers who lost their jobs yesterday in Dunedin, the 190 workers in Gisborne who lost their jobs through redundancy over the weekend, and the 17 workers in Timaru who were made redundant at Duncan Ag, and what is he saying to them about the effectiveness of this Government’s policies on reducing unemployment?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: The Government is doing two things. First, it is providing direct assistance through the Ministry of Social Development to workers who are made redundant. Often, that assistance is provided on-site. In a number of places the assistance has been quite successful in giving workers choices about how they can adapt to their situation. Second, and just as important, the Government is in the process of borrowing $30 billion to $40 billion to pump into the economy to keep it ticking over. The obvious demonstrations of that investment are, for instance, the national insulation plan and the large-scale investment in infrastructure. Those are two Government initiatives that are employing a large number of people.

Hon Phil Goff: How will the Prime Minister’s commitment in the Budget to helping the most vulnerable translate into practical action to help those who have lost their job through redundancy, through no fault of their own, who are suffering personal hardship and the risk of losing their home, and who cannot get any assistance if their spouses are still working, albeit on a low income?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Before that member cries crocodile tears, he should keep in mind—

Hon Phil Goff: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The question was a very straight question. It did not need personal reflections or abuse as an introduction to answering it.

Mr SPEAKER: The member makes a perfectly good point. The Hon Bill English should not commence an answer with such a comment.

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Many of the people who are experiencing the hardship the member outlines are experiencing it because they relied on his Government. Those people did not realise that bad economic policy, too much borrowing, too much consumption, and too much Government spending meant that their jobs were unsustainable. When the global recession hit, they found that out. They are paying the price for the previous Labour Government’s economic mismanagement.

Chris Tremain: Does the Prime Minister believe that in addressing unemployment the Government should learn some lessons from previous recessions?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, and in particular we can learn from the period when there was last a very substantial rise in unemployment, which was between 1987 and 1990, when Phil Goff was the fresh face of the Labour Party. He said then that the real solution to unemployment must lie first in creating an efficient, low-inflation economy that allows New Zealand’s exports and industries such as tourism to be internationally competitive. It is a pity he cannot show the same clear thinking now, 20 years later, as he did then, when he was the fresh face of the Labour Party.

4. CHRIS AUCHINVOLE (National—West Coast - Tasman) to the Minister of Energy and Resources: How many companies, if any, have signed up to receive grants under the Government’s bio-diesel grant scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE (Minister of Energy and Resources) : I am pleased to report that the grant scheme to encourage bio-diesel production in this country has made a strong start: five companies have signed up or have been offered contracts for grants to start the production of domestic bio-diesel. The companies are BioDiesel Oils (NZ) in Tāmaki; Ecodiesel in Onehunga; New Zealand Ester Fuels in Tuakau, South Auckland; Environ Fuels in Te Kūiti; and Biodiesel New Zealand in Christchurch.

Chris Auchinvole: Why did the Government introduce the bio-diesel grant scheme?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The Government believes that biofuels and a domestic biofuel industry are an important aspect of our future fuel requirement, so $36 million has been set aside over 3 years to be paid out monthly to New Zealand biofuel producers. Although the Government does not support a mandatory sales obligation, unlike our opponents, it has moved to encourage small production in this industry with the subsidy that applies at the present time. So it is encouraging to see five of those companies signing up to the programme in the last few days.

Chris Hipkins: Will the Minister now concede—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I ask the honourable member to forgive me, but members must show some courtesy. The noise in the House is simply becoming unacceptable. I do not like interrupting; the House should flow freely. I apologise and call Chris Hipkins.

Chris Hipkins: Will the Minister now concede that the Government made a mistake when it scrapped legislation that would have supported the biofuels industry to become established and sustainable without the need for taxpayer subsidies, or does he believe that in these tough economic times providing $36 million worth of taxpayer subsidies to biofuels companies is more important than ensuring that the industry develops on a sustainable footing?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: There we have the fallacy of the Labour Party policy—

Mr SPEAKER: Question time is not a time to launch into another political party. The Minister has been asked a question, and the House deserves an answer to it.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. If question time is not a time to launch into some other political party, why did you allow that question? That is exactly what it was. [Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: There will be some order in the House because a point of order has been raised. I say to the Hon Gerry Brownlee that the member asked a perfectly fair question about whether the industry should be subsidised or whether it can be sustained on its own basis. That is a perfectly fair question because taxpayers’ money is used in paying subsidies. The Minister has a responsibility to this House and should answer the question rather than just launch into the questioner. That will not be tolerated under my Speakership.

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It would be fine if the member’s question was simply about the $36 million subsidy. But the member’s question was loaded with imputations about the use of public money, discrediting the Government. For you to say that a Minister must answer a question in an absolutely straight and non-political way, the quid pro quo is that the question should be not loaded with imputations. In this case it was, and that is why the Minister was perfectly proper to respond in the way he did.

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need more assistance on this matter. Members will resume their seats. The question, obviously, may well have had some political loading in it, but it was not a purely political question and it does not justify the Minister launching into an attack on the questioner’s party. There is no problem in putting a jab in an answer, but there is with launching one initially. We would like to hear some answer first.

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: The previous Government’s decision to require biofuels to be mixed into the New Zealand fuel mix by way of an obligation would have meant that some 60 million litres of bio-diesel was imported into this country to meet that obligation in the first period. No sustainable standard was in place for where that biofuel should come from, and every indication was that it would have come from non-sustainable sources offshore. It seems an absolute fallacy of belief to suggest that the importation of unsustainably produced biofuels into New Zealand was somehow good for the global situation with regard to our carbon dioxide emissions. The Government’s programme of subsidising the industry to the same extent as the taxes that are applied to petrol, and giving them the same deal as bio-ethanol, effectively ensures the development of a sustainable industry here in New Zealand. That is far-sighted for the country, not the short-sighted, feel-good rubbish that typified the last Government’s policy in this area.

Chris Auchinvole: Has the Minister seen any reports to suggest that the Government’s bio-diesel grants scheme will not work?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes. Notwithstanding the inference in the last question, when the Government removed the mandatory sales obligation on biofuels last December Labour members then claimed that this would cost jobs and kill a fledgling industry. Labour also claimed it would mean that workers and investors would be out of jobs and out of pocket. It further claimed—and it was strident in these claims—that a particular company, BioDiesel Oils (NZ), would go out of business. I can report that BioDiesel Oils (NZ) has signed up to the Government’s programme.

Mr SPEAKER: I say to members on the Labour front bench that the level of interjection is simply unacceptable. That supplementary question has been answered and I have called the next member, who is a senior member of the House. She cannot possibly be heard above the rabble. I ask members to just reflect a little on the lack of decorum.

Jeanette Fitzsimons: Are any of those companies concerned that their product could be undercut by biofuel made from unsustainable or even destructive sources, such as imported soy beans that should be fuelling the stomachs of the hungry, or palm oil grown by clearing tropical rainforests; if so, will the Government this afternoon support my bill, the Sustainable Biofuel Bill, which will ensure that only sustainable biofuels can be sold in New Zealand?

Hon GERRY BROWNLEE: Yes, I believe that is a concern of the local industry, and so it should be. Most of the requirements to meet the previous obligation would most likely have come from unsustainably produced biofuels. The subsidy is not available for imported fuels. I think that is an important aspect of the programme. Further, the member’s initiative in putting a bill into the ballot will be supported by the Government today. I can report that the Ministry of Economic Development has already begun work in developing standards. I am sure that as we go through the select committee process, the result will be positive not only for the member’s own aspirations with regard to her bill, but also for the industry as a whole.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles Chauvel: Mr Speaker—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Charles Chauvel: Speaking to the point of order—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon Member: Wanker.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr SPEAKER: No.

Hon Gerry Brownlee: It is no longer available.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon David Parker: Point of order—

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

Hon Trevor Mallard: Point of order—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon David Parker: She didn’t.

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

Hon David Parker: Point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I will hear the member further.

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

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

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

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

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

6. JO GOODHEW (National—Rangitata) to the Minister of Agriculture: What reports has he recently received on the state of New Zealand’s primary sector?

Hon DAVID CARTER (Minister of Agriculture) : This week the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry launched its annual publication Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry. The comprehensive report looks at issues facing the primary sector currently, and forecasts performance over the coming 5 years. It reinforces the absolute economic importance of our farmers, foresters, and growers, and the fact that our primary sector has ridden out the global recession remarkably well. I commend the report to the House.

Jo Goodhew: What are the key findings of the 2009 Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry report, and what outlook does it present for the primary sector?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The report essentially tells two stories. The first is that the global recession has had a challenging impact on the sector, with profitability falling some 62 percent since last year. However, the other, and much more positive, story is that the outlook for farming and forestry is bright, with sectors forecasting steady increases in return over coming years. Thanks to the ever-growing demand for food, our primary sector will play a key part in New Zealand’s export-led recovery.

Hon Jim Anderton: Has the Minister seen a report from Federated Farmers stating that the results of its inaugural farm confidence survey “make for ugly reading and illustrates that the recession’s full bite is yet to come,” and that “farmers remain deeply pessimistic about the state of the general economy and their own prospects for the next 12 months.”, and does the Minister believe that farmers know more or less about their own business than Treasury or the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry?

Hon DAVID CARTER: I have seen that report and I make two points. First of all, the survey was an email survey sent out to 2,000 farmers, of whom around 270 responded. I suspect that the fact that those people chose to respond may be a bit lopsided towards pessimism. The second point I make is that the situation facing many farmers, particularly dairy farmers, with the payout moving from $7.90 2 years ago to an indicative $4.55, will obviously bring some pessimism to the sector. However, the Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry report, which I am talking about, looks at the primary sector over the next 5 years.

Jo Goodhew: What message does the report send to the primary sector on the importance of a strong focus on innovation?

Hon DAVID CARTER: The Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry report makes it clear that if our primary producers want to continue to improve profitability and to take advantage of new trends, they need to concentrate on innovation and productivity gains. That is why this Government established the Primary Growth Partnership, which will see $140 million a year being invested in primary sector innovation. We support the sector in making sure that it continues to be the economic engine room of New Zealand.

Hon Damien O’Connor: Given the statement in the report that “Effective biosecurity is an important element in ensuring the sustainability of all of our forestry environments. The New Zealand forest estate faces a potential threat from invasive forest pests.”, and a statement in the recent Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry meat industry report that identified that most survey respondents thought New Zealand would probably have a significant biosecurity incursion in the next 10 to 15 years, why did the Minister allow the Minister of Finance to cut 60 front-line, skilled jobs and $1.9 million from the biosecurity budget?

Hon DAVID CARTER: As I explained patiently to the member last week, we risk invasive pests at all times. That is why it is critical that we focus our biosecurity resources very, very carefully. As the member knows, or should know, there has been a significant downturn in trade at the borders. Because it is cost recovered, it would be irresponsible of us not to adjust accordingly and thereby save other importers that continue to face that concern. I point out to that member, as he was told at the select committee, that biosecurity baselines actually increased in the Budget and were not decreased, as he attempts to mislead particularly rural media.

Hon Jim Anderton: If the outlook for the forestry sector is so positive over the next 5 years, why has Winstone Pulp International Ltd just announced a closure of its Gisborne factory, with the loss of 65 jobs, saying that the international pricing position and the state of the New Zealand dollar make it impossible for its business to remain viable?

Hon DAVID CARTER: Three issues face the forestry sector in the short term: the current log price; the exchange rate; and, to be fair to the sector, the uncertainty around any emissions trading scheme. That is why I am determined to bring forward an emissions trading scheme, in cooperation with my ministerial colleagues, that will give some certainty to the sector. As the Situation and Outlook for New Zealand Agriculture and Forestry report points out, over time there is good reason to be confident about the forestry sector. That member, as a former Minister, would do better than to bag the sector at every occasion.

7. Hon MARYAN STREET (Labour) to the Minister for Tertiary Education: Does she stand by her reported statement that the “Government would not step in to remove the barriers and allow the polytechnics to accept extra students”; if so, why?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY (Minister for Tertiary Education) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. No, because I did not say that. In a new phase of Labour Party desperation, the member is quoting her own press statement—

Mr SPEAKER: The Minister should know that if she makes that kind of comment in answering the question, it will provoke disorder. I do not think it was necessary to make that kind of comment at this early stage of the answer.

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: I quote from her press statement of 25 June: “But Education Minister Anne Tolley confirmed today that the Government would not step in to remove the barriers and allow the polytechnics to accept extra students …”. I did not say that; the member did.

Hon Maryan Street: If the predicted increase in enrolments materialises and a possible 6,000 to 8,000 students are turned away from the polytechs, what plans does the Minister have to support and upskill those people so that they can contribute to New Zealand’s economic recovery?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: As I have said to that member in this House before, those are projections. They are projections done by each institution, and each institution does not necessarily use the same basis for those projections. History has shown that those projections are not particularly reliable. However, this Government is watching the situation very closely. I am reporting constantly to my colleagues, and we will deal with the situation that arises when it arises.

Louise Upston: What are the Government’s priorities for the polytechnics?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: This Government wants to improve the educational and financial viability of the polytechnic sector. We want to have polytechs that deliver high-quality education for their students, that live within their means successfully, and that are structured to meet the needs of New Zealand’s economy now and into the future.

Hon Maryan Street: Does the Minister intend to cut polytechnic councils to eight members and appoint half of them, including the chairperson; if she does, what purpose does she have in doing so, and will that level of control be used to increase or remove the barriers to student enrolments at polytechnics?

Hon ANNE TOLLEY: There are a number of questions there; I will answer the first one. No decisions have been made. Considerable discussion is happening with the sector. It is an issue that has been raised with me by the sector itself since I became the Minister.

8. COLIN KING (National—Kaikōura) to the Minister of Fisheries: What progress has the Government made with regards to aquaculture reform?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY (Minister of Fisheries) : I am pleased to announce that we have formed a technical advisory group of those with knowledge of the marine farming industry, those who know at first hand about the industry and its challenges. This group will support the Government in its work towards vastly improving the current aquaculture regime. Solving the issues in aquaculture is an important priority for this Government, and we expect this group to report back to us later this year with some very strict and smart recommendations.

Colin King: Who is on the technical advisory group?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: I am delighted to announce that Doug Kidd, a former Minister of Fisheries, has agreed to chair the group. Other members of the group include Dennis Bush-King, a Resource Management Act specialist, Mike Burrell, the chief executive of Aquaculture New Zealand, Kirsty Woods from Te Ohu Kaimoana, Nici Gibbs from the Seafood Industry Council, Mark Farnsworth from Northland Regional Council, and Keir Volkerling, a Resource Management Act consultant. All members have unique technical expertise and are well versed in the operations of the industry on the ground.

Colin King: What are the broad functions of the group?

Hon PHIL HEATLEY: Broadly speaking, the group is to generate proposals for reform of the aquaculture legislation, which desperately needs it. It will review any advice on proposals provided to it. It will report directly to me, to the Hon Nick Smith, and to the Hon Gerry Brownlee through written recommendations and meetings as required.

9. STUART NASH (Labour) to the Minister of Finance: Does he stand by his statement on 15 June that “taxpayers are supporting the banks, and we want the banks to be able to demonstrate that they are going to support businesses and households through a tough time in the economy, even if it affects their profits a bit”?

Hon BILL ENGLISH (Minister of Finance) : Yes.

Stuart Nash: What contact have the Minister, his staff, and his officials had, directly or through intermediaries, with the ANZ National Bank, BNZ, ASB, Westpac, Kiwibank, or PSIS since the announcement last Tuesday of the Opposition parties’ inquiry into banks?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I, the officials I am directly responsible for in Treasury, and, I suppose, those I am indirectly in contact with through the Reserve Bank have regular discussions with the banks. Announcements made by the Opposition have no impact on that whatsoever.

Stuart Nash: Does the Minister agree with the Governor of the Reserve Bank’s comments that the pricing of floating rate mortgages appears unusually high in recent months; if so, why has he not supported the governor’s recommendation around an inquiry into the relationship between the official cash rate and interest rates charged on floating mortgages?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: Yes, I agree with the Reserve Bank’s analysis. Members are free to do whatever they like, but I advise the member now, if he is not aware of it, that an inquiry by Opposition MPs probably will not make any difference.

Peseta Sam Lotu-Iiga: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. Has the Minister seen any reports on interest rates and bank margins over the last decade?

Hon BILL ENGLISH: I have seen a couple of reports. The first, which is on the Reserve Bank’s website, shows that average interest rates on floating mortgages peaked at 10.9 percent in May 2008. I also point out the Reserve Bank’s Financial Stability Report, which shows that bank margins peaked in 2003, stayed at historic highs until quite recently, and are now at historic lows. I am a bit surprised that those Opposition members who were in Government for all of that time are now saying that these margins are too high. My question to them asks what they did about it while they were in Government.

10. KEVIN HAGUE (Green) to the Minister of Health: How many operating theatres in publicly owned New Zealand hospitals worked at full capacity in the 2007-08 year?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN (Associate Minister of Health) on behalf of the Minister of Health: The definition of full capacity is a complex matter. However, there has been significant modelling done to assess operating theatre utilisation rates. Although the work is ongoing, it is fair to say it shows in general that city-based theatres are approaching optimal utilisation rates, while many rural operating theatres are not.

Kevin Hague: Is the Minister aware that the Ministry of Health has assessed operating theatre utilisation in New Zealand public hospitals and found that 10 out of 26 have been used at less than 60 percent capacity, while just four have been used at full capacity?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Well, the member is right in that we need greater productivity from existing theatres, and the new Government sought advice from the ministry regarding the need for new operating theatres. Even assuming we get greater productivity, New Zealand would still need around 20 to 26 more theatres over the next 18 years to meet a huge rise in elective surgery need because of population growth, population ageing, and a large amount of unmet elective need. We need to raise productivity in existing theatres, but we need to do more again on top of that.

Dr Paul Hutchison: Why has the Government committed to building 20 additional elective operating theatres?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: Over the last 8 years the average increase in the number of patients getting elective surgery each year was a slow average 1,400. This was below the rate of increase in the population and took no account of extra operations needed to meet population ageing or unmet need. In short, access to elective surgery was cut in real terms, and that was why the then Government resorted to culling thousands of people from waiting lists. New Zealand needs to lift its elective surgery rate by around 50 percent by 2026 if we are to meet population growth and address unmet need. That is around 4,000 more operations each year, and that is why we have to build those extra theatres.

Kevin Hague: Before deciding to encourage district health boards to contract out more surgery to the private sector, what evidence did the Minister have about operating theatre use in New Zealand public hospitals, given that he was unable to provide any when he appeared before the Health Committee just 1 month ago?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: We had evidence from a number of district health boards, most notably the West Coast District Health Board, of which that member was the chief executive officer for a number of years. They must have been at full capacity down there, because that member was responsible for culling 300 patients from the waiting list back in 2006. We looked at the evidence and, as I outlined in my previous answers, there is clear evidence that the new theatres need to be built.

Kevin Hague: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. I asked a straight question about the evidence that the Minister had prior to making the decision, given that there was no evidence provided at the Health Committee meeting. The Minister has not responded at all to that point.

Mr SPEAKER: With respect, I think the Minister has cited evidence. It may not have been the evidence the member was seeking, but I think the Minister cited evidence that guides his thinking on the matter.

Kevin Hague: Does the Minister believe that more New Zealanders should take out private health insurance?

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: That is an interesting question. I believe that is a decision for the individual to make.

Kevin Hague: Is it not absolutely clear, given the Minister’s evidence-free, headlong rush into greater private sector provision of surgery, and his unwillingness to answer a straight question about his own attitude to health insurance, that his Government is hell-bent on greater privatisation in the New Zealand health sector?

Hon Dr Nick Smith: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have raised concerns about Ministers in respect of the tone of their answers. There were three highly loaded statements in that question, suggesting dishonesty of Ministers, misrepresentation, and hidden agendas. If members want to ask questions, the Standing Orders clearly state they are not to include such statements.

Dr Russel Norman: All my colleague said was “unwillingness”; he never made any allegations about dishonesty or any of the matters the member raised. He simply spoke of the Minister’s “unwillingness to answer”. That is not a pejorative statement and it is not an abusive statement; it is just a statement of fact that the Minister has an unwillingness to answer the question.

Hon Trevor Mallard: Speaking to the point of order—

Mr SPEAKER: I do not need to hear any further on this matter. In fairness, I say that the question did not contain excessive inferences that could have caused offence. What is more, one has to try to balance things in this House, and the honourable member who raised the point of order may reflect that the Minister, in answering an earlier question, was not exactly without some criticism in his answer. Members cannot have it all one way. I think the Minister should answer the question from Kevin Hague.

Hon Dr JONATHAN COLEMAN: What I will say is that if that member had managed to break out of his ideological shackles and had thought about the needs of the people of the West Coast at the time, he might have been prepared to use capacity in the private sector to get operations for those 300 people he culled off the West Coast District Health Board waiting list.

11. DAVID BENNETT (National—Hamilton East) to the Associate Minister of Transport: What work is the Government undertaking to improve rail safety in New Zealand?

Hon NATHAN GUY (Associate Minister of Transport) : Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. This week the Government is supporting Australasian Rail Safety Awareness Week to raise the profile of rail safety and, in particular, to encourage motorists to take seriously the risks posed by level crossings. Over recent years education and the improvement of infrastructure have led to a steady reduction in the number of train collisions with vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists, but more work is needed. The Government contributes $1 million per year to upgrade level crossings with warning lights, bells, and half-arm barriers. This contribution is made up of $500,000 from the Crown and $500,000 from the New Zealand Transport Agency.

David Bennett: What can the public do to make a difference to rail safety?

Hon NATHAN GUY: Although the Government is taking a leading role in improving rail safety with the Chris Cairns Foundation, it is important for the public to use common sense to keep themselves safe. I urge all motorists to treat level crossings as stop signs. People need to realise that level crossings are as dangerous as intersections on the open road. Even if a crossing is equipped with barrier arms and lights, drivers need to check for themselves that no train is approaching. Pedestrians also need to be aware that the tracks are for trains; there is no reason for people to put their lives at risk by walking along the tracks.

Darien Fenton: Tēnā koe, Mr Speaker. What will the Minister say to locomotive drivers traumatised by the doubling of level crossing accident rates this year, given that his Government intends to remove accident compensation cover for the mental trauma drivers suffer in such accidents?

Hon NATHAN GUY: As I alluded to in the primary answer, this Government is focused on trying to make level crossings safer. Indeed, this week we have had a rail awareness focus with the Chris Cairns Foundation. The Government is working very closely with ONTRACK to ensure that we are upgrading the level crossings. At the moment about 10 level crossings are upgraded per annum, and the focus this week on rail safety improvement and awareness will ensure that there are fewer accidents and collisions in the future, resulting in less trauma for the drivers of the locomotives.

12. PHIL TWYFORD (Labour) to the Minister of Local Government: Does he stand by his proposed reforms for Auckland governance?

Hon JOHN CARTER (Associate Minister of Local Government) on behalf of the Minister of Local Government: The answer is yes, but of course the Government is listening to the people of Auckland by way of a series of public meetings and, more recently, by way of a select committee process that heard significant submissions and was ably chaired by the outstanding, erudite, popular, fantastic, long-serving, highly regarded member John Carter.

Phil Twyford: Does the Minister agree—[Interruption]

Mr SPEAKER: I want to hear Phil Twyford.

Phil Twyford: Does he agree with the 55 percent of submitters heard by the Auckland Governance Legislation Committee, the 80 percent of North Shore residents, and the 77 percent of Waitakere residents in two recent opinion polls, all of whom rejected the Government’s proposal for councils elected at large and instead want to see all members of the new Auckland Council elected from local wards?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Of course those are matters that are currently before the select committee, and the member, like everyone else, will have to be patient until the select committee has deliberated and reports back to the Parliament.

Phil Twyford: Does the Minister believe there is a contradiction between his core services agenda and the Prime Minister asking local government to build parts of his bike trail; if so, how does he interpret the fact that the Minister’s biggest applause at yesterday’s Local Government New Zealand conference came after he stated: “I have faced electoral oblivion many times in my career. And one day it will happen.”?

Hon JOHN CARTER: Firstly, I state that the Minister of Local Government and his party intend to be around for a very, very long time yet; and, secondly, I can also say that there is no conflict. The fact is that the Government is working with local government across this country to deal with a whole number of these issues, and the response that has been received to the Prime Minister’s address, the Minister of Local Government’s address, and the address of the Associate Minister of Local Government to the Local Government New Zealand conference held over the last 3 days has been very, very positive indeed.